"ARTICLE 15.—Fortified places are alone liable to be besieged. Towns, agglomerations of houses, or villages which are open or undefended cannot be attacked or bombarded."
"ARTICLE 16.—But if a town, &c., be defended, the commander of [115]the attacking forces should, before commencing a bombardment, and except in the case of surprise, do all in his power to warn the authorities."
"ARTICLE 40.—As private property should be respected, the enemy will demand from parishes or the inhabitants only such payments and services as are connected with the necessities of war generally acknowledged, in proportion to the resources of the country."
"ARTICLE 41.—The enemy in levying contributions, whether as equivalents for taxes or for payments which should be made in kind, or as fines, will proceed, as far as possible, according to the rules of the distribution and assessment of the taxes in force in the occupied territory. Contributions can be imposed only on the order and on the responsibility of the general in chief."
"ARTICLE 42.—Requisitions shall be made only by the authority of the commandant of the locality occupied."
These conclusions are substantially followed in the chapter on the "Customs of War" contained in the Manual of Military Law issued for the use of officers by the British War Office.
The bombardment of an unfortified town would, I conceive, be lawful—(1) as a punishment for disloyal conduct; (2) in extreme cases, as retaliation for disloyal conduct elsewhere; (3) for the purpose of quelling armed resistance (not as a punishment for resistance when quelled); (4) in case of refusal of reasonable supplies requisitioned, or of a reasonable money contribution in lieu of supplies. It would, I conceive, be unlawful—(1) for the purpose of enforcing a fancy contribution or ransom, such as we were told was exacted from Liverpool; (2) by way of wanton injury to private property, such as was supposed to have been caused in the Clyde and at Folkestone, and a fortiori such as would have resulted from the anticipated shelling during the night-time of the south coast of the Isle of Wight.
2. Is it the case that international law is "all nonsense," and that "when we are at war with an enemy he will do his best to injure us: he will do so in what way he thinks proper, all treaties and all so-called international law [116]notwithstanding"? Are we, with Admiral Aube, to speak of "cette monstrueuse association de mots: les droits de la guerre"? If so, cadit quæstio, and a vast amount of labour has been wasted during the last three centuries. I can only say that such a view of the future is not in accordance with the teachings of the past. The body of accepted usage, supplemented by special conventions, which is known as international law, has, as a matter of fact, exercised, even in time of war, a re staining influence on national conduct. This assertion might be illustrated from the discussions which have arisen during recent wars with reference to the Geneva Conventions to the treatment of the wounded and the St. Petersburg declaration against the use of explosive bullets. The binding obligation of these instruments, which would doubtless be classed by your correspondent with the fleet among "old-fashioned treaties, protocols, and other diplomatic documents," has never been doubted, while each party has eagerly endeavoured to disprove alleged infractions of them.
The naval manœuvres have doubtless taught many lessons of practical seamanship. They will have done good service of another sort if they have brought to the attention of responsible statesmen such questions as those with which I have attempted to deal. It is essential that the country should know the precise extent of the risks to which our seaboard towns will be exposed in time of war, and it is desirable that our naval forces should be warned against any course of action, in their conduct of mimic warfare, which could be cited against us, in case we should ever have to complain of similar action on the part of a real enemy.
Sir,—In my first letter I called attention to certain operations of the Spider and her consorts which seemed to be inspired by no principle beyond that of doing unlimited mischief to the enemy's seaboard. In a second letter I endeavoured to distinguish between the mischief which would and that which would not be regarded as permissible in civilised warfare. The correspondence which has subsequently appeared in your columns has made sufficiently clear the opposition between the view which seems to find favour just now in naval circles and the principles of international law, as I have attempted to define them. The question between my critics and myself is, in effect, whether the mediæval or the modern view as to the treatment of private property is to prevail. According to the former, all such property is liable to be seized or destroyed, in default of a "Brandschatz," or ransom. According to the latter, it is inviolable, subject only to certain well-defined exceptions, among which reasonable requisitions of supplies would be recognised, while demands of money contributions, as such, would not be recognised.
