"A neutral Power must, similarly, release a prize brought into one of its ports under circumstances other than those referred to in Article 21 (Art. 22)." 22

"A neutral Power may allow prizes to enter its ports and roadsteads, whether under convoy or not, when they are brought there to be sequestered pending the decision of a Prize Court. It may have the prize taken to another of its ports.

"If the prize is convoyed by a warship, the prize crew may go on board the convoying ship.

"If the prize is not under convoy, the crew are left at liberty (Art. 23)." 23

474. Internment of Belligerent Vessels in Neutral Ports and Detention of the Crew. "If, notwithstanding the notification of the neutral Power, a belligerent warship does not leave a port where it is not entitled to remain, the neutral Power is entitled to take such measures as it considers necessary to render the ship incapable of putting to sea during the war, and the commanding officer of the ship must facilitate the execution of such meas

ures.

When a belligerent ship is detained by a neutral Power, the officers and crew are likewise detained.

"The officers and crew so detained may be left in the ship or kept either on another vessel or on land, and may be subjected to such measures of restriction as it may appear necessary to impose upon them. A sufficient number of men for looking after the vessel must, however, be always left on board.

The officers may be left at liberty on giving their word not to quit the neutral territory without permission (Art. 24)."

124

the older twenty-four hour rule for the sojourn in their ports of such vessels with their prizes.

On Prizes in Neutral Ports, see especially: Hall (6th ed.), 614-615; *Higgins, 478-479; 3 Phillimore, § 379; 2 Westlake, 214–215.

22 213 H. C., 22.

23

*

13 H. C., 23. The purpose of this article is, according to M. Renault, "to render rarer, or to prevent, the destruction of prizes." Whether this object will be attained remains to be seen. It is certainly highly objectionable on principle.

24 13 H. C., 24. Cf. 5 H. C., 11, par. 3. For references on Internment of Belligerent Armed Vessels, see supra. p. 472. The vessels are to be interned, the officers and crew detained. This treatment is analogous to that accorded to belligerent troops seeking refuge on neutral territory. Cf. supra, §§ 451-452.

475. Measure of Due Diligence. "A neutral Power is bound to exercise such surveillance as the means at its disposal allow to prevent any violation of the provisions of the above Articles occurring in its ports or roadsteads or in its waters (Art. 25)." 25

476. Further Provisions. "The exercise by a neutral Power of the rights laid down in the present Convention can never be considered as an unfriendly act by either belligerent who has accepted the Articles relating thereto (Art. 26).” 26

"The Contracting Powers shall communicate to each other in due course all laws, ordinances, and other provisions regulating in their respective countries the status of belligerent warships in their ports and waters, by means of a communication addressed to the Government of the Netherlands and forwarded immediately by that Government to the other Contracting Powers (Art. 27)."

927

25 13 H. C., 25. This article embodies the principle of the Third Rule of the Treaty of Washington (1871): "A neutral Government is bound to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."

This article requires no comment.

26 Ibid., 26. 27 Ibid., 27. Art. 28 contains the usual stipulation that the "provisions of the present Convention are only applicable to the Contracting Powers and only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention."

The force of this Convention is perhaps somewhat weakened by paragraph 7 of the Preamble which states that "these rules should not, in principle, be altered, in the course of the war, by a neutral Power, except where experience has shown the necessity for such change for the protection of the rights of that Power." This might conceivably be used as a pretext or loophole for the evasion of neutral obligations.

Other paragraphs in the Preamble emphasize the "desirability" of "specific enactments regulating the consequences of the status of neutrality" by neutral Powers; the obligation of impartiality in the application of the rules adopted; and that "in cases not covered by the present Convention, account must be taken of the general principles of the Law of Nations."

The following States did not sign this Convention: the United States, China, Cuba, Spain, and Nicaragua: but the United States and Nicaragua have since given their adhesion.

The following States have made certain reservations: Germany in respect to Art. 11-13 and 20; Great Britain, Arts. 19 and 23; Japan, Arts. 19 and 23; Turkey, as regards the Bosphorus and Dardanelles; the United States (not stated in the Table of Ratifications published in 5 A. J. (1911), 769-770).

The Convention, as a whole, deserves praise for securing so much, but it has some glaring defects. Its greatest achievement is perhaps the successful incorporation of the substance of the Three Rules of the Treaty of Washington; its most striking defects are the failure to insist upon stricter rules limiting the sojourn

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rights and Duties in Naval Warfare. 1 and 3 Actes et doc. de la deux confér., 282, 295, and 460-518, 569-652, 695-735 respectively; 17 Annuaire (1898), 231-287; Barclay, Problems, etc., 83-90, 160167, 348 ff.; *Benton (for Sp.-Am. War), ch. 7; Bonfils (Fauchille), Nos. 1447-1493; Bustamante y Sirven, ch. 22; Dupuis, La droit de la guerre maritime (1911), ch. 12; Ibid., La droit, etc., d'apres les doctrines anglais (1899), ch. 7; Higgins, 445-483; *Holland, "Neutral Duties in a Mar. War," in Proceedings of the British Academy (1905); *Hyde, in 2 A. J. (1908), 507-527; * Lawrence, War and Neutrality, ch. 6; Ibid., Principles, Pt. IV, chs. 2 and 3; Lémonon, 555-603; *7 Moore, Digest, ch. 28; 2 Oppenheim, §§ 329-335, 342-348, 357-363; 1 Scott, 620-648; * Takahashi, Pt. IV, chs. * 1-3; 2 Westlake, ch. 8 and pp. 327-331.

