Blockade to be to cut off supply to enemy forces on shore. In contradistinction to blockade strategic, one speaks of a commercial blockade, when a blockade is declared simply in order to cut off the coast from intercourse with the outside world, although no military operations take place on shore. That blockades commercial are, according to the present rules of International Law, as legitimate as blockades strategic, is generally not denied. But several writers 1 maintain that blockades purely commercial ought to be abolished as not in accordance with the guaranteed freedom of neutral commerce during war. 1 § 370. A blockade is really in being when vessels Universal. of all nations are interdicted and prevented from egress or ingress. Blockade as a means of warfare is admissible only in the form of a universal blockade. If the blockading belligerent were to allow the ingress or egress of vessels of one nation, no blockade would exist.2 On the other hand, provided a blockade is universal, a special licence of ingress or egress may be given to a special vessel and for a particular purpose, and men-of-war of all neutral nations may be allowed to pass to and fro unhindered. Thus, when during the American Civil War the Federal Government blockaded the coast of the Confederate States, neutral men-of-war were not prevented from ingress and egress. But it must be specially observed that a belligerent has a right to prevent neutral men-ofwar from passing through the line of blockade, and it is totally within his discretion whether or not he will admit or exclude such men-of-war. § 371. As a rule a blockade is declared for the 1 See Hall, § 233. Franciska, Spinks, 287. See also 2 The Rolla, 6 Rob. 364; the below, § 382. Outwards purpose of preventing ingress as well as egress. Blockade 1 But sometimes only the egress or only the ingress is and prevented. In such cases one speaks of "Blockade Inwards outwards" and of " Blockade inwards" respectively. Thus the blockade of the mouth of the Danube declared by the Allies in 1854 during the Crimean War was a "blockade inwards," since the only purpose was to prevent supply of the Russian Army from the sea.1 Places can be § 372. It is sometimes asserted 2 that only ports, What or even only fortified ports, can be blockaded, but the practice of the States shows that single ports and Blockportions of an enemy coast as well as the whole of the enemy coast can be blockaded. Thus during the American Civil War the whole of the coast of the Confederate States to the extent of about 2,500 nautical miles was blockaded. And it must be specially observed that such ports of a belligerent as are in the hands of the enemy may be the object of a blockade. Thus during the Franco-German War the French blockaded 3 their own ports of Rouen, Dieppe, and Fécamp, which were occupied by the Germans. aded. of Inter § 373. It is a moot question whether the mouth Blockade of a so-called international river may be the object national of a blockade, in case not all the riparian States Rivers. are belligerents. Thus, when in 1854, during the Crimean War, the allied fleets of Great Britain and France blockaded the mouth of the Danube, Bavaria and Würtemberg, which remained neutral, protested. When in 1870 the French blockaded the whole of the German coast of the North Sea, they exempted 88. The Gerasimo, 11 Moore, P.C. 2 Napoleon I. maintained in his Berlin Decrees: "Le droit de VOL. II. blocus, d'après la raison et l'usage D D Justifica tion of the mouth of the river Ems, because it runs partly through Holland. And when in 1863, during the blockade of the coast of the Confederate States, the Federal cruiser "Vanderbilt" captured the British vessel "Peterhoff" destined for Matamaros, on the Mexican shore of the Rio Grande, the American Courts released the vessel on the ground that trade with Mexico, which was neutral, could not be prohibited. § 374. The question has been raised in what way Blockade. blockade, which vests a belligerent with a certain jurisdiction over neutral vessels and which has detrimental consequences for neutral trade, could be justified. Several writers, following Hautefeuille,3 maintain that the establishment of a blockade by a belligerent stationing a number of men-of-war so as to block the approach to the coast includes conquest of that part of the sea, and that such conquest justifies a belligerent in prohibiting ingress and egress of vessels of all nations. In contradistinction to this artificial construction of a conquest of a part of the sea, some writers try to justify blockade by the necessity of war. I think, however, no special justification of blockade is necessary at all. The fact is that the detrimental consequences of blockade for neutrals stand in the same category as the many other detrimental consequences of war for neutrals. Neither the one nor the other need be specially justified. A blockade interferes indeed with the recognised principle of the freedom of the sea, and, further, with the recognised freedom of neutral commerce. 1 5 Wallace, 49. See Fauchille, 2 The matter is thoroughly 13-36. 3 See Hautefeuille, II. pp. 190– + See Gessner, p. 151; Bluntschli, § 827; Martens, II. § 124. But all three have developed together, and when the freedom of the sea in time of peace and war, and, further, when the freedom of neutral commerce became generally recognised, the exceptional restrictions of blockade became at the same time recognised as legitimate. its II ESTABLISHMENT OF BLOCKADE See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 368. tence to § 375. A declaration of blockade being "a high1 Compeact of sovereignty" and having far-reaching conse- establish quences upon neutral trade, it is generally recognised Blockade. not to be in the discretion of a commander to establish blockade without the authority of his Government. Such authority may be granted purposely for a particular blockade, the Government ordering the commander of a squadron to blockade a certain port or coast. Or a Government may expressly delegate power to blockade to a commander for use at his discretion. And if operations of war take place at great distance from the seat of Government and a commander finds it necessary to establish a blockade, the latter may become valid through his Government giving its immediate consent after being informed of the act of the commander. And, further, the powers vested in the hands of the supreme commander of a fleet are supposed to include the authority to establish a blockade in case he finds it necessary, provided that his Government acquiesces as soon as it is informed of the establishment of the blockade.3 The Henrik and Maria, 1 Rob. 146. 2 The Rolla, 6 Rob. 364. 3 As regards the whole matter, see Fauchille, Blocus, pp. 68-73. Notifica tion of Blockade. § 376. A blockade is not in being ipso facto by the outbreak of war. And even the actual blocking of the approach to an enemy coast by belligerent men-of-war need not by itself mean that the ingress and egress of neutral vessels are to be prohibited, since it may take place for the purpose of preventing the egress and ingress of enemy vessels only. Continental writers consider, therefore, notification essential for the establishment of a blockade. English, American, and Japanese writers, however, do not hold notification essential, although they consider knowledge of the existing blockade on the part of a neutral vessel to be necessary for her condemnation for breach of blockade.1 But although they hold notification essential for the establishment of blockade, Continental writers differ with regard to the kind of notification that is necessary. Some writers 2 maintain that three dif ferent notifications must take place-namely, first, a local notification to the authorities of the blockaded ports or coast; secondly, a diplomatic or general notification to all maritime neutral States by the blockading belligerent; and, thirdly, a special notification to every approaching neutral vessel. Other writers 3 consider only diplomatic and special notification essential. Again others maintain that special notification to every approaching neutral vessel is alone required, although they recommend diplomatic notification as a matter of courtesy. As regards the practice of States, it is usual for the commander establishing a blockade to send a 1 See below, § 384. 2 See, for instance, Kleen, I. $131. See, for instance, Bluntschli, $$ 831-832; Martens, II. § 124, Gessner, p. 181. See, for instance, Hautefeuille, II. pp. 224 and 226; Calvo, V. § 2846; Fauchille, pp. 219-221. |