First World War Centennial

CHAPTER XIII

SOME PRELIMINARY REMARKS REGARDING RECENT INTERFERENCE WITH NEU­TRAL TRADE

THOSE who have thought of the science of public international law as something academic and impracticable must have had a sharp awakening in the last twelve months. To their mind municipal law had an honor­able standing because its rules and require­ments must be obeyed, but the law of nations could have nothing to do—and would have nothing to do—with their personal welfare.

If millions of such have not been disabused of their opinions since August, 1914, it is because they are without an appreciation of the great events which are affecting all civilized peoples. For crisis has followed

crisis, and state papers affecting races have been interchanged with unparalleled activity—each several issue in turn being shaped in accordance with international law or judged by its precepts. Among these none has been weighted with more significance for the population of great states than those which have had to do with blockade and certain belligerent rights connected therewith.

The average citizen has long understood that he frequently suffers and is imposed upon because of a failure of the police and the courts to vindicate his rights.

Now if we are to believe Imperial Chan­cellors, every individual in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Great Britain is to be seriously affected because of enemy policies which are claimed to be breaches of the law of blockade, breaches which can only be prevented by force of arms and such a crystallization of neutral opinion or affirmative action as will command the attention of the aggressor.

Thus international law has become a matter of very serious import to men and women in Europe. That it is already such to the citizen of the United States is apparent to all that are conversant with the communi­cations which have passed between Washing­ton and European chancelleries, and who have heeded the manner in which prepared­ness for action is being discussed.

It is this fact, viz., the concern of the individual in the underlying principles of law, whether codified or not, as it affects the nations, that makes it wise, first to review existing practice and discuss broad grounds of action when practice has been negatived or is lacking; then to acquaint ourselves with actual problems and come to such conclusions as reason shall dictate. Following such a course in reference to the doctrine of block­ade, we have noted the fact that blockade is an act of dominion over coasts and in waters where a belligerent exercises lordship as by conquest; recapitulated the rules approved by the Declaration of London; marked the bounds by which belligerent activities are limited, and called attention to the fact that new conditions may vary practice without changing principles. We are therefore prepared to take up and impartially comment upon the present status in the North Sea, the English Channel, and the waters surrounding the British Isles as it affects the United States and all neutrals. That it is extraordinary, even when compared with the startling war measures that have not infrequently stirred the people of earlier generations, will not be gainsaid, and there is great occasion for contentment because President Wilson's Government has handled itself so admirably, stating and restating those parts of the law of nations which are applicable thereto with accuracy, and refus­ing to concede the propriety or lawfulness of acts based upon interested interpretation or so-called extensions of familiar principles and necessity.

To understand the situation and get all the facts in mind which have any connection therewith it is necessary to recall:

I. The earlier correspondence of the war period which has passed between belligerent governments and the State Department of the United States;

2. The direct proclamations of belligerent Powers regarding war areas; and

3. Further communications which have been exchanged in an endeavor to clarify or justify official action or position.

Of intense interest were the notes inter­changed in regard to the Declaration of London which cover the dates between August 6 and October 24, 1914. These included the inquiry from Washington as to whether the conclusions of the Naval Con­ference were to be regarded as applicable to the opening conflict and the suggestion that inter-agreement might prevent grave mis­understandings, the replies from belligerent states, and the final withdrawal by the American Government of its overtures. It will be remembered that the Central Powers indicated willingness to conform to the Declaration of 1909, provided the enemy did likewise, and the responses from England and France were acceptances subject to certain modifications and limitations; also that the returns were such as not only made it appear unwise to the United States to go further in the matter, but were sufficiently defined to indicate that the Allies—for Russia followed the action of Great Britain and France—felt that the ratification of the Declaration would be an embarrassment to them. Indeed, in the memorandum attached to the British Government's communica­tions to the American Ambassador in London are direct intimations that Great Britain believed the enemy would probably receive vast quantities of supplies through such neutral ports as Rotterdam, and that adher­ence to the defined laws of the Declaration regarding blockade, conditional contraband, and ultimate destination of contraband would work disadvantageously to the Allies; a fact that appears to have been so patent to Germany and Austria-Hungary as to have made those governments careless in regard to the endorsement of the rules referred to, provided they were adopted by the enemy.

But little time interposed between the withdrawal of the United States of its suggestions regarding the Declaration of London and official protest by this govern­ment against restraints upon its commerce. The final letter touching the Declaration was dated October 24, 1914. On the 26th of the following December the Department of State filed a formal protest against British treat­ment of cargoes bound to neutral ports, and received a polite reply which, with the supplementary letter that followed, reflected the anxiety with which the Allies viewed the manner in which supplies (that might under ordinary circumstances have been legiti­mately cut off by naval Powers of such importance as Great Britain and its ally, France, by extending the list of contraband or by a blockade of enemy coast) were reaching the enemy through the ports of countries whose trade in various commodities had increased inordinately. These communi­cations, taken in connection with the de­tention of various vessels flying the United States flag, were sufficient to indicate that the Allies considered themselves justified in so construing the laws affecting "continuous voyage" and "search" as to permit them to subject neutrals to all the inconveniences of a blockade more far-reaching and injurious than had ever been attempted.

They were followed in due course by the German proclamation of February 4, 1915, declaring the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole English Channel, to be a war zone, and by a memorial of the Imperial German Govern­ment which affirmed that just as England had decreed "the whole North Sea between Scotland and Norway to be comprised within the seat of war," so Germany by its proclama­tions declares "that it will prevent by all military means at its disposal all navigation by the enemy in those waters," and warns neutral Powers "to recommend to their own vessels to steer clear of these waters." Here are two attempts to impose a virtual block­ade, neither of which has any standing in positive international law, however inter­preted, and neither of which at all appeals to the impartial mind as having any resemblance to the controlling principles of justice and equity. The latter can be abruptly dismissed because of its frank lawlessness. The earlier, which has now assumed definite form, re­quires more particular attention.