Law of Neutrality generally (besides the general treatises on Int. Law).- 21 Annuaire (1906), 100-188, 345-409; Ariga, La guerre russojaponaise (1908), passim; Azuni, Droit maritime de l'Europe (1805), passim; Barclay, Problems, etc. (see index); Baty, Britain and Sea Law (1911); Benton, Int. Law and Diplomacy of the Sp.-Amer. War; Bernard, Neutrality of Great Britain during the Am. Civil War (1870); Bon, La guerre russo-japonaise et la neutralité (1909); Bynkershoek, Questiones juris publici (1737), lib. 1, cc. 8-15; Campbell, Neutral Rights and Obligations in the Anglo-Boer War (1908); Descamp, Le droit de la paix (1898); DonkierCurtius, Des navies de guerre dans les eaux neutres (1907); Féraud-Geraud, in 2 R. R. I. P. (1899), 291 ff.; Gaborit, Questions de neutralité maritime soulévees par la guerre russo-japonais (1906); Geffcken, "Die Neutralität," in 4 Holtzendorf; Gessner, Le droit des neutres sur mer (1876); Ibid., Kriegführende u. neutrale Mächte (1877); Hall, The Rights and Duties of Neutrals (1876); 1 and 3 Hautefeuille, Droits et devoirs des neutres (1868); Heilborn, Rechte und Pflichten der neutralen Staaten (1887); Hershey, Int. Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War (1906); Holland, "Neutral Duties in a Maritime War," in 2 Proceedings of the British Academy (1905) or in 37 R. D. I. (1905), 359 ff.; Ibid., Letters to the "Times" upon War and Neutrality (1909); Hübner, De la saisie des bâtiments neutres (1759); 1 and 2 Kleen, Lois et usages de la neutralité (1898-1900); Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East (1904); Ch. de Martens, Causes célèbres (1861); Mérignhac, in 32 J. I. P., 592 ff.; Ibid., Les lois de la guerre sur terre (1903), liv. V; 7 Moore, Digest, ch. 28; Ibid., Am. Diplomacy (1905), ch. 2; Nagaoka, in 31 J. I. P., 285 ff.; Nys, La guerre maritime (1881); Ortolan, Règles int. et diplomatie de la mer (1864); Perels, Manuel de droit mar. int. (1884), of belligerent armed vessels in neutral ports and the supply of fuel to warships proceeding to the seat of hostilities, and the permission granted to neutral powers to admit prizes into their ports. "The rules laid down are nearly all accompanied by provisos enabling them to be excluded by a neutral strong enough and sufficiently interested to do so. The rights of neutrals are asserted, but their duties are not sufficiently emphasized." Higgins, 483.

38 ff.; Pillet, Les lois actuelles de la guerre (1907), chs. 11-12; 1 Rey, La guerre russo-japonaise (1911); Takahashi, Int. Law applied to the RussoJapanese War (1908), Pt. IV; Vattel, liv. III, §§ 103-135; 2 Varreas, Le lois de la guerre et la neutralité (1906).

For more complete Bibliographies, see Bonfils, and Olivart.

CHAPTER XXXII

THE LAW OF BLOCKADE

477. Rules of the London Naval Conference. The ten Maritime Powers which sent delegates to the London Naval Conference of 1908-1909, signed a Declaration embodying the following rules respecting " Blockade in Time of War" as "corresponding in substance with the generally recognized principles of International Law."

478. Blockade as an Operation of War. "A blockade must be limited to the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy (Art. 1)." 2

1 These were Great Britain (at whose invitation the Conference met), the United States, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Austria-Hungary, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The expressed object was that of "laying down the generally recognized rules of International Law in accordance with Article 7 (see infra, § 527) of the Convention signed at the Hague on the 18th of October, 1907, for the establishment of an International Prize Court."

Whether all the Powers shall eventually ratify or adhere to the Declaration of London or not, its articles may be regarded as the most authoritative statement in existence of the Law of Nations on the subjects of which they treat.

2 D. L. (Declaration of London), 1. Cf. infra, Art. 18. "Blockade is here regarded solely as an operation of war, and there is no intention of touching in any way on what is called pacific blockade (see supra, §§ 324 ff.). . . . Blockade, as an operation of war, can be directed by a belligerent only against his adversary.” Report on the Declaration of London in Higgins, 572; or Int. Law Topics by the Naval War College (1909), 25 ff.

I have followed the text as given in Higgins, 542 ff.; Lémonon, 100 ff.; Int. Law Topics (1910); and Bentwich, The Dec. of London (1911), ch. 7. See also Cohen, The Dec. of London (1911).

Blockade has been well defined as "the blocking of the approach to the enemy coast or a part of it by men-of-war for the purpose of preventing ingress and egress of vessels of all nations." 2 Oppenheim, § 368.

With reference to their purpose war blockades are often spoken of as strategic or commercial, but these terms have no legal significance.

As an institute of maritime International Law, blockade dates from the sixteenth