SITUATION III.

DAYS OF GRACE.

States X and Y are at war. The war has broken out suddenly. State X proclaims that it will allow to vessels of State Y within the ports of State X 48 hours in which to load and depart. State Y protests that this is not a reasonable délai de faveur, and that as State Y has allowed 14 days for vessels of State X to depart, the vessels of State Y should be allowed a longer period than 48 hours, and also states that if a longer period is not allowed the 14day period will be reduced.

(a) Is 48 hours a reasonable period?

(b) Has State Y the right to shorten the period already proclaimed?

(c) Has State Y the right to withdraw all délai de faveur?

SOLUTION.

(a) Under certain circumstances 48 hours may be a reasonable limit for délai de faveur.

(b) State Y, if it deems such action expedient, should be allowed to shorten the period which it has already proclaimed to correspond with the period granted by State X.

(c) Under the conditions proposed in Situation III and having regard to the preamble of the Hague Convention on this subject, State Y has not the right to withdraw all délai de faveur, though in an extreme case it may adopt the alternative of the Convention which requires enemy vessels to depart "immediately."

NOTES.

Early provisions for days of grace.-Provision was made for days of grace in the treaty of Utrecht between Great Britain and France in 1713.

ART. 27. On the contrary, it is agreed that whatever shall be found to be laden by the subjects and inhabitants of either party, in any ship belonging to the enemy of the other, and his subjects, the

66

DISCUSSION OF DAYS OF GRACE, 1906.

67

whole, although it be not of the sort of prohibited goods, may be confiscated, in the same manner as if it belonged to the enemy himself; except those goods and merchandises as were put on board such ship before the declaration of war, or even after such declaration, if so be it were done within the time and limits following; that is to say, if they were put on board such ship, in any port and place within the space of six weeks after such declaration, within the bounds called The Naze in Norway, and The Soundings; of two months, from The Soundings to the city of Gibraltar; of ten weeks, in the Mediterranean Sea; and of eight months in any other country or place in the world; so that the goods of the subjects of either prince, whether they be of the nature of such as are prohibited, or otherwise, which, as is aforesaid, were put on board any ship belonging to an enemy before the war, or after the declaration of the same; within the time and limits abovesaid, shall no ways be liable to confiscation, but shall well and truly be restored without delay to the proprietors demanding the same; but so as that if the said merchandises be contraband, it shall not be any ways lawful to carry them afterwards to the ports belonging to the enemy. (1 Chalmers Collection of Treaties, p. 407.)

Discussion of 1906.-Topic III of the International Law Topics discussed by the Naval War College in 1906 was as follows:

What regulations should be made in regard to the treatment of vessels of one belligerent bound for or within the ports of the other belligerent at the outbreak of war?

The conclusion was stated in the following form:

1. Each State entering upon a war shall announce a date before which enemy vessels bound for or within its ports at the outbreak of war shall under ordinary conditions be allowed to enter, to discharge cargo, to load cargo, and to depart, without liability to capture while sailing directly to a permitted destination. If one belligerent State allows a shorter period than the other, the other State may, as a matter of right, reduce its period to correspond therewith.

2. Each belligerent State may make such regulations in regard to sojourn, conduct, cargo, destination, and movements after departure of the innocent enemy vessels as may be deemed necessary to protect its military interests.

3. A private vessel suitable for warlike use, belonging to one belligerent and bound for or within the port of the other belligerent at the outbreak of war, is liable to be detained unless the government of the vessel's flag makes a satisfactory agreement that it shall not be put to any warlike use, in which case it may be accorded the same treatment as innocent enemy vessels.

The notes upon this topic, discussed in 1906, show the early origin of some form of days of grace. The practice

as to time allowed enemy vessels to load and depart has varied. At the time of the Spanish-American war of 1898 the United States allowed 30 days, Spain allowed 5 days. At the time of the Russo-Japanese war in 1904, Russia allowed 48 hours and Japan allowed 10 days. Six weeks were allowed in some instances, as during the Crimean war, and the Austro-Prussian war of 1866.

While 6 weeks were allowed for enemy merchant vessels to load and depart in some of the wars of the latter half of the 19th century, only 30 days were allowed to Spanish vessels by the United States in 1898 and only 10 days by Japan to Russian vessels in 1904. The United States regulations of 1898 were held by the Supreme Court to grant exemption from capture to vessels that had sailed prior to the beginning of the war.

Opinion of Prof. Takahashi.-Prof. Takahashi says:

It may be stated with confidence that the days of grace of one week' were sufficient for Russian ships to enjoy the full benefits of exemption, considering the nature of marine traffic, commercial interest between Japan and Russia, as well as the position of the commercial ports in the Far East; consequently the one week's grace was adopted by the experienced experts of the Japanese Navy. (International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, p. 66.)

Propositions as to délai de faveur at the Second Hague Conference. There were made at the Second Hague Conference various propositions in regard to the treatment of merchant vessels of one belligerent in the ports of the other belligerent at the outbreak of hostilities.

Russia:

Dans le cas où un bâtiment de commerce d'un des belligérants serait surpris par la guerre dans un port d'un autre belligérant, celui-ci doit accorder à ce bâtiment un délai suffisant afin de lui permettre:

D'achever son déchargement, ou le chargement des marchandises qui ne constituent pas de contrebande de guerre et de quitter librement le port et de gagner en sécurité le port le plus rapproché de son pays d'origine ou un port neutre.

