Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

As cited in the notes upon this Situation IV of 1908, the United States delegation to the Second Hague Conference reported in regard to the matter of limitation of the supply of coal in neutral ports as follows:

Report of American delegation.-The proposition advanced by England represented the strict views of neutral rights and duties which are held by States maintaining powerful naval establishments, supplemented by a widely distributed system of coaling stations and ports of call, in which their merchant vessels could find convenient refuge at the outbreak of war and which enable them to carry on operations at sea quite independently of a resort to neutral ports for the procurement of coal or other supplies or for purposes of repair. As the policy of the United States Government has generally been one of strict neutrality, the delegation found itself in sympathy with this policy in many, if not most, of its essential details. France for many years past has taken a somewhat different view of its neutral obligations, and has practiced a liberal rather than a strict neutrality. The views of France in that regard have received some support from the Russian delegation and were favored to some extent by Germany and Austria.

It was constantly borne in mind by the delegation in all deliberations in committee that the United States is and always has been a permanently neutral power, and has always endeavored to secure the greatest enlargement of neutral privileges and immunities. Not only are its interests permanently neutral, but it is so fortunately situated, in respect to its military and naval establishments, as to be able to enforce respect for such neutral rights and obligations as flow from its essential rights of sovereignty and independence.

With a view, therefore, to secure to neutral States the greatest possible exemption from the burdens and hardships of war, the delegation of the United States gave constant support to the view that stipulations having for that purpose the definition of the rights and duties of neutrals should, as a rule, take the form of restrictions and prohibitions upon the belligerents, and should not, save in case of necessity, charge neutrals with the performance of specific duties. This rule was only departed from by the delegation in cases where weak neutral powers demanded and need the support of treaty stipulations in furtherance of their neutral duties. It was also borne in mind that a State resorting to certain acts with a view to prevent violations of its neutrality derives power to act from the fact of its sovereignty rather than from the stipulations of an international convention. (Senate Doc., 60th Cong., 1st sess., No. 444, p. 50.)

The solution of Situation IV of 1908 was to the effect that coaling by a vessel of war from a collier within the three-mile limit of the coast of a neutral State would be a just ground upon which the neutral could deny that

AMOUNT OF COAL ALLOWED BY NEUTRAL.

17

vessel of war the right to take coal within its ports till after three months had elapsed.

The amount of coal.-Situation I (a) of 1910 raises the question of the regulation of the amount of coal to be allowed to a belligerent in a neutral port or waters. The regulations suggested in the Naval War College conclusion in 1906 are not the same as those adopted at The Hague in 1907. The Hague regulations would be regarded as binding in most cases. The Hague Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War provides

Article 19. Belligerent war ships may only revictual in neutral ports or roadsteads to bring up their supplies to the peace standard.

Similarly these vessels may only ship sufficient fuel to enable them to reach the nearest port in their own country. They may, on the other hand, fill up their bunkers built to carry fuel when in neutral countries which have adopted this method of determining the amount of fuel to be supplied.

If, in accordance with the law of the neutral power, the ships are not supplied with coal within twenty-four hours of their arrival the permissible duration of their stay is extended by twenty-four hours.

Proclamations as to amount of coal. The proclamations issued in recent years as to the amount of coal to be allowed, in general not more often than once in three months, to a belligerent within a neutral port show the tendency toward regulation. The following are examples of regulations:

Denmark, 1904:

So much coal only may be taken in as may be necessary to carry such vessels to the nearest nonblockaded home port; or, with permission from the proper Danish authorities, to some other neutral destination. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 22.)

Netherlands Indies, 1904:

Sufficient provender may be shipped as is necessary for the maintenance of the crew, while the stock of fuel may not exceed an amount necessary for the vessel to reach the nearest harbor of the country to which the vessel belongs or of one of its allies in the war.

70387-11-2

And in case of privateers it was provided that

They shall not take in more provisions than is required for them to reach the nearest harbor of the country to which they belong or that of one of their allies in the war, and not more coal than is necessary to provide for their requirements for a period of twenty-four hours, sailing at a maximum of three English miles an hour. (Ibid., p. 28.)

Sweden-Norway, 1904:

In regard to coal, they can only purchase the necessary quantity to reach the nearest nonblockaded national port, or, with the consent of the authorities of the King, a neutral destination. (Ibid., p. 31).

United States, 1904:

No ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be permitted while in any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, to take in any supplies except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if without any sail power, to the nearest port of her own country; or in case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propelled by steam power, then with half the quantity of coal which she would be entitled to receive, if dependent upon steam alone. (Ibid., p. 34.)

