Lawful and military establishments on the enemy coast; cutting off intercourse with the enemy coast; prevention of carriage of contraband and analogous of contraband to the enemy; all kinds of support to military operations on land, such as protection of a landing of troops on the enemy coast; and, lastly, defence of the home coast and protection to the home merchant fleet. The means through which belligerents in sea warfare endeavour to realise these aims are: attack on and seizure of enemy vessels, violence against enemy individuals, appropriation and destruction of enemy vessels and their goods, requisitions and contributions, bombardment of the enemy coast, cutting of submarine cables, blockade, espionage, treason, ruses, capture of neutral vessels carrying contraband and analogous of contraband. § 174. As regards means of sea warfare, just as Unlawful regards means of land warfare, it must be emphasised Practices that not every practice capable of injuring the enemy Warfare. in offence and defence is lawful. Although no of Sea regulations regarding the laws of war on sea have as yet been enacted by a general law-making treaty as a pendant to the Hague Regulations, there are customary rules of International Law in existence that regulate this matter. These rules are in many points identical with, but in many respects differ from, the rules in force regarding warfare on land. Accordingly, the means of sea warfare must be discussed singly in the following 1 Article 1 of the U.S. Naval War Code enumerates the following as aims of sea warfare :— The capture or destruction of the military and naval forces of the enemy, of his fortifications, arsenals, dry docks, and dock. yards, of his various military and naval establishments, and of his maritime commerce; to prevent his procuring war material from neutral sources; to aid and assist military operations on land; to protect and defend the national territory, property, and sea-borne commerce. 2 A point not regulated is the use of floating mines; see below, § 182. sections. But blockade and capture of vessels carrying contraband and analogous of contraband, although they are means of warfare against an enemy, are of such importance as regards neutral trade that they will be discussed below in Part III. §§ 368-413. the Means § 175. Whereas the objects against which means Objects of of land warfare may be directed are innumerable, of Sea the circle of the objects against which means of Warfare. sea warfare are directed is very narrow, comprising six objects only. The chief object is enemy vessels, whether public or private. The next is enemy individuals, with distinction between those taking part in fighting and others. The third is enemy goods on enemy vessels. The fourth is the enemy coast. The fifth and sixth are neutral vessels attempting to break blockade and carrying contraband and analogous of contraband. ment of Law § 176. It is evident that in those times when a Developbelligerent could destroy all public and private enemy Interproperty he could get hold of, no special rule existed national regarding private enemy ships and private enemy regarding property carried by them on the sea. But the Private Property practice of sea warfare went frequently beyond the on Sea. limits of even so wide a right, treating neutral goods on enemy ships like enemy goods and treating neutral ships carrying enemy goods like enemy ships. It was not before the time of the Consolato del Mare in the fourteenth century that a set of clear and definite rules with regard to enemy private vessels and enemy private property on sea in contradistinction to neutral ships and neutral goods was adopted. According to this famous collection of maritime usages observed by the communities of the Mediterranean, there is no doubt that a belligerent can seize and appropriate all enemy private ships and goods. But a distinction is made in case of either ship or goods being neutral. Although an enemy ship can always be appropriated, neutral goods thereon have to be restored to the neutral owners. On the other hand, enemy goods on neutral ships may be appropriated, but such neutral ships must be restored to their owners. However, these rules of the Consolato del Mare were not at all generally recognised, although they were adopted by several treaties between single States during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Neither the communities belonging to the Hanseatic League, nor the Netherlands and Spain during the War of Independence, nor England and Spain during their wars in the sixteenth century, adopted these rules. And France expressly enacted by Ordinances of 1543 (article 42) and 1583 (article 69) that neutral goods on enemy ships as well as neutral ships carrying enemy goods should be appropriated.' Although France adopted in 1650 the rules of the Consolato del Mare, Louis XIV. dropped them again by the Ordinance of 1681 and re-enacted that neutral goods on enemy ships and neutral ships carrying enemy goods should be appropriated. Spain enacted the same rules in 1718. The Netherlands, in contradistinction to the Consolato del Mare, endeavoured by a number of treaties to foster the principle that the flag covers the goods, so that enemy goods on neutral vessels were exempt from, whereas neutral goods on enemy vessels were submitted to, appropriation. On the other hand, throughout the eighteenth and during the nineteenth century down to the beginning of the Crimean War in 1854, England adhered to the rules of the Consolato del Mare. Thus, no general rules of International 1 Robe d'ennemy confisque celle d'amy. Confiscantur ex navibus res, ex rebus naves. Law regarding private property on sea were in existence.1 Matters were made worse by privateering, which was generally recognised as lawful, and by the fact that belligerents frequently declared a coast blockaded without having a sufficient number of men-of-war on the spot to make the blockade effective. It was not before the Declaration of Paris in 1856 that general rules of International Law regarding private property on sea came into existence. tion of Paris. § 177. Things began to undergo a change with the Declaraoutbreak of the Crimean War in 1854, when all the belligerents proclaimed that they would not issue. Letters of Marque, and when, further, Great Britain declared that she would not seize enemy goods on neutral vessels, and when, thirdly, France declared that she would not appropriate neutral goods on enemy vessels. Although this alteration of attitude on the part of the belligerents was originally intended for the Crimean War only and exceptionally, it led after the conclusion of peace in 1856 to the famous and epoch-making Declaration of Paris,2 which enacted the four rules-(1) that privateering is abolished, (2) that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war, (3) that neutral goods, contraband of war excepted, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag, (4) that blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, which means maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. Since, with the exception of a few States such as Spain, the United States of America, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Uruguay, all members of the Family of Nations are now parties to 1 Boeck, Nos. 3-103, and Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 572578, give excellent summaries of the facts. 2 See Martens, N.R.G., XV. p. 767, and above, vol. I. § 559. See also Gibson Bowles, The Declaration of Paris of 1856 (1900). The Principle of Appropriation of Private Enemy Vessels and Enemy Goods thereon. the Declaration of Paris, it may well be maintained that the quoted rules are general International Law, the more so as the non-signatory Powers have hitherto in practice always acted in accordance with those rules.1 § 178. But the Declaration of Paris has not touched upon the old rule that private enemy vessels and private enemy goods thereon may be seized and appropriated, and this rule is, therefore, as valid as ever heretofore. On the other hand, there is a daily increasing agitation for the abrogation of this rule. Already in 1785 Prussia and the United States of America stipulated by article 23 of their Treaty of Friendship 2 that in case of war between the parties each other's merchantmen shall not be seized and appropriated. Again, in 1871 the United States and Italy, by article 12 of their Treaty of Commerce,3 stipulated that in case of war between the parties each other's merchantmen, with the exception of those carrying contraband of war or attempting to break a blockade, shall not be seized and appropriated. Already in 1823 the United States made the proposal to Great Britain, France, and Russia for a treaty abrogating the rule that enemy merchantmen and enemy goods thereon can be appropriated; but Russia alone accepted the proposal under the condition that all other naval Powers should consent. Again, in 1856, on the occasion of the Declaration of Paris, the That there is an agitation for the abolition of the Declaration of Paris has been mentioned above on p. 93, note 2. 2 Martens, R., IV. p. 37. Perels (p. 198) maintains that this article has not been adopted by the Treaty of Commerce between Prussia and the United States of May 1, 1828; but this statement is incorrect, for article 12 of this treaty-see Martens, N.R., VII. p. 615-adopts it expressly. 3 See Martens, N.R.G., 2nd ser. I. p. 57. 4 See Wharton, III. § 342, pp. 260-261. See Wharton, III. § 342, pp 270-287. |