Слике страница
PDF
ePub

allocation of these materials among the Allies in accordance with the best interests of all concerned.

It remains for the future to disclose whether the principle of international cooperation, applied during this war through the operations of international executives, will find its way into the economic conditions prevailing in time of peace.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

SOME POINTS AS TO SHIPS IN ENEMIES' PORTS AS PRIZES

An opera is often judged by its overture. The British prize courts have adopted a like practice as to the Hague Conventions and various international agreements which have been considered by them.

Thus the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (The Germania, 4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 268), observing that the preamble of the Sixth Hague Convention stated that the signatory Powers, “anxious to insure the security of international commerce against the surprises of war, and wishing, in accordance with modern practice, to protect, as far as possible, operations undertaken in good faith and in process of being carried out before the outbreak of hostilities, have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect," holds:

These words clearly indicate that the purpose of the convention is the security of international commerce, and that the operations undertaken in good faith and in process of being carried out are operations of a commercial character.

Therefore, the right to days of grace, and other privileges and exemptions given by that convention, was denied to ships not navire de commerce and so to a very valuable racing yacht.

The prize court went further and held these privileges would be denied to merchant ships, except when engaged in operations of a commercial character.

Thus, the Prinz Adalbert and Kronprinzessin Cecelie (4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 360), German steamships, belonging to the Hamburg-American Line, having been advised that war had broken out between Germany and France, sought refuge from capture by French warships by taking refuge in a British port (Falmouth) and, on the outbreak of

the war between Great Britain and Germany a day later, were there seized and held as prizes. They claimed the right to depart freely, or within days of grace, under the above Hague Convention, or, if not, that they were subject to detention only and not to condemnation. The President of the Prize Court, Sir Samuel Evans, held the vessels not in port "in pursuance of any commercial undertaking at all. When the master took the vessel into port and kept her there his object was not to engage in commerce; he was not taking part in any commercial operation whatever; but was using the port for a totally different purpose, which I think was not contemplated when the Powers agreed on this provision of the Hague Convention." Accordingly, he condemned the ships as droits of Admiralty in favor of the Crown. On appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, however, their Lordships were of opinion that the effect of the preamble of the Sixth Hague Convention, and Articles 1 and 2 thereof, admitted of considerable doubt. Therefore, they refused to decide the question at that time, but indicated that an order for detention only and not condemnation was correct, reserving all rights until the views of Germany as to this Convention were ascertained. (4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 372.)

The Judicial Committee, moreover, dealt with the case of a certain German ship which had sought refuge at Port Saïd within the territory neutralized in connection with the Suez Canal, having arrived in ignorance of the state of war August 5, 1914. She was, on October 16, taken possession of by the Anglo-Egyptian Government and conducted more than three miles out to sea and delivered to the British Cruiser Warrior, which seized her as a prize. On hearing in the Egyptian Supreme Court, sitting in Prize at Alexandria, the ship was held properly seized as a prize and ordered detained until further orders. Later the court held that Article 2, Hague Convention No. 6 of 1907, applied, and ordered the ship detained during the war, with a declaration that she must be restored or her value paid to her owners at the conclusion of hostilities.

The case was that of the Gutenfels, and there were included with it those of the Barenfels and Derfflinger. The Crown appealed in the two first and the owner of the Derfflinger appealed, she having been condemned on the special ground that she was built for conversion into a war-ship.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that Egypt

was not a party to the Hague Convention, but their Lordships declined to decide whether or no the Convention applied to Egypt.

It may be suggested in passing that Egypt could not be a party to the Hague Convention, not being a sovereign nation but part and parcel of the Ottoman Empire, or if not, then of the British Empire. However, they assumed that the Convention did apply.

They held further that Port Saïd was a port enemy to Germany, having regard to the British occupation of Egypt; that on August 4, 1914, a British Order in Council recognized the validity of the Hague Convention aforesaid, conditional on Germany doing the same within a limited time. Germany did not do so and the order did not, therefore, become operative.

Their Lordships inclined to think, however, this did not apply to Egypt.

On August 5, 1914, the Egyptian Government issued a decision or decree like the above Order in Council in many respects, but allowing days of grace to enemy ships in her ports, coming under the terms of the Convention, to sunset, August 14, for ships not more than 5,000 tons gross. The Gutenfels was of greater tonnage, so this did not apply to her.

