Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

natural and necessary consequence of the unprecedented methods, repugnant to all law and morality, which have been described above, which Germany began to adopt at the very outset of the war, and the effects of which have been constantly accumulating."

Thus ended the preliminary exchanges between the United States and Germany. Submarines were already being used against merchant vessels; noncombatants were losing their lives; the measure was, by German admission, in violation of the existing rules of law, although she claimed that it was justified to meet the measures of her enemies, and asked that neutrals relinquish their rights in order not to suffer; but no American citizens were killed, and the United States refrained from entering any further protest on humanitarian grounds. Germany had been told that she would be held to a "strict accountability,” and she had answered that she would endeavor to respect neutral rights, but that with the trade in munitions continuing, she would not be responsible for any unfortunate accidents. It was now a question

of how soon American rights would be directly infringed. 8

Before March 10, 1915, eighty-eight British merchant vessels were captured or destroyed. Fifty-four of these were taken by cruisers, twelve were sunk by mines, and twenty-two were victims of the submarine warfare. The gross tonnage was 309,945. This, however, did not begin to affect England seriously for in the same period the arrivals and departures of overseas steamers of all nationalities of more than 300 tons were 4,745. The New York Times Current History, Vol. II, p. 20 (April, 1915).

CHAPTER III

SOME POINTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

It has already been indicated briefly how Germany's submarine warfare did not achieve even a remote compliance with the principles of international law defining a blockade, and that, therefore, neutral vessels could be captured only for the carriage of contraband. The German plea that any war measure, with the purpose of starving her into submission was per se illegal has been mentioned. This will be returned to later when it will be necessary to consider in some detail the objections to the trade in munitions and the attempt to justify the submarine outrages on the ground that they were a proper retaliation for England's extensions of international law. But here it may be appropriate to direct attention to three problems of international law which were in

volved by these preliminary exchanges: The status of the Declaration of London, the limitations (which are of fundamental importance) on the right to destroy enemy and neutral merchant vessels, and the use of neutral flags on enemy ships.

The purpose of the Declaration of London, which was signed by ten powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, France, Great Britain, the United States, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Russia) was twofold: It was designed in the first place to furnish the rules to govern the International Prize Court-provided for by the Second Hague Peace Conference but never brought into existence-in determining appeals from national prize courts in time of war; and secondly, it was intended to codify the rules of maritime warfare, the assumption being that the approval of these ten powers would lead to its acceptance by the other nations. To some extent this hope was not unjustified since, although neither state had ratified the instrument, it was proclaimed as the rule of conduct during the Italian-Turkish war; but in the present con

flict it has been more honored in the breach than in the observance.

Although the London Naval Conference was called by Great Britain, which extended the invitation to the other nine maritime powers, a prize bill, incorporating the provisions of the Declaration was rejected by the House of Lords after it had passed the Commons (1911). Public opinion in Great Britain was unfavorable to it-particularly those provisions dealing with contraband. The United States Senate, however, ratified the Declaration and both Germany and France incorporated it in their naval codes. Upon the outbreak of the present war, the United States inquired of all the belligerents as to whether they would agree that the Declaration should be applicable upon condition of reciprocity, and expressed the belief "that an acceptance of the laws by the belligerents would prevent grave misunderstandings which may arise as to the relations between neutral powers and belligerents." Germany and Austria-Hungary expressed their willingness, but Great Britain refused to abide by a number of provisions, the most important being those which de

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »