Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

où il la franchissait, et rejoint avant qu'il n'ait pu toucher un port neutre. Si le navire a pu franchir sans difficulté et sans obstacles la ligne du blocus, il ne pourra plus être saisi, même s'il arrivait dans un port de la Puissance bloquante. (British Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 5 (1909), p. 90.)

Netherlands:

La violation du blocus a lieu au moment de la transgression de la ligne du blocus. Une poursuite pour violation de blocus pourra s'étendre au delà de la ligne du blocus, mais finira aussitôt que le navire aura atteint un port ouvert ou au moment antérieur de la levée du blocus. (Ibid., p. 90.)

Observations on place of seizure.—Having regard to the propositions of the ten States participating, the British Foreign Office prepared for the International Naval Conference preliminary bases of discussion, in order that the attention of the delegates might be focused upon what seemed the essential questions. The observations upon this subject were as follows:

Lieu de saisie.-Si l'on examine attentivement ce que la saisie a pour but de sanctionner, on ne peut nier que c'est assurément l'interdiction que proclame le blocus, c'est-à-dire, l'interdiction d'arriver au lieu bloqué. Si parfois, en raison de la disposition tactique de la force bloquante, on a pu considérer que celle-ci formait en fait comme une barrière ou ligne dont elle surveille l'accès, on ne saurait oublier qu'à proprement parler ce n'est pas le passage même de cette ligne qui est l'objet de cette interdiction, mais bien toujours l'arrivée au lieu bloqué. D'autre part, il est depuis longtemps incontesté que la violation d'un blocus présuppose que le blocus est effectif, c'est-à-dire, que l'interdiction est réellement maintenue par une force suffisante pour en assurer le respect.

Partant de ces idées communes, les Gouvernements en ont séparément poursuivi l'application par des voies, à l'aide desquelles l'analyse doctrinale des auteurs a peu à peu échafaudé des systèmes, qui ont plus obscurci qu'écla irci les résultats pratiquement constatés.

En réalité, les navires condamnés pour violation de blocus sont capturés avant d'avoir accompli véritablement l'acte interdit, c'està-dire, avant d'avoir atteint le lieu bloqué, quelque rapprochés qu'ils en puissent être.

Ce qu'exige la saisie c'est que l'acte de violation soit manifestement caractérisé et que la sanction corresponde vraiment à l'infraction.

Ce n'est qu'au fur et à mesure que le navire s'approche du lieu bloqué que l'infraction se caractérise, jusqu'au moment où l'expédition destinée au port bloqué arrive dans le rayon d'action de la force bloquante et alors l'infraction devient manifeste, la saisie est justifiée.

DISCUSSION AT NAVAL CONFERENCE.

87

Si ces considérations sont exactes, il semble que les vues exprimées dans les différents Mémorandums seraient avantageusement rapportées à leur origine commune, et pourront se rencontrer dans une formule également commune, énonçant ce qui est, en somme, le résultat pratique auquel elles paraissent toujours aboutir. (Ibid., p. 91.)

Basis of discussion at the International Naval Conference. The basis of discussion was drawn up in the following form:

24. La saisie des navires neutres pour violation de blocus ne peut être effectuée que dans le rayon d'action des bâtiments de guerre chargés d'assurer la réalité du blocus.

25. Le navire qui, en violation du blocus, est sorti du port bloqué, reste saisissable tant qu'il est poursuivi. Si la chasse en est abandonnée, la saisie n'en peut plus être pratiquée. (Ibid., p. 91.)

The discussion.-The discussion of this form was accompanied by certain suggestions as to changes in the phraseology.

The Netherlands delegation proposed

Si la chasse en est abandonnée, ou si le navire atteint un port neutre, ou bien si le blocus est levé, la saisie n'en peut plus être pratiquée. (Ibid., p. 244.)

Other propositions were also made and discussed, but the question of limit of distance of pursuit was overshadowed by that as to the limit of the area of operation of the blockading fleet.

