Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[graphic]

to carry out the instructions must be attributed to accident or to the difficulty of knowing, when at a great height, what the exact position of an aeroplane is. The note also contained the following reservation : “The British Government wishes to take this opportunity of stating that the orders given to the aviators and the expression of regret for the non-observance of its instructions are not to be interpreted as a recognition by the British Government of the existence of a sovereignty of the air.' *

[ocr errors]

6

The reply of the Swiss Federal Council was that, as International Law does not recognise any limit to the sovereignty of the air, the Council must claim this sovereignty to its full extent; and it pointed out that, since the mobilisation of the Swiss army, it had issued instructions accordingly. (Times,' Dec. 8, 1914.) The right thus asserted was maintained in practice a little later. A message to the Times' from Berne, dated Feb. 4, 1915, said, 'A foreign aeroplane flew over Swiss territory near Porrentruy at a great height. It was shot at by Swiss soldiers, but escaped.' Holland has repeatedly asserted in the same practical way the right of preventing the flight of belligerent aircraft over its territory ; so early as August last the Dutch fired on a German dirigible (see Times,' Aug. 22).

Hostilities on neutral territory.-Hostilities are not permitted on neutral land. And although, as we shall see, a belligerent is allowed to use neutral waters in a way which has no parallel as regards neutral land, the rule about hostilities is the same in both cases. The territorial sea is the three-mile belt,' a width fixed in the 18th century by reference to the maximum distance commanded at that time by a gun of position. Now, although three miles is still the width for purposes of jurisdiction and sovereignty, much may be said for an increase of the width for purposes of neutrality ; for it

6

[ocr errors]

6

* This reservation can only have been inserted out of caution, for the British Government does not seem to have adopted elsewhere an attitude in favour of the rival doctrine of the freedom of the air. Indeed, the British Aerial Navigation Act, 1913, implicitly asserts the doctrine of sovereignty; for it empowers the Government to forbid the navigation of aircraft over the whole or any part of the coast-line of the United Kingdom and the territorial waters adjacent thereto.'

6

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

is clear that, if a naval engagement took place now just outside the three-mile belt, it might go hard with many miles of neutral coast. The increase to, say, ten miles would have the further advantage of keeping a belligerent cruiser out of range of sight from the shore when it was performing the invidious but legitimate task of watching the neutral waters in order to prevent the escape of an enemy vessel or the transport of contraband. There is reason, then, in the step taken by Turkey, while still neutral in the present war, when she proposed to increase the width of her territorial waters to six miles. France had already, by a decree of Oct. 18, 1912, adopted, to meet the event of her being neutral in a maritime war, a width of eleven kilometres, measured from low-water mark.

A neutral may, of course, take precautionary steps to prevent a violation of its territorial waters. An instance of this occurred lately. The Government of Chile, says a communication printed in the Times' of Nov. 5, 1914, has in order to procure respect for its neutrality, effectively employed her war-ships, which have convoyed, within territorial waters, merchant-vessels flying a belligerent flag that were threatened by cruisers of a contending nation. The most recent instances are the protection afforded to the British steamships Ortega and Oronsa by Chilean cruisers—to the first-named in the territorial waters of the Straits of Magellan, and to the other further north.'

Respect for neutral waters led to the escape of the German cruisers Breslau' and Goeben' from Messina early in the war; but in two cases Germany has taxed Great Britain with a violation of neutral waters. A complaint (not, perhaps, official) was made that when the armed liner Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse' was sunk by the ‘Highflyer' off the Atlantic coast of Africa she was in neutral waters, although the engagement had begun in the high seas. And a complaint has been made that the attack on the Dresden' was begun when she was but a few hundred yards from the shore of the Chilean island of Juan Fernandez. If the facts were as alleged, a wrong would have been done in both cases, for which redress is due to the neutral; although, as regards the former case, there is the authority of

66

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]

Bynkershoek for saying that a vessel escaping from battle into neutral waters may be pursued there dum fervet opus, provided no harm be done to the neutral. At the same time there may be circumstances which excuse, even if they do not justify, the attacking belligerent. Thus, it is recognised (as we shall see later) that a vessel which seeks in neutral waters an asylum from attack or capture must be detained during the war unless it quits reasonably soon. What, then, if the neutral waters into which a vessel is hunted are so remote that it is futile to look to the home Government to take immediate action ? what if there be no local authority or if the local authority be impotent or supine, so that there is nothing to prevent the vessel from abusing the asylum by a stay prolonged until departure be safe? Is not the pursuer excused if in any such case he takes the law into his own hands?

