The unratified Declaration of London recognised that necessity makes exceptions to the rule that vessels may not enter a blockaded port. Article 7 provided that 'in circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade, and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there.' However, this article did not define circumstances of distress and made it a condition that those circumstances must be acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force.1 Everything was therefore, prima facie at any rate, left to the consideration of that officer. But once he had acknowledged that the vessel was in distress, he was in duty bound 2 to allow her to enter the blockaded port, unless he relieved the distress himself. not con Breach of § 387. There are a few cases of egress which, according When to the practice of Great Britain and most other States Egress is before the World War, were not considered breaches sidered of blockade outwards.3 Thus a vessel which was in Blockade. a blockaded port before the commencement of the blockade was allowed to sail from it in ballast, as was also a vessel that had entered during a blockade, either in ignorance of it, or with the permission of the blockading squadron.5 Thus, further, a vessel, the cargo of which was put on board before the commencement of the blockade, was allowed to leave the port afterwards unhindered. Thus, again, a vessel obliged by absolute necessity to enter a blockaded port was afterwards allowed to leave it unhindered. And a 1 See the case of The Clumberhall, a British vessel condemned by the Italian Prize Court for having entered a blockaded area during the TurcoItalian War, in 1912, under a plea of distress, without first having had the cause of distress verified by the blockading fleet. The facts were stated in the House of Commons on May 25, 1914; see Hansard, vol. 63, p. 108. 2 See Report of the Drafting Committee on Article 7. 3 See Holland, Prize Law, § 130; Twiss, ii. § 113; Phillimore, iii. § 313. 4 The Frederick Moltke, (1798) 1 C. Rob. 86. The Juno, (1799) 2 C. Rob. 116. • The Vrouw Judith, (1799) 1 C. Rob. 150. Passage through vessel employed by the diplomatic envoy of a neutral State for the exclusive purpose of sending home from a blockaded port distressed seamen of his nationality 1 was also allowed to pass unhindered.2 § 388. A breach of blockade can only be committed Unblock by passing through the blockaded approach. Thereaded fore, if the maritime approach to a port is blockaded, Breach of but an inland canal leads from it to another unblockaded Canal no Blockade. port or to a neutral port, no breach of blockade is committed by the egress or the ingress of a vessel passing such canal for the purpose of reaching the blockaded port.3 of V CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF BLOCKADE See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 368. Capture § 389. It is universally recognised that a vessel may Blockade only be captured for a breach of blockade while in running delicto; that means during an attempt to break the Vessels. blockade, or during the breach itself. But here again practice as well as theory have differed much, since there has been no unanimity with regard to the extent of time during which an attempted breach or an actual breach could be said to be continuing. It has already been stated that it has been a moot point from what moment a breach of blockade can be said to have been attempted, and that, according to 1 The Rose in Bloom, (1811) 1 Dodson 55. 2 The unratified Declaration of London recognised by Article 7-see above, § 386-that a vessel which, on account of distress, entered a blockaded port, must be allowed to leave it afterwards, provided she had neither discharged nor shipped cargo there; and Article 16above, § 384-provided that a vessel -8ee coming out of a blockaded port in the circumstances there mentioned must be allowed to pass free. But beyond these the declaration did not specify any cases in which egress was not to be considered breach of blockade. The Stert, (1801) 4 C. Rob. 65. See Phillimore, iii. § 314. 4 • Above, § 385, the practice of Great Britain and the United States, the fact that a vessel destined for a blockaded port was starting on her voyage constituted an attempt. It is obvious that this controversy bears upon the question from what point of time a blockade-running vessel must be considered in delicto. But it has been likewise a moot point when the period of time during which a blockade-running vessel might be said to be in delicto came to an end. According to Continental theory and practice, the vessel has been considered to be in delicto only so long as she is actually on the line of blockade, or, having fled from there, so long as she is being pursued by one of the blockading cruisers. On the other hand, according to the practice of Great Britain and the United States,2 