The evidence in favour of the modern view being what I have stated it to be is, indeed, overwhelming; but I should like to call special attention to the Manuel de Droit International à l'Usage des Officiers de l'Armée de Terre, issued by the French Government, as going even further than the Brussels Conference in the restrictions which it imposes upon the levying of requisitions and contributions. The Duke of Wellington, who used to be thought an authority in these matters, wrote in 1844, with reference to a pamphlet in which the Prince de Joinville had advocated depredations on the English coasts:—
"What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have induced [118]a man in his station to write and publish an invitation and provocation to war, to be carried on in a manner such as has been disclaimed by the civilised portions of mankind?"
The naval historian, Mr. Younge, in commenting on the burning of Paita, in Chili, as far back as 1871, for non-compliance with a demand for a money contribution (ultimately reduced to a requisition of provisions for the ships), speaks of it as "worthy only of the most lawless pirate or buccaneer, ... as a singular proof of how completely the principles of civilised warfare were conceived to be confined to Europe."
Such exceptional acts as the burning of Paita, or the bombardment of Valparaiso, mentioned by Mr. Herries, will, of course, occur from time to time. My position is that they are so far stigmatised as barbarous by public opinion that their perpetration in civilised warfare may be regarded as improbable; in other words, that they are forbidden by international law.
It is a further question whether the rules of international law on this point are to be changed or disregarded in future. Do we expect, and are we desirous, that future wars shall be conducted in accordance with buccaneering precedent, or with what has hitherto been the general practice of the nineteenth century? Your naval correspondents incline to revert to buccaneering and thus to the introduction into naval coast operations of a rigour long unknown to the operations of military forces on land; but they do so with a difference. Lord Charles Beresford (writing early in the controversy) asserts the permissibility of ransoming and destroying, without any qualifying expressions; while Admiral de Horsey would apparently only ask "rich" towns for contributions, insisting also that a contribution must be "reasonable," and expressly repudiating any claim to do "wanton injury to property of poor communities, and still less to individuals." In the light of these concessions, I venture to claim Admiral de Horsey's [119]concurrence in my condemnation of most of the doings mentioned in my first letter, although on the whole he ranges himself on the side of the advocates of what I maintain to be a change in the existing law of war. Whether or no the existing law needs revision is a question for politicians and for military and naval experts. It is within my province only to express a hope that the contradiction between existing law and new military necessities (if, indeed, such contradiction exists) will not be solved by a repudiation of all law as "nonsense"; and, further, that, if a change of law is to be effected, it will be done with due deliberation and under a sense of responsibility. It should be remembered that operations conducted with the apparent approval of the highest naval authorities, and letters in The Times from distinguished admirals, are in truth the stuff that public opinion, and in particular that department of public opinion known as "international law," is made of.
The ignorance, by the by, which certain of my critics have displayed of the nature and claims of international law is not a little surprising. Some seem to identify it with treaties; others with "Vattel." Several, having become aware that it is not law of the kind which is enforced by a policeman or a County Court bailiff, have hastened, much exhilarated, to give the world the benefit of their discovery. Most of them are under the impression that it has been concocted by "bookworms," "jurists," "professors," or other "theorists," instead of, as is the fact, mainly by statesmen, diplomatists, prize courts, generals and admirals. This is, however, a wide field, into which I must not stray. I have even avoided the pleasant by-paths of disquisition on contraband, privateering, and the Declaration of Paris generally, into which some of your correspondents have courteously invited me. I fear we are as yet far from having disposed of the comparatively simple question as to the operations which may be [120]properly undertaken by a naval squadron against an undefended seaboard.
NAVAL BOMBARDMENTS OF UNFORTIFIED PLACES
Sir,—The protest reported to have been lodged by the Russian Government against the bombardment by the Japanese fleet of a quarantine station on the island of San-shan-tao, apart from questions of fact, as to which we have as yet no reliable information, recalls attention to a question of international law of no slight importance—viz. under what, if any, circumstances it is permissible for a naval force to bombard an "open" coast town.
