ties does not terminate a blockade, or even suspend it, as neutrals are not bound by the armistice, and might during the suspension commit those acts which the blockade exists to prevent.

(b) When the blockading force voluntarily withdraws, the blockade is said to be raised, and it is customary for the blockading belligerent to notify neutrals of this fact, as of the establishment of a blockade. Such notification was made obligatory by article 13 of the Declaration of London.

(c) When the blockading vessels are driven away by the enemy, the blockade is effectively broken, and can only be renewed in the same manner as it was originally established.

(d) As, in general, "a blockade, to be binding, must be effective," it comes to an end when it ceases to be effective.

It is generally held that the temporary absence of the whole or a part of the blockading force on account of the stress of weather does not put an end to the blockade, as the same stress would affect the vessels attempting to pass the blockade.

There was a difference of opinion as to the temporary absence of blockading forces in pursuit of a vessel which has run the blockade. The English and American opinion was to the effect that temporary absence for blockading purposes does not raise the blockade, though a neutral vessel, entering or leaving at such time, does not incur penalty.

The United States instructions issued to blockading vessels in 1898 state that:

"A blockade, to be effective and binding, must be maintained by a force sufficient to render ingress to or egress from the port dangerous. If the blockading vessels be driven away by stress of weather, but return without delay to their stations, the continuity of the blockade is not thereby broken; but if they leave their stations voluntarily, except for purposes of the blockade, such as chasing a blockade runner, or are driven away by the enemy's force, the blockade is abandoned or broken. As the suspension of a blockade is a serious matter, involving a new notification, commanding officers will exercise especial care not to give grounds for complaints on this score."

"22

The Declaration of London (article 4) is to the effect that the blockade would be regarded as raised, and must be again declared and notified, if the forces are withdrawn for any reason other than because of stress of weather.

When, after the time specified in the proclamation, vessels, other than public vessels of a neutral or vessels in distress, are allowed to pass a blockade, it is generally held to be no longer effective. 28

(e) As blockade would no longer be necessary when the belligerent obtained possession of the blockaded place, it is considered that actual occupation of the place supersedes and puts an end to the blockade.2

VIOLATION OF BLOCKADE.

198. The actual passing or the attempt to pass a blockade is regarded as a violation of blockade.

It is generally held that the actual unallowed passing of a blockade constitutes a violation.

The doctrine of the French and Italian courts, and continental opinion in general, is that an actual attempt to pass the line of blockading forces before the place blockaded is necessary, in order to create a breach of blockade.

The American,25 English,20 and Japanese27 courts have held

23 The Franciska, Spinks, 287; The Johanna Maria, Spinks, 307. 24 The Circassian, 2 Wall. 135, 17 L. Ed. 796; The Adula, 176 U. S. 361, 20 Sup. Ct. 432, 44 L. Ed. 505.

25 The Adula, 176 U. S. 361, 20 Sup. Ct. 432, 44 L. Ed. 505; Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335, 3 L. Ed. 117; The Circassian, 2 Wall. 135, 17 L. Ed. 796.

26 The Frederick Molke, 1 C. Rob. 86; The Columbia, 1 C. Rob. 130; The Neptunus, 2 C. Rob. 110.

27 "Any vessel which has received notification of a blockade shall be considered to have violated the blockade inward in the following

cases:

"1. When such vessel has passed into the blockaded area, or has attempted to do so.

"2. When such vessel, lying in the neighborhood of the blockaded area, is considered to be steering into the area, no matter what port of destination is mentioned in the ship's papers.

"3. When such vessel has transported or attempted to transport

that the attempt to pass begins at the time when the vessel leaves neutral waters bound for the place blockaded.

The Declaration of London, 1909 (article 17), attempted to reconcile the differences of opinion by prescribing the area within which neutral vessels might be captured for violation of blockade, viz.: "Within the radius of action of the ships of war assigned to maintain an effective blockade." Under this regulation a neutral vessel leaving a neutral port would not be liable for intent to break a blockade until she had come within the zone within which the blockading forces were operating. The determination of this zone will be considered more at length under section 200, pages 454-458.

