by the court; and the fact that they were disposed to admit another formula ought to have made the court accept a compromise. Bluntschli1 correctly

maintains that the most natural solution of the difficulty would have been to use the neutral formula In the name of the Law.'

On the other hand, during the occupation of Belgium in the World War, Germany did not interfere with the practice of the Belgian courts of pronouncing and executing their verdicts in the name of the King of the Belgians.2 But matters changed when in 1918 the Belgian courts suspended their sittings in consequence of the deportation of some of the judges, and German courts were set up in their place.3

1 § 547.

See Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung

(1915), p. 805.

See Garner, ii. §§ 377-378.

Aims and
Means of

Sea

CHAPTER IV

WARFARE ON SEA

I

ON SEA WARFARE IN GENERAL

Hall, § 147-Lawrence, §§ 193-194-Westlake, ii. pp. 136-154-Maine, pp. 117-122-Manning, pp. 183-184-Phillimore, iii. § 347-Twiss, ii. § 73 -Halleck, ii. pp. 80-82-Taylor, § 547-Wharton, iii. §§ 342-345— Wheaton, § 355-Bluntschli, §§ 665-667-Heffter, § 139-Geffcken in Holtzendorf, iv. pp. 547-548, 571-581-Ullmann, §§ 187-188-Bonfils, Nos. 1268, 1294-1338-Despagnet, Nos. 647-649-Pradier-Fodéré, viii. Nos. 3066-3090, 3107-3108-Nys, iii. pp. 391-432-Rivier, ii. pp. 329335-Calvo, iv. §§ 2123, 2379-2410-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1399-1413-Pillet, pp. 118-120-Perels, § 36-Testa, pp. 147-157-Boeck, Nos. 3-153Lawrence, International Problems and Hague Conferences (1908), pp. 178-206-Westlake, Papers, pp. 250-258-Reddie, Researches, passim— Ortolan, ii. pp. 35-50-Hautefeuille, i. pp. 161-167-Schramm, §§ 1, 8— Wehberg, §§ 1, 2-Scholz, Die seekriegsrechtliche Bedeutung von Flottenstützpunkten (1918), passim — Gessner, Westlake, Lorimer, RolinJaequemyns, Laveleye, Albéric Rolin, and Pierantoni in R.I., vii. (1875), pp. 236-272, 558-656-Twiss in R.I., xvi. (1884), pp. 113-137-Quigley in A.J., xi. (1917), pp. 22-45-Bower in A.J., xili. (1919), pp. 60-78— See also the authors quoted below, § 178.

§ 173. The purpose of war is the same in the case of warfare on land or on sea-namely, the overpowering Warfare. of the enemy. But sea warfare serves this purpose by attempting the accomplishment of aims different from those of land warfare. Whereas the aims of land warfare are defeat of the enemy army and occupation of the enemy territory, the aims 1 of sea warfare are: defeat of the enemy navy; annihilation of the enemy merchant fleet; destruction of enemy coast fortifi

1 Aims of sea warfare must not be confounded with ends of war; see above, § 66.

cations, and of maritime as well as military establishments on the enemy coast; cutting off intercourse with the enemy coast; prevention of carriage of contraband and of rendering unneutral service to the enemy; all kinds of support to military operations on land, such as protection of a landing of troops on the enemy coast; and lastly, defence of the home coast and protection to the home merchant fleet.1 The means by which belligerents in sea warfare endeavour to realise these aims are: attack on, and seizure of, enemy vessels, violence against enemy individuals, appropriation and destruction of enemy vessels and sea-borne enemy goods, requisitions and contributions, bombardment of the enemy coast, cutting of submarine cables, blockade, espionage, treason, ruses, and capture of neutral vessels carrying contraband or rendering unneutral service.

