(3) Since enemy subjects who reside in neutral countries, or are allowed to remain resident on the territory of the other belligerent, have to a great extent identified themselves with the local population and are not under the territorial supremacy of the enemy, they lose their enemy character according to English and American practice,[148] but according to French practice they do not, a difference of practice which bears upon many points, especially upon the character of goods.[149]

§ 89. The general rule with regard to vessels is that their character is determined by their flag. Whatever may be the nationality of the owner of a vessel—whether he be a subject of a neutral State, or of either belligerent—she bears enemy character, if she be sailing under the enemy flag. For this reason, the vessel of an enemy owner which sails under a neutral flag does as little bear enemy character as the vessel of the subject of a neutral State sailing under the flag of another neutral State. But the flag is the deciding factor only when the vessel is legitimately sailing under it. Should it be found that a vessel sailing under the flag of a certain neutral State has, according to the Municipal Law of such State, no right to fly the flag she shows, the real character of the vessel must be determined in order to decide whether or no she bears enemy character. On the other hand, it makes no difference that the owner be the subject of a neutral non-littoral State without a maritime flag and that the vessel is, therefore, compelled to fly the flag of a maritime State: if the flag the vessel flies be the enemy flag, she bears enemy character.

The general rule that the flag is the deciding factor has exceptions, and it is convenient to expound the matter according to the rules of the Declaration of London, although it is not yet ratified. The general rule is laid down by article 57 of the Declaration which enacts that, subject to the provisions respecting transfer to another flag, the character of a vessel is determined by the flag she is entitled to fly. Nevertheless, there are two exceptions to this rule:—

(1) According to article 46 of the Declaration[150] a neutral merchantman acquires enemy character by taking a direct part in the hostilities, by being in the exclusive employment of the enemy government, and by being at the time exclusively intended either for the transport of troops or for the transmission of intelligence for the enemy. And it must be emphasised that the act by which a neutral merchantman acquires enemy character need not necessarily be committed after the outbreak of war, for she can, even before the outbreak of war, to such a degree identify herself with a foreign State that, with the outbreak of war against such State, enemy character devolves upon her ipso facto, unless she severs her connexion with the State concerned. This is, for instance, the case of a foreign merchantman which in time of peace has been hired by a State for the transport of troops or of war material, and is carrying out her contract in spite of the outbreak of war.[151]

(2) According to article 63 of the Declaration a neutral merchantman acquires enemy character ipso facto by forcibly resisting the legitimate exercise of the right of visitation and capture on the part of a belligerent cruiser (see details below, § 422).

(3) According to British practice—adopted by America and Japan[152]—neutral merchantmen likewise acquire enemy character by violating the so-called rule of 1756,[153] in case they engage in time of war in a trade which the enemy prior to the war reserved exclusively for merchantmen sailing under his own flag. The Declaration of London has neither rejected nor accepted this rule of 1756, for article 57 stipulates expressly that the case where a neutral vessel is engaged in a trade which is closed in time of peace, remains unsettled. It would, therefore, according to article 7 of Convention XII. of the Second Peace Conference, be the task of the proposed International Prize Court to settle this point.

Of whatever kind may be the case of the acquisition of enemy character on the part of a neutral vessel, the following four rules apply to all cases of such neutral vessels as have acquired enemy character:—(a) all enemy goods on board may now be confiscated, although when they were first shipped the vessels concerned were neutral; (b) all goods on board will now be presumed to be enemy goods, and the owners of neutral goods will have to prove the neutral character of the latter; (c) the stipulations of articles 48 and 49 of the Declaration of London concerning the sinking of neutral prizes do not apply, because these vessels are now enemy vessels; (d) no appeal may be brought from the national prize courts to the International Prize Court, except with regard to the one question only, whether the vessel concerned has been justly considered to have acquired enemy character (see article 4 of Convention XII. of the Second Hague Peace Conference, concerning the establishment of an International Prize Court).

