men for the purpose of ascertaining whether these vessels really belong to the merchant marine of neutrals, and, if this is found to be the case, whether they are attempting to break blockade, or carry contraband, or render unneutral service to the enemy. The right of visit and search was already mentioned in the Consolato del Mare, and although it has often been contested, its raison d'être is so obvious that it has long been universally recognised in practice. It is indeed the only means by which belligerents are able to ascertain whether neutral merchantmen intend to bring assistance to the enemy and to render him unneutral services.2 Visita whom, exercised. § 415. The right of visit and search may be exercised Right of by all warships and military aircraft of belligerents. tion, by But since it is a belligerent right, it may, of course, when, and only be exercised after the outbreak, and before the where end, of war. The right of visitation which men-of-war of all nations have in time of peace in a case of suspicion of piracy 5 has nothing to do with the belligerent right of visit and search. But since an armistice does not bring war to an end, and since the exercise of the right of visitation is not an act of warfare, it may be exercised during the time of a partial or general armistice. The region where the right may be exercised German prize crew on board cap- 4 In former times also by priva- See above, vol. i. § 266 (2). But this is not universally recognised. Thus Hautefeuille, iii. p. 91, maintains that during a general armistice the right of visitation may not be exercised, and Only Private Vessels may be visited. Vessels under Convoy. is the maritime territorial belt of either belligerent, and the open sea, but not the maritime territorial belt of neutrals. Whether the part of the open sea in which a belligerent man-of-war meets with a neutral merchantman is near or far away from that part of the world where hostilities are actually taking place makes no difference, so long as there is suspicion against the vessel. The question whether the men-of-war of a belligerent may exercise the right of visitation in the maritime territorial belt of an ally is solely one between the belligerent and his ally, provided that the latter is already a belligerent. § 416. During the nineteenth century, it became universally recognised that neutral men-of-war are not objects of the right of visit and search of belligerents.1 And the same is valid regarding public neutral vessels which sail in the service of armed forces, such as transport vessels, for instance. Doubt exists as to the position of public neutral vessels not sailing in the service of armed forces, e.g. mail-boats belonging to a neutral State. It is asserted 2 that, if commanded by an officer of the Navy, they must be treated in the same way as men-of-war, but that it is desirable to ask the commanders to give their word of honour assuring the absence of contraband and unneutral service. 3 § 417. Sweden in 1653, during war between Great Britain and the Netherlands, claimed that the belligerents ought to waive their rights of visitation over Swedish merchantmen if they sailed under the convoy § 5 of the Règlement international In strict law the right of visit it ceases avec les préliminaires de la paix.' See below, § 436. 1 In former times Great Britain tried to extend visitation to neutral men-of-war. See Manning, p. 455. 2 See, for instance, Gessner, p. 297, and Perels, § 52, iv. * See Robinson, Collectanea maritima (1801), pp. 145-157. of a Swedish man-of-war whose commander asserted that there was no contraband on board the convoyed vessels. The Peace of Westminster in 1654 brought this war to an end, and in 1756 the Netherlands, then neutral, claimed the right of convoy. But it was not until the last quarter of the eighteenth century that the right of convoy was more and more insisted upon by Continental neutrals. During the American War of Independence in 1780, the Netherlands again claimed it, and when they themselves waged war against Great Britain in 1781, they ordered their menof-war and privateers to respect it. Between 1780 and 1800, treaties were concluded, in which Russia, Austria, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, France, the United States of America, and other States recognised the right. But Great Britain always refused to do so, and, in July 1800, the action of a British squadron in capturing a Danish man-of-war and her convoy of six merchantmen for resistance to visitation called the Second Armed Neutrality into existence. Yet Great Britain still resisted. It was only to Russia 1 that by Article 4 of the 'Maritime Convention' of St. Petersburg of June 17, 1801, she conceded that vessels under convoy should not be visited by privateers, and though during the Crimean War she waived her claim on account of her naval co-operation with France (the latter recognising the right of convoy on principle), she waived it only for that particular war. Although during the nineteenth century more and more treaties stipulating the right of convoy were concluded, it was not mentioned in the Declaration of Paris of 1856, and Great Britain refused to recognise it throughout the century. However, Great 1 But this concession extended to Denmark and Sweden, since these Powers (see above, § 290) acceded to the Maritime Convention on October 23, 1801. Britain abandoned her opposition at the Naval Conference of London of 1908-1909, and the unratified Declaration of London proposed to settle the matter by Articles 61 and 62 in the following way : Neutral vessels under the convoy of a man-of-war flying the same flag were to be exempt from search, and might not be visited if the commander of the convoy, at the request of the commander of the belligerent cruiser which desired to visit them, gave, in writing, all the information as to the character of the convoyed vessels and their cargoes that could be obtained by search. Should the commander of the belligerent man-of-war have reason to suspect that the confidence of the commander of the convoy had been abused, he might not himself resort to visit and search, but had to communicate with the commander of the convoy. The latter had to investigate the matter, and record the result of his investigation in a report, a copy of which was to be given to the commander of the belligerent cruiser. If, in the opinion of the commander of the convoy, the facts stated in the report justified the capture of one or more of the convoyed vessels, he was to withdraw protection from the offending vessels, and the belligerent cruiser might then capture them. In case a difference of opinion arose between the commander of the convoy and the commander of the belligerent cruiser-for instance, with regard to the question whether certain goods were absolute or conditional contraband or whether the port of destination of a convoyed vessel was an ordinary commercial port or a port which served as a base of supply for the armed forces of the enemy and the like the commander of the belligerent cruiser was to have no power of overruling the decision of the commander of the convoy. He could only protest and report the case to his Government, which would have had to settle the matter by means of diplomacy.1 1 Had the Declaration of London been ratified, its rules concerning convoy would also have applied to belligerent military aircraft meeting convoyed neutral merchantmen at sea. However, the declaration has not been ratified, and it is apparent from the attitude of the British Government during the World War that it is no longer prepared to give effect to the concession made at the Naval Conference of London and recognise the right of convoy. Thus, when the Dutch Government announced in 1918 that a convoy would be despatched to the Dutch East Indies carrying Government passengers and goods, the British Government expressly refused to recognise the right of convoy, insisted upon the right to visit and search neutral merchantmen, even if convoyed, and only agreed to abstain from exercising that right on that occasion upon special conditions which the Dutch Government accepted.1 Universal Mode of tion. § 418. There are no rules of International Law No which lay down all the details of the formalities of Rules the mode of visitation. A great many treaties regulate regarding them as between the parties, for many of which Article Visita17 of the Peace Treaty of the Pyrenees of 1659 has served as a model; and all maritime nations have given instructions to their men-of-war regarding them. Thereby uniform formalities are practised with regard to many points; but regarding others the practice of the several States differs. of Vessels of Visita § 419. A man-of-war which wishes to visit a neutral Stopping vessel must stop her, or make her bring to. Although for the the chasing of vessels may take place under false Purpose colours, the right colours must be shown when vessels tion. are stopped. The order for stopping can be given 3 by hailing or by firing one or two blank cartridges from the so-called affirming gun, and, if necessary, by firing a shot across the bows of the vessel.4 If nevertheless the vessel does not bring to, the man-of-war is justified 1 Parl. Papers, Misc., No. 13 (1918), Cd. 9028. 2 See above, § 211. 3 See above, vol i. § 268. VOL. II. 2Q On emergency measures with |