In the first place, it may be hardly necessary to point out the irrelevancy of the reference, alleged to have been made in the Russian Note, to "Article 25 of The Hague Convention." The Convention and the Règlement annexed to it are, of course, exclusively applicable to "la guerre sur terre." Not only, however, would any mention of a naval bombardment have been out of place in that Règlement, but a proposal to bring such action within the scope of its 25th Article, which prohibits "the attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not defended," was expressly negatived by the Conference of The Hague. It became abundantly clear, during the discussion of this proposal, that the only chance of an agreement being arrived at was that any allusion to maritime warfare should be carefully avoided. It was further ultimately admitted, even by the advocates of the proposal, that the considerations applicable to bombardments by an army and by a naval force respectively are not identical. It was, for instance, urged that an army has means other than those which may alone be [121]available to a fleet for obtaining from an open town absolutely needful supplies. The Hague Conference, therefore, left the matter where it found it, recording, however, among its "pious wishes" (vœux) one to the effect "that the proposal to regulate the question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force should be referred for examination to a future conference."
The topic is not a new one. You, Sir, allowed me to raise it in your columns with reference to the naval manœuvres of 1888, when a controversy ensued which disclosed the existence of a considerable amount of naval opinion in favour of practices which I ventured to think in contravention of international law. It was also thoroughly debated in 1896 at the Venice meeting of the Institut de Droit International upon a report drafted by myself, as chairman of a committee appointed a year previously. This report lays down that the restrictions placed by international law upon bombardments on land apply also to those effected from the sea, except that such operations are lawful for a naval force when undertaken with a view to (1) obtaining supplies of which it is in need; (2) destroying munitions of war or warships which may be in a port; (3) punishing, by way of reprisal, violations by the enemy of the laws of war. Bombardments for the purpose of exacting a ransom or of putting pressure upon the hostile Power by injury to peaceful individuals or their property were to be unlawful. The views of the committee were, in substance, adopted by the Institut, with the omission only of the paragraph allowing bombardment by way of reprisals.
The "Hague Conference" and "Hague Convention" to which reference was made in the last of these letters were, of course, those of 1899.
For the action taken by the Institut de Droit International in 1895 [122]and 1896, on the initiative of the present writer, see the Annuaire de l'Institut, t. xiv p. 295, t. xv. pp. 145-151, 309, 317; and his Studies in International Law, pp. 106-111. See also, at p. 104 of the same work, an opinion given by him to the Chevalier Tindal as to the liability of The Hague to be bombarded.
The later growth of opinion has been in accordance with the views maintained by the writer of these letters, and with the Rapport drafted by him for the Institut. The Hague Conference of 1899, though unable to discuss the subject, had registered a væu "that the proposal to regulate the question of the bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force may be referred for examination to a future Conference." See Parl. Paper, Miscell. No. 1 (1889), pp. 139, 146, 162, 165, 258, 283. At the Conference of 1907 a Convention, No. ix., was accordingly signed and generally ratified, notably by Germany and Great Britain, Art. 1 of which prohibits "the bombardment by naval forces of ports towns, villages, houses, or buildings which are not defended," Germany, France, Great Britain and Japan dissenting from the second paragraph of this article, which explains that a place is not to be considered to be defended merely because it is protected by submarine contact-mines. Bombardment is, however, permitted, by Art. 2, of places which are, in fact, military or naval bases, and, by Arts. 3 and 4, of places which refuse to comply with reasonable requisitions for food needed by the fleet, though not for refusal of money contributions. The Acte Final of the Conference further registers a væu that "the Powers should, in all cases, apply, as far as possible, to war at sea the principles of the Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on land." (Parl. Paper, Miscell. No. 1 (1908), p. 30.) This Convention, No. iv. of 1907, in Art. 25 of the Règlement annexed to it, lays down that "the attack or bombardment, by whatsoever means, of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not defended is prohibited."
The British Government had, in 1907, so far departed from the Admiralty views of 1888 as to instruct their delegates to the Conference of that year to the effect that "the Government consider that the objection, on humanitarian grounds, to the bombardment of unfortified towns is too strong to justify a resort to that measure, even though it may be permissible under the abstract doctrines of international law [?]. They wish it, however, to be clearly understood that any general prohibition of such practice must not be held to apply to such operations as the bombardment of towns or places used as bases or storehouses of naval or military equipment or supply, or ports containing fighting ships, and that the landing of troops, or anything partaking of the character of a military or naval operation, is also not covered."[123]
It is hardly necessary to chronicle the indignation aroused by the raids upon undefended coast towns carried out by German cruisers during the war of 1914, in violation of modern International Law and notwithstanding the German ratification of Convention No. ix. of 1907.
