Venezuela,1 and in April 1913, Great Britain, Austria- In December 1916, during the World War, the Allied Powers blockaded the coasts of Greece, not then a belligerent, by way of reprisals for attacks by Greek forces on Allied troops in Athens. Foreign neutral ships in blockaded ports were allowed four days to depart. bility of § 45. No unanimity exists among international lawyers Admissi as to whether pacific blockades are admissible according Pacific to the principles of the Law of Nations. There is no Blockade. doubt that the theory of the Law of Nations forbids the seizure and sequestration of vessels other than those of the blockaded State for attempting to break a pacific blockade. For even those writers who maintain the admissibility of pacific blockade assert this. What is controverted is whether according to International Law the coast of a State may be blockaded at all in time of peace. From the first recorded instance to the last, several writers 3 of authority have denied that it can. On the other hand, many writers say that it may, differing among themselves only as to whether vessels sailing under the flag of third States could be prevented from entering or leaving ports under pacific blockade. The Institute of International Law carefully studied the question in 1887, discussed it at its meeting in Heidelberg, and finally voted a declaration 4 in favour of the admissibility of pacific blockades. Thus the most influential body of theorists approved what had been established before by practice. There ought to be no doubt that the 3 1 This blockade, although represented as a war blockade so that the ingress of foreign vessels might be prevented, was nevertheless essentially a pacific blockade. See Holland in the Law Quarterly Review, xix. (1903), p. 133; Parl. Papers, Venezuela, No. 1 (1903), Cd. 1399. 2 See The Times, December 9, 1916, and A.J., xii. (1918), p. 806. 3 The leader of these writers is Hautefeuille, Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations neutres (2nd ed. 1858), vol. ii. pp. 272-288. * See Annuaire, ix. (1887), pp. 275-301. Pacific Blockade and third States. numerous cases of pacific blockade which occurred during the nineteenth century and since have, through tacit consent of the members of the Family of Nations, established the admissibility of pacific blockades for the settlement of political as well as of legal international differences. § 46. It has already been stated that all writers agree that the blockading State has no right to seize and Vessels of sequestrate such ships of third States as try to break a pacific blockade. Apart from this, no unanimity exists as to the position of ships of third States in a case of pacific blockade. Some German writers 1 maintain 1 that they have to respect the blockade, and that the blockading State has a right to stop those which try to break it. The vast majority of writers, however, deny such a right. There is, in fact, no rule of International Law which could establish such a right, as pacific (in contradistinction to belligerent) blockade is a mere matter between the conflicting parties. The declaration of the Institute of International Law in favour of pacific blockade contains, therefore, the condition: Les navires de pavillon étranger peuvent entrer librement malgré le blocus.' Practice has varied. Before 1850 ships of third States were expected to respect a pacific blockade, and such as tried to break it were seized, and restored at the termination of the blockade without compensation. During the blockade of Greece in 1850 and 1886, Greek ports were only closed for Greek ships, and others were allowed to pass through. And the same was the case during the blockade of Crete in 1897. On the other hand, when France instituted a blockade of Formosa in 1884 and tried to enforce it against ships of third States, Great Britain declared that a pacific blockade could not be so enforced; whereupon France had to drop her intended establishment of a pacific blockade, 1 See Heffter, § 112; Perels, § 30. and consider herself at war with China. And when in 1902 Great Britain, Germany, and Italy instituted a blockade against Venezuela, they declared it a war blockade 1 because they intended to enforce it against vessels of third States. Blockade and Vessels of seques- the Block State. § 47. Theory and practice seem nowadays to agree Pacific that the ships of a State under pacific blockade which try to break the blockade may be seized and trated. But they may not be condemned and con- aded fiscated, but must be restored at its termination. Thus, although the Powers which had instituted a blockade against Venezuela in 1902 declared it a war blockade, all Venezuelan public and private ships seized were restored after the blockade was raised. Blockade. § 48. Pacific blockade is a measure of such enormous Manner consequences that (quite apart from the obligations of of Pacific members of the League of Nations under the Covenant) it