§ 90. It is an old customary rule that all goods found on board an enemy merchantman are presumed to be enemy goods unless the contrary is proved by the neutral owners concerned. It is, further, generally recognised that the enemy character of goods depends upon the enemy character of their owners. As, however, no universally recognised rules exist as to the enemy character of individuals, there are likewise no universally recognised rules in existence as to the enemy character of goods.

(1) Since, according to British and American practice, domicile in enemy country makes an individual bear enemy character, all goods belonging to individuals domiciled in enemy country are enemy goods, and all goods belonging to individuals not resident in enemy country are not, as a rule, enemy goods. For this reason, goods belonging to enemy subjects residing in neutral countries[154] do not, but goods belonging to subjects of neutral States residing in enemy country[155] do bear enemy character, although they may be the goods of a foreign consul appointed and residing in enemy country.[156] Further, the goods of such subjects of the belligerents as are domiciled on each other's territory and are allowed to remain there after the outbreak of war, acquire enemy character in the eyes of the belligerent whose subjects they are, but lose their enemy character in the eyes of the belligerent on whose territory they are allowed to remain.[157] Again, the produce of an estate on enemy territory belonging to a subject of a neutral State who resides abroad, does bear enemy character, for "Nothing[158] can be more decided and fixed than the principle ... that the possession of the soil does impress upon the owner the character of the country, as far as the produce of that plantation is concerned ... whatever the local residence of the owner may be." Lastly, all such property of a subject of a neutral State residing abroad but having a house of trade within the enemy country as is concerned in the commercial transactions of such house of trade,[159] likewise bears enemy character, because the owner of these goods has a "commercial domicile" in enemy country.

(2) On the other hand, according to French practice, the nationality of the owner of the goods is exclusively the deciding factor, and it does not matter where he resides. Hence only such goods on enemy merchantmen bear enemy character as belong to subjects of the enemy, whether those subjects are residing on enemy or neutral territory; and all such goods on enemy merchantmen as belong to subjects of neutral States do not bear enemy character, whether those subjects reside on neutral or enemy country.[160]

(3) The Declaration of London does not purport to decide the controversy, since the Powers represented at the Naval Conference of London could not agree. Whereas Holland, Spain, and Japan approved of the British and American practice, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Germany, and Russia sided with France. For this reason, the Declaration, by articles 58 and 59, only enacts that the enemy character of goods on enemy vessels is determined by the enemy character of their owner, and that all goods on enemy vessels are presumed to be enemy goods unless the contrary is proved. But the chief question, namely, what is the factor that decides the enemy character of an owner, is deliberately left unanswered. It would, therefore, according to article 7 of Convention XII., be for the proposed International Prize Court to settle it.

§ 91. The question of the transfer of enemy vessels to subjects of neutral States, either shortly before or during the war, must be regarded as forming part of the larger question of enemy character, for the point to be decided is whether such transfer[161] divests these vessels of their enemy character. It is obvious that, if this point is answered in the affirmative, the owners of enemy vessels can evade the danger of having their property seized and confiscated by selling their vessels to subjects of neutral States. Before the Declaration of London, which is, however, not yet ratified, the maritime Powers had not agreed upon common rules concerning this subject. According to French[162] practice no transfer of enemy vessels to neutrals could be recognised, and a vessel thus transferred retained enemy character; but this concerned only transfer after the outbreak of war, any legitimate transfer anterior to the outbreak of war did give neutral character to a vessel. According to British and American practice, on the other hand, neutral vessels could well be transferred to a neutral flag before or after the outbreak of war and lose thereby their enemy character, provided that the transfer took place bona fide,[163] was not effected either in a blockaded port[164] or while the vessel was in transitu,[165] the vendor did not retain an interest in the vessel or did not stipulate a right to recover or repurchase the vessel after the conclusion of the war,[166] and the transfer was not made in transitu in contemplation of war.[167]

The Declaration of London offers clear and decisive rules concerning the transfer of enemy vessels, making a distinction between the transfer to a neutral flag before and after the outbreak of hostilities:

(1) According to article 55 of the Declaration, the transfer of an enemy vessel to a neutral flag, if effected before the outbreak of hostilities, is valid, unless the captor is able to prove that the transfer was made in order to avoid capture. However, if the bill of sale is not on board the transferred vessel, and if the transfer was effected less than sixty days before the outbreak of hostilities, the transfer is presumed to be void, unless the vessel can prove that such transfer was not effected in order to avoid capture. To provide commerce with a guarantee that a transfer should not easily be treated as void on the ground that it was effected for the purpose of evading capture, it is stipulated that, in case the transfer was effected more than thirty days before the outbreak of hostilities, there is an absolute presumption of its validity, provided the transfer was unconditional, complete, and in conformity with the laws of the countries concerned, and further, provided that neither the control of, nor the profits arising from, the employment of the vessels remain in the same hands as before the transfer. But even in this case a vessel is suspect if the transfer took place less than sixty days before the outbreak of hostilities, and if her bill of sale is not on board. Hence she may be seized and brought into a port of a prize court for investigation, and she cannot claim damages for the capture, even if the Court releases her.

(2) According to article 56 of the Declaration, the transfer of an enemy vessel to a neutral flag, if effected after the outbreak of hostilities, is void unless the vessel can prove that the transfer was not made in order to avoid capture. And such proof is excluded, and an absolute presumption is established that the transfer is void, if the transfer has been made in a blockaded port or while the vessel was in transitu, further, if a right to repurchase or recover the vessel is reserved to the vendor, and lastly, if the requirements of the Municipal Law governing the right to fly the flag under which the vessel is sailing have not been fulfilled.

§ 92. The subject of the transfer of enemy goods on enemy vessels must likewise be considered as forming part of the larger subject of enemy character, for the question is here also whether such a transfer divests these goods of their enemy character. And concerning this question[168] there was likewise no unanimous practice in existence among the maritime States before the agreement on the Declaration of London. British and American practice refused to recognise a sale in transitu under any circumstances or conditions, if the vessel concerned was captured before the neutral buyer had actually taken possession of the transferred goods.[169] On the other hand, French practice recognised such a sale in transitu, provided it could be proved that the transaction was made bona fide.[170]

The Declaration of London now stipulates, by article 60, that enemy goods on board an enemy vessel retain their enemy character until they reach their destination, notwithstanding any transfer effected after the outbreak of hostilities while the goods are in transitu. Hence if such enemy vessel is captured before having reached her destination, goods consigned to enemy subjects may be confiscated, although they have been sold in transitu to subjects of neutral States. A special rule is provided for the case of the enemy consignee of goods on board an enemy vessel becoming bankrupt while the goods are in transitu. In a number of countries[171] an unpaid vendor has, in the event of the bankruptcy of the buyer, a recognised legal right to recover such goods as have already become the property of the buyer, but have not yet reached him (right of stoppage in transitu). For this reason, article 60 of the Declaration stipulates in the second paragraph, that if, prior to the capture, the neutral consignor exercises, on the bankruptcy of the enemy consignee, his right of stoppage in transitu, the goods regain their neutral character and may not therefore be confiscated.

