A city may, and often is, both besieged and blockaded at the same des neutres" (c). A blockade being thus an infringement of neutral rights, its operation_§ 510c. is not to be extended further than the actual circumstances of the case Extent of blockades. Thus when the United States declared all the render it necessary. Southern ports blockaded, and a squadron cruised off the mouth of the Rio Grande to intercept the trade with Texas, the Supreme Court decided that this blockade was not to be held to apply to the western side of the Rio Grande, which was in Mexican and neutral territory (d). A blockade must also be absolute, that is, it must interdict all commerce whatever with the blockaded port. It is not legitimate if it allows to either belligerent a freedom of commerce denied to the subjects of neutral States. During the Crimean war various orders were The Franissued by the English, French, and Russian governments, the effect of ciska. which was to permit trade to be carried on by their respective subjects in the Baltic ports, while those ports were blockaded by the English and French fleets, but which excluded neutrals from such trade. During this blockade a Danish (and neutral) ship was captured by an English cruiser near the entrance of the Gulf of Riga. The Privy Council held that as the blockade was relaxed in favour of belligerents to the exclusion of neutrals, it was not a legal blockade, and therefore the vessel was improperly seized for attempting to enter the port of Riga, and must be restored (e). What to consti "To constitute a violation of blockade," says Sir W. Scott, § 511. "three things must be proved: 1st. The existence of an things must actual blockade; 2ndly. The knowledge of the party sup- be proved posed to have offended; and 3rdly. Some act of violation, tute a either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the violation of commencement of blockade (f)." blockade. Actual blockading 1. The definition of a lawful maritime blockade, requiring § 512. the actual presence of a maritime force stationed at the presence entrance of the port, sufficiently near to prevent communica- of the tion, as given by the text writers, is confirmed by the authority force. of numerous modern treaties, and especially by the Convention of 1801, between Great Britain and Russia, intended as a final adjustment of the disputed points of maritime law, (b) [Calvo, ii. § 1139.] (c) [Cauchy, tom. ii. p. 196. See also Fiore, tom. ii. p. 446.] (d) [The Peterhoff, 5 Wallace, 35; The Frau Ilsabe, 4 C. Rob. 63; The Luna, Edw. 190.] (e) [The Franciska (Northcote v. Douglas), 10 Moo. P. C. 36.] (f) The Betsey, 1 C. Rob. 92. § 513. Temporary interrup tion. § 513a. Efficiency of blockades. which had given rise to the armed neutrality of 1780 and of 1801 (g). The only exception to the general rule, which requires the actual presence of an adequate force to constitute a lawful blockade, arises out of the circumstance of the occasional temporary absence of the blockading squadron, produced by accident, as in the case of a storm, which does not suspend the legal operation of the blockade. The law considers an attempt to take advantage of such an accidental removal a fraudulent attempt to break the blockade (h). The fourth article of the Declaration of Paris, 1856, is as follows:"Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy" (i). This merely puts into a formula what was already a principle of the law of nations, but it leaves the often disputed question of what is a "sufficient force" in the same state as before. This is, in reality, more a question of fact than of law, and it seems almost impossible to lay down any precise rule defining in all cases what is a sufficient force (k). "In the eye of the law," said Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, a blockade is effective if the enemy's ships are in such numbers and positions as to render running the blockade a matter of danger, although some vessels may succeed in getting through "(). A blockade is not necessarily confined to maritime operations. It may be made effectual by batteries ashore as well as by ships afloat. In the case of an inland port, the most effective blockade would be maintained by batteries commanding the river or inlet by which it may be approached, supported by a naval force sufficient to warn off innocent and capture offending vessels attempting to enter (m). The blockade of the Confederate ports by the United States was one of the most extraordinary in history. It extended over a coast line of more than 3000 miles, and though, at the outset, the Federal fleet was not equal to such a gigantic task, foreign governments recognised the blockade. As the war progressed the development of the naval resources of the Northern States enabled them to intercept most of the trade with the South, and this was one of the chief causes of their ultimate success (n). The Supreme Court held that this extensive blockade being once established, and duly notified, it was to be deemed to continue until notice of discontinuance, in (g) The 3rd art. sect. 4, of this