Powers. The last case occurred in 1902, when Great Britain, Germany, and Italy blockaded, by way of reprisals, the coast of Venezuela.1 bility of § 45. No unanimity exists between international Admissilawyers with regard to the question whether or not Pacific pacific blockades are admissible according to the Blockade. principles of the Law of Nations. There is no doubt that the theory of the Law of Nations forbids the condemnation and confiscation of vessels other than those of the blockaded State which are caught in an attempt to break a pacific blockade. For even those writers who maintain the admissibility of pacific blockade assert that such vessels cannot be confiscated. What is controverted is the question whether according to International Law the coast of a State can be blockaded at all in time of peace. From the first recorded instance to the last, several writers 2 of authority have negatived the question. On the other hand, many writers have answered the question in the affirmative, differing among themselves regarding the one point only whether or not vessels sailing under the flag of third States could be prevented from entering or leaving pacifically blockaded ports. The Institute of International Law in 1887 carefully studied, and at its meeting in Heidelberg discussed, the question, and finally voted a declaration in favour of the admissibility of pacific blockades. Thus the most influential body of theorists has approved of what had been 1 This blockade, although osten. sibly a war blockade for the purpose of preventing the ingress of foreign vessels, was nevertheless essentially a pacific blockade. See Holland, in the Law Quarterly Review, XIX. (1903), p. 133; Parliamentary Papers, Venezuela, No. 1 (Venezuela), Correspondence 2 The leader of these writers is 3 See Annuaire, IX. (1887), pp. 275-301. Pacific established before by practice. There ought to be no doubt that the numerous cases of pacific blockade which have occurred during the nineteenth century have, through tacit consent of the members of the Family of Nations, established the admissibility of pacific blockades for the settlement of political as well as of legal international differences. § 46. It has already been stated that those writers Blockade who admit the legality of pacific blockades are vessels of unanimous regarding the fact that no right exists and third States. for the blockading State to condemn and confiscate such ships of third States as try to break a pacific blockade. Apart from this, no unanimity exists with regard to the question of the relation between a pacific blockade and ships of third States. Some German writers 1 maintain that such ships have to respect the blockade, and that the blockading State has a right to stop such ships of third States as try to break a pacific blockade. The vast majority of writers, however, deny such right. There is, in fact, no rule of International Law which could establish such a right, as pacific in contradistinction to belligerent blockade is a mere matter between the conflicting parties. The declaration of the Institute of International Law in favour of pacific blockade contains, therefore, the condition: "Les navires de pavillons neutres peuvent entrer librement malgré le blocus." The practice of pacific blockade has varied with regard to ships of third States. Before 1850 ships of third States were expected to respect pacific blockades, and such ships of these States as tried to break it were seized, but were restored at the termination of the blockade, yet without any com 1 See Heffter, § 112; Perels, § 30. pensation. When in 1850 Great Britain, and likewise when in 1886 Great Britain, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Russia blockaded the Greek ports, these ports were only closed for Greek ships, and others were allowed to pass through. And the same was the case during the blockade of Crete in 1897. On the other hand, in 1894 France, during a conflict with China, blockaded the island of Formosa and tried to enforce the blockade against ships of third States. But Great Britain declared that a pacific blockade could not be enforced against ships of third States, whereupon France had to drop her intended establishment of a pacific blockade and had to consider herself at war with China. And when in 1902 Great Britain, Germany, and Italy instituted a blockade against Venezuela, they declared it a war blockade 1 because they intended to enforce it against vessels of third States. Blockade the block § 47. Theory and practice seem nowadays to Pacific agree upon the rule that the ships of a pacifically Bo blockaded State trying to break the blockade may be vessels of seized and sequestrated. But they cannot be con- aded demned and confiscated, as they have to be restored State. at the termination of the blockade. Thus, although the Powers which had instituted a blockade against Venezuela in 1902 declared it a war blockade, all Venezuelan public and private ships seized were restored after the blockade was raised. of Pacific § 48. Pacific blockade is a measure of such enor- Manner mous consequences that it can be justified only after Blockade. the failure of preceding negotiations for the purpose of settling the questions in dispute. And further, as blockade, being a violation of the territorial supremacy That this blockade was essentially a pacific blockade I have already stated above, p. 45, note 1. Value of Pacific Blockade. of the blockaded State, is prima facie of a hostile character, it is necessary for such State as intends in time of peace to blockade another to notify its intention to the latter and to fix the day and hour for the establishment of the blockade. And, thirdly, although the Declaration of Paris of 1856 enacting that a blockade to be binding must be effective concerns blockades in time of war only, there can be no doubt that pacific blockades ought to be likewise effective. The declaration of the Institute of International Law in favour of pacific blockade contains, therefore, the condition: "Le blocus pacifique doit être déclaré et notifié officiellement, et maintenu par une force suffisante." $49. As the establishment of a pacific blockade has in various instances not prevented the outbreak of hostilities, the value of a pacific blockade as a means of non-hostile settlement of international differences is doubted and considered precarious by many writers. writers. But others agree, and I think they are right, that the institution of pacific blockade is of great value, be it as an act of reprisals or of intervention. Every measure which is suitable and calculated to prevent the outbreak of war must be welcomed, and experience shows that pacific blockade is, although not universally successful, a measure of such kind. That it may give, and has in the past given, occasion for abuse in case of a difference between a strong and a weak Power is no argument against it, as the same is valid with regard to reprisals and intervention in general, and even to war. And although it is naturally a measure which will scarcely be made use of in case of a difference between two powerful naval States, it might nevertheless find application with success against a powerful naval State if exercised by the united navies of several V See the literature quoted above in Vol. I. at the commencement of § 134. tion in difference. § 50. Intervention as a means of settling inter- Intervennational differences is only a special kind of interven- contradistion in general, which has already been discussed.2 tinction to ParticipaIt consists in the dictatorial interference of a third tion inja State in a difference between two States for the purpose of settling the difference in the way demanded by the intervening State. This dictatorial interference takes place for the purpose of exercising a compulsion upon one or both of the parties in conflict, and must be distinguished from such attitude of a State as makes it a party to the very conflict. If two States are in conflict and a third State joins one of them out of friendship or from any other motive, such third State does not exercise an intervention as a means of settling international differences, but it becomes a party to the conflict. If, for instance, an alliance exists between one of two States in conflict and a third, and if eventually, as war has broken out in consequence of the conflict, such third State comes to the help of The following is the full text of the declaration of the Institute of International Law referred to above, § 45: "L'établissement d'un blocus en dehors de l'état de guerre ne doit être considéré comme permis par le droit de gens que sous les conditions suivantes : "1. Les navires de pavillon étranger peuvent entrer librement malgré le blocus. VOL. II. "2. Le blocus pacifique doit être déclaré et notifié officiellement et maintenu par une force suffisante. "3. Les navires de la puissance bloquée qui ne respectent pas un pareil blocus, peuvent être séquestrés. Le blocus ayant cessé, ils doivent être restitués avec leurs cargaisons à leurs propriétaires, mais sans dédommagement & aucun titre." 2 See above, Vol. I. §§ 134-138. E |