CHAPTER II THE OUTBREAK OF WAR

I COMMENCEMENT OF WAR

Grotius, c. 3, 5-14—Bynkershoek, Quaestiones juris publici, I. c. 2—Vattel, III. §§ 51-65—Hall, § 123—Westlake, II. pp. 18-26, and 267—Lawrence, § 140—Manning, pp. 161-163—Phillimore, III. §§ 51-56—Twiss, II. §§ 31-40—Halleck, I. pp. 521-526—Taylor, §§ 455-456—Moore, VII. §§ 1106-1108—Walker, § 37—Wharton, III. §§ 333-335—Wheaton, § 297—Bluntschli, §§ 521-528—Heffter, § 120—Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 332-347—Gareis, § 80—Liszt, § 39, V.—Ullmann, § 171—Bonfils, Nos. 1027-10312—Despagnet, Nos. 513-516—Pradier-Fodéré, VI. Nos. 2671-2693—Nys, III. pp. 118-133—Rivier, II. pp. 220-228—Calvo, IV. §§ 1899-1911—Fiore, III. Nos. 1272-1276, and Code, 1422-1428—Martens, II. § 109—Longuet, §§ 1-7, 15-16—Mérignhac, pp. 29-41—Pillet, pp. 61-72—Lawrence, War, pp. 26-44—Barclay, pp. 53-58—Boidin, pp. 116-121—Bordwell, pp. 198-200—Higgins, pp. 202-205—Holland, War, § 16—Lémonon, pp. 309-406—Nippold, II. pp. 6-10—Scott, Conferences, pp. 516-522—Spaight, pp. 20-33—Ariga, §§ 11-12—Takahashi, pp. 1-25—Land Warfare, §§ 8-10—Holland, Studies, p. 115—Sainte-Croix, La Déclaration de guerre et ses effets immédiats (1892)—Bruyas, De la déclaration de guerre, etc. (1899)—Tambaro, L'inizio della guerra et la 3a convenzione dell' Aja del 1907 (1911)—Maurel, De la déclaration de guerre (1907)—Soughimoura, De la Déclaration de Guerre (1912)—Brocher in R.I. IV. (1872), p. 400; Férand-Giraud in R.I. XVII. (1885), p. 19; Nagaoka in R.I. 2nd Ser. VI. p. 475—Rolin in Annuaire, XX. (1904), pp. 64-70—Ebren and Martens in R.G. XI. (1904), pp. 133 and 148—Dupuis in R.G. XIII. (1906), pp. 725-735—Stowell in A.J. II. (1908), pp. 50-62.

§ 93. According to the former practice of the States a condition of war could de facto arise either through a declaration of war; or through a proclamation and manifesto of a State that it considered itself at war with another State; or through the committal by one State of certain hostile acts of force against another State. History presents many instances of wars commenced in one of these three ways. Although Grotius (III. c. 3, § 5) laid down the rule that a declaration of war is necessary for its commencement, the practice of the States shows that this rule was not accepted, and many wars have taken place between the time of Grotius and our own without a previous[172] declaration of war. Indeed many writers,[173] following the example of Grotius, have always asserted the existence of a rule that a declaration is necessary for the commencement of war, but it cannot be denied that until the Second Peace Conference of 1907 such a rule was neither sanctioned by custom nor by a general treaty of the Powers. Moreover many writers[174] distinctly approved of the practice of the Powers. This does not mean that in former times a State would have been justified in opening hostilities without any preceding conflict. There was, and can be, no greater violation of the Law of Nations than for a State to begin hostilities in time of peace without previous controversy and without having endeavoured to settle the conflict by negotiation.[175] But if negotiation had been tried without success, a State did not act treacherously in case it resorted to hostilities without a declaration of war, especially after diplomatic intercourse had been broken off. The rule, adopted by the First Peace Conference of 1899—see article 2 of the Conventions for the peaceful settlement of international differences of 1899 and 1907—which stipulates that, as far as circumstances allow, before the appeal to arms recourse must be had to the good offices or mediation of friendly Powers, did not essentially alter matters, for the formula as far as circumstances allow leaves practically everything to the discretion of the Power bent on making war.

The outbreak of war between Russia and Japan in 1904 through Japanese torpedo boats attacking Russian men-of-war at Port Arthur before a formal declaration of war, caused a movement for the establishment of some written rules concerning the commencement of war. The Institute of International Law, at its meeting at Ghent in 1906, adopted three principles[176] according to which war should not be commenced without either a declaration of war or an ultimatum, and in either case a certain delay sufficient to ensure against treacherous surprise must be allowed before the belligerent can have recourse to actual hostilities. The Second Peace Conference at the Hague in 1907 took the matter up and produced the Convention (III.) relative to the commencement of hostilities which comprises four articles and has been signed by all the Powers represented at the Conference, except China and Nicaragua, both of which, however, acceded later.