convention, declares:-"That in order to determine what characterises a blockaded port, that domination is given only where there is, by the disposition of the power which attacks it with ships stationary, or sufficiently near, an evident danger in entering." (h) The Columbia, 1 C. Rob. 154. (i) [Hertslet, Map of Europe, vol. ii. p. 1283.] (k) [Calvo, ii. § 1148. Bluntschli, § 829.] (1) [Geipel v. Smith, L. R. 7 Q. B. 410.] (m) [The Circassian, 2 Wallace, 149.] (n) [Wheaton by Dana, note 232.] no the absence of positive proof of discontinuance by other evidence. Thus ships captured for endeavouring to enter or leave the Confederate ports were condemned as prize when their officers saw, or swore they saw, blockading ships off the ports they were making for or quitting (0). A milder rule towards neutrals was adopted by France in 1870. French naval officers were instructed that ships approaching a blockaded port were not to be deemed to intend violating the blockade, until its notification had been inscribed on their register or ship's papers, by an officer of one of the ships forming the blockade (p). Turkish blockade of A question respecting the efficiency of a blockade arose during the § 513b. present Turco-Russian war. Turkey proclaimed a blockade of the whole of the coasts of the Black Sea, from Trebizond to the mouth of the Black the Danube, and maintained it by a force of cruisers in the Black Sea Sea. itself. This force prevented most of the trade with the Russian ports from being carried on ; but, besides this, the Porte stationed two cruisers in the Bosphorus, and any vessels which escaped the Black Sea squadron were captured on arriving there, and taken before the Prize Court, sitting at Constantinople. A more complete and efficient blockade could not possibly be devised, nevertheless it was argued for the owners of the prizes, that being neutral vessels (mostly Greek), as soon as they had escaped the Black Sea squadron, they were free, and were no longer liable to capture. The Turkish Prize Court, however, condemned the vessels. This case was peculiarly important from the fact that some of the foreign ambassadors at the Porte had intimated that if these vessels were not condemned, the blockade would not be recognised by other countries. To hold that these Greek vessels were not liable to be captured in the Bosphorus, would have been tantamount to opening the general commerce of the Black Sea to Greece, and this would have immediately invalidated the whole blockade (q). § 514. Knowledge of the 2. As a proclamation, or general public notification, is not of itself sufficient to constitute a legal blockade, so neither can a knowledge of the existence of such a blockade be imputed to party. the party, merely in consequence of such a proclamation or notification. Not only must an actual blockade exist, but a knowledge of it must be brought home to the party, in order to show that it has been violated (r). As, on the one hand, a declaration of blockade which is not supported by the fact cannot be deemed legally to exist, so, on the other hand, the fact, duly notified to the party on the spot, is of itself sufficient to affect him with a knowledge of it; for the public notifica (o) [The Baigorry, 2 Wallace, 480; The Andromeda, Ibid. -71, Appendix.] (q) [See the Times, 15th Dec. (r) The Betsey, 1 C. Rob. 93. 1877, p. 6.] § 515. Constructive or tions between governments can be meant only for the information of individuals; but if the individual is personally informed, that purpose is still better obtained than by a public declaration (s). Where the vessel sails from a country lying sufficiently near to the blockaded port to have constant information of the state of the blockade, whether it is continued or is relaxed, no special notice is necessary; for the public declaration in this case implies notice to the party, after sufficient time has elapsed to receive the declaration at the port whence the vessel sails (t). But where the country lies at such a distance that the inhabitants cannot have this constant information, they may lawfully send their vessels conjecturally, upon the expectation of finding the blockade broken up, after it has existed for a considerable time. In this case, the party has a right to make a fair inquiry whether the blockade be determined or not, and consequently cannot be involved in the penalties affixed to a violation of it, unless, upon such inquiry, he receives notice of the existence of the blockade (u). "There are," says Sir W. Scott, "two sorts of blockade : one by the simple fact only, the other by a notification accompresumed panied with the fact. In the former case, when the fact ceases knowledge. otherwise than by accident, or the shifting of the wind, there is immediately an end of the blockade; but where the fact is accompanied by a public notification from the government of a belligerent country to neutral governments, I apprehend, primâ facie, the blockade must be supposed to exist till it has been publicly repealed. It is the duty, undoubtedly, of a belligerent country, which has made the notification of blockade, to