Netherlands:

Le délai sera fixé pour chaque port par les belligérants au commencement de la guerre; il ne pourra être de moins que de cinq jours.

1 Seven days were allowed after the date of the ordinance, ten from the beginning of the war.

PROPOSITIONS AT THE HAGUE, 1907.

This proposition was further elaborated:

69

Les navires de commerce ressortissant aux Puissances belligérantes, qui, à l'ouverture des hostilités, se trouveraient dans les ports ennemis, pourront, à moins que leur chargement ne constitue de la contrebande de guerre, quitter librement le port et gagner en sécurité le port national le plus rapproché ou un port neutre interposé.

Afin de leur permettre d'achever leur chargement ou leur déchargement, un délai suffisant, à fixer par les autorités locales, leur sera accordé.

France:

Les navires de commerce ressortissant aux Puissances belligérantes qui à l'ouverture des hostilités se trouveraient dans les ports ennemis, et auxquels aucun délai de faveur ne serait accordé pour reprendre la mer, ne peuvent être confisqués.

Toutefois la sortie du port peut leur être refusée et ils sont alors sujets à réquisition, moyennant indemnité, conformément aux lois territoriales en vigueur.

Sweden:

Dans le cas où un bâtiment de commerce d'un des belligérants serait surpris par la guerre dans un port d'un autre belligérant, il est désirable que celui-ci accorde à ce bâtiment un délai de faveur afin de lui permettre:

D'achever son déchargement, ou le chargement des marchandises qui ne constituent pas de contrebande de guerre et de quitter librement le port et de gagner en sécurité le port le plus rapproché de son pays d'origine ou un port neutre.

Discussion of délai de faveur at the Second Hague Conference. The questionnaire submitted by Prof. Martens to the Second Hague Conference in 1907 contained the following:

IV. Est-il de bonne guerre, au moment de l'ouverture des hostilités, de saisir et de confisquer les navires marchands ennemis stationnés dans les ports de l'un des Etats belligérants?

V. Ne faut-il pas reconnaître à ces navires le droit de quitter librement, dans un laps de temps déterminé, avec ou sans cargaison, les ports de leur séjour au moment du commencement de la guerre? (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Tome. III, p. 1133.)

The Russian opinion upon the general question of délai de faveur was in part:

La pratique et la science ont établi la procédure suivante, qui est en usage depuis la guerre de Crimée. Un délai de faveur suffisant doit être accordé aux navires de commerce des belligérants, pris à

l'improviste par la déclaration de guerre dans un port ennemi. Ce délai doit être assez long pour permettre au navire d'achever son déchargement ou le chargement des marchandises qui ne constituent pas de contrebande de guerre, de quitter librement le port et de gagner, avec toutes les garanties de sécurité, le port le plus rapproché de son pays d'origine, ou n'importe quel autre port neutre.

De même ne peuvent être ni capturés, ni confisqués à titre de prises, les navires de commerce de la nation ennemie, qui ont quitté un port quelconque avant la déclaration de guerre, et qui ignorent le commencement des hostilités, l'ouverture de celles-ci ayant eu lieu lorsqu'ils se trouvaient en pleine mer. (Ibid., p. 825.)

The instructions given June 12, 1907, to the British delegation to the Second Hague Conference state:

It has been customary on the outbreak of hostilities for belligerents to grant certain days of grace to enemy and neutral ships. In the view of His Majesty's Government the allowance of such an interval before the strict rules of hostilities are enforced should, as indeed the term "days of grace" implies, be treated purely as a matter of grace and favor, and not as one of right, and they are of opinion that any fixed rule on the point would be undesirable, as the circumstances of each case must necessarily differ. It will be to the general interest of this country to maintain the utmost liberty of action in this particular. (Correspondence, Second Peace Conference, Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1908), p. 16.)

The British position was thus stated:

Heureusement à l'heure actuelle il est d'usage d'accorder un tel délai aux navires de commerce, mais cet usage n'existe que depuis un certain nombre d'années. Il y a de plus le fait incontestable que la durée de ce délai, accordé aux vaisseaux ennemis et neutres, varie d'une façon considerable selon les circonstances.

Pendant plus d'une cinquantaine d'années la Grande-Bretagne a toujours accordé ce délai aux navires de commerce dans les cas où elle se trouvait belligérante. En outre elle continuera toujours dans cette voie, à condition seulement que les opérations militaires n'en soient pas lésées d'une façon sérieuse.

Il est évident, cependant, que ce délai est accordé par faveur et qu'il n'y existe aucun droit, et de notre manière de voir il ne serait jamais possible de formuler une loi internationale qui exigerait d'une Puissance belligérante qu'elle accorde un délai de faveur à l'ouverture d'une guerre sans aucune réserve.

De ce que vient de dire l'honorable Délégué qui a parlé en dernier lieu, il nous paraît évident qu'il serait impossible de formuler une règle absolue qui donnerait pleine satisfaction à tout le monde en toutes circonstances.

Un délai d'une telle durée qui satisferait les marines marchandes de deux Puissances voisines, serait tout à fait insuffisant dans le cas