Pacific blockade. French subjects. In 1908, Holland seized two Venezuelan gunboats to exact reparation for various grievances, after having unsuccessfully tried diplomatic methods. Another means of bringing pressure to bear on a recalcitrant State is that known as "pacific blockade," whereby the aggrieved Power blockades the latter's coast or ports in time of peace, without the intention of making war. The earliest affair of this kind was the blockade, in 1814, of Norwegian ports by English and Swedish ships. In 1827, Great Britain, France and Russia blockaded the coasts of Greece occupied by Turkish forces. Later, France blockaded the Tagus in 1831; in 1833, France and Great Britain blockaded the ports of Holland; in 1838, France blockaded Mexico; from 1838 to 1848, France and Great Britain blockaded the ports of the Argentine Republic; in 1850, Great Britain blockaded Greek ports; in 1860, the King of Piedmont joined the revolutionary government in Naples in blockading Sicilian ports held by the King of Naples. In 1861, a British ship, the Prince of Wales, was wrecked on the Brazilian coast, and the English consul came to the conclusion that the wreck had been plundered, and some of the sailors murdered. Compensation was demanded by England, and, on its refusal, a British ship of war blockaded Rio de Janeiro for six days, and five Brazilian ships were captured. These were shortly afterwards restored, and the sum of £3,200 paid by Brazil under protest. International relations were suspended between England and Brazil until 1865, when the affair was settled by the mediation of the King of Portugal (1). In 1879, Chile blockaded the coast of Bolivia; in 1880, the "naval demonstration" by the six Great Powers at Dulcigno would have become a pacific blockade if Turkey had delayed giving up that town to Montenegro (m); and, in 1886, the Great Powers, with the exception of France, blockaded parts of the Greek coast (n). In 1897, an endeavour was made by the same Powers, this time including France, to localise the Cretan insurrection and to prevent the landing of Greek troops on that island. Ships from their various navies blockaded it for this purpose, and effectually prevented the landing of reinforcements for Colonel Vassos and the supply of arms or stores to the insurgents. Greece, within a very few days, went to war with Turkey, and had events taken a course different from what actually hap (1) Calvo, vol. ii. § 605. (n) Ante, p. 119; post, p. 772, which see for the conditions of the blockade. pened, it is difficult to see how Powers professedly neutral could have forbidden one belligerent access to the territory of another. The whole incident is an illustration of the difficulties attending pacific blockade; and in a more recent instance, when in December, 1902, the fleets of Great Britain and Germany instituted a pacific blockade of the ports of Venezuela, the sinking of Venezuelan ships by the latter Power was an act of war which would fully have justified Venezuela in having recourse to retaliatory measures which would not have been confined to the German fleet. The legality of thus instituting a blockade in time of peace has been much disputed (o). It will be observed that the practice of the Great European Powers is in its favour; but great irritation, partly due, no doubt, to sensitiveness on the score of the Monroe doctrine, was caused in the United States by the Venezuela blockade. The modern view as to the conditions under which the establishment of a blockade without war is permissible is expressed in the rules adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1887 : (1) Ships under a foreign flag may enter freely notwithstanding the blockade. (2) The pacific blockade must be officially declared and notified, and maintained by a sufficient force. (3) The ships of the blockaded Power which do not respect such a blockade may be sequestered; and when the blockade is at an end they must be restored to their owners with their cargoes, but without indemnity on any ground (p). "There is yet another measure," says Sir R. Phillimore, "par- Right of taking also of a belligerent character, though exercised, strictly angary. speaking, in time of peace, called by the French le droit d'angarie. It is an act of the State by which foreign as well as private domestic vessels which happen to be within the jurisdiction of the State are seized upon and compelled to transport soldiers, ammunition, or other instruments of war; in other words, to become parties against their will to carrying on direct hostilities against a Power with whom they are at peace” (q). During the Franco-German war of 1870, the German troops. seized upon six English vessels in the Seine, and scuttled them in order to block the passage of the river, and so prevent the approach of French gunboats. Prince Bismarck admitted their destruction, (0) Wharton, loc. cit. (p) Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit Int. vol. ix. (1887), p. 300. On the subject of pacific blockade, see Westlake, Pacific Blockade, in his Collected Papers (1914), pp. 572 seq.; A. E. (4) Phillimore, vol. iii. p. 49. Right of making war, in whom vested. Public or solemn war. and offered to pay the value according to equitable estimation. He contended "that the measure in question, however exceptional in its nature, did not overstep the bounds of international warlike usages. A pressing danger was at hand, and every other means of averting it was wanting; the case was therefore one of necessity, which even in time of peace may render the employment or destruction of foreign property admissible, under reservation of indemnification." The German Chancellor then quoted the above passage from Sir R. Phillimore's work (r). The English shipowners were afterwards compensated for their loss. Further, the Hague Regulations on neutrality specifically recognise this right of angary, in allowing a belligerent to utilize, in case of necessity, railway material belonging to neutrals, subject to the payment of compensation (s). Other neutral property is also liable to be used, or even destroyed by a belligerent, if military necessity demand (t). The right of making war, as well as of authorizing reprisals, or other acts of vindictive retaliation, belongs in every civilized nation to the supreme power of the State. The exercise of this right