§ 94. According to article 1 of Convention III. hostilities must not commence without a previous and unequivocal warning, and one of the forms which this warning may take is a declaration of war stating the reasons why the Power concerned has recourse to arms.

A declaration of war is a communication of one State to another that the condition of peace between them has come to an end and a condition of war has taken its place. In former times declarations of war used to take place under greater or lesser solemnities, but during the last few centuries all these formalities have vanished, and a declaration of war nowadays may take place through a simple communication. The only two conditions with which, according to article 1, declarations of war must comply are, that they must be unmistakable, and that they must state the reason for the resort to arms. No delay between the declaration and the actual commencement of hostilities is stipulated, and it is, therefore, possible for a Power to open hostilities immediately after the communication of the declaration of war to the enemy. All the more is it necessary to emphasise that there could be no greater violation of the Law of Nations than that which would be committed by a State which sent a declaration to another without previously having tried to settle the difference concerned by negotiation.

However this may be, the question as to the way in which the communication of the declaration of war is to be made requires attention. Since there is nowhere a rule expressly formulated according to which the declaration must be communicated in writing, it might be asserted that communication by any means, be it by a written document, by telegraph or by telephone message, or by direct word of mouth, is admissible. I believe that such an assertion cannot be supported. The essential importance of the declaration of war and the fact that according to article 1 of Convention III. it must be unmistakable and must state the reason for the resort to arms, would seem to require a written document which is to be handed over to the other party by an envoy. Further, the fact that article 2 of Convention III. expressly enacts that the notification of the outbreak of war to neutrals may even be made by telegraph, points the same way, for the conclusion is justified that the declaration of war stipulated as necessary by article I may not be made by telegraph. And if a telegraph message is inadmissible, much more are telephone messages and communications by word of mouth. Moreover, the practice of the States throughout the last centuries has been to hand in a written declaration of war, when any declaration has been made.

Particular attention must be paid to the fact that, in case of a declaration of war, the war, as between the belligerents, is considered to have commenced with the date of its declaration, although actual hostilities may not have been commenced until a much later date. On the other hand, as regards relations between the belligerents and neutrals, a war is not considered to have commenced until its outbreak has either been notified to the neutrals or has otherwise become unmistakably known to them. For this reason, article 2 of Convention III. enacts that the belligerents must at once after the outbreak of war notify[177] the neutrals, even if only by telegraph, and that the state of war shall not take effect with regard to neutrals until after they have received notification, unless it be established beyond doubt that they were in fact aware of the condition of war.

§ 95. The second form which the unequivocal warning, stipulated by article 1 of Convention III. as necessary before the commencement of hostilities, may take is an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war.

Ultimatum[178] is the technical term for a written communication of one State to another which ends amicable negotiations respecting a difference, and formulates, for the last time and categorically, the demands to be fulfilled if other measures are to be averted. An ultimatum may be simple or qualified. It is simple in case it does not include an indication of the measures contemplated by the Power sending it; such measures may be acts of retorsion or reprisals, or hostilities. It is qualified if it includes an indication of the measures contemplated by the Power sending it, for instance a pacific blockade, occupation of a certain territory, or war. Now the ultimatum stipulated by article 1 of Convention III. must be a qualified one, for it must be so worded that the recipient can have no doubt about the commencement of war in case he does not comply with the demands of the ultimatum. For this reason, if a State has sent a simple ultimatum to another, or a qualified ultimatum threatening a measure other than war, it is not, in case of non-compliance, justified in at once commencing hostilities without a previous declaration of war. For this reason, Italy sent a declaration of war to Turkey in 1911, although an ultimatum threatening the occupation of Tripoli had preceded it.

