declaration of blockade to the authorities of the blockaded ports or coast and the foreign consuls there. It is, further, usual for the blockading Government to notify the fact diplomatically to all neutral maritime States. And some States, as France and Italy, order their blockading men-of-war to board every approaching neutral vessel and notify her of the establishment of the blockade. But Great Britain, the United States of America, and Japan do not consider notification essential for the institution of a blockade. They hold the simple fact alone that the approach is blocked, and the egress and ingress of neutral vessels are actually prevented, to be sufficient to make the existence of a blockade known, and, when no diplomatic notification has taken place, they do not seize a vessel for breach of blockade whose master had no actual notice of the existence of the blockade. English,1 American,2 and Japanese 3 practice, accordingly, makes a distinction between a so-called de facto blockade on the one hand, and, on the other, a notified blockade. Vessels. § 377. As regards ingress, a blockade becomes Space of valid from the moment it is established; even vessels Time for Egress of in ballast have no right of ingress. But as regards Neutral egress, it is usual for the blockading commander to grant a certain space of time within which neutral vessels may leave the blockaded ports unhindered. No rule exists respecting the extent of such space of time, but fifteen days are usually granted.4 § 378. Apart from the conclusion of peace, a End of blockade can come to an end in three different ways. 1 The Vrouw Judith, 1 Rob. 150. 2 See U.S. Naval War Code, articles 39-40. 3 See Japanese Prize Law, article 30. 4 According to U.S. Naval War Code, article 43, thirty days are allowed "unless otherwise specially ordered." Blockade. It may, first, be raised by the blockading State for any reason it likes, and in this case it is usual to notify the end of blockade to all neutral maritime States. A blockade may, secondly, come to an end through an enemy force driving off the blockading squadron or fleet. In such case the blockade ends ipso facto by the blockading squadron being driven away, whatever their intention to return may be. Should the squadron return and resume the blockade, it must be considered as new, and not simply the continuation of the former blockade. The third ground for the ending of a blockade is its failure for any reason to be effective, a point which will be treated below in § 382. Effective in Contradistinc III EFFECTIVENESS OF BLOCKADE See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 368. § 379. The necessity of effectiveness in a blockade by means of the presence of a blockading squadron of sufficient strength to prevent egress and ingress of Blockade. vessels became gradually recognised during the first tion to Fictitious half of the nineteenth century, and it became formally enacted as a principle of the Law of Nations through the Declaration of Paris in 1856. Effective blockade is the contrast to so-called fictitious or paper blockade, which was frequently practised during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Fictitious blockade consists in the declaration and notification that a port or a coast is blockaded without, however, posting a sufficient 1 See Fauchille, Blocus, pp. 74-109. number of men-of-war on the spot to be really able to prevent egress and ingress of every vessel. It was one of the principles of the First and the Second Armed Neutrality that a blockade should always be effective, but it was not till after the Napoleonic wars that this principle gradually found general recognition. Nowadays such States as have not acceded to the Declaration of Paris nevertheless do not dissent regarding the necessity of effectiveness of blockade. 66 of Effectiveness of § 380. The condition of effectiveness of blockade, Condition as defined by the Declaration of Paris, is its maintenance by such a force as is sufficient really to Blockade. prevent access to the coast.' But no unanimity exists respecting the requirements of an effective blockade according to this definition. Apart from differences of opinion regarding regarding points of minor interest, it may be stated that in the main there are two conflicting opinions. According to the one opinion the definition of an effective blockade already pronounced by the First Armed Neutrality of 1780 is valid, and a blockade is effective only when the approach to the coast is barred by a chain of men-of-war anchored on the spot and so near to one another that the line cannot be passed without obvious danger to the passing vessel.1 This corresponds to the practice of France. According to the other opinion, a blockade is effective when the approach is watched-to use the words of Dr. Lushington 2" by a force sufficient to render See Hautefeuille, II. p. 194; Gessner, p. 179; Kleen, I. § 129; Boeck, Nos. 676-681; Dupuis, Nos. 173-174; Fauchille, Blocus, pp. 110-142. Phillimore, III. § 293 takes up the same standpoint in so far as a blockade de facto is concerned:-"A blockade de facto should be effected by stationing a number of ships, and forming as it 2 In his judgment in the case the egress and ingress dangerous, or, in other words, save under peculiar circumstances, as fogs, violent winds, and some necessary absences, sufficient to render the capture of vessels attempting to go in or come out most probable." According to this opinion there need be no chain of anchored men-ofwar to expose any vessels attempting to break the blockade to a cross fire, but a real danger of capture suffices, whether the danger is caused by cruising or anchored men-of-war. This is the standpoint of theory and practice of Great Britain and the United States, and it seems likewise to be that of Germany and several German writers. The blockade during the American War of the whole coast of the Confederate States of the extent of 2,500 nautical miles by four hundred Federal cruisers could, of course, only be maintained by cruising vessels; and the fact that all neutral maritime States recognised it as effective shows that the opinion of dissenting writers has more theoretical than practical importance. 2 The real danger to passing vessels being the characteristic of effectiveness of blockade, it must be recognised that in certain cases and in the absence of a sufficient number of men-of-war a blockade may be made effective through planting land batteries within range of any vessel attempting to pass. But a stone blockade, so called because vessels laden with stones are sunk in the channel to block the approachsee above, § 368, note 1-is not an effective blockade. And it must, lastly, be mentioned that the distance of the blockading men-of-war from the blockaded 1 See Perels, § 49; Bluntschli, $829; Liszt, § 41, IV. 2 The Nancy, I Acton, 63; the Circassian, 2 Wallace, 135; the Olinde Rodrigues, 174, United States, 510. See also Bluntschli, port or coast is immaterial, as long as the circumstances and conditions of the special case justify such distance. Thus during the Crimean War the port of Riga was blockaded by a man-of-war stationed at a distance of 120 miles from the town in the Lyser Ort, a channel three miles wide forming the only approach to the gulf.1 of Danger § 381. It is impossible to state exactly what Amount amount of danger to a vessel attempting to pass is which necessary to prove an effective blockade. It is recog- Effective creates nised that a blockade does not cease to be effective ness. in case now and then a vessel succeeds in passing the line unhindered, provided there was so much danger as to make her capture probable. Dr. Lushington strikingly dealt with the matter in the following words: 2" The maintenance of a blockade must always be a question of degree-of the degree of danger attending ships going into or leaving a port. Nothing is further from my intention, nor indeed more opposed to my notions, than any relaxation of the rule that a blockade must be sufficiently maintained; but it is perfectly obvious that no force could bar the entrance to absolute certainty; that vessels may get in and get out during the night, or fogs, or violent winds, or occasional absence; that it is most difficult to judge from numbers alone. Hence, I believe that in every case the inquiry has been, whether the force was competent and present, and, if so, the performance of the duty was presumed; and I think I may safely assert that in no case was a blockade held to be void, when the blockading force was on the spot or near thereto, on the ground of 1 The Franciska, Spinks, 287. See Hall, § 260, and Holland, Studies, pp. 166-167. 2 In his judgment in the case of the Franciska, Spinks, 287. |