SECTION 15
Belligerent Reprisals
Sir,—The controversy as to the legitimacy of the recent attack on Freiburg tends to stray into irrelevancies. If the attack was made upon barracks or troop trains no one would surely criticise what is of everyday occurrence, although not unlikely to cause incidentally death or injury to innocent persons. There seems, however, to be no reason for supposing that such military objects were in view, or that our aeroplanes were instructed to confine their activity, as far as possible, to the attainment of such objects. We must assume, for any useful discussion of the question raised, that the operation was deliberately intended to result in injury to the property and persons of civilian inhabitants, not, of course, by way of vengeance, but by way of reprisal—i.e. with the practical object of inducing the enemy to abstain in the future from his habitually practised illegal barbarities. Such reprisals, as is to-day so well explained by your correspondent "Jurist," are no violations of international law. Objections might, of course, be made to them as unlikely to produce their hoped-for effect, or as repugnant to our feelings of humanity or honour. They are not illegal.
Sir,—If my friend Sir Edward Clarke will glance again at my letter of Monday, he will, I think, cease to be surprised that it contains no answer to his censure from an ethical standpoint of our treatment of Freiburg. My object was merely to indicate the desirability of keeping the question whether acts of the kind are in violation of international law (which I answered in the negative) distinct from questions, which I catalogued, as to their practical inutility, with which some of your correspondents have occupied themselves, or their repugnancy to feelings of honour and humanity with which Sir Edward has dealt exclusively. Any discussion of political expediency or of high morals would have been beside my purpose.
It is curious that Sir Herbert Stephen should to-day speak of my letter of the 7th as a defence of the aerial bombardment of Freiburg. It neither attacked nor defended the bombardment, but, solely in the interests of clear thinking, indicated the desirability of keeping distinct the three points of view from which the topic may be regarded, viz.: (1) of international law; (2) of practical utility; (3) of morality and honour.
SECTION 16
Peace
Sir,—There has been more than enough of premature discussion by groups of well-meaning amateurs, not unfrequently wirepulled by influences hostile to this country, [125]with reference to the terms of the treaty of peace by which the world-war now raging will be brought to a close.
Movements of the kind have culminated in the action of a body rejoicing in the somewhat cumbrous title of the "International Central Organisation for a Durable Peace," which is inviting members of about fifty societies, of very varying degrees of competence, to a cosmopolitan meeting, to be held at Berne in December next. Lest the unwary should be beguiled into having anything to do with the plausible offer made to them that they should, there and then, assist in compiling "a scientific dossier, containing material that will be of vast importance to the diplomats who may be chosen to participate in the peace congress itself," it may be worth while to call attention to the composition of the executive committee by which the invitations are issued, and to its "minimum programme."
Of the members of this committee (of thirteen), on which Great Britain is represented only by Mr. Lowes Dickenson (mistakenly described as a Cambridge Professor), and America only by Mrs. Andrews, of Boston, the best known are Professors Lammasch, of Vienna, and Schücking, of Marburg. The "minimum programme" demands, inter alia, "equal rights for all nations in the colonies, &c.," of the Powers; submission of all disputes to "pacific procedure," joint action by the Powers against any one of them resorting to military measures, rather than to such procedure; and that "the right of prize shall be abolished, and the freedom of the seas shall be guaranteed." The provenance of this "minimum programme" is sufficiently obvious. What is likely to be the character of such a "maximum programme" as will doubtless be aimed at by the proposed gathering?
CHAPTER VII
THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS
SECTION 1
The Criterion of Neutral Conduct
The main object of the first of the following letters was to assert, as against any possible misunderstanding of phraseology attributed to a great international lawyer (since lost to science and to his friends by his sudden death on June 20, 1909), the authority by which alone neutral rights and duties are defined.
The letter also touches upon the limit of time which a neutral Power is bound to place upon the stay in its ports of belligerent ships of war; a topic more fully discussed in Section 4.
PROFESSOR DE MARTENS ON THE SITUATION
Sir,—The name of my distinguished friend, M. de Martens, carries so much weight that I hope you will allow me at once to say that I am convinced that to-day's telegraphic report of some communication made by him to the St. Petersburg newspapers fails to convey an accurate account of the views which he has thus expressed.
