Places can be aded. § 372. In former times it was sometimes asserted What that only ports, or even only fortified ports,1 could be blockaded; but the practice of the States has always Block. shown that single ports and portions of an enemy coast, as well as the whole of the enemy coast, may be blockaded. Thus, during the American Civil War, the whole of the coast of the Confederate States to the extent of about 2500 nautical miles was blockaded. Attention must also be drawn to the fact, that such ports of a belligerent as are in the hands of the enemy may be the object of a blockade. Thus during the Franco-German War the French blockaded 2 their own ports of Rouen, Dieppe, and Fécamp, which were occupied by the Germans. Article 1 of the unratified Declaration of London indirectly sanctioned this practice by enacting that a blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy." 3 of Inter § 373. It is a moot question whether the mouth of Blockade a so-called international river 4 may be the object of a national blockade, in case the riparian States are not all belli- Rivers. gerents. Thus, when in 1854, during the Crimean War, the allied fleets of Great Britain and France blockaded the mouth of the Danube, Bavaria and Würtemberg, which remained neutral, protested. When, in 1870, the French blockaded the whole of the German coast of the North Sea, they exempted the Dollart, the mouth of the river Ems, because the Dollart separates the Dutch province of Groningen from German territory. Again, when in 1863, during the blockade of the coast of the Confederate States, the Federal cruiser Vanderbilt captured the British vessel Peterhoff 5 destined for Blockade Matamoros, on the Mexican shore of the Rio Grande, the American courts released the vessel on the ground that trade with Mexico, which was neutral, could not be prohibited. The Declaration of London, had it been ratified, would only have settled the controversy as regards one point. By enacting that the blockading forces must not bar access to neutral ports or coasts,' Article 18 would certainly have prohibited the blockade of the whole mouth of a boundary river between a neutral and a belligerent State, as, for instance, the River Rio Grande in case the United States of America was at war and Mexico remained neutral. But no provision was made for the case of the blockade of the mouths of rivers, such as the Danube or the Rhine, for example, which pass through several States between their sources and their mouths at the sea-coast, if one or more of the upper riparian States remain neutral. § 373a. Similar to, but not identical with, the question of Straits. whether the mouth of an international river may be blockaded, is the question whether territorial straits may be blockaded. Three cases must be distinguished: (1) Straits which only separate territory belonging to one and the same State, and do not connect two parts of the open sea (e.g. the Solent), may certainly be blockaded. (2) When straits only separate territory belonging to one and the same State, but at the same time connect two parts of the open sea, the question whether they can be blockaded is unsettled. During the TurcoItalian War in 1911 Italy did not declare a blockade of the Dardanelles, which belonged to this class of straits. The Bosphorus and Dardanelles are now to be subject to a special international régime under which they may never be blockaded; 2 but the general legal 1 Baty in Jahrbuch des Völkerrechts, i. (1913), pp. 630-639. position of straits of this kind as regards blockade still remains open. (3) Unsettled also is the case in which straits divide two different States. § 374. The question has been raised in what way Justificablockade, which vests in a belligerent a certain juris- tion of diction over neutral vessels, and has detrimental consequences for neutral trade, can be justified.1 Several writers, following Hautefeuille,2 maintain that the establishment of a blockade by a belligerent stationing a number of men-of-war so as to block the approach to the coast amounts to conquest of that part of the sea, and that such conquest justifies a belligerent in prohibiting ingress and egress of vessels of all nations. In contradistinction to this artificial construction of a conquest of a part of the sea, some writers 3 try to justify blockade by the necessity of war. I think, however, that no special justification of blockade is necessary at all. The fact is that the detrimental consequences of blockade to neutrals stand in the same category as the many other detrimental consequences of war to neutrals. Neither the one nor the other need be specially justified. A blockade interferes indeed with the recognised principle of the freedom of the sea, and, further, with the recognised freedom of neutral commerce. But all three have developed together, and when the freedom of the sea in time of peace and war, and, further, when the freedom of neutral commerce became generally recognised, the exceptional restrictions of blockade became at the same time recognised as legitimate. 1 The matter is thoroughly treated by Fauchille, Blocus, pp. 13-36, and Güldenagel, op. cit., pp. 51-86. * See Hautefeuille, ii. pp. 190-191. § 827; Martens, ii. § 124. Blockade. II ESTABLISHMENT OF BLOCKADE See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 368. 1 Compe- § 375. A declaration of blockade being a high 1 tence to establish act of sovereignty,' and having far-reaching consequences upon neutral trade, it is generally recognised not to be in the discretion of a commander of a naval force to establish a blockade without the authority of his Government. Article 9 of the unratified Declaration of London recognised this by providing that a declaration of blockade is made by the blockading Power or by the naval authorities acting in its name." The authority of the Government to establish a blockade may be granted to a commander of a naval force for the express purpose of a particular blockade, the Government ordering him to blockade a certain port or coast; or the Government may expressly delegate its power of declaring a blockade to a commander, for use at his discretion. Moreover, if operations of war take place at a great distance 2 from the seat of Government, and a commander finds it necessary to establish a blockade, the blockade can become valid through the Government giving its immediate consent after being informed of the act of the commander. Further, the powers vested in the hands of the supreme commander of a fleet are supposed to include the authority to establish a blockade in case he finds it necessary, provided that his Government acquiesces as soon as it is informed of its establishment.3 § 376. A blockade does not come into being ipso facto 1 The Henrick and Maria, (1799) 1 C. Rob. 146. 2 The Rolla, (1807) 6 C. Rob. 364. 3 As regards the whole matter, see Fauchille, Blocus, pp. 68-73. tion and Blockade. by the outbreak of war. Even the actual blocking of Declarathe approach to an enemy coast by belligerent men-of- Notificawar need not by itself mean that the ingress and egress tion of of neutral vessels are to be prohibited, since it may be for the purpose of preventing the egress and ingress of enemy vessels only. Continental writers, therefore, have always considered notification to be essential for the establishment of a blockade. English, American, and Japanese writers, however, have not held notification to be essential, although they have considered knowledge on the part of a neutral vessel of an existing blockade to be necessary to justify her condemnation for breach of blockade.1 But although Continental writers have always held notification to be essential for the establishment of blockade, they have differed with regard to the kind of notification that is necessary. Some writers 2 have maintained that three different notifications must take place-namely, (1) a local notification to the authorities of the blockaded ports or coast; (2) a diplomatic or general notification to all maritime neutral States by the blockading belligerent; and (3) a special notification to every approaching neutral vessel. Other writers 3 have considered only diplomatic and special notification essential. Others again 4 have maintained that special notification to every approaching vessel is alone required, although they have recommended diplomatic notification as a matter of courtesy. As regards the practice of States, it has always been usual for the commander who establishes a blockade to send a notification of the blockade to the authorities of the blockaded ports or coast and to the foreign 1 See below, § 384. 2 See, for instance, Kleen, i. § 131. 3 See, for instance, Bluntschli, §§ 831-832; Martens, ii. § 124, Gessner, p. 181. See, for instance, Hautefeuille, ii. pp. 224 and 226; Calvo, v. § 2846; Fauchille, Blocus, pp. 219-221. |