ment of foreign citizens, but in every case of an international delinquency for which the injured State cannot get reparation through negotiation, be it ill-treatment of its subjects abroad through denial or delay of justice or otherwise, or be it non-compliance with treaty obligations, violation of the dignity of a foreign State, violation of foreign territorial supremacy, or any other internationally illegal act. Thus Great Britain, in the case of the Sicilian Sulphur Monopoly, performed acts of reprisals against the Two Sicilies in 1840 for a violation of a treaty. By the treaty of commerce of 1816 between the Two Sicilies and Great Britain certain commercial advantages were secured to Great Britain. When, in 1838, the Neapolitan Government granted a Sulphur Monopoly to a company of French and other foreign. merchants, Great Britain protested against this violation of her treaty rights, demanded the revocation of the monopoly, and, the Neapolitan Government declining to comply with this demand, laid an embargo on Sicilian ships in the harbour of Malta and ordered her fleet in the Mediterranean to seize Sicilian ships by way of reprisals. A number of vessels were captured, but were restored after the Sicilies had, through the mediation of France, agreed to withdraw the grant of the Sulphur Monopoly. admissible Delin only. § 35. Reprisals are admissible for international Reprisals delinquencies only and exclusively. As internationfor Interally injurious acts on the part of administrative and national judicial officials, armed forces, and private individuals quencies are not ipso facto international delinquencies, no reprisals are admissible for such acts in case the responsible State complies with the requirements of its vicarious responsibility.1 Should, however, a 1 See above, Vol. I. §§ 149 and 150. Reprisals State refuse to comply with these requirements, its vicarious responsibility would turn into original responsibility, and thereby an international delinquency would be created for which reprisals are admissible indeed. The reprisals ordered by Great Britain in the case of Don Pacifico are an illustrative example of unjustified reprisals, because no international delinquency was committed. In 1847 a riotous mob, aided by Greek soldiers and gendarmes, broke into and plundered the house of Don Pacifico, a native of Gibraltar and an English subject living at Athens. Great Britain claimed damages from Greece without previous recourse by Don Pacifico to the Greek Courts. Greece refused to comply with the British claim, maintaining correctly that Don Pacifico ought to institute an action for damages against the rioters before the Greek Courts. Great Britain continued to press her claim, and finally in 1850 blockaded the Greek coast and ordered, by way of reprisals, the capture of Greek vessels. The conflict was eventually settled by Greece paying 150l. to Don Pacifico. It is generally recognised that England had no right to act as she did in this case. She could have claimed damages directly from the Greek Government only after the Greek Courts had denied satisfaction to Don Pacifico.1 §36. Acts of reprisals can nowadays be performed by whom only by State organs such as armed forces, or men-of performed. war, or administrative officials, in compliance with a special order of their State. But in former times private individuals used to perform acts of reprisals. Such private acts of reprisals seem to have been in 1 See above, Vol. I. § 167. The in Martens, Causes Célèbres, V. case is reported with all its details pp. 395-531. vogue already in antiquity, for there existed a law in Athens according to which the relatives of an Athenian murdered abroad had, in case the foreign State refused punishment or extradition of the murderer, the right to seize and to bring before the Athenian Courts three citizens of such foreign State (so-called ávdpoλnyía). During the Middle Ages, and even in ἀνδροληψία). modern times to the end of the eighteenth century, States used to grant so-called " Letters of Marque" to such of their subjects as had been injured abroad either by a foreign State itself or its citizens without being able to get redress. These Letters of Marque authorised the bearer to acts of self-help against the State concerned, its citizens and their property, for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction for the wrong sustained. In later times, however, States themselves also performed acts of reprisals. Thereby acts of reprisals on the part of private individuals fell more and more into disuse, and finally disappeared totally with the end of the eighteenth century. The distinction between general and special reprisals, which used to be drawn formerly, is based on the fact that in former times a State could either authorise a single private individual to perform an act of reprisals (special reprisals), or command its armed forces to perform all kinds of such acts (general reprisals). The term "General Reprisals" is by Great Britain nowadays used for the authorisation of the British fleet to seize in time of war all enemy ships and goods. Phillimore (III. § 10) cites the following Order in Council of March 27, 1854: "Her Majesty having determined to afford active assistance to her ally, His Highness the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, for the protection of his dominions against the encroachments and unprovoked Objects of aggression of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, Her Majesty is therefore pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, that general reprisals be granted against the ships, vessels, and goods of the Emperor of All the Russias, and of his subjects, or others inhabiting within any of his countries, territories or dominions, so that Her Majesty's fleets may lawfully seize all ships, vessels, and goods," &c. $37. An act of reprisal can be performed Reprisals. against anything and everything that belongs or is due to the delinquent State or its citizens. Ships sailing under its flag may be seized, treaties concluded with it may be suspended, a part of its territory may be militarily occupied, goods belonging to it or to its citizens may be seized, and the like. Thus in 1901 France ordered a fleet to seize the island of Mitylene as an act of reprisals against Turkey. The persons of the officials and even of the private citizens of the delinquent State are not excluded from the possible objects of reprisals. Thus, when in 1740 the Empress Anne of Russia arrested without just cause the Baron de Stackelberg, a natural-born Russian subject, who had, however, become naturalised in Prussia. by entering the latter's service, Frederick II. of Prussia seized by way of reprisals two Russian subjects and detained them until Stackelberg was liberated. But it must be emphasised that the only act of reprisals admissible with regard to foreign officials or citizens is arrest; they must not be treated like criminals, but like hostages, and it is under no condition or circumstance allowed to execute them or to subject them to punishment of any kind. The rule that anything and everything belonging to the delinquent State may be made the object of reprisals has, however, exceptions; for instance, individuals enjoying the privilege of ex-territoriality while abroad, such as heads of States and diplomatic envoys, cannot be made the object of reprisals, although this has occasionally been done in practice.1 In regard to another exception-namely, public debts of such State as intends performing reprisals-unanimity exists neither in theory nor in practice. When Frederick II. of Prussia in 1752, by way of negative reprisals for an alleged injustice of British Prize Courts against Prussian subjects, refused the payment of the Silesian loan due to English creditors, Great Britain maintained, apart from denying the question that there was at all a just cause for reprisals, that public debts cannot be made the object of reprisals. English jurists and others, as, for instance, Vattel (II. § 344), consent to this, but German writers dissent.2 and § 38. Reprisals may be positive or negative. One Positive speaks of positive reprisals when such acts are per- Negative formed as under ordinary circumstances would Reprisals. involve an international delinquency. On the other hand, negative reprisals consist of refusals to perform such acts as are under ordinary circumstances obligatory; when, for instance, the fulfilment of a treaty obligation or the payment of a debt is refused. must be propor § 39. Reprisals, be they positive or negative, must Reprisals be in some proportion to the wrong done and to the amount of compulsion necessary to get reparation. tionate. For instance, a State would not be justified in arresting by way of reprisals thousands of foreign subjects 1 See the case reported in Martens, Causes Célèbres, I. p. 35. 2 See Phillimore, III. § 22, in contradistinction to Heffter, § 111, note 5. The case is reported with all its details in Martens, Causes |