On matters of fact it would appear that he is no better informed than are most of us in this country; and under matters of fact may be included the breaches of neutrality which he is represented as counter-charging against the Japanese. It is exclusively with the views on questions of law which are attributed to Professor de Martens that I am now concerned. He is unquestionably right in saying, as I pointed out in a recent letter, that the hard-and-fast rule, [127]fixing 24 hours as the limit, under ordinary circumstances, of the stay of a belligerent warship in neutral waters, is not yet universally accepted as a rule of international law; and, in particular, is not adopted by France.
But what of the further dictum attributed to Professor de Martens, to the effect that "each country is its own judge as regards the discharge of its duties as a neutral"? This statement would be a superfluous truism if it meant merely that each country, when neutral, must, in the first instance, decide for itself what courses of action are demanded from it under the circumstances. The words may, however, be read as meaning that the decision of the neutral country, as to the propriety of its conduct, is final, and not to be questioned by other Powers. An assertion to this effect would obviously be the negation of the whole system of international law, of which Professor de Martens is so great a master, resting, as that system does, not on individual caprice, but upon the agreement of nations in restraint of the caprice of any one of them. The last word, with reference to the propriety of the conduct of any given State, rests, of course, not with that State; but with its neighbours. "Securus indicat orbis terrarum." Any Power which fails in the discharge, to the best of its ability, of a generally recognised duty, is likely to find that self-satisfaction is no safeguard against unpleasant consequences. Professor de Martens would, I am certain, endorse this statement.
Sir,—The interesting address by Sir Edward Carson reported in your issue of yesterday will remind many of us of our regret that President Wilson, in Notes complaining of injuries sustained by American citizens, dwelt so slightly [128]upon the violations of international law by which those injuries were brought about.
Sir Edward seems, however, to have made use of certain expressions which might be taken to imply a view of neutral responsibility which can hardly be accepted. The United States were warned in the address that they will not "by a mere Note maintain the obligations which are put upon them, as parties to international law, which are to prevent breaches of civilisation and to mitigate the horrors of war." Neutrals were spoken of as "the executives of international law," and as alone standing "behind the conventions" (for humanising warfare). "Abolish," we were told, "the power of neutrals, and you have abolished international law itself."
Is this so? The contract into which a State enters with other States, by adopting the customary laws of war and by ratifying express Conventions dealing with the same subject, obliges it, while remaining neutral, to submit to certain inconveniences resulting from the war, and, when belligerent, to abstain from certain modes of carrying on hostilities. It is assuredly no term of the contract that the State in question shall sit in judgment upon its co-contractors and forcibly intervene in rebus inter alios actis. Its hands are absolutely free. It may remain a quiescent spectator of evil, or, if strong enough and indignant with the wrongdoing, may endeavour to abate the mischief by remonstrance, and, in the last resort, by taking sides against the offender. Let us hope that at the present crisis the United States may see their way to choosing the better part.
SECTION 2
The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral Individuals, distinguished
The duties of neutral States have been classified by the present writer under the heads, of "Abstention," "Prevention," and "Acquiescence." (Transactions of the British Academy, vol. ii, p. 55; reproduced in the Revue de Droit International, the Revista de Derecho International, and the Marine Rundschau.) In the three letters which follow, an attempt is made to point out the confusion which has resulted from failure to distinguish between the two last-mentioned heads of neutral duty; on the one hand, namely, the cases in which a neutral government is bound itself to come forward and take steps to prevent certain classes of action on the part of belligerents, or of its own subjects, e.g. the overstay in its ports of belligerent fleets, or the export from its shores of ships of war for belligerent use; and, on the other hand, the cases in which the neutral government is bound only to passively acquiesce in interference by belligerents with the commerce of such of its subjects as may choose, at their own risk and peril, to engage in carriage of contraband, breach of blockade, and the like.
