Application to Situation II..... Effects of declarations of United States and State X. Status of merchant vessels knowing of war.. Status of merchant vessels not knowing of war..... International Law Situations, WITH SOLUTIONS AND NOTES. SITUATION I. COALING WITHIN NEUTRAL JURISDICTION. There is war between States X and Y. Other States are neutral. (a) A detachment of armed vessels of State X puts in to port B of State Z for the purpose of coaling from colliers accompanying the detachment. Y protests against this coaling. The authorities of State Z inform the commander of the detachment that he will be allowed to take from the colliers coal sufficient only to proceed to the nearest home port or to a port already passed en route to port B, and that any other course would render State Z liable for breach of neutrality. What are the rights in this case? (b) Would the solution be the same if the colliers had been sent to port B to meet the detachment? (c) Would the solution be different if the coaling were not in a port, but merely within the three-mile limit off the coast of State Z? SOLUTION. (a) State Z is competent to make the regulation allowing within neutral jurisdiction coal sufficient only to proceed to the nearest home port or to a port already passed en route to port B. State Z might be at liberty to adopt the rule of full bunker supply. (b) The same regulation would apply in case of colliers sent to meet the belligerent fleet at the neutral port of State Z. (c) The same regulation would apply if the coailng were not in port but merely within the three-mile limit off the coast of State Z. 9 NOTES. Introduction. The introduction of steam power in vessels is comparatively recent. International law has not developed sufficiently to cover all circumstances under which the supply of fuel for vessels might come in question. The rules which had been developed to cover sailing ships are not in all cases sufficient to meet the new conditions. Coaling became from the middle of the nineteenth century an increasingly important question in maritime warfare. Confusion naturally arose in the attempt to stretch old rules evolved to regulate the conduct of sailing ships so that their provisions would apply to steam vessels. The transport of coal by neutrals was sometimes confused with the supplying of coal in a neutral port. Coaling, the Geneva arbitration.-The first extended discussion in regard to the supply of coal arose before the Geneva arbitration. Moore summarizes this very important discussion as follows: It was maintained in the case of the United States that an undue indulgence was shown to Confederate cruisers in the extent to which they were permitted to obtain supplies of coal in British ports, and that in this way they were enabled to use those ports as a base of hostile operations against the United States in violation of the duty defined in the second rule of the treaty. These allegations were denied in the British case. The British supplemental argument declared that supplies of coal in British ports were afforded equally and impartially to both the contending parties; that they were obtained, on the whole, more largely by ships of war of the United States than by the Confederate cruisers; and that such supplies were lawful under the principles of international law. Mr. Evarts, in his supplemental argument, and Mr. Waite, in another special argument, argued that the permission to take coal, unless properly restricted, amounted to permitting the belligerent to make use of the neutral ports as a base of naval operations, and that the Confederate cruisers were suffered to obtain supplies of coal in British ports to facilitate their belligerent operations. On this subject Count Sclopis expressed the following opinion: "I can only treat the question of the supply and shipment of coal as connected with the use of a base of naval operations directed against one of the belligerents, or as a flagrant case of contraband of war. |