can be justified only after the failure of negotiation to settle the questions in dispute. And further, as blockade, being a violation of the territorial supremacy of the blockaded State, is prima facie of a hostile character, it is necessary for such State as intends in time of peace to blockade another State to notify its intention to the latter, and to fix the day and hour for the establishment of the blockade. And, thirdly, And, thirdly, although the Declaration of Paris of 1856 enacting that a blockade to be binding must be effective concerns blockades in time of war only, there can be no doubt that pacific blockades ought likewise to be effective. The declaration of the Institute of International Law in favour of pacific blockade contains, therefore, the condition: Le blocus pacifique doit être déclaré et notifié officiellement, et maintenu par une force suffisante.' 2 1 That this blockade was essentially a pacific blockade I have already stated above, § 44. The following is the full text of this declaration, referred to above, L'établissement d'un blocus en Value of Interven tion in contradis. § 49. As the establishment of a pacific blockade has in various instances not prevented the outbreak of hostilities, its value as a means of non-hostile settlement of international differences is doubted by many writers. But others agree, and I think they are right, that the institution is of great value, be it as an act of reprisal or of intervention. Every measure which is suitable and calculated to prevent the outbreak of war must be welcomed, and experience shows that pacific blockade is, although not universally successful, a measure of this kind. That it can give, and has in the past given, occasion for abuse in case of a difference between a strong and a weak Power is no argument against it, as the same is valid with regard to reprisals and intervention in general, and even to war. although it is naturally a measure which will scarcely be made use of in case of a difference between two powerful naval States, it might nevertheless find application with success against a powerful naval State if exercised by the united navies of several Powers. V INTERVENTION And See the literature quoted above in vol. i. at the commencement of § 134. § 50. Intervention as a means of settling international differences is only a special kind of interventinction to tion in general, which has already been discussed.1 It Participation in a consists in the dictatorial interference of a third State in a Differ ence. être considéré comme permis par le 1. Les navires de pavillon étran- 2. Le blocus pacifique doit être déclaré et notifié officiellement, et maintenu par une force suffisante. '3 Les navires de la puissance bloquée qui ne respectent pas un pareil blocus peuvent être séquestrés. Le blocus ayant cessé, ils doivent être restitués avec leurs cargaisons à leurs propriétaires, mais sans dédommagement à aucun titre.' 1 See above, vol. i. §§ 134-138. difference between two States, for the purpose of settling the difference in the way demanded by the intervening State. This dictatorial interference takes place for the purpose of exercising compulsion upon one or both of the parties in conflict, and must be distinguished from such an attitude of a State as makes it a party to the conflict. If two States are in conflict, and a third State joins one of them out of friendship or from any other motive, that third State does not exercise intervention as a means of settling international differences, but becomes a party to the conflict. If, for instance, an alliance exists between one of two States in conflict and a third, and if eventually, as war has broken out in consequence of the conflict, that third State comes to the help of its ally, no intervention in the technical sense of the term takes place. A State intervening in a dispute between two other States does not become a party to their dispute, but is the author of a new imbroglio, because it dictatorially requests those other States to settle their difference in a way to which both, or at any rate one of them, objects. An intervention, for instance, takes place when, although two States in conflict have made up their minds to fight it out in war, a third State dictatorially requests them to settle their dispute through arbitration. Intervention in the form of dictatorial interference must, further, be distinguished from efforts of a State directed to induce the States in conflict to settle their difference amicably, such as proffering its good offices or mediation, or giving friendly advice. Some jurists 1 speak incorrectly of good offices and the like as 'amicable' in contradistinction to 'hostile' intervention. Interven § 51. Intervention in a difference between two States Mode of takes the form of a communication to one or both of tion. the conflicting States with a dictatorial request for the 1 Thus, for instance, Rivier, ii. § 58. See also above, vol. i. § 134. |