I. A neutral State is bound to prevent its territory from becoming, in any way, a "base of operations" for either belligerent. Of the various obligations thus arising, the following letters deal with the duty of the State (1) to prevent the departure from its ports of vessels carrying coal intended to supply directly the needs of a belligerent fleet; and (2) to prevent the reception accorded in its ports to belligerent warships from being such as will unduly facilitate their subsequent operations. It is pointed out that the rule adopted by the United States and this country, as well as by some others, when neutral, by which the stay of belligerent warships is limited to twenty-four hours, has not been adopted by the nations of the European continent. The attempt made at The Hague Conference of 1907 to secure the general acceptance of this rule was unsuccessful; and Convention No. xiii. of that year, not yet ratified by Great Britain, which deals with this subject, merely lays down, in Art. 12, that "In the absence of special provisions to the contrary in the legislation of a neutral Power, belligerent warships are not permitted to remain in the ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters of the said Power for more than twenty-four hours, except in the cases covered by this Convention." Art. 27 obliges the contracting Powers to "communicate to each other in due course all laws, proclamations, and other enactments, regulating in their [130]respective countries the Status of belligerent warships in their ports laid waters."
II. A neutral State is not bound to prevent such assistance being rendered by its subjects to either belligerent as is involved in, e.g. blockade-running or carriage of contraband; but merely to acquiesce in the loss and inconvenience which may in consequence be inflicted by the belligerents upon persons so acting. In order to explain this statement, it became necessary to say much as to the true character of "carriage of contraband" (although this topic is more specifically dealt with in the letters contained in Section 5), and to point out that such carriage is neither a breach of international law nor forbidden by the law of England. For the same reason, it seemed desirable to criticise some of the clauses now usually inserted in British Proclamations of Neutrality.
The view here maintained commended itself to the Institut de Droit International, at its Cambridge and Venice sessions, 1895, 1896, as against the efforts of MM Kleen and Brusa to impose on States a duty of preventing carriage of contraband by its subjects (Annuaire, t. xiv. p. 191, t. xv. p. 205). It has now received formal expression in The Hague Convention No. x. of 1907, Art. 7 of which lays down that "a neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet."
Sir,—As a good deal of discussion is evidently about to take place as to the articles which may be properly treated as contraband of war, and, in particular, as to coal being properly so treated, I venture to think that it may be desirable to reduce this topic (a sufficiently large one) to its true dimensions by distinguishing it from other topics with which it is too liable to be confused.
Articles are "contraband of war" which a belligerent is justified in intercepting while in course of carriage to his enemy, although such carriage is being effected by a neutral vessel. Whether any given article should be treated as contraband is, in the first instance, entirely a question for the belligerent Government and its Prize Court. A neutral Government has no right to complain, of hardships which may thus be incurred by vessels sailing under its flag, but [131]is bound to acquiesce in the views maintained by the belligerent Government and its Courts, unless these views involve, in the language employed by Lord Granville in 1861, "a flagrant violation of international law." This is the beginning and end of the doctrine of contraband. A neutral Government has none other than this passive duty of acquiescence. Its neutrality would not be compromised by the shipment from its shores, and the carriage by its merchantmen, of any quantity of cannon, rifles, and gunpowder.
Widely different from the above are the following three topics, into the consideration of which discussions upon contraband occasionally diverge:—
1. The international duty of the neutral Government not to allow its territory to become a base of belligerent operations: e.g. by the organisation on its shores of an expedition, such as that which in 1828 sailed from Plymouth in the interest of Dona Maria; by the despatch from its harbours for belligerent use of anything so closely resembling an expedition as a fully equipped ship of war (as was argued in the case of the Alabama); by the use of its ports by belligerent ships of war for the reception of munitions of war, or, except under strict limitations, for the renewal of their stock of coal; or by such an employment of its colliers as was alleged during the Franco-Prussian war to have implicated British merchantmen in the hostile operations of the French fleet in the North Sea. The use of the term "contraband" with reference to the failure of a neutral State to prevent occurrences of this kind is purely misleading.
2. The powers conferred upon a Government by legislation of restraining its subjects from intermeddling in a war in which the Government takes no part. Of such legislation our Foreign Enlistment Act is a striking example. The large powers conferred by it have no commensurable relation to the duties which attach to the position of neutrality. Its effect is to enable the Government to pro[132]hibit and punish, from abundant caution, many acts on the part of its subjects for which it would incur no international liability. It does empower the Government to prevent the use of its territory as a base: e.g. by aid directly rendered thence to a belligerent fleet; but it, of course, gives no right of interference with the export or carriage of articles which may be treated as contraband.