In the following cases it is generally held that there is no violation of blockade by egress: (1) When a vessel passes out under official permit; (2) when a vessel which has innocently entered a port passes out in ballast, or without discharging or loading cargo; (3) when a vessel in port at beginning of blockade passes out in ballast; or (4) when a vessel sails out with innocent cargo loaded before the blockade was declared. In the following cases ingress is not considered a violation: (1) When a vessel has official permission to enter; (2) when a vessel enters under stress of weather, because of lack of provisions, or from other absolute necessity; or (3) when a vessel sails for a blockaded port, anticipating in good faith the termination of the blockade, and intending to go to another port in case the blockade continues.

The permitted passing of blockade by public neutral vessels is not a violation of blockade. This may be forbidden, but is usually regulated,28 but regulations should always be impartial.

cargo to a blockaded place, by transshipping to another vessel outside of the blockaded area in order that the latter may pass the line of blockade.

"4. When such vessel is bound for the blockaded port."

Article XXIX, Japanese Regulations Governing Captures at Sea, March 7, 1904.

28 During the Spanish-American War of 1898 the following was accepted as appropriate procedure:

"1. That a prerequisite of the entrance of a neutral vessel of war into a blockaded port, unless in a case of exceptional urgency, should be the consent of the government establishing the blockade, obtained through the usual diplomatic channels.

"2. The approach of the blockaded port in such a manner that the

PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION OF BLOCKADE.

199. The penalty for the violation of blockade may be the forfeiture of vessel and cargo, or, in certain cases, the forfeiture of the vessel only.

The violation of a blockade is an offense against the blockading state, and not usually against the law of the neutral state. The penalty is therefore liability of the vessel and cargo to capture and condemnation. The vessel, as the means of violation, is always liable to penalty, and when vessel and cargo belong to same owner both are liable. The cargo may be proven innocent, and may be released. This may be the case when vessel and cargo belong to different owners, and the owner of the innocent cargo has no intent to violate the blockade.29

senior officer of the blockading squadron would recognize with certainty upon the appearance of a neutral vessel in the blockaded belt her identity with the war vessel of whose coming he had been notified. "3. In such exceptional cases as prevent permission being previously obtained through the usual diplomatic channels, the decision to rest with the senior officer present of the blockading squadron.

"4. No special formalities in connection with the departure of neutral vessels of war from a blockaded port are requisite, other than may be necessary to identify the vessel leaving the port as a neutral, the arrangements concerning the same to be agreed upon between the commanding officer of the blockading squadron and the commanding officer of the vessel in the blockaded port." Foreign Relations U. S. 1898, p. 1168.

292 Halleck, Int. Law (4th Ed.) 237; Declaration of London, art. 21, Appendix, p. 576.

LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF BLOCKADE.

200. (a) By American, English, and Japanese opinion: (1) In case of violation of blockade by egress, the vessel was generally held to be in delicto until she has completed her voyage.

(2) A vessel bound for a blockaded port is regarded as in delicto from the time she leaves neutral waters until she returns to her home port.

(b) By continental European opinion neutral vessels were held to be in delicto only when attempting to pass the blockade and during continuous pursuit from the line of blockade by a blockading vessel until they reached a neutral port.

(c) By the Declaration of London, 1909:

"Article 17. The seizure of neutral vessels for violation of

blockade may be made only within the radius of action of the ships of war assigned to maintain an effective blockade.

"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."

(a) (1) The English opinion,30 extending the liability to capture for violation of blockade throughout the voyage, seems to be based on a Dutch Ordinance of 1630.31 This was regarded at the time as augmenting unduly belligerent rights, and was abandoned by most other states.32

(2) During the early period the American tendency was to follow the continental rather than the English opinion.3 In 1898, however, as in the Civil War, the United States gave clear enunciation to the English doctrine: "The liability of a blockade runner to capture and condemnation begins and terminates with her voyage. If there is good evidence that she sailed with intent to evade the blockade, she is good prize

80 The Frederick Molke, 1 C. Rob. 86; The Welvaart van Pillaw, 2 C. Rob. 128; The General Hamilton, 6 C. Rob. 61.

31 Robinson, Collectania Maritima, 165.

821 Kleen, La Neutralité, 638.

88 American State Papers, 2 Foreign Relations (1797) 154.