from the moment she appears upon the high seas. Similarly, if she has succeeded in escaping from a blockaded port, she is liable to capture at any time before she reaches her home port. But with the termination of the voyage the offense ends." 34 The Japanese regulations of 1904 embody the same principles, while the Russian regulations conform to the continental opinion.35 It is also held that a vessel remote from and having no connection with the blockade may capture a vessel which has violated a blockade. The position taken by the United States, Great Britain, and Japan has received much unfavorable criticism.37 There is also considerable difference of opinion as to what constitutes a voyage and when the voyage is complete. In case of tramp steamers having neutral registry, there are many instances where the return to a home port is a rare occurrence, and where voyages are not, as in earlier days, out to and back from a certain port. Before returning to the home port, such steamers may go to ports far more remote, and in some instances may not for a long period, if ever, return to the so-called home port. (b) The continental doctrine works less hardship upon the neutral, and if the Declaration of Paris, that blockade, to be binding, must be effective, is to be fairly and strictly inter 84 Foreign Relations U. S. 1898, p. 781. * 35 "Art. 11. Merchant vessels of neutral nationality are subject to confiscation as prizes in the following cases: * * (2) When the vessels are caught violating a blockade, and it is not proven that the establishment of the blockade remained unknown to the masters." For the enforcement of this law the instructions provided: "37. Vessels subject to detention are the following: * 串 * (2) Neutral merchant vessels. (c) If they are caught violating an actual and declared blockade." 36 "Any public vessel of the belligerent, whose rights had been violated, may be the agent or minister to apprehend the offender, though, by dexterity or superior speed, the culpable actor may escape arrest at the time or place of the perpetration of the wrong." The Memphis, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 260, Fed. Cas. No. 9,413. 871 Kleen, La Neutralité, 638; 8 Pradier-Fodéré, Droit Int. Public, § 3143; Gessner, Le Droit des Neutres sur Mer, 214; Fauchille, Du Blocus Maritime, 354. preted, it may be maintained that the liability to capture for violation of blockade should be confined to the field of effective operations, which would include the limit of continuous pursuit.38 (c) The International Naval Conference at London, in 1909, found wide differences of opinion existing among the naval powers.39 Finally, the following rule was adopted, becoming article 17 of the Declaration of London: "The seizure of neutral vessels for violation of blockade may be made only within the radius of action of the ships of war assigned to maintain an effective blockade." As to what constitutes a "radius of action," there is an explanation given in the official report. This is of such importance in its bearing on maritime hostilities that it is given in full: "When a government decides to undertake blockading operations against some part of the enemy coast, it details a certain number of warships to take part in the blockade, and intrusts the command to an officer, whose duty is to use them for the purpose of making the blockade effective. The commander of the naval force thus formed posts the ships at his disposal according to the line of the coast and the geographical position of the blockaded places, and instructs each ship as to the part which she has to play, and especially as to the zone which she is to watch. All the zones watched, taken together and so organized as to make the blockade effective, form the area of operations of the blockading naval force. "The area of operations so constituted is intimately connected with the effectiveness of the blockade, and also with the number of ships employed on it. "Cases may occur in which a single ship will be enough to keep a blockade effective, for instance, at the entrance of a port, or at the mouth of a river with a small estuary, so long as circumstances allow the blockading ship to stay near enough to the entrance. In that case the area of operations is itself 38 Gen. Davis says: "When the offense is one of egress, the penalty continues until the vessel reaches the territorial waters of a neutral state." Elements of Int. Law, p. 476. 39 British Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous No. 4 (1909) p. 255ff. near the coast. But, on the other hand, if circumstances force her to remain far off, one ship may not be enough to secure effectiveness, and to maintain this she will then have to be supported by others. From this cause the area of operations becomes wider, and extends further from the coast. It may therefore vary with circumstances, and with the number of blockading ships; but it will always be limited by the condition that effectiveness must be assured. "It does not seem possible to fix the limits of the area of operations in definite figures, any more than to fix beforehand and definitely the number of ships necessary to assure the effectiveness of any blockade. These points must be settled according to circumstances in each particular case of a blockade. This might, perhaps, be done at the time of making the declaration. "It is clear that a blockade will not be established in the same way on a defenseless coast as on one possessing all modern means of defense. In the latter case there could be no question of enforcing a rule such as that which formerly required that ships should be stationary and sufficiently close to the blockaded places. The position would be too dangerous for the ships of the blockading force, which, besides, now possess more powerful means of watching effectively a much wider zone than formerly. "The area of operations of a blockading naval force may be rather wide; but as it depends on the number of ships contributing to the effectiveness of the blockade, and is always limited by the condition that it should be effective, it will never reach distant seas, where merchant vessels sail which are, perhaps, making for the blockaded ports, but whose destination is contingent on the changes which circumstances may produce in the blockade during their voyage. To sum up, the idea of the area of operations joined with that of effectiveness, as we have tried to define it, that is to say, including the zone of operations of the blockading forces, allows the belligerent effectively to exercise the right of blockade which he admittedly possesses, and, on the other hand, saves neutrals from exposure to the drawbacks of blockade at a great distance, while it leaves them free to run the risk which they knowingly incur by approaching points to which access is forbidden by the belligerent." 40 It was also provided that in effect this area of operations would be extended in case of pursuit of a vessel which had violated or attempted to violate the blockade: "Article 20. A vessel, which in violation of blockade has left a blockaded port, or has attempted to enter the port, is liable to capture so long as she is pursued by a ship of the blockading force. If the pursuit is abandoned, or if the blockade is raised, her capture can no longer be effected." 40 Id., No. 5, p. 41. CHAPTER XXVI. CONTINUOUS VOYAGE. 201. Continuous Voyage. CONTINUOUS VOYAGE. 201. (a) By the doctrine of continuous voyage, as held in its extreme form, the ultimate destination, regardless of any intermediate destination of vessels or goods, determined their treatment on the seas outside of neutral jurisdiction. (b) By the Declaration of London, 1909 (article 30), the doctrine was restricted so as to apply to absolute contraband only. (a) It was a common practice of the eighteenth century to limit the carrying trade between mother country and the dependencies to domestic vessels. Many states still impose restrictions upon the coasting and domestic carrying trade. When, in the war of 1756, France opened to the Dutch the trade with her colonies previously confined to her own vessels, the English maintained that the Dutch vessels thus engaged were practically in the commercial navy of France, and liable to similar treatment. Dutch vessels were accordingly captured and condemned. There were, however, various treaties prior to 1756 by the provisions of which one. of the parties to the treaty was to be permitted in time of war to trade at ports belonging to the enemy of the other party.1 Freedom of trade, which had been a matter of treaty agreement in early years, was claimed by the Armed Neutrality of 1780 as a matter of general right. The British Orders in Council, restricting trade, a few years later, met with opposition. Questions arose as to what constituted a voyage, and as to when the cargo was deposited, and at what period a vessel was liable to capture. In the case of The William, Sir William Scott, in 1805, gave full con 1 Int. Law Topics, U. S. Naval War College, 1905, p. 77. |