Слике страница
PDF
ePub

object in order to make it illusory." One would have thought her next step would be to suggest that it be turned into a reality. But she objected to a British proposal to prohibit outright the use of contact mines for closing against commerce ports that were not being attacked from the sea, and her opposition was backed by France and Russia. The result is that, so far as the conference is concerned, no restraint has been put on the activity of belligerents in this direction, though there is good reason for the assertion that it would be absolutely contrary to existing International Law. (International Problems and Hague Conferences, p. 122.)

Just as a consideration of the law of contraband in conference must lead to discussion on the carriage of food stuffs in neutral vessels to unblockaded belligerent ports, so it will be impossible to deal with the law of blockade without encountering the question of how a lawful blockade is constituted. For generations past there has been one common element in all the answers that have been given. Without exception they have asserted or assumed that the closure of the blockaded port must be effected by ships. There have been controversies as to the number of ships to be employed, the necessity of a cross fire being brought to bear from them on any vessel attempting to enter, the manifest nature of the danger threatened by them, and the question whether they must be stationed on the spot or may be allowed to cruise within reach of it. But no State has ever claimed the right to institute a blockade without placing some of its men-of-war in close proximity to the place blockaded. Yet at the last Hague Conference such a claim was made, not indeed directly, but by implication. The rejection of the British proposal to limit the use of anchored contact mines to the attack and defence of fortified naval ports involved a belief in the right to use them for closing against commerce ports which were not being attacked from the sea. A prohibition against laying them "off the coasts and ports of the enemy with the sole object of intercepting commercial shipping" was indeed inserted in the convention on the subject, but we have already (see pp. 122, 123) exposed its futility. On this point the proceedings of the conference were reactionary in the highest degree. Whereas in the past the only way of closing an enemy's port against all neutral commerce was to blockade it, and the only way to blockade it was to station a ship or ships in such a position as to create evident danger to all vessels attempting ingress or egress, for the future it will suffice in the judgment of many powers, to lay a cordon of anchored contact mines across the approaches. Neutrals must indeed have lost all virility if they will quietly submit to this. It will not mean the comparative triviality of having their ships and goods confiscated by a belligerent Prize Court. They will be destroyed instead; and all on board will be sent to their doom. (Ibid., p. 189.)

Dangers from the use of mines for blockade.-It is evident that there are many dangers from the use of mines in blockade. If notification is not given to every vessel

approaching the line of blockade, vessels may run upon mines. It is usually admitted that a vessel may occasionally pass the line of blockade without being seen by the blockading forces, perhaps by reason of darkness or storm. Vessels may approach the line of blockade not knowing of its existence and innocently try to enter the port. Neutral public vessels may even when knowing of blockade approach the port. If in such a case, the blockading vessels are absent in pursuit of a vessel which has violated a blockade; are driven away by the stress of the weather; are driven away by the forces of the other belligerent, without removing the mines, there remains a hidden danger to the vessels innocently approaching the port. A neutral attempting to violate a blockade, if captured, is liable, after trial by a proper court, to condemnation of vessel and cargo. A neutral vessel approaching, perhaps innocently, a port blockaded by mines, is liable to be destroyed without trial, and not merely may the vessel and cargo be sunk but the lives of the officers and crew may be sacrificed.

A neutral coming within the area of actual hostilities is generally held liable to the consequences of his action. Therefore, a difference may be made in the means used in war in case the place blockaded is a military stronghold of the enemy. It may be necessary that such places be closed to ingress or egress by mines.

It seems, therefore, that there should be a distinction made in the use of mines for the purpose of closing ports, and that the use of mines for commercial blockades should not be allowed, or if allowed should be under very careful restrictions.

However, the Hague Convention of 1907 only prohibits the use of mines for "the sole object of intercepting commercial shipping." As has been said it is very easy to introduce an additional object for which a blockade is maintained while still leaving innocent shipping liable to gravest dangers.

From the nature of the blockade, as stated in this Situation V, there is a small blockading force from which it might be inferred that it was rather a commercial than

a military blockade. The representatives of neutral States protest against the use of mines before the port. Protest would naturally not be lodged against the use of mines in any reasonable manner before a military stronghold.

CONCLUSION.

Under the strict law such use of mines is not prohibited. It would seem, however, that mines should not be used for the maintenance of a commercial blockade and that neutrals would have good cause to protest against such use, which protest a belligerent should heed.

55983-09- -8

APPENDIX.

FINAL ACT AND CONVENTIONS OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE, 1907.

115

« ПретходнаНастави »