porary asylum to men-of-war of 1 belligerents without Asylum optional. § 343. Although a neutral may grant asylum to Neutral belligerent men-of-war in his ports, he has no duty to to Naval do so. He may prohibit all belligerent men-of-war Forces from entering any of his ports, whether these vessels are pursued by the enemy, or desire to enter for other reasons. However, his duty of impartiality must prevent him from denying to one party what he grants to the other; he may not, therefore, allow men-of-war of one belligerent to enter his ports and exclude men-ofwar of the other belligerent (Article 9 of Convention XIII.). Neutrals, as a rule, admit men-of-war of both parties, often, however, excluding them from certain ports. Thus, during the Crimean War, Austria prohibited all belligerent men-of-war from entering the port of Cattaro. 1 What is here said with regard to neutral asylum to men-of-war of belligerents applies also to such of their vessels as are assimilated to men-of-war; see above, § 333. 2 See, however, below, § 347, con. VOL. II. 2 G cerning the abuse of asylum, which 3 But this is not universally ad- Asylum to Naval Thus, further, Great Britain during the American Civil War closed to all belligerent men-of-war the ports of the Bahama Islands, stress of weather excepted. Be that as it may, since a neutral must prevent belligerents from making his territory the base of military operations, he must not, as has already been explained,1 allow an unlimited number of men-of-war belonging to one of the belligerents to stay simultaneously in one of his ports. § 344. To the rule that a neutral need not admit menForces in of-war of the belligerents to his ports there is no excepDistress. tion in strict law. However, there is an international Asylum to Submarine usage that belligerent men-of-war in distress should never be prevented from making for the nearest port. In accordance with this usage, vessels in distress have always been allowed to enter even such neutral ports as are closed to belligerent men-of-war. There are even instances known of belligerent men-of-war in distress having asked for, and been granted, asylum by the enemy in an enemy port.2 § 344a. During the World War the question arose whether submarine vessels forming part of the belliVessels. gerent forces should have the same status as other menof-war, and therefore be granted temporary asylum in neutral ports. In August 1916 the Allies proposed to neutral Powers that no asylum should be granted to belligerent submarine vessels of any description. They argued that in their case the application of the principles of the Law of Nations was affected by special and novel conditions: (1) submarines could navigate and remain at sea submerged, and thus escape all control and observation; (2) it was impossible to identify them and to establish their national character, whether neutral or 1 See above, § 333 (7). 2 See above, § 189. 3 Parl. Papers, Misc., No. 33 (1916), Cd. 8349. See Reeves in A.J., xi. (1917), p. 147, and Hall, § 231a. belligerent, combatant or non-combatant, and to remove the capacity for harm inherent in their nature; (3) any place which provided a submarine war-vessel far from its base with opportunity for rest and replenishment of its supplies thereby furnished such an addition to its powers that the place became in fact, through the advantages it gave, a base of naval operations. However, no agreement was reached upon this proposal, the various Powers acting differently. Thus whereas the United States of America rejected it, and admitted the German submarine war-vessel U53 to the American harbour of Newport, Norway by a decree of October 13, 1916,2 forbade all belligerent submarine war-vessels from entering Norwegian territorial waters, except in case of force majeure. Sweden by a decree of July 19, 1916,1 and Holland by its declaration of neutrality of August 4, 1914,3 had adopted a similar policy. Spain by a decree of June 29, 1917, prohibited all belligerent submarines from entering Spanish waters and ports, from whatever cause. toriality during § 345. The exterritoriality which, according to a Exterriuniversally recognised rule of International Law, men- of Menof-war enjoy 4 in foreign ports, obtains even in time of of-War war during their stay in neutral ports. Therefore, for Asylum. example, prisoners of war on board do not become free by coming into the neutral port 5 so long as they are not brought on shore. On the other hand, belligerent men-of-war are expected to comply with all orders made by the neutral to prevent them from making his ports the base of their operations of war-an order, for instance, not to leave the ports at the same time as vessels of the other belligerent. And, if they do not comply voluntarily, they may be made to do so through appli 1 Garner, ii. § 564. As to The Deutschland, see Garner, ii. § 565. 2 Journal de Droit international (Clunet), xliv. (1917), p. 322. 3 R.G., xxiv. (1917), Documents, pp. 110-114, 186. 4 See above, vol. i. § 450. See above, § 337. cation of force, for a neutral has a duty to prevent by all means at hand the abuse of the asylum granted. Special provision is made by Article 24 of Convention XIII. for the case of a belligerent man-of-war which refuses to leave a neutral port: If, notwithstanding the notification of the neutral Power, a belligerent ship of war does not leave a port in which it is not entitled to remain, the neutral Power is entitled to take such measures as it considers necessary to render the ship incapable of putting to sea so long as the war lasts, and the commanding officer of the ship must facilitate the execution of such measures. When a belligerent ship is detained by a neutral Power, the officers and crew are likewise detained. The officers and crew so detained may be left in the ship or kept either on another vessel or on land, and may be subjected to such measures of restriction as it may appear necessary to impose upon them. A sufficient number of men must, however, be always left on board for looking after the vessel. The officers may be left at liberty on giving their word not to quit neutral territory without permission.' If an officer, left at liberty on giving his word, nevertheless escapes from the neutral country, his Government is in duty bound to compel him to return, and the neutral Government can subject him to disciplinary punishment for having broken his parole.1 If a vessel is interned, and therefore dismantled, she loses the character of a man-of-war. She no longer enjoys the privilege 2 of exterritoriality due to men-ofwar in foreign waters, and prisoners on board become free, although they must be detained by the neutral concerned.3 1 See the remarkable case of the escape of members of the crews of German cruisers interned on parole in the United States, reported by Scott in A.J., x. (1916), pp. 877-882, and Garner, ii. § 563. 2 See Scott in A.J., x. (1916), pp. 355-357. 3 See below, § 348a (6). to Men of-War Asylum. § 346. A belligerent man-of-war, to which temporary Facilities asylum is granted in a neutral port, is not only not of War disarmed and detained; as has already been stated, during facilities may even be rendered to her as regards slight repairs,1 the supply in limited quantities of provisions and coal,2 and, under certain circumstances, the enrolment of a very small number of sailors.3 Asylum to § 347. However, it would be easy for belligerent men- Abuse of of-war receiving temporary asylum in neutral ports to be proabuse it, if neutrals were not required to prohibit such hibited. abuse. (1) It can abuse asylum, in the first place, by ascertaining whether any, and if so what kind of, enemy vessels are in the same neutral port, accompanying them when they leave, and attacking them immediately they reach the open sea. To prevent such abuse, in the eighteenth century several neutral States arranged that, if belligerent men-of-war or privateers met enemy vessels in a neutral port, they were not to be allowed to leave together, but an interval of at least twenty-four hours was to elapse between the sailing of the vessels. During the nineteenth century this so-called twentyfour hours rule was enforced by the majority of States, and the Second Hague Conference, as has already been mentioned, expressly enacted it. 4 (2) Asylum can, secondly, be abused by wintering in a port in order to wait for other vessels of the same fleet, or by similar intentional delay. There is no doubt that neutrals must prohibit this abuse by ordering such belligerent men-of-war to leave the neutral ports.5 (3) Asylum can, thirdly, be abused by repairing a belligerent man-of-war which has become unseaworthy. Although, as has already been explained, small repairs 1 See above, § 333 (5). 2 See above, § 333 (4). * See above, § 333 (3). See above, § 333 (2). 5 See above, § 333 (6). See above, § 333 (5). |