The instructions to the British delegation referring to this matter were as follows:

There arises in this connection the question as to the limit of distance or time up to which the pursuit of a vessel that has broken blockade outwards may be continued. According to the British theory, the vessel would remain liable to pursuit and capture until she had reached the terminal point of her homeward voyage. The opposing school holds that the right to pursue and capture ceases when the pursuit has been abandoned. His Majesty's Government are advised that the acceptance of the latter view would not be likely to inflict any material injury on the interests of Great Britain. They therefore consider that it will not be necessary to insist on the rigorous adoption of the British principle on this point. (Correspondence and Documents, International Naval Conference, British Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1909), p. 26.)

Rule of the Declaration of London.—The International Naval Conference at length reached an agreement upon

many questions relating to blockade. The limit of pursuit was the subject of Article 20.

A vessel which in violation of blockade has left a blockaded port or has attempted to enter the port is liable to capture so long as she is pursued by a ship of the blockading force. If the pursuit is abandoned, or if the blockade is raised, her capture can no longer be effected.

Of this Article the General Report, which by the approval of the Conference became an official commentary upon the Declaration of London, says:

A vessel has departed from the blockaded port or has tried to enter it. Shall she be indefinitely liable to capture? An absolutely affirmative reply would be too extreme. This vessel must remain liable to capture so long as she is pursued by a ship of the blockading force; it would not suffice that she be encountered by a cruiser of the blockading enemy which did not belong to the blockading squadron. The question whether or not the pursuit is abandoned is a question of fact; it does not suffice that the vessel should take refuge in a neutral port. The ship which is pursuing her can wait her departure, so that the pursuit is necessarily suspended, but not abandoned. Capture is no longer possible when the blockade has been raised. (Naval War College International Law Topics, 1909, p. 55.)

Application to Situation IV.—According to the statement of Situation IV, the Moon has broken the blockade regularly maintained, and when pursued by a ship of the blockading squadron, the Moon runs into a near-by neutral port though not the port from which she sailed. The voyage of the Moon is not therefore complete and the pursuit was continuous till the vessel entered neutral waters. In view of the fact that the action of the blockading force is by the Declaration of London confined to the "area of operation," the question of pursuit received special attention. The General Report of the International Naval Conference states under Article 20 of the Declaration of London, "The question whether or not the pursuit is abandoned is a question of fact; it does not suffice that the vessel should take refuge in a neutral port. The ship which is pursuing her can wait her departure, so that the pursuit is necessarily suspended, but not abandoned."

[blocks in formation]

The pursuit by the cruiser was not abandoned. The protest of the master of the Moon is not valid. The captain of the cruiser should send the Moon into port for adjudication as prize. If for any reason she should be released by the court, the action of the captain could be justified.

SITUATION V.

INFLUENCE OF DESTINATION ON CONTRABAND CHARACTER.

(In this Situation it is granted that the Declaration of London is binding.)

There is war between Great Britain and European State X. Hostile operations are confined to the European Continent. State X has no ports in the Pacific Ocean, but one of her cruisers chances to be in the Pacific Ocean and overtakes an American merchant vessel loaded with coal consigned to, and of a kind commonly used by, the civil Government of New Zealand. The merchant vessel's papers are regular and she is on the proper course. The merchant vessel contends that she is exempt from capture. The commander of the cruiser maintains that the coal is conditional contraband.

Which is correct? What should be done?

SOLUTION.

The contention of the master is correct. The commander of the cruiser should allow the vessel to proceed.

NOTES.

Coal in time of war.-In the long period during which a list of contraband has been evolved the treatment of coal has varied. The decisions of courts and the opinions of text writers have likewise varied. Some writers have maintained that the treatment of coal in time of war should be determined by conventional agreement. (Galiani, De Doveri, 1, cap. IX, secs. 3-7.) Others with the desire to leave neutrals free in time of war have demanded that only articles of the nature of absolute contraband be liable to seizure.

The treaties of earlier days show how coal and other articles were regarded in conventional agreements. The Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, Article 20, shows the tendency to exempt many articles from the list of contraband. Coals are definitely exempted.

« ZurückWeiter »