tion, as the case may demand, and as may be in accordance with these Regulations.' Considering that no case of the use of this right of angary happened in the nineteenth century, and that International Law concerning the rights and duties of neutrals became much more developed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in the two preceding editions of this work I ventured the assertion that this right of angary 'is now probably obsolete.' However, although no real case occurred during the World War-the requisitioning of Dutch ships by the Allies in March 1918 being a case of the modern right of angary as discussed below 1-that war has shown that belligerents will not easily renounce the use of any right unless it is absolutely clear that it does not exist, or no longer exists. For this reason it cannot with certainty be said that the right is obsolete. The requisitioning during the World War of some Swedish and Dutch steamers lying in English and French harbours, against which the Swedish and Dutch2 Governments protested, had nothing to do with the right of angary, whatever may have been the merits of the case. The British Government did indeed requisition a number of Swedish ships-the Sphinx, the Bellgrove, the Phyllis, and the Cremona,-and of Dutch ships-the Vembergen, Kelbergen, and others,and paid compensation for their use. But the public statement made by the British Government on October 11, 1917, did not base this requisitioning upon the right of angary.3 The tonnage at the disposal of H.M. Government,' so runs the statement, 'has been increased by a decision, which has recently 1 § 365. 2 Parl. Papers, Misc., No. 5 (1918), Cd. 8986. There are, however, passages in the correspondence with the Dutch Government which do seek to justify the requisitioning by reference to the right of angary, though the term is not used. The Modern Angary. been taken, to utilise in the Government service Britishowned, or mainly British-owned, ships which are in British ports, but which have hitherto sailed under neutral flag. As the German Government has by its prize court regulations decided that, notwithstanding the neutral flag, it may treat these vessels as British, it is necessary in order to protect British capital invested in these ships that they should fly the British flag and be armed for their defence.' 1 Be that as it may, the right of angary not only empowers a belligerent to requisition neutral ships for military purposes, but also to compel the neutral crews to render services by which they acquire enemy char acter. § 365. In contradistinction to this original right of Right of angary, the modern right of angary is a right of belligerents to destroy, or use, in case of necessity, for the purpose of offence and defence, neutral property on their territory, or on enemy territory, or on the open sea. This modern right of angary does not, as did the original right, empower a belligerent to compel neutral individuals to render services, but only extends to neutral property. In case property of subjects of neutral States is vested with enemy character, it is not neutral property in the strict sense of the term neutral,' and all the rules respecting appropriation, utilisation, and destruction of enemy property obviously apply to it. The object of the right of angary is, therefore, either such property of subjects of neutral States as retains its neutral character from its temporary position on belligerent territory, and which therefore is not vested with enemy character, or such neutral property on the open sea as has not acquired enemy character. All sorts of neutral property, whether it consists of vessels 1 The Times, October 12, 1917. 3 3 See the case of William Hardman, above, § 170 n. or other 1 means of transport, or arms, ammunition, provisions, or other personal property, may be the object of the right of angary, provided it is serviceable to military ends and wants. The conditions under which the right may be exercised are the same as those under which private enemy property may be utilised or destroyed; but in every case the neutral owner must be fully indemnified.2 A remarkable case 3 happened in 1871 during the Franco-German War. The Germans seized some British coal-vessels lying in the river Seine at Duclair, and sank them for the purpose of preventing French gunboats from running up the river. On the intervention of the British Government, Count Bismarck refused to recognise the duty of Germany to indemnify the owners of the vessels sunk, although he agreed to do so. However, it may safely be maintained that a duty to pay compensation for any damage done in the exercise of the right of angary must nowadays be recognised. Article 53 of the Hague Regulations stipulates the payment of indemnities for the seizure and utilisation of all appliances adapted to the transport of persons or goods which are the private property of in-habitants of occupied enemy territory, and Article 52 of the Hague Regulations stipulates payment for requisitions; since in these articles the immunity from confiscation of the private property of the inhabitants is recognised, all the more must that of private neutral 1 Thus in 1870, during the FrancoGerman War, the Germans seized hundreds of Swiss and Austrian railway carriages in France and used them for military purposes. See Article 6 of U.S. Naval War Code:-'If military necessity should require it, neutral vessels found within the limits of belligerent authority may be seized and destroyed, or otherwise used for military purposes, but in such cases the owners of the neutral vessels must be fully recompensed. The amount of the indemnity should, if practicable, be agreed upon in advance with the owner or master of the vessel. Due regard must be had to treaty stipulations upon these matters.' See also Holland, War, No. 140. 3 See Albrecht, op. cit., pp. 45-48. property temporarily on occupied enemy territory be recognised also. 1 During the World War, on March 20, 1918, the United States of America, by a proclamation 1 reciting that the law and practice of nations accorded to a belligerent Power the right in time of military exigency and for purposes essential to the prosecution of the war to take over and utilise neutral vessels lying within its jurisdiction, requisitioned seventy-seven Dutch vessels lying in American harbours,2 and undertook to make full compensation to the owners. On the following days, Great Britain, France, and Italy followed suit. Great Britain announced the decision of the Associated Governments to requisition the Dutch ships in their ports in exercise of the right of angary,' in a Note of March 21, 1918,3 which stated that they had felt compelled to fall back on their unquestionable right to employ any shipping found in their ports for the necessities of war,' but would compensate the owners of the vessels and arrange for the repatriation of the crews if desired. On March 30, 1918,4 the Dutch Government protested against the interpretation given to the right of angary, an ancient rule unearthed for the occasion and adapted to entirely new conditions in order to excuse seizure en masse by a belligerent of the merchant fleet of a neutral country.' To this protest, on April 25, 1918, the British Government replied in a memorandum which discussed in detail the modern right of angary in International Law.5 The Dutch crews belonging to the ships requisitioned by the Associated Governments were not compelled to continue to serve, although many of them did so voluntarily. 1 Text in A.J., xii. (1918), Supplement, p. 259. 2 See Scott in A.J., xii. (1918), pp. 340-356. 3 Parl. Papers, Misc., No. 11 (1918), Cd. 9025, p. 2. Ibid., p. 3. As regards Great Britain, the decisions of the Privy Council in The Zamora 1 and The Canton 2 recognised the modern right of angary on the following conditions: (1) that urgency (though not absolute necessity) demanded the requisitioning, (2) that the neutral owner was fully compensated. The court somewhat extended the right of angary, in so far as it admitted requisitioning, not only in connection with offence or defence, but also in connection with other matters involving national security.' These cases also established that in British Prize Law the right can be exercised against captured neutral property while it is still subject to proceedings for condemnation in prize. Angary concern Neutral Stock. § 366. A special case of the right of angary found Right of recognition by Article 19 of Convention v. of the Second Hague Conference, which enacted that railway material ing coming from the territory of a neutral Power, whether Rolling belonging to the neutral State or to companies or private persons, shall not be requisitioned or utilised by a belligerent, except in the case of, and to the extent required by, absolute necessity, that it shall as soon as possible be sent back to the country of origin, and that compensation shall be paid for its use. This article also gives a right to a neutral Power, whose railway material has been requisitioned by a belligerent, to retain and make use of, to a corresponding extent, railway material coming from the territory of the belligerent concerned. Angary § 367. Whatever the extent of the right of angary Right of may be, it does not derive from the law of neutrality. not deriv The correlative duty of a belligerent to indemnify the ing from neutral owner of property appropriated or destroyed trality. in the exercise of the right of angary does indeed derive 1 (1916) 2 B. and C. P. C. 1. (1916) 2 B. and C. P. C. 264. 3 See Nowacki, Die Eisenbahnen im Kriege (1906), pp. 115-126, and Albrecht, op. cit., pp. 22-24. Neu |