subsequent occupation of the railway line from Tsing-tau as far west as Tsinanfu, including the coal mines worked by the Germans. The Japanese government justified its act, in the first place, on the ground of military necessity. Japan was planning the destruction of the German base of Tsing-tau, and it was therefore imperative that the line should be occupied and used for the purpose of accomplishing this object. Moreover, it would be dangerous from the Japanese point of view to leave a section of railway to the rear of the Japanese forces, `in the hands of the enemy. It was also asserted that the railway was German-owned and German-controlled and could not therefore be considered as neutral property.

Again it was argued that the Chinese government had shown its unwillingness or inability to restrain the Germans from using the railway for military purposes, to the detriment of Japan. Finally, it was alleged that Japan and Great Britain were coöperating in the attack upon Tsing-tau with a view to taking the place from Germany and returning it to China, its rightful owner. Consequently, China should welcome their coöperation and adopt an attitude of benevolent neutrality toward Japan with a view to facilitating an object that would result in the restoration to China of what rightfully belonged to her.1

463. The Japanese Defence Reviewed. Regarding the merits of the contention thus put forward in defence of the Japanese measures there is naturally a difference of opinion. As in the case of the Anglo-French occupation of Greece to be described hereafter, it is hardly fair to judge such acts on the basis of the ordinary normal rules of international law governing the rights of neutrals. It must be admitted that the situation which confronted the Japanese was anomalous, as it was in the cases of Korea in 1904 and of Greece in 1915. The Chinese government in its note of September 3, 1914, readily acknowledged that an extraordinary situation" had been created in Shantung in virtue of the German lease. It was also true, as the Japanese contended, that the railway from Tsing-tau to Tsinanfu was built by the Germans, that it was largely, if not entirely owned by them and that therefore when the Japanese

1 The correspondence between the Chinese and Japanese governments regarding the Japanese violation of Chinese sovereignty may be found in a memorandum laid before the Peace Conference in February, 1919, by the Chinese delegation.

OCCUPATION OF SALONIKI

241

seized it they were taking possession not of Chinese but of German private property and property which was being used by the enemy for military purposes. Whatever may be the differences of opinion regarding the necessity of the measures adopted by the Japanese all will agree that they were wholly different in spirit and purpose from the German violation of Belgian neutrality.

III

THE OCCUPATION OF GREECE BY ENGLAND AND FRANCE

§ 464. English and French Troops Occupy Saloniki and Other Places. A case of occupation of neutral territory by belligerents which was sui generis in character, and concerning the legitimacy of which there has been much discussion, was the occupation of a portion of the territory of Greece by the Anglo-French forces during the late war. In October, 1915, British and French troops landed at Saloniki, took possession of the custom-houses, arrested the consuls of Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany, and Turkey at Saloniki and Mytilene and transported them to France where they were detained for a time on board a French war ship at Toulon. Subsequently various other cities in Greece were occupied by the forces of the Entente powers, notably Milos, Lemnos, Cephalonia, Corinth, Imbros, Mytilene, Castelloriza, the Chalcidice peninsula, and a large part of Macedonia.

In January, 1916, French troops landed on the Greek island of Corfu and occupied the castle of Achillein owned by the German Emperor, hoisted the French flag over it, and made it the headquarters of the Servian army, which had been transported to the island. At the same time the Austrian and German consuls in the island were arrested. These latter acts aroused much indignation in the Central Empires both of whose governments protested to the government of Greece, which in turn addressed a protest to the governments of Great Britain and France, on the ground that Corfu was neutralized territory.1 The governments of Great Britain and France defended their occupation of Corfu on the ground that it was necessary to

1 The permanent neutrality of the island of Corfu had been guaranteed by a treaty of March 29, 1864, signed by the governments of Great Britain, France, and Russia.

VOL. II-16

transfer thereto a portion of the Servian army which was in dire need of rest and recuperation. It was a clear duty of humanity, they asserted, to transport the remnant of the Servian army to some neutral place where sanitary facilities, an adequate food supply, and opportunities for recuperation could be found, and Corfu had been selected for this purpose "in order to save these heroic soldiers from famine and destruction." 1 There was no intention of occupying the island for the purpose of military operations, and guarantees were given the Greek government that it would be used only for the purpose mentioned. It was also alleged by the English and French governments that the island had become a base of operations for Austrian and German submarines and could not therefore be considered strictly as neutral territory.3

§ 465. Other Acts of the Entente Powers. After the occupation of Saloniki a regime of martial law appears to have been established by the commanders of the allied forces; the town was made a fortified naval base; British and French warships filled the harbors; the railway, telegraph, postal, and customs administration was taken over; the Greek army, which had been mobilized, was required to evacuate the territory between Saloniki and Dorian, and what was in effect a blockade of Greece was established by the occupying AngloFrench forces. Against the occupation of Greece by the Anglo

1 The Greek government in its protest asserted that the territory of Italy, an ally of Great Britain and France, could have been utilized for this purpose, thus avoiding the violation of Greek neutrality.

This explanation is contained in a note handed to the Greek government by the ministers of the Entente allies in January, 1916. The note added that they did not suppose Greece would object to the proposed transfer of the Servians to Corfu, since they were allies of Greece and would remain in the island but a short time. In February it was announced that 75,000 Servian troops had been transferred to the island and that 2500 others were shortly expected.

The occupation of a Greek fort on the Karaburum peninsula by the allied troops in January, 1916, was also defended on the alleged ground that a German submarine had torpedoed a British transport within the territorial waters of the peninsula, and it was necessary, therefore, to take precautionary measures against similar violations of Greek neutrality in the future.

In June, 1916, the Greek government addressed a formal protest to neutral powers against the allied blockade as a violation of international law. Since June 6, the protest declared, the Greek coast had been subjected to a limited blockade, ships being held up and searched and taken to naval bases established by the allied forces. Various vessels flying the Greek flag had been taken to Bizerta, Tunis, and there converted into transports by the allies. As a result, it was de

THE GREEK PROTEST

243

French forces the governments of the Central powers protested, and the Greek government was informed that it would be held responsible for permitting its neutrality to be thus violated.

§ 466. The Greek Protest and the Anglo-French Defence. On October 2, 1915, the French minister at Athens had informed the prime minister of Greece of the intention of French and British troops to land at Saloniki and explained the reasons which impelled the allied governments to adopt this measure. The communication was as follows:

"By order of my government I have the honor to announce to your Excellency the arrival at Saloniki of the first detachment of French troops, and to declare at the same time that France and England, allied to Servia, send their troops to help the latter, as well as maintain their communications with her, and that the two powers count upon Greece, who already has given them so many proofs of friendship, not to oppose measures taken in the interests of Servia, of whom she also is the ally."

To this communication premier Venizelos replied:

"In answer to your letter I have the honor to declare to your Excellency that, being neutral in the European war, the royal government could not possibly authorize the proceeding in question, for it constitutes a breach of Greece's neutrality, the more manifest since it comes from two great belligerent powers. It is, therefore, the duty of the royal government to protest against the passage of foreign troops across Greek territory. The circumstance that these troops are destined solely to aid Servia, Greece's ally, in no way modifies the legal position of the King's government; for even from a Balkan point of view, Greece's neutrality could not be affected before an actual casus foederis was committed, by the danger now threatening Servia, which caused the despatch of international troops to her help." By a vote of 257 to 40 the Greek chamber of deputies approved this protest, but at the same time it approved the declaration of premier Venizelos that Greece was bound by treaty as well as higher vital interests to come to the aid of her ally Servia.

clared, Greece's food supplies had been cut off and her maritime commerce, "the essential of her national economy," stopped.

"The intentions of the Entente allies with respect to Greece," the British foreign office declared, "have been entirely misinterpreted by the press and government of Greece. There never was any intention to declare a blockade. What the Entente allies had in view was the cancellation of special privileges enjoyed by Greek shipping, such as permission to load at British, French and other belligerent ports goods which were not allowed to be exported except under special licenses, which heretofore have been granted Greek ships." Later, however, the measure undoubtedly became a blockade in the strict sense of the word and was maintained until after the abdication of King Constantine in June, 1917.

1

No attempt was made by the government to oppose the landing of the troops; indeed, it is stated that the protest was made merely as a formal and perfunctory compliance with the technical requirements of the law of neutrality; that in fact the landing of the troops was with the tacit approval, if not upon the invitation, of the government; that they were enthusiastically welcomed by the mass of the population, and that they were acclaimed by the people as they marched through the streets.

The king of Greece, however, who was known to be strongly under German influence, did not share the views of his prime minister, Venizelos, whose reply to the French communication voiced the views of the king rather than those of the Venizelos government, and he protested vigorously against the landing of the allied troops at Saloniki as well as against the other measures adopted by the allies, as being contrary to international law and no different in principle from the German invasion of Belgium.2

§ 467. The Conflict between the King and Parliament. The king therefore dismissed the Venizelos ministry despite the fact that it had the confidence of the Greek parliament and the overwhelming support of public opinion and ordered new elections when a large number of the electors were under arms and disqualified from voting. At the elections the new government which had in the meantime been constituted by the king was condemned by a large majority of the voters who demanded the recall of Venizelos. Instead of resigning in obedience to the clearly pronounced will of the people, the old cabinet remained in power. The government was, therefore, carried on in contravention of the constitution, which provided for a system of parliamentary government, that is, government by ministers under the control of and responsible to parliament. In the face of a threatened uprising of the people the ministry finally resigned, and Venizelos was recalled to power. Again he insisted that Greece should fulfil her obligations under the treaty with Servia, and that the king should, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the constitution, bow to the national will and not insist upon the enforcement of his own personal

1 Cf. De Visscher, La Belgique et les Juristes Allemands, p. 10.

2 See his interview with a representative of the Associated Press (New York Times, January 21, 1916).