Page images
PDF
EPUB

Prof. Holland in a letter to the Times May 23, 1904, said:

The question raised in your columns by Admiral de Horsey with reference to facts as to which we are as yet imperfectly informed well illustrates the perpetually recurring conflict between belligerent and neutral interests. They are, of course, irreconcilable, and the rights of the respective parties can be defined only by way of compromise. It is beyond doubt that the theoretically absolute right of neutral ships, whether public or private, to pursue their ordinary routes over the high seas in time of war is limited by the right of the belligerents to fight on those seas a naval battle, the scene of which can be approached by such ships only at their proper risk and peril. In such a case the neutral has ample warning of the danger to which he would be exposed did he not alter his intended course. It would, however, be an entirely different affair if he should find himself implicated in belligerent war risks, of the existence of which it was impossible for him to be informed, while pursuing his lawful business in waters over which no nation pretends to exercise jurisdiction.

It is certain that no international usage sanctions the employment by one belligerent against the other of mines or other secret contrivances which would, without notice, render dangerous the navigation of the high seas. (Letters on War and Neutrality, p. 131.)

These expressions of opinion were in accord with the ideas of the time, and it was natural that the subject of regulation of the use of mines should come before the Second Hague Conference of 1907.

That the danger to neutrals was very great is evident from a declaration of the Chinese delegate at this conference:

Le gouvernement chinois est encore aujourd'hui dans l'obligation de munir les vaisseaux de sa navigation côtière d'instruments spéciaux pour repêcher et détruire les mines flottantes qui encombrent non seulement la mer libre mais encore ses eaux territoriales. Malgré toutes les précautions prises, un nombre très considérable de navires de cabotage, de bateaux de pêche, de jonques, et de sampans a sombré par suite de rencontres avec ces mines automatiques sous-marines, et ces vaisseaux se sont perdus corps et biens sans que les details de ces désastres soient parvenus au monde occidental. Il est calculé que de cinq à six cents de nos nationaux qui vaguaient à leurs occupations pacifiques ont ainsi trouvé une mort cruelle par suite de ces engins dangereux. (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Tome III, p. 663.)

The discussion at The Hague in 1907 was long continued and showed great differences of opinion. The conclusions reached were not unanimous. The convention relative to the laying of automatic contact submarine mines which was at length agreed upon at The Hague covered the subject only in part. The area in which such mines may be placed is not defined, though the belligerent is "to notify the danger zone as soon as military exigencies permit," and "every possible precaution must be taken for the security of peaceful navigation." The prohibition of mines off the coast of the enemy "with the sole object of intercepting commercial navigation" would have little effect.

The Institute of International Law at Paris in 1910 proposed the following rule:

ARTICLE 1. It is forbidden to place in the open sea automatic contact mines whether or not anchored, the question of mines controlled by electricity being reserved.

It is clear that, even though as shown by the vote of the Institute of International Law in 1910, the opinion seems to be drifting toward a limitation of the area within which mines may be used, yet there is up to the present no conventional limitation.

Straits in time of war.-There have been many contentions for the maintenance by the coast state of supremacy over straits. The Danish Sound was long regarded as within the control of Denmark. The Baltic Sea was by conventional agreement closed to hostilities by other States than those bordering upon its waters. Great Britain early in the nineteenth century denied that this sea was closed to hostilities. The passage of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles has been subject to regulation, and sometimes entirely closed. The question of using submarine mines in straits was raised at the Second Hague Conference. The Dutch delegate proposed "En tous cas les détroits, qui unissent deux mers libres ne peuvent pas être barrés." (Deuxième Conference de la Paix, Tome III, p. 661.) After much discussion the committee decided to suppress provisions concerning straits

with the distinct understanding that their status was not affected by the convention relative to the laying of automatic contact submarine mines.

This convention is fully recognized as only a first step. The opinions of the delegations from some of the larger States were far from harmonious. Great Britain, generally in favor of restriction, was not averse to extending the mine field to a distance of 10 miles from the position of guns on land.