Their Lordships held the inaction of Germany prevented the Hague Convention as above from coming into operation as between Great Britain and Germany; that the ship had long outstayed any limited right of exemption to which she might be entitled from her passage through the Suez Canal, assuming that she had such right. They approved a modified order, as in the case of the Chile, for detention, leaving the ultimate rights between the parties to be determined after the war.

The same conclusion was reached as to the Barenfels.

As to the Derfflinger, it was held that her construction, designed for conversion into a war-ship, prevented the Hague Convention from applying (see Article 5); that her voyage through the canal was over and her journey rendered abortive by the war, and she had landed both cargo and crew; that when war broke out the vessel was in the port, not in the exercise of a right of passage, but by way of user of the port as a port of refuge; that under these circumstances the Canal Convention had ceased to be operative and she was not entitled to any protection.

They said it was also found she had communicated from the port

by wireless with the German war-ships the Goeben and the Breslau; that the order for her confiscation was right. (Gutenfels, Barenfels, Derfflinger, 4 Lloyd's P. C., 336.)

The line of decisions indicates the difficulty of the points of law which a master, seeking to save his ship from capture, must have to determine. Without reproach to the individual judges, they indicate, too, the strongly partisan character of Prize Jurisdiction where the claimant's rights are habitually adjudicated by an alien, very commonly, of course, an enemy Court, in which ingenuity in detaining or condemning is almost certain to be the predominant trait.

The professions of a wholly impartial and detached view on the part of the judges are habitual, but it would often be more consistent if they were omitted.

It would seem as if a vessel on a commercial voyage which, seeking to escape a violent storm, took refuge in a sheltered port, was in no way abandoning her commercial adventure, but wisely seeking to preserve it from injury or destruction. It is difficult to see why the same line of reasoning does not apply to a merchant ship threatened by the clouds of war while on a commercial voyage, which, in consequence, seeks the shelter of a neutral port.

CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY.

PAN-NATIONALISM

The League of Nations, or some form of pan-nationalistic idea, seems to be meeting with more favor in the second decade of the twentieth century than the idea of nationalism met in the corresponding period of the nineteenth century. There is, however, a striking similarity in the reception which these ideas have received in their respective periods.

The idea that nationality should be embodied in political unity was unpopular among many of the public men of the early nineteenth century. Even when the struggle involving liberalism, constitutionalism and the development of the doctrine of nationality was at its height, it was difficult for some of those in high position to conceive how such ideas could permanently endure. Some of these doubters maintained that placed as they were by divine providence on thrones and "beyond the passions which agitate society" they should "not abandon the

people whom they sought to govern to the sport of factions, to error and its consequences, which must involve the loss of society," but in spite of this contention they have been forced to yield their places.

During the nineteenth century nation after nation found itself lacking in security when it relied upon itself and found the burdens of independent military preparation increasingly heavy, and far from light when shared through the creation of alliances. The Czar of Russia, realizing these conditions in 1898, proposed an international conference upon these and other matters. When this conference met at The Hague as the first Peace Conference in 1899, the idea of internationalism was particularly emphasized. At this time, too, there were many scoffers, and the cartoonists made merry with some of the plans. The idea of internationalism had, however, been developing through the unfolding of the concept of the family of nations which, though at first European, came to include the United States after its independence, then Turkey after 1856, and Japan from 1899. Japan recognized the significance of entering into this family, and the Emperor at this time said:

In view of the responsibilities that devolve upon us in giving effect to the new treaties, it is our will that our ministers of state, acting on our behalf, should instruct our officials of all classes to observe the utmost circumspection in the management of affairs, to the end that subjects and strangers alike may enjoy equal privileges and advantages and that, every source of dissatisfaction being avoided, relations of peace and amity with all nations may be strengthened and consolidated in perpetuity.

Japan thus came as a nation in full standing to the First Hague Conference in 1899, where in all twenty-six states were represented. At the Second Hague Conference in 1907 the number of states represented was forty-four. It was, however, clearly announced that these conferences were called with "the desire to arrive at that high ideal of international justice which is the constant aim of the whole civilized universe." The various conventions drawn up at these conferences were, nevertheless, for the most part, binding only upon states which ratified them and only a degree of internationalism was secured, but not regulations for "the whole civilized universe."

Suarez, in 1612 even, had realized the need of a more general basis for world security, and in looking about at the states of his day said: "None of these states is sufficient for itself; all have need of reciprocal support, association, and mutual relations to ameliorate their situa

« ПретходнаНастави »