Neutral land and asylum to combatants.—When fugitives from land-war escape into neutral territory, the neutral must, if it receives them, do what in him lies to prevent them from rejoining their army. This doctrine is quite modern. It was applied by Belgium and Switzerland to fugitive French soldiers during the war of 1870-1871. Some think it unduly favourable to the other belligerent, as giving him without fighting all he could hope to get by fighting. But it received the sanction of both the Peace Conferences at The Hague; and so the conduct of the Dutch in disarming and interning British combatants who crossed the Dutch frontier in their retreat from Antwerp was strictly proper. These fugitives are not prisoners of war; their internment is simply a measure of political police.'

Asylum to war-ships of a belligerent.--The rules about asylum on neutral territory are not so severe and uniform in the case of war-ships as in the case of landtroops. The unity of the sea and the nature of the risks shared by all seafarers have bred traditions of international hospitality in ports and roadsteads; the foreign man-of-war is one of the common objects of the seaport. Hence it is everywhere conceded that a neutral may shelter a belligerent war-ship whether fugitive or not. But there are limits. If the sheltering vessel were allowed by the neutral to delay its departure at its

*

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

pleasure and until the moment most disadvantageous to its enemy, there would be a breach of what the United States describes in its Proclamation of Neutrality as 'the duty of a neutral government not to permit or suffer the making of its waters subservient to the purposes of war. The rule is to name a maximum duration for the visit. This rule is new; there was a trend in its direction before, but it was not fixed until the Hague Conference of 1907. The normal length of innocent stay was then fixed at twenty-four hours;* but a neutral may adopt any other period it chooses-France takes thrice twenty-four hours. What if the vessel outstays this period? The Hague Convention simply says that the neutral may take such measures as it considers necessary to render it incapable of putting to sea so long as the war lasts; the officers and crew are to be detained' with it; internment is not mentioned.

When Germany signed the Convention (XIII of 1907) containing the rule just mentioned, she made a reservation with regard to the Article in which it is found. But there have been many instances in the present war in which it has been enforced against her. Directly the war broke out, officials searched the German liners then lying in ports of the United States with a view to applying the rule to such of them as had an offensive armament. And the United States has since interned German cruisers under this rule, not only in ports on its mainland, but also, for instance, in Honolulu and at Guam in the Ladrone Archipelago. Norway is reported to have taken the same course ; and in February last a German auxiliary cruiser was interned by Argentina. The United States, it may be added, deems it its duty to use due diligence to prevent the escape of vessels so interned. On one occasion when some of them were

a

* This is really the complement of another much older 'twenty-four hours' rule. The older rule said that, when war-ships of two enemy powers were together in the same neutral port, one of them must not sail within twenty-four hours of the departure of the other. In 1861 a Federal war-ship abused this rule. It arrived in Southampton Water when a Confederate cruiser was in dock there, and, by always being ready to start before its enemy, was able practically to blockade it in British waters. In Jan. 1862, accordingly, Great Britain issued the rule about a maximum stay of twenty-four hours, since adopted by many other powers, notably by the United States and Japan.

[graphic]

reported to be meditating a dash for the sea, Federal officials searched them in order to test the truth of the rumour (Times,' March 8). The commanders of warships stationed in New York and Boston received orders to use force if necessary to prevent such a departure (Morning Post, March 16); and a German vessel which actually made the attempt at San Juan in Puerto Rico was driven back by shell-fire from the American guardship (“Times,' March 23). Further, a belligerent warvessel, which after repairing in a United States port quits as an alternative to detention, will not be allowed to hug the American coast, but must put out into the open sea; this was laid down, according to a Central News message printed in the newspapers for March 31, in the case of the German cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich.'

Asylum to individual naval combatants. The circumstances in which combatants may take refuge with a neutral from perils by sea are various. It may be from their own boats or by the enemy that they are landed on neutral soil, or they may have been picked up by a neutral vessel, either a man-of-war or privately owned; they may be the survivors of a naval engagement or the victims of mines, tempest or accident. It would seem as if one and the same rule should govern all these cases, namely, that the enemy might in no case demand their surrender-unless, indeed, the neutral vessel had intruded into an unfinished engagement in order to rescue themand that in all cases the neutral should take the steps necessary to prevent them from serving again during the war.

In fact, however, no such simple and uniform rule is recognised.

A dispute about this matter arose between Great Britain and the United States in 1864 in connexion with the sinking of the Alabama' by the Kearsage' off Cherbourg. An Englishman who witnessed the fight from his yacht picked up some survivors from the ‘Alabama,' including its captain, Semmes. He then sailed straight for Southampton, where the rescued men were landed and allowed to go free. It seems that the 'Alabama' had struck its colours before sinking, so that Semmes and his crew were virtually prisoners of war; but the rescuer was unaware of this and declared that he had been bidden by the captain of the Kearsage' to do what

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »