guerre" adopted by the Institute of International Law (Annuaire, XV. [1896] p. 230): § I. Sont articles de contrebande de guerre: (1) les armes de toute nature; (2) les munitions de guerre et les explosifs; (3) le matériel militaire (objets d'équipement, affûts, uniformes, etc.); (4) les vaisseaux équipés pour la guerre; (5) les instruments spécialement faits pour la fabrication immédiate des munitions de guerre; lorsque ces divers objets sont transportés par mer pour le compte ou à la destination d'un belligérant. La destination pour l'ennemi est présumée lorsque le transport va à l'un de ses ports, ou bien à un port neutre qui, d'après des preuves évidentes et de fait incontestable, n'est qu'une étape pour l'ennemi, comme but final de la même opération commerciale. § 2. Sous la dénomination de munitions de guerre doivent être compris les objets qui, pour servir immédiatement à la guerre, n'exigent qu'une simple réunion ou juxtaposition. $3. Un objet ne saurait être qualifié de contrebande à raison de la seule intention de l'employer à aider ou favoriser un ennemi, ni par cela seul qu'il pourrait être, dans un but militaire, utile à un ennemi ou utilisé par lui, ou qu'il est destiné à son usage. $4. Sont et demeurent abolies les prétendues contrebandes désignées sous les noms soit de contrebande relative, concernant des articles (usus ancipitis) susceptibles d'être utilisés par un belligérant dans un but militaire, mais dont l'usage est essentiellement pacifique, soit de contrebande accidentelle, quand lesdits articles ne servent spécialement aux buts militaires que dans une circonstance parti. culière. § 5. Néanmoins le belligérant a, à son choix et à charge d'une équitable indemnité, le droit de séquestre ou de préemption quant aux objets qui, en chemin vers un port de son adversaire, peuvent également servir à l'usage de la guerre et à des usages pacifiques. § 9. En cas de saisies ou répressions non justifiées pour cause de contrebande ou de transport, l'Etat du capteur sera tenu aux dommages-intérêts et à la restitution des objets. 10. Un transport parti avant la déclaration de la guerre et sans connaissance obligée de son imminence n'est pas punissable. Carriage of certain Enemy Persons and Despatches analogous of Contraband. CHAPTER V ANALOGOUS OF CONTRABAND I CARRIAGE OF PERSONS AND DESPATCHES FOR THE ENEMY Hall, §§ 248-253-Lawrence, §§ 282-284-Phillimore, III. §§ 271-274 -Halleck, II. pp. 289-301-Taylor, $$ 667-673-Walker, § 72Wharton, III. § 374-Wheaton, §§ 502-504 and Dana's note No. 228 -Bluntschli, §§ 815-818-Heffter, § 161A-Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 731-738-Ullmann, § 165-Bonfils, Nos. 1584-1588— Despagnet, No. 691-Rivier, II. pp. 388-391-Calvo, V. §§ 2796– 2820-Fiore, III. Nos. 1602-1605-Martens, II. § 136-Kleen, I. §§ 103-106-Boeck, Nos. 660-669-Pillet, p. 330-Gessner, pp. 99-111-Perels, § 47-Testa, p. 212-Dupuis, Nos. 231-238Holland, Prize Law, §§ 88-105-U.S. Naval War Code, articles 16 and 20--Hautefeuille, II. pp. 173-188-Ortolan, II. pp. 209-213Mountague Bernard, "Neutrality of Great Britain during the American Civil War" (1870), pp. 187-205—Marquardsen, “Der Trent-Fall" (1862), pp. 58-71-Hirsch, "Kriegskrontrebande und verbotene Transporte in Kriegszeiten" (1897), pp. 42-55-Takahashi, "International Law during the Chino-Japanese War" (1899), pp. 52-72-Vetzel, "De la contrebande par analogie en droit maritime internationale " (1901). See also the monographs quoted above at the commencement of § 391. § 407. Carriage of certain persons and despatches for the enemy is often confounded with carriage of contraband. Since, however, contraband consists of certain goods only, and never of persons or despatches, a vessel carrying persons and despatches for the enemy ought not to be considered carrying contraband. And there is another important difference between the two. Carriage of contraband need not necessarily, and in most cases actually does not, take place in the direct service of the enemy. On the other hand, carriage of persons and despatches for the enemy always takes place in the direct service of the enemy, and, consequently, represents a much more intensive assistance of, and a much more intimate connection with, the enemy than carriage of contraband. Taking this into consideration, some writers 1 entirely severed the treatment of contraband and of carriage of persons and despatches for the enemy, and they treat of the maritime transport of persons and despatches for the enemy under the head of "un-neutral services." But although this distinct treatment is certainly desirable, the term "un-neutral services" is misleading. Moreover, it is a fact that in practice maritime transport for the enemy is treated in analogy with, although not as, carriage of contraband. The term "analogous of contraband" had therefore better be made use of.2 of Persons § 408. Either belligerent can punish neutral vessels Carriage for carrying certain persons to and from the enemy for the territory. Such persons are, firstly and chiefly, Enemy. members of the armed forces who are either brought to the region of war, where they are intended to take part in the fighting, or are carried away from the region of war for any purpose.3 Such persons are, secondly, individuals who are not yet, but will become members of the armed forces as soon as they have reached the place of their destination. Such persons 1 See, for instance, Lawrence, § 282, and Taylor, § 667. 2 Although-see above, §§ 173174-prevention of carriage of analogous of contraband is a means of sea-warfare, it chiefly concerns neutral commerce, and is, therefore, more conveniently treated together with neutrality. 3 But according to article 6 of the Hague "Convention for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention," neutral merchantmen cannot be captured for taking on board sick, wounded, or shipwrecked marines of the enemy. See above, § 208. are, thirdly and lastly, non-military individuals in the service of the enemy either of such a prominent position that they can be made prisoners of war, or going abroad as agents for the purpose of fostering the cause of the enemy by buying arms and ammunition, by endeavouring to procure the intervention of a third Power, or by other means. Thus, for instance, if the head of a belligerent State or one of his Cabinet Ministers flees the country to avoid captivity, the neutral vessel that carries him off may be punished, as may also the vessel carrying an agent of the enemy sent abroad to negotiate a loan, and the like. However, the mere fact that enemy persons are on board of a neutral vessel does not in itself prove that these persons are carried by the vessel for the enemy and in his service. This is the case only if either the vessel knows of the character of the persons and nevertheless carries them, thereby acting in the service of the enemy, or if the vessel is directly hired by the enemy for the purpose of transport of the individuals concerned. Thus, for instance, if passage on a neutral able-bodied men book their vessel to an enemy port with the secret intention of enlisting in the forces of the enemy, the vessel cannot be considered carrying persons for the enemy; but she can be so considered if an agent of the enemy openly books their passage. Thus, further, if the fugitive head of the enemy State books his passage under a false name, and conceals his identity from the vessel, she cannot be considered carrying a person for the enemy; but she can be so considered if she knows whom she is carrying, because she knows then that she is acting in the service of the enemy. As regards a vessel directly hired by the enemy, there can be no doubt that she is acting in the service of the enemy. Thus the American vessel" Orozembo" 1 was in 1807, during war between England and the Netherlands, captured and condemned, because, although chartered by a merchant in Lisbon ostensibly to sail in ballast to Macao and to take from there a cargo to America, she received by order of the charterer three Dutch officers and two Dutch civil servants, and sailed, not to Macao, but to Batavia. And the American vessel " 'Friendship was likewise in 1807, during war between England and France, captured and condemned, because she was hired by the French Government to carry ninety shipwrecked officers and sailors home to a French port. "2 According to British practice a neutral vessel is considered as carrying persons in the service of the enemy even if she was, through the application of force, constrained by the enemy to carry the persons or if she was in bond-fide ignorance of her passengers. Thus, in 1802, during war between Great Britain and France, the Swedish vessel "Carolina "3 was condemned by Sir William Scott for having carried French troops from Egypt to Italy, although the master endeavoured to prove that the vessel was obliged by force to render the transport service. And the above-mentioned vessel "Orozembo" condemned by Sir William Scott, although her master was ignorant of the service for the enemy on which he was engaged: “. . . In cases of bonâ-fide ignorance there may be no actual delinquency; but if the service is injurious, that will be sufficient to give the belligerent a right to prevent the thing from VOL. II. 16 Rob. 430. 66 was |