Bermuda, 1898:

No coal except for the specific purpose (to be satisfactorily shown) of enabling her to proceed direct to the nearest port of her own country or other named nearer neutral destination. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 844.)

Brazil, 1898:

The ships of belligerents shall take material for combustion only for the continuance of their voyage.

Furnishing coal to ships which sail the seas near Brazil for the purpose of making prizes of an enemy's vessels or prosecuting any other kind of hostile operations is prohibited. (Ibid., p. 848.)

China, 1898:

In coal only sufficient must be allowed to take it (the belligerent ́ship) to its nearest port. (Ibid., p. 853.)

Denmark, 1898:

Nor to take coal in greater quantity than is necessary to enable the vessel to arrive at the nearest port of its own country, or to some other destination nearer by. (Ibid., p. 857.)

Governor of Curaçao, 1898:

Nor more coal than is needed for their consumption for twenty-four hours at a maximum speed of 10 English miles per hour. (Ibid., p. 861.)

NEUTRALITY PROCLAMATIONS ON COAL.

19

Great Britain, 1898:

So much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer destination. (Ibid., p. 869.)

Japan, 1898:

Coal necessary for the purpose of taking such men-of-war and such other ships to the nearest port of their own countries. (Ibid., p. 880.)

Netherlands, 1898:

Not more coal than is necessary to provide for their wants for twenty- four hours, sailing at a maximum pace of 10 English miles per hour. (Ibid., p. 889.)

These regulations of 1898 were in general reissued at the time of the Russo-Japanese war in 1904.

Many States would allow no coal to ships in possession of prizes. Some States required that a belligerent ship should obtain permission before coaling at all. Some made special provisions owing to the geographical situation of certain ports.

Naturally Great Britain would from the number and position of her ports be called upon to make definite rules. These were mentioned in the International Law Situations of the Naval War College of 1908.

According to the British proclamation of 1898:

RULE 3. No ship of war of either belligerent shall hereafter be permitted, while in any such port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, to take in any supplies, except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer destination, and no coal shall again be supplied to any such ship of war in the same or any other port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within British waters as aforesaid.

66

This rule was amended to read nearer named neutral destination," in 1904.

Certain explanations of Rule 3 were later issued:

It must, however, be borne in mind that the reason for the practice of admitting belligerent vessels of war into neutral ports arises out of the exigencies of life at sea and the hospitality which it is customary to extend to vessels of friendly powers, and that this principle does not

extend to enabling such vessel to utilize a neutral port directly for the purpose of hostile operations. The rule above quoted is not to be understood as having any application to the case of a belligerant fleet proceeding either to the seat of war, or to a position or positions on the line of route, with the object of intercepting neutral vessels on suspicion of carrying contraband of war. Such fleet can not be permitted to make use in any way of a British port for the purpose of coaling, either directly from the shore, or from colliers accompanying the fleet, whether the vessels of the fleet present themselves at the port at the same time or successively. His Majesty's Government further directs that the same practice be pursued with reference to single belligerent war vessels, if it be clear that they are proceeding for the purpose of belligerent operations as above defined. This is not to be applied to the case of a vessel putting in on account of actual distress at sea.

The amount of coal which might be supplied to a belligerent warship was defined as so much as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer named neutral destination—a formula which would, e. g., entitle a Russian ship of war to take on board, say at Aden, an amount of coal sufficient to carry her to Vladivostok. The practice recognized under this rule, which is based upon considerations of hospitality, ought not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, to be extended so as to enable such vessels to make use of a neutral port directly for the purpose of hostile operations. Instructions had accordingly been given that the rule is not to be taken as applying to a belligerent fleet, or to vessels proceeding to the seat of war itself, or to stations from which operations connected with the war might be conducted. (Lord Lansdowne to Sir C. Hardinge, August 16, 1904.)

Malta proclamation of 1904.—In the proclamation of the Governor of Malta of August 12, 1904, there is a reference to and interpretation of the British rule

We, therefore, in the name of His Majesty, order and direct that the above-quoted rule No. 3, published by proclamation No. 1 of the 12th February, 1904, inasmuch as it refers to the extent of coal which may be supplied to belligerent ships of war in British ports during the present war, shall not be understood as having any application in case of a belligerent fleet proceeding either to the seat of war or to any position or positions on the line of route with the object of intercepting neutral ships on suspicion of carrying contrabrand of war, and that such fleet shall not be permitted to make use in any way of any port, roadstead, or waters subject to the jurisdiction of His Majesty for the purpose coaling, either directly from the shore or from colliers accompanying such fleet, whether vessels of such fleet present themselves to any such port or roadstead or within the said waters at the same time or successively; and, second, that the same practice shall be pursued with

of

« ZurückWeiter »