Unlawful

of Sea

§ 174. As in land warfare, so in sea warfare not every Lawful practice capable of injuring the enemy in offence and and defence is lawful. Although no regulations regarding Practices the laws of war on sea have as yet been enacted by a Warfare. general law-making treaty corresponding to the Hague Regulations, there are treaties concerning special points -such as submarine mines, bombardment by naval forces-and customary rules of International Law which regulate the matter. Be that as it Be that as it may, the rules concerning means of sea warfare, though in many points identical with the rules in force regarding warfare on land, differ from them in many respects, and therefore must be discussed separately in the following sections. Blockade and the capture of vessels carrying contraband and rendering unneutral service to the enemy, although they are means of warfare against an enemy, are of such importance as regards neutral trade that they will be discussed under neutrality.'2

1 See the aims of sea warfare enumerated in Article 1 of the U.S. Naval War Code. 2 §§ 368-413a.

Objects of § 175. Whereas the objects against which means the Means of land warfare may be directed are innumerable, the Warfare. number of the objects against which means of sea

of Sea

Development of

national

Law

Private

on Sea.

warfare are directed is limited to six. The chief object is enemy vessels, whether public or private; the next, enemy individuals, with distinction between those taking part in fighting and others; the third, sea-borne enemy goods; the fourth, the enemy coast; the fifth and sixth, neutral vessels attempting to break blockade, carrying contraband, or rendering unneutral service to the enemy. § 176. It is evident that in times when a belligerent Inter- could destroy all public and private enemy property he was able to seize, no special rule existed regarding regarding private enemy ships and private enemy property Property carried on the sea. But the practice of sea warfare frequently went beyond the limits of even so wide a right, treating neutral goods on enemy ships as enemy goods, and neutral ships carrying enemy goods as enemy ships. It was not until the time of the Consolato del Mare, in the fourteenth century, that a set of clear and definite rules with regard to private enemy vessels and private enemy property on sea in contradistinction to neutral ships and neutral goods was adopted. According to this famous collection of maritime usages observed by the communities of the Mediterranean, there is no doubt that a belligerent may seize and appropriate all private enemy ships and goods. But a distinction is made if either ship or goods are neutral. Although an enemy ship may always be appropriated, neutral goods thereon have to be restored to the neutral owners. On the other hand, enemy goods on neutral ships may be appropriated, but the neutral ships carrying such goods must be restored to their owners. However, these rules of the Consolato del Mare were not at all generally recognised, although they were adopted by several treaties between single

States during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Neither the communities belonging to the Hanseatic League, nor the Netherlands and Spain during the War of Independence, nor England and Spain during their wars in the sixteenth century, adopted these rules; and France expressly enacted by Ordinances of 1543 (Article 42) and 1584 (Article 69) that neutral goods on enemy ships as well as neutral ships carrying enemy goods should be appropriated.1 Although in 1650 France adopted the rules of the Consolato del Mare, Louis XIV. dropped them again by the Ordinance of 1681, and re-enacted that neutral goods on enemy ships, and neutral ships carrying enemy goods, should be appropriated. Spain enacted the same rules in 1718. The Netherlands, in contradistinction to the Consolato del Mare, endeavoured by a number of treaties to foster the principle that the flag covers the goods, so that enemy goods on neutral vessels were exempt from, whereas neutral goods on enemy vessels were subject to, appropriation. On the other hand, throughout the eighteenth century, and during the nineteenth century down to the beginning of the Crimean War in 1854, England adhered to the rules of the Consolato del Mare. Thus, no generally accepted rules of International Law regarding private property on sea were in existence.2 Matters were made worse by privateering, which was generally recognised as lawful, and by the fact that belligerents frequently declared a coast blockaded without having a sufficient number of menof-war on the spot to make the blockade effective. It was not until the Declaration of Paris in 1856 that general rules of International Law regarding private property on sea came into existence.

1 Robe d'ennemy confisque celle d'amy. Confiscantur ex navibus res, ex rebus naves.

2 Boeck, Nos. 3-103, and Geff

cken in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 571578, give excellent summaries of the facts.