living on its territory whose home State has injured it through a denial of justice to one of its subjects living abroad. But it would in such case be justified in ordering its own Courts to deny justice to all subjects of such foreign State, or in ordering its fleet to seize several vessels sailing under the latter State's flag, or in suspending its commercial treaty with such State. Embargo. § 40. A kind of reprisals, which is called Embargo, must be specially mentioned. This term of Spanish origin means detention, but in International Law it has the technical meaning of detention of ships in port. Now, as by way of reprisals all kinds of otherwise illegal acts may be performed, there is no doubt that ships of the delinquent State may be prevented from leaving the ports of the injured State for the purpose of compelling the delinquent State to make reparation for the wrong done.1 The matter need not be specially mentioned at all were it not for the fact that embargo by way of reprisals is to be distinguished from detention of ships for other reasons. According to a now obsolete rule of International Law, the conflicting States could, when war was breaking out or impending, lay an embargo on each other's vessels. Another kind of embargo is the so-called arrêt de prince-that is, a detention of foreign ships for the purpose of preventing them from spreading news of political importance. And there is, thirdly, an embargo arising out of the so-called jus angariathat is, the right of a belligerent State to seize and make use of neutral property in case of necessity, under the obligation to compensate the 1 Thus in 1840-see above, §34-Great Britain laid an embargo on Sicilian ships. neutral owner of such property. States have in the past made use of this kind of embargo when they had not enough ships for the necessary transport of troops, ammunition, and the like. All these kinds of international embargo must not be confounded with the so-called civil embargo of English Municipal Law 2—namely, the order of the Sovereign to English ships not to leave English ports. to be pre tions and is made. § 41. Like all the other compulsive means of Reprisals settling international differences, reprisals are admis- ceded by sible only after negotiations have been conducted in Negotiavain for the purpose of obtaining reparation from the to be delinquent State. In former times, when States used stopped when Reto authorise private individuals to perform special paration reprisals, treaties of commerce and peace frequently stipulated for a certain period of time, for instance three or four months, to elapse after an application for redress before the grant of Letters of Marque by the injured State.3 Although with the disappearance of special reprisals this is now antiquated, a reasonable time for the performance of a reparation must even nowadays be given. On the other hand, reprisals must at once cease when the delinquent State makes the necessary reparation. Individuals arrested must be set free, goods and ships seized must be handed back, occupied territory must be evacuated, suspended treaties must again be put into force, and the like. during tinction §42. Reprisals in time of peace must not be con- Reprisals founded with reprisals between belligerents. Whereas Peace in the former are resorted to for the purpose of settling contradis a conflict without going to war, the latter are to Repri sals during retaliations to force an enemy guilty of a certain act War. of illegitimate warfare to comply with the laws of war. 1 See below, § 364. 2 See Phillimore, III. § 26. 3 See Phillimore, III. § 14. 4 See below, § 247. Value of § 43. The value of reprisals as a means of settling Reprisals. international differences is analogous to the value of retorsion. States will have recourse to reprisals for such international delinquencies as they think insufficiently important for a declaration of war, but too important to be entirely overlooked. That reprisals are rather a rough means for the settlement of differences, and that the institution of reprisals may give and has in the past given occasion to abuse in case of a difference between a powerful and a weak State, cannot be denied. On the other hand, as there is no Court and no central authority above the Sovereign States which could compel a delinquent State to give reparation, the institution of reprisals can scarcely be abolished. The influence in the future of the existence of a permanent Court of Arbitration remains to be seen. If all the States would become parties to the Hague Convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences, and if they would have recourse to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in all cases of an alleged international delinquency which affects neither their national honour nor their independence, acts of reprisals would almost disappear. IV PACIFIC BLOCKADE Hall, § 121-Lawrence, § 159-Taylor, § 444-Bluntschli, §§ 506-507— Heffter, § 112-Bulmerincq in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 116–127— Ullmann, § 138-Bonfils, Nos. 986-994-Pradier-Fodéré, V. Nos. 2483–2489, VI. No. 2648—Rivier, II. § 60—Calvo, III. §§ 1832-1859 -Fiore, II. No. 1231-Martens, II. 105-Holland, Studies, pp. 151167-Deane, "The Law of Blockade " (1870) pp. 45-48-Fauchille, "Du blocus maritime" (1882) pp. 37-67-Falcke, "Die Hauptperioden der sogenannten Friedensblockade" (1891)—Barès, “Le blocus pacifique" (1898)--Ducrocq, "Représailles en temps de paix" (1901) pp. 58-174. Blockade. § 44. Before the nineteenth century blockade was Developonly known as a measure between belligerents in ment of practice time of war. It was not before the second quarter of Pacific of the nineteenth century that the first case occurred of a so-called pacific blockade--that is, a blockade during time of peace-as a compulsive means of settling international differences; and all such cases are either cases of intervention or of reprisals.' The first case, one of intervention, happened in 1827, when, during the Greek insurrection, Great Britain, France, and Russia intervened in the interest of the independence of Greece and blockaded those parts of the Greek coast which were occupied by Turkish troops. Although this blockade led to the battle of Navarino, in which the Turkish fleet was destroyed, the Powers maintained, nevertheless, that they were not at war A blockade instituted by a State against such portions of its own territory as are in revolt is not a blockade for the purpose of settling international differences. It has, therefore, in itself nothing to do with the Law of Nations, but is a matter of internal police. I cannot, therefore, agree with Professor Holland, who, in his Studies in International Law, p. 138, treats it as a pacific blockade with Turkey. In 1831, France blockaded the Tagus as an act of reprisals for the purpose of exacting redress from Portugal for injuries sustained by French subjects. Great Britain and France, exercising intervention for the purpose of making Holland consent to the independence of revolting Belgium, blockaded in 1833 the coast of Holland. In 1838, France blockaded the ports of Mexico as an act of reprisals, but Mexico declared war against France in answer to this pacific blockade. Likewise as an act of reprisals, and in the same year, France blockaded the ports of Argentina; and in 1845, conjointly with Great Britain, France blockaded the ports of Argentina a second time. In 1850, in the course of her differences with Greece on account of the case of Don Pacifico,1 Great Britain blockaded the Greek ports, but for Greek vessels only. A case of intervention again is the pacific blockade instituted in 1860 by Sardinia, in aid of an insurrection against the then Sicilian ports of Messina and Gaeta, but the following year saw the conversion of the pacific blockade into a war blockade. In 1862 Great Britain, by way of reprisals for the plundering of a wrecked British merchantman, blockaded the Brazilian port of Rio de Janeiro. The blockade of the island of Formosa by France during her differences with China in 1884, and that of the port of Menam by France during her differences with Siam in 1893 are likewise cases of reprisals. On the other hand, cases of intervention are the blockade of the Greek coast in 1886 by Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy, and Russia, for the purpose of preventing Greece from making war against Turkey; and further, the blockade of the island of Crete in 1897 by the united 1 See above, § 35. |