has, therefore, the right of appeal to the international court in virtue of the provisions which protect neutral property. (International Law Topics, Naval War College, 1909, p. 99.) According to the provisions of article 46 of the Declaration of London A neutral vessel is liable to be condemned and, in a general way, is liable to the same treatment which she would undergo if she were a merchant vessel of the enemy: (1) If she takes part in the hostilities. (2) If she is under the orders or under the control of an agent placed on board by the enemy government. (3) If she is chartered entire by the enemy government. It is here prescribed that the belligerent may treat the vessel engaged in unneutral service as he would treat an enemy merchant vessel. An enemy merchant vessel would be permitted to take on such articles in a neutral port under present laws as the master of the vessel might determine. The transaction is regarded as a business transaction and therefore is permitted, though it is understood that the neutral will give no protection to the parties engaging in the transaction and that the belligerent may inflict penalty if the property falls into his hands. The principles set forth in the preceding discussions apply to Situation V (3), (4), (5). Solution V (3).-The Government of neutral State Z is under no obligation to forbid the supply of cargo coal to neutral vessels. Solution V (4).—If the collier of belligerent State Y has entered or is sojourning in the port of neutral State Z in contravention of the regulations of State Z, the collier may be interned. The colliers flying the merchant flag of neutral State Z or neutral State M may be guilty of unneutral service, but this does not involve State Z in any obligation to intern the colliers. Solution V (5). The colliers should be released if their relations to the belligerent have been simply those of neutral merchant colliers. Their liability for carriage would be deposited with the cargo. If the colliers were chartered entire by or under the orders or control of the enemy government or otherwise engaged in unneutral service they would be liable to detention. SOLUTION. (1) As the apparent destination of the cargo is a neutral port of Z, the commander of the cruiser of Z should not withdraw his protection unless he is reasonably certain that his confidence has been betrayed. (2) The Government of neutral State Z should heed the request of belligerent State X as regards the naval colliers and other colliers belonging to or in the service of State Y, though there might be circumstances when it would be justifiable to allow a collier to take coal necessary for its own use, but merchant colliers may be allowed to take coal. (3) The Government of neutral State Z is under no obligation to forbid the supply of cargo coal to neutral vessels. (4) If the collier of belligerent State Y has entered or is sojourning in the port of neutral State Z in contravention of the regulations of State Z, the collier may be interned. The colliers flying the merchant flag of neutral State Z or neutral State M may be guilty of unneutral service, but this does not involve State Z in any obligation to intern the colliers. (5) The colliers should be released if their relations to the belligerent have been simply those of neutral merchant colliers. Their liability for carriage would be deposited with the cargo. If the colliers were chartered entire by or under the orders or control of the enemy Government or otherwise engaged in unneutral service they would be liable to detention. SITUATION VI. CONVERSION OF MERCHANT SHIPS INTO SHIPS OF WAR. There is war between the United States and State D. Other States are neutral. A cruiser of the United States enters port N of State F and finds the Robin, a vessel registered as belonging to a private citizen of State D. The Robin is well adapted for transformation into a vessel of war and is taking on supplies of the nature of contraband. The commander of the cruiser has reason to believe that as soon as the Robin reaches the high seas she will be transformed into a war vessel, and informs the neutral authorities, requesting that the Robin be interned or otherwise restrained. Is the action of the commander warranted? What regulations should be made in regard to the transformation of private vessels into war vessels? SOLUTION. The action of the commander of the cruiser of the United States is warranted. Neutral State F should take such action as would maintain its neutrality by obliging the Robin to give a guaranty that it would not change its private character till it reached a port under the jurisdiction of its own flag or a port under jurisdiction of an ally; or neutral State F may maintain its neutrality by other means of restraint, even by internment if necessary. NOTES. General. The subject of conversion of merchant vessels into war vessels has naturally received much attention since the abolition of privateering. While certain States did not accede to the declaration of Paris of 1856 by which "Privateering is and remains abolished," it may be said that the principle of abolition of privateer 159 ing is generally adopted. The conversion of merchant vessels into war vessels in time of war is, however, approved, but the essential difference is in the fact that the converted vessel, unlike the privateer, is placed under a duly commissioned officer of the State which accepts the service, and the State thereby becomes responsible for the acts of the converted vessel. The vessel may have belonged to the class of volunteer, auxiliary, or subsidized vessels with a quasi-public character, or may have been a private vessel in the strict sense. To whatever class a vessel belongs, it may be expected that a State will in time of war on the sea, as well as in time of war on land, use so far as possible the resources at its disposal. It may be further said that such a course is in every way justifiable. If the State can call upon its citizens to give up their lives in its defense, there is no reason why it should not require their property whether on land or sea. The opposing belligerent is entitled to know, however, whether a ship which he may meet is a public or a private ship of the enemy, as his conduct must be governed by that knowledge. The neutral State is similarly bound to distinguish public and private vessels. The neutral State may allow a private vessel to remain in its ports for an indefinite period. The usual limit of sojourn for a public ship of war in time of war is 24 hours. Other obligations for the treatment of a belligerent ship of war also rest upon the neutral. It is, therefore, very important that means should be devised for determining the character of vessels flying a belligerent flag in time of war. Discussion in 1906.-This War College considered in 1906 the question, "What regulations should be made in regard to subsidized, auxiliary, or volunteer vessels in time of war?" This discussion was prior to the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907, at which the question of transformation of merchant vessels into ships of war was considered, but subsequent to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, during which the question had become one of vital importance and one which gave rise to considerable international friction. The result of the discussion in 1906, which was as full as the limited time of the conference permitted, is shown in the following: Need of established character. It is necessary that there should be some mark by which the character of a vessel may be established so far as a neutral may be concerned. It is not in any way reasonable to expect that a vessel may one day fly a merchant flag and the next day that of a ship of war and the following day that of a merchant vessel again. If it is proper for a vessel to sail from a port as a merchant vessel and on the high sea to assume the character of a war vessel, would it not be possible to reverse the process and make such changes as frequently as might serve a belligerent's purpose. It is certain that acts of war on the sea should be confined to war vessels and that merchant vessels should not visit, search, or capture merchant vessels of an enemy or of a neutral. Under certain conditions a war vessel may, however, do these things. A merchant vessel is subject to the jurisdiction of the port in which it may be, so far as the local regulations require. A vessel of war is to a large extent exempt from local jurisdiction. There is little restriction upon the nature of articles which a merchant vessel may take on board. A war vessel of a belligerent in time of hostilities may not in a neutral port do certain acts or take certain articles on board which would be allowed in time of peace or to a merchant vessel in time of war. If no restrictions are made, the neutrals may through ignorance of the character of a vessel furnish it with supphes of a forbidden amount or character. A vessel which could change its character at wil might enter a neutral port repeatedly as a merchant vessel and after each departure again assume a warlike character, thus making of a neutral port a base. Of course, it is not reasonable to expect that such acts would be tolerated. Summary: There seem to be certain general considerations which should guide in the regulation of the use of subsidized, auxiliary, or volunteer vessels: 1. Such vessels should be during the war public vessels under regularly commissioned officers in order that the principle of Article I of the declaration of Paris, 1856, may be regarded. They should be incorporated in the navy. 2. The neutral in whose port such vessel may be or within whose port such vessel may come is entitled to know the character of the vessel in order that the laws of neutrality in furnishing supplies, etc., may be observed. 60252-12-11 |