The

News-gathering agencies.-Another attempt to extend the area from which those not engaged in the hostilities may be excluded appears in the attempt to regulate newsgathering agencies. Correspondents were formerly taken with military expeditions as a matter of course. dangers of such a course were not clearly evident till shown in the Spanish-American War of 1898. At that time the improved means of communication made it possible for the news of the movements of the forces, actual or contemplated, to become public in such manner as seriously to inconvenience those responsible for their success. During the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 the use of wireless telegraphy greatly increased the facility with which news could be sent from the area of operations or from the neighborhood. A corresponding control of the agencies for the diffusion of information is essential to the success of belligerent operations. A consideration of the physical possibilities, of the military necessities, and of the rights of the belligerents and neutrals would seem to support the conclusions of the Institute of International Law in 1906:

ART. 6. Sur la haute mer, dans la zone qui correspond à la sphère d'action de leurs opérations militaires, les belligérants peuvent empêcher les émissions d'ondes, même par une sujet neutre. (21 Annuaire de l'Institut, p. 327.)

Such a rule as the above, demanded by the necessities for effective conduct of the war, may bear heavily upon a neutral in a special case, but that the war be conducted effectively and be brought to a speedy close would be for the general advantage, and the conditions conducing to that end should prevail.

Japanese ordinance, 1904.-In accord with Imperial Ordinance No. 11, promulgated January 23, 1904, the Japanese minister of the navy, or in case of necessity a subordinate official, might designate a "defense sea area or "strategical area" from which vessels might be excluded, even by force of arms, or within which the movements of vessels might be regulated.

IMPERIAL ORDINANCE No. 11, 1904.

[Promulgated Jan. 23, 1904.]

ORDINANCE REGARDING DEFENSE SEA AREAS.

ARTICLE 1. In case of war or emergency, the minister of the navy may, limiting an area, designate a defense sea area under this ordinance. The designation, or revocation, of such defense sea area shall be advertised by the minister of the navy.

ART. 2. In case of urgent necessity, the commander in chief of a naval station, or the commandant of a secondary naval station, may make the designation mentioned in the preceding article. In this case the designation or its revocation shall be advertised by the commander in chief or the commandant.

ART. 3. In the defense sea area, the ingress and egress and passage of any vessels other than those belonging to the army or navy are prohibited from sunset to sunrise.

ART. 4. Within the limits of naval and secondary naval ports included in a defense sea area the ingress and egress and passage of all vessels other than those belonging to the army or navy are prohibited.

ART. 5. All vessels which enter, leave, pass through, or anchor in a defense sea area shall obey the direction of the commander in chief of the naval station, or the commandant of the secondary naval station, concerned.

ART. 6. The commander in chief of a naval station, or the commandant of a secondary naval station, may, when he thinks necessary, forbid or limit within a defense sea area fishing, taking of seaweeds, or any other act considered to interfere with military operations.

ART. 7. The commander in chief of a naval station, or the commandant of a secondary naval station, may absolve vessels, which he thinks fit, from the whole or a part of the prohibitions or limitations mentioned in this ordinance.

ART. 8. Any vessel which has transgressed this ordinance, or orders issued under this ordinance, may be ordered to leave the defense sea area by a route which shall be designated.

Regarding vessels which do not obey the order mentioned in the preceding paragraph, armed force may be used when

necessary.

ART. 9. The master of a vessel, or a person acting as such, which has violated any rules of articles 3 to 5, inclusive, will be punished with confinement at hard labor for not more than one year, or with a fine of not more than yen 200.

ART. 10. Persons who have violated the prohibition or limitation of article 6 will be punished with confinement at hard labor for not more than six months, or with a fine of not more than yen 100.

SUPPLEMENTARY RULE.

This ordinance takes effect from the date of promulgation. Regulations, Japenese strategical areas, 1904-5.—The regulations governing movements of vessels within 66 strategical areas" varied according to the area which was under the regulation. The notification of the establishment of these areas was made in the Official Gazette. Twelve or more of such areas were established; about bays, as at Tokyo; about islands, as the Pescadores; in the neighborhood of naval stations, as Sasebo; or covering straits, as Taugaru Straits.

The minister of the United States to Japan forwarded the following on January 13, 1905, to the Secretary of State:

No. 168.

AMERICAN LEGATION,
Tokyo, January 13, 1905.

SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a translation of the notification issued by the commander of the naval station at Mokyu, in the Pescadores, relative to navigation through the defensive sea area at Kelung.

This notification was promulgated in the Formosan Official Gazette the 24th ultimo and has just reached this legation from the consulate at Daitotei.

I have, etc.,

LLOYD GRISCOM.

INSTRUCTIONS TO VESSELS TRAVERSING THE DEFENSIVE SEA AREA AT

KELUNG.

The commander of the naval station at Mokyu (Pescadores) has issued the following instructions to vessels traversing the defensive sea area at Kelung.

« PreviousContinue »