3. The powers conferred upon a Government by such legislation as section 150 of the Customs Consolidation Act; 1853, now reproduced in a later enactment, of forbidding at any time, by Order in Council, the export of articles useful in war. The power thus given has no relation to international duty, and is mainly intended to be exercised, in the way of self-protection, when Great Britain is, or is likely to be, engaged in war. The object of the enactment is to enable the Government to retain in the country articles of which we may ourselves be in need, or to prevent them from reaching the hands of our enemies. The articles enumerated—e.g. arms, ammunition, marine engines, &c.—are, neither in the Act of 1853 nor in the Order in Council of the following year, described as "contraband of war."
Sir,—The use of coal for belligerent purposes is, of course, of comparatively modern date, and it is hardly surprising to find that the mercantile community, as would appear from your marine insurance article of this morning, does not clearly distinguish between the different classes of questions to which such use may give rise. There is indeed a widely prevalent confusion, even in quarters which ought to be better informed, between two topics which it is essential to keep separate—viz. the shipment of contraband, [133]and the use of neutral territory as a base for belligerent operations.
A neutral Government (our own at the present moment) occupies a very different position with reference to these two classes of acts. With reference to the former, its international duty (as also its national policy) is merely one of acquiescence. It is bound to stand aside, and make no claim to protect from the recognised consequences of their acts such of its subjects as are engaged in carriage of contraband. So far as the neutral Government is concerned, its subjects may carry even cannon and gunpowder to a belligerent port, while the belligerent, on the other hand, who is injured by the trade may take all necessary stops to suppress it.
Such is the compromise which long experience has shown to be both reasonable and expedient between the, in themselves irreconcilable, claims of neutral and belligerent States. So far, it has remained unshaken by the arguments of theorists, such as the Swedish diplomatist M. Kleen, who would impose upon neutral Governments the duty of preventing the export of contraband by their subjects. A British trader may, therefore, at his own proper risk, despatch as many thousand tons of coal as he chooses, just as he may despatch any quantity of rifles or bayonets, to Vladivostok or to Nagasaki.
It by no means follows that British shipowners may charter their vessels "for such purposes as following the Russian fleet with coal supplies." Lord Lansdowne's recent letter to Messrs. Woods, Tylor, and Brown is explicit to the effect that such conduct is "not permissible." Lord Lansdowne naturally confined himself to answering the question which had been addressed by those gentlemen to the Foreign Office; but the reason for his answer is not far to seek. The unlawfulness of chartering British vessels for the purpose above mentioned is wholly unconnected with the doctrine of contraband, but is a consequence of the international duty, [134]which if incumbent on every neutral State, of seeing that its territory is not made a base of belligerent operations. The question was thoroughly threshed out as long ago as 1870, when Mr. Gladstone said in the House Of Commons that the Government had adopted the opinion of the law officers:
"That if colliers are chartered for the purpose of attending the fleet of a belligerent and supplying it with coal, to enable it to pursue its hostile operations, such colliers would, to all practical purposes, become store-ships to the fleet, and would be liable, if within reach, to the operation of the English law under the (old) Foreign Enlistment Act."
British colliers attendant on a Russian fleet would be so undeniably aiding and abetting the operations of that fleet as to give just cause of complaint against us to the Government of Japan. The British shipper of coal to a belligerent fleet at sea, besides thus laying his Government open to a charge of neglect of an international duty, lays himself open to criminal proceedings under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870. By section 8 (3) and (4) of that Act "any person within H.M. Dominions" who (subject to certain exceptions) equips or despatches any ship, with intent, or knowledge, that the same will be employed in the military or naval service of a foreign State, at war with any friendly State, is liable to fine or imprisonment, and to the forfeiture of the ship. By section 30, "naval service" covers "user as a store-ship," and "equipping" covers furnishing a ship with "stores or any other thing which is used in or about a ship for the purpose of adapting her for naval service." Our Government has, therefore, ample powers for restraining, in this respect, the use of its territory as a base. It has no power, had it the wish (except for its own protection, under a different statute), to restrain the export of contraband of war.
It would tend to clearness of thought if the term "contraband" were never employed in discussions with reference to prohibition of the supply of coal to a belligerent fleet at sea.
GERMAN WAR MATERIAL FOR TURKEY
Sir,—The Cologne Gazette rightly treats as incredible the rumour, mentioned by your Sofia Correspondent, that a trainload of munitions of war had been despatched by the German Government for the use of Turkey, while admitting that such a consignment may very likely have been forwarded from private German workshops.
It has long been settled international law that a neutral Government, while, on the one hand, it is precluded from itself supplying munitions to a belligerent, is, on the other hand, not bound to prevent private individuals from so acting. The latter half of this rule has now received written expression in Art. 7 of The Hague Convention No. v. of 1907, which deals with "Neutral Powers and Persons in War on Land."
The only fault to be found with the paragraph in the Cologne Gazette quoted by your Berlin Correspondent, supposing it to be correctly transcribed, would be that it seems to imply that the above-mentioned Art. 7 legitimatises the supply of war material to belligerents by "neutral States." It is, however, obvious from the rest of the paragraph that the Gazette is not really under that impression.
SECTION 3
Neutrality Proclamations
The criticisms directed against the Proclamation of 1904, in the first two letters which follow, have produced some improvement in Proclamations of later date. See the last two letters of this section. See also Appendix A in F.E. Smith and N.W. Sibley's International Law in the Russo-Chinese War (1905), devoted to a consideration of those criticisms.[136]
THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
Sir,—You were good enough to insert in your issue of November 9 some observations which I had addressed to you upon the essential difference between carriage of contraband, which takes place at the risk of the neutral shipowner, and use of neutral territory as a base for belligerent operations, an act which may implicate the neutral Power internationally, while also rendering the shipper liable to penal proceedings on the part of his own Government. I am gratified, to find that the views thus expressed by me are in exact accordance with those set forth by Lord Lansdowne in his reply of November 25 to the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. Perhaps you will allow me to say something further upon the same subject, suggested by several letters which appear in your paper of this morning. I am especially desirous of emphasising the proposition that carriage of contraband is no offence, either against international law or against the law of England.
1. The rule of international law upon the subject may, I think, be expressed as follows: "A belligerent is entitled to capture a neutral ship engaged in carrying contraband of war to his enemy, to confiscate the contraband cargo, and, in some cases, to confiscate the ship also, without thereby giving to, the Power to whose subjects the property in question belongs any ground for complaint." Or, to vary the phrase, "a neutral Power is bound to acquiesce in losses inflicted by a belligerent upon such of its subjects as are engaged in adding to the military resources of the enemy of that belligerent." This is the rule to which the nations have consented, as a compromise between the right of the neutral State that its subjects should carry on their trade without interruption, and the right of the belligerent State to prevent that trade from bringing an accession of strength to his enemy. International law here, as always, deals with [137]relations between States, and has nothing to do with the contraband trader, except in so far as it deprives him of the protection of his Government. If authority were needed for what is here advanced, it might be found in Mr. Justice Story's judgment in the Santissima Trinidad, in President Pierce's message of 1854, and in the statement by the French Government in 1898, with reference to the case of the Fram, that "the neutral State is not required to prevent the sending of arms and ammunition by its subjects."
2. Neither is carriage of contraband any offence against the law of England; as may be learnt, by any one who is in doubt as to the statement, from the lucid language of Lord Westbury in Ex parte Chavasse (34 L.J., Bkry., 17). And this brings me to the gist of this letter. I have long thought that the form of the Proclamation of Neutrality now in use in this country much needs reconsideration and redrafting. The clauses of the Proclamation which are set out by Mr. Gibson Bowles in your issue of this morning rightly announce that every person engaging in breach of blockade or carriage of contraband "will be justly liable to hostile capture and to the penalties denounced by the law of nations in that behalf, and will in no wise obtain protection from us against such capture or such penalties." So far, so good. But the Proclamation also speaks of such acts as those just mentioned as being done "in contempt of this our Royal Proclamation, in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Power in a war between other Powers, or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that behalf." It proceeds to say that all persons "who may misconduct themselves in the premises ... will incur our high displeasure for such misconduct." I venture to submit that all these last-quoted phrases are of the nature of misleading rhetoric, and should be eliminated from a statement the effective purport of which is to warn British subjects of the treatment to which certain courses of conduct will expose them at the hands of [138]belligerents, and to inform them that the British Government will not protect them against such treatment. The reason why our Government will abstain from interference is, not that such courses of action are offences either against international or English law, but that it has no right to so interfere; having become a party to a rule of international law, under which a neutral Government waives the right, which it would otherwise possess, to protect the trade of its subjects from molestation.