Page images
PDF
EPUB

theory that the jurisdiction is in the subjacent State prevails, the belligerent must have the right to regulate the use of the air space by neutrals in order that his operations may not be thwarted intentionally or unintentionally by them.

As a general rule, a belligerent must have the right to exercise such control of neutral air craft as may be necessary and possible.

In Situation II (c) when a neutral air craft flies over the belligerent State in such manner as to observe the disposition of its forces and in such direction as to make it possible that it may disclose this disposition to the enemy, it would be competent for the belligerent State to take such action as it was able in order to prevent the disclosure.

Opinion of Fauchille on area. The rights of a neutral within the area of belligerent jurisdiction would naturally not extend to action which would injure the belligerent or imperil the success of his military undertakings. Fauchille says:

En temps de guerre, les neutres pourront-ils naviguer dans les airs dominant le territoire des belligérants? Si les aéronefs privés belligérants peuvent circuler dans l'atmosphère située audessus des États neutres, il en est autrement des neutres vis-à-vis des belligérants: ici l'espionnage peut être à craindre non seulemient à l'égard des ouvrages fortifiés, mais aussi à l'égard des mouvements et des emplacements de troupes qui, eux, sont susceptibles d'être perçus avec profit jusqu'à 10.000 mètres. Dès lors, la navigation aérienne des neutres doit être prohibée dans toutes les fractions de l'atmosphère qui domine le territoire d'un pays belligérant, ainsi que dans un rayon de 11.000 mètres à compter de ses côtes, car on peut évaluer à 1.000 mètres la portion des eaux côtières dont l'usage peut être vraiment utile à la préparation de la défense.-Certains proposent de reconnaître seulement aux États belligérants la faculté de défendre au-dessus de leur territoire la circulation des aéronefs des neutres.

La solution qui défend aux aéronefs neutres de naviguer au. dessus et même aux alentours du territoire des belligérants rend en principe sans intérêt la question de savoir si les blocus établis d'une manière effective par un belligérant sont obligatoires pour les aéronefs neutres comme pour les navires neutres. Cette question ne pourra se poser que dans le cas assez rare où le rayon

d'action d'un blocus, tel que l'a entendu la Déclaration de Londres du 26 février 1909, est supérieur à 11.000 mètres: en pareil cas, on ne voit aucune raison de distinguer entre la navigation aérienne et la navigation maritime. (Bonfils, Droit International Public Fauchille, 6e ed., Nos. 1440°, 144010.)

Solution (c).- When the neutral air craft lands within belligerent territory it may be detained or other measures may be taken to prevent the disclosure of military movements.

While the neutral air craft is still in the air, the belligerent may take such measures as possible to prevent disclosure of his military movements.

Résumé (d). From the nature of the assured and of the probable rights of a State in the aerial space above the earth's surface where a State is exercising effective authority, it can be inferred that the aeroplane passed through a prohibited zone in entering the blockaded port.

From the nature of the service which an aeroplane is adapted to render, it may be fairly inferred that the aeroplane served as a means of communication between the blockaded port and the outside world. It would also be reasonable to presume that the aeroplane is in the service of the enemy. In such a case the liability to penalty does not cease with the delivery of the information at the blockaded port. The appearance seems to indicate that the aeroplane, if neutral, has been guilty of serving as a means of communication with the blockaded port. If the aeroplane belongs to the belligerent, it would be liable to capture in any case.

There is a possibility that the aeroplane if neutral can prove its innocence, but this is a matter for the court and not for the naval officer to determine. If the aeroplane is engaged in unneutral service, the machine is liable to confiscation, and the crew is liable to treatment as prisoners of war. (24 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, p. 34, Art. 28.)

The aeroplane falls within the limits of the territorial waters of the United States, and is therefore within the

area within which the United States forces may lawfully make captures.

The commander of the vessel of the blockading fleet should, therefore, in case (d) send the aeroplane, if neutral, and the crew to a prize court for adjudication. If the aeroplane is belligerent, it with crew might be treated as an enemy vessel taken under similar circumstances.

Résumé (e).—As the right of capture on the high seas in the time of war is practically the same as the right of capture within the territorial waters of the belligerent, the treatment of the aeroplane and its occupants should be the same as if captured within the territorial waters.

Résumé (f).—As there is no right of capture within neutral waters, the vessel of the blockading force might be under obligation to take such measures as he was able to rescue the occupants and the aeroplane from danger, but he would do this on the ground of humanity, and would have no military rights over persons or property.

Solution (d).-If the aeroplane is neutral, it should be sent to a prize court for adjudication.

If the aeroplane is belligerent, it may be treated as an enemy vessel taken under similar conditions.

Solution (e).-The treatment would be the same if picked up from the high sea.

Solution (f).—The belligerent would have no military rights over an aeroplane picked up in neutral waters.

SOLUTION.

(a) The protest of belligerent State Y should be heeded by neutral State Z.

(6) Y may take any action which would not involve violation of neutral jurisdiction as would be the case if the projectile should fall in the territory of State B.

(c) When the neutral air craft lands within belligerent territory, it may be detained or other measures may be taken to prevent the disclosure of military movements.

While the neutral air craft is still in the air, the beligerent may take such measures as possible to prevent disclosure of his military movements.

(d) If the aeroplane is neutral, it should be sent to a prize court for adjudication.

If the aeroplane is belligerent, it may be treated as an enemy vessel taken under similar conditions.

(e) The treatment would be the same if picked up from the high sea.

(f) The belligerent would have no military rights over an aeroplane picked up in neutral waters.

SITUATION III.

CUBA NEUTRAL.

[It is granted that the Declaration of London is binding.]

There is war between the United States and State X. Other States are neutral. Supplies of the nature of conditional contraband are being carried by merchant vessels of State Y to Habana, whence they are sent by rail to Guantanamo. Cruisers of State X threaten to capture these merchant vessels. They request protection of the fleet of the United States. The commanding officer replies that he has no authority to afford protection and that any interference by the cruisers of State X would be an offense against State Y. State X maintains that Habana is essentially a hostile destination.

What position is correct?

SOLUTION.

Habana is not a hostile destination when the United States and State X are at war and other States are neutral.

The position taken by the commanding officer of the fleet of the United States is correct.

NOTES.

Acquisition of jurisdiction. Prior to 1884 the acquisition of territorial jurisdiction was usually based on discovery, occupation, conquest, prescription, gift, exchange, or on some fact which implied the possession of sovereignty over the territory. There was also prior to 1884 a fairly well established system of protectorates, with rights of the protector and protected defined in agreements. With the expansion of the political interests of the leading States of the world into remote regions, particularly characteristic of the last 20 years of the nineteenth century, the claim to the right to exercise

« PreviousContinue »