is regulated by the fundamental laws or municipal constitution in each country, and may be delegated to its inferior authorities in remote possessions, or even to a commercial corporationsuch, for example, as the former British East India Companyexercising, under the authority of the State, sovereign rights in respect to foreign nations (u). A contest by force between independent sovereign States is called a public war. If it is declared in form, or duly commenced, it entitles both the belligerent parties to all the rights of war against each other. The voluntary or positive law of nations makes no distinction in this respect between a just and an unjust war. "The justice of war in general or of a certain war in particular, are questions of the gravest importance and of the most vital interest, but they belong to the domain of international ethics or morality rather than to that of international law" (x). A war in form, or duly commenced, is to be considered, as to its effects, as just on both sides. Whatever is permitted, by the laws of war, to one of the belligerent parties, is equally permitted to the other (y). war. A 'perfect' war is where one whole nation is at war with another Perfect or imperfect nation, and all the members of both nations are authorized to commit hostilities against all the members of the other, in every, case and under every circumstance permitted by the general laws of war. An 'imperfect' war is limited as to places, persons, and things (2). The latter may arise, not necessarily through the sanction of law, but through the exigencies of policy or in consequence of a special engagement. Thus-as an instance of limitation with regard to locality-in the Turco-Italian war, 1911, Italy at first declared her intention not to land troops in any part of the Ottoman Empire except Cyrenaica and Tripolitana, and to confine her naval operations to certain specified objects; but eventually departures were made from this declaration (a). A civil war between the different members of the same society is what Grotius calls a 'mixed' war; it is, according to him, public on the side of the established government, and private on the part of the people resisting its authority. But the general usage of nations regards such a war as entitling both the contending parties to all the rights of war as against each other, and even as respects neutral nations (b). It seems to be now settled that it is unnecessary in order to Civil war. constitute a war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States. A war may exist where one of the belligerents claims sovereign rights as against the other (c). Whether the struggle is a war, or is not, is to be determined, not from the relation of the combatants to each other, but from the mode in which it is carried on. Certain tests may be applied to determine whether insurgents are to be considered as possessing the status of belligerency. "Among the tests are the existence of a de facto political organization of the insurgents sufficient in character, population, and resources to constitute it, if left to itself, a State among nations capable of discharging the duties of a State; the actual employment of military forces on each side, acting in accordance with the rules and customs of war . . . ; and, at sea, employment by the insurgents of commissioned (y) Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. iii. ch. 12. Rutherforth, Inst. bk. ii. ch. 9, § 15. (z) Such were the limited hostilities authorized by the United States against France in 1798. Cf. Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. 37. (a) Cf. Sir T. Barclay, The TurcoItalian War (1907), p. 96. (b) Vide ante, pt. i. ch. 2, pp. 39 et seq. (c) The Prize Causes (1862), 2 Black. 666; Rose v. Himely (1808), 4 Cranch, 272. Declaration of war, how cruisers, and the exercise by the parent government of the rights of blockade of insurgent ports against neutral commerce, and of stopping and searching neutral vessels at sea. If all these elements exist, the condition of things is undoubtedly war; and it may be war before they are all ripened into activity" (d). 'As President Grant said in his Message of June 13, 1870: "The question of belligerency is one of fact not to be decided by sympathies for or prejudices against either party. The relations between the parent State and the insurgents must amount, in fact, to war in the sense of international law" (e). During the Civil War, the United States Government treated the Confederates as belligerents in all matters relating to the war. President Lincoln proclaimed (April 19, 1861) a blockade of the Southern ports. Thus their territory was for the time being considered as enemy territory, and the subjects of the rebellious States as alien enemies (f). But this was only a belligerent status. The union was declared to be indissoluble, and the Confederate States, while endeavouring to leave it, never legally ceased to be within it, or their subjects citizens of the Union (g). It was, however, necessary to accord a de facto existence to the Confederate government, in certain matters not strictly rights of war. Thus the Supreme Court held, that where land was sold to the rebel government, and was then captured by the United States, it became the property of the United States, thus recognising the validity of a sale from the owner to the Confederate government (h). Again, contracts payable in Confederate notes were enforced, and the parties compelled to pay at the real, and not the nominal, value of the notes, at the time when payment was due. The notes were treated as a currency imposed upon the community by irresistible force (i). A formal declaration of war to the enemy was once considered far necessary. necessary to legalize hostilities between nations. It was uniformly practised by the ancient Romans, and by the States of modern Europe until about the middle of the seventeenth century. The latest example of this kind was the declaration of war by France against Spain, at Brussels, in 1635, by heralds at arms, according (d) Wheaton (ed. Dana), note 15, p. 34. (e) Moore, Digest, vol. i. p. 194. (g) Texas v. White (1868), 7 Wal- 646. (h) U. S., Lyon et al. v. Huckabee (1872), 16 Wallace, 414. (i) The Confederate Note case, 19 Wallace, 556; Thorington v. Smith (1868), 8 Wallace, 1; Hardner v. Woodruff, 15 Wallace, 448. |