Nothing is enacted by article 1 of Convention III. concerning the minimum length of time which an ultimatum must grant before the commencement of hostilities; this period may, therefore, be only very short, as, for instance, a number of hours. All the more is it necessary here likewise to emphasise that there could be no greater violation of the Law of Nations than that which would be committed by a State which sent an ultimatum without previously having tried to settle the difference concerned by negotiation.

It must be specially observed that the state of war following an ultimatum must likewise be notified to neutrals, for article 2 of Convention III. applies to this case also. And it must further be observed that, for the same reason as in the case of a declaration of war, an ultimatum containing a conditional declaration of war must be communicated to the other party by a written document.

§ 96. There is no doubt that, in consequence of Convention III. of the Second Peace Conference, the recourse to hostilities without a previous declaration of war or qualified ultimatum is forbidden. But the fact must not be overlooked that a war can nevertheless break out without these preliminaries. Thus a State might deliberately order hostilities to be commenced without a previous declaration of war or qualified ultimatum. Further, the armed forces of two States having a grievance against one another might engage in hostilities without having been authorised thereto and without the respective Governments ordering them to desist from further hostilities. Again, acts of force by way of reprisals or during a pacific blockade or an intervention might be forcibly resisted by the other party, hostilities breaking out in this way.

It is certain that States which deliberately order the commencement of hostilities without a previous declaration of war or qualified ultimatum, commit an international delinquency, but they are nevertheless engaged in war. Further, it is certain that States which allow themselves to be dragged into a condition of war through unauthorised hostile acts of their armed forces, commit an international delinquency, but they are nevertheless engaged in war. Again, war is actually in existence if the other party forcibly resists acts of force undertaken by a State by way of reprisals, or during a pacific blockade or an intervention. Now in all these and similar cases, although war has broken out without a previous declaration or qualified ultimatum, all the laws of warfare must find application, for a war is still war in the eyes of International Law even though it has been illegally commenced, or has automatically arisen from acts of force which were not intended to be acts of war.

However that may be, article 2 of Convention III. also applies to wars which have broken out without a previous declaration or qualified ultimatum, and the belligerents must without delay send a notification to neutral Powers so that these may be compelled to fulfil the duties of neutrality. But, of course, neutral Powers must in this case likewise, even without notification, fulfil the duties of neutrality if they are unmistakably aware of the outbreak of war.

II EFFECTS OF THE OUTBREAK OF WAR

Vattel, III. § 63—Hall, §§ 124-126—Westlake, II. pp. 29-32—Lawrence, §§ 143-146—Manning, pp. 163-165—Phillimore, III. §§ 67-91—Twiss, II. §§ 41-61—Halleck, I. pp. 526-552, and II. pp. 124-140—Taylor, §§ 461-468—Walker, §§ 44-50—Wharton, III. §§ 336-337A—Wheaton, §§ 298-319—Moore, V. § 779, and VII. §§ 1135-1142—Heffter, §§ 121-123—Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 347-363—Gareis, § 81—Liszt, § 39, V.—Ullmann, § 173—Bonfils, Nos. 1044-1065—Despagnet, Nos. 517-519—Pradier-Fodéré, VI. Nos. 2694-2720—Nys, III. pp. 134-150—Rivier, II. pp. 228-237—Calvo, IV. §§ 1911-1931—Fiore, III. Nos. 1290-1301, and Code, Nos. 1439-1445—Martens, II. § 109—Longuet, §§ 8-15—Mérignhac, pp. 72-84—Pillet, pp. 42-59—Bordwell, pp. 200-211—Spaight, pp. 25-33—Ariga, §§ 13-15—Takahashi, pp. 26-88—Lawrence, War, pp. 45-55—Sainte-Croix, La Déclaration de guerre et ses effets immédiats (1892), pp. 166-207—Meyer, De l'interdiction du commerce entre les belligérants (1902)—Jaconnet, La guerre et les traités (1909)—Politis in Annuaire XXIII. (1910), pp. 251-282, and XXIV. (1911), pp. 200-223.