a blockade-running vessel has been held to be in delicto so long as she has not completed her voyage from the blockaded port to the port of her destination and back to the port from which she started originally, the voyage out and home being considered one voyage. But a vessel has been held to be in delicto only so long as the blockade continued, capture being no longer admissible in case the blockade had been raised or had otherwise come to an end. The Declaration of London sought to settle the controversy, for, according to Article 20, a vessel was to be in delicto so long only 3 as she was being pursued by a manof-war of the blockading force (and not by any other cruiser), and she might no longer be captured if the pursuit was abandoned or if the blockade was raised. Under this rule, a blockade-breaking vessel was liable to capture so long as the pursuit lasted, whether or no she was still within the area of operations; even if for a while she had 1 The Welvaart van Pillaw, (1799) 2 C. Rob. 128; The General Hamilton, (1805) 6 C. Rob, 61, See U.S. Naval War Code, Article 44. 3 See below, § 428a, for Breach taken refuge in a neutral port, she might, on coming out, be captured, provided that the captor was one of the menof-war of the blockading force which had pursued her and waited for her outside the port of refuge.1 However, the declaration has not been ratified. Penalty § 390. Capture being effected, the blockade-runner of must be sent to a port, to be brought before a Prize Blockade. Court. For this purpose the crew may be temporarily 4 detained, as they will have to serve as witnesses. In former times the crew could be imprisoned, and it is said that even capital 2 punishment could have been pronounced against them. But since the eighteenth century, this practice of imprisoning the crew has been abandoned, and nowadays the crew may not even be made prisoners of war, but must be released as soon as the Prize Court has pronounced its decision.3 The only penalty which may be pronounced is confiscation of the vessel and the cargo. But the practice of the several States has differed much concerning the penalty for breach of blockade. According to British and American practice before the World War, confiscation of both vessel and cargo might take place in case the owners of the vessel were identical with those of the cargo. In case vessel and cargo had not the same owners, confiscation of both took place only when the cargo consisted of contraband of war or the owners knew of the blockade at the time the cargo was shipped for the blockaded port. It mattered not whether the captured vessel which carried the cargo had herself actually passed through the blockaded line, or whether the breach of 1 See the Report of the Drafting Committee on Article 20. * See Bynkershoek, Quaestiones See Calvo, v. §§ 2897-2898; U.S. See Fauchille, Blocus, pp. 357- 5 The Mercurius, (1798) 1 C. Rob. 80; The Columbia, (1799) 1 C. Rob. 154; The Alexander, (1801) 4 C. Rob. 93; The Adonis, (1804) 5 C. Rob. 256; The Exchange, (1808) Edwards 39; The Panaghia Rhomba, (1858) 12 Moore P.C. 168. See Phillimore, iii. §§ 318-319. blockade was effected through the combined action of lighters and the vessel, the lighters passing the line and discharging the cargo into the vessel near the line, or vice versa.1 The cargo alone was confiscated according to the judgments of the American Prize Courts during the Civil War in the case of The Springbok and in similar cases 2 when goods ultimately destined for a blockaded port were sent to a neutral port on a vessel whose owners were ignorant of this ulterior destination of the goods. The Declaration of London proposed to settle the matter by a very simple rule, for according to Article 21 the penalty for blockade-breaking was to be condemnation of the vessel in all cases, and condemnation of the cargo also, unless the owner proved that at the time of the shipment of the goods the shipper neither knew, nor could have known, of the intention of the vessel to break the blockade. The case in which the whole, or part, of the cargo consisted of contraband, was not mentioned by Article 21, but its condemnation is a matter of course. However, the declaration has not secured ratification. VI THE SO-CALLED LONG-DISTANCE BLOCKADE tion of the Blockade. § 390a. In the foregoing sections of this chapter the Concepconception of blockade as understood before the World LongWar, and the rules of International Law concerning Distance it, have been explained and discussed. The World War did not illustrate or develop these rules, because the few blockades that were declared-blockades of the coast of German East Africa, of the Cameroons, of Bulgaria on the Egean Sea, of Asia Minor, and a few others 3-provoked little or no controversy, and played 1 The Maria, (1805) 6 C. Rob. 201. 2 See above, § 385 (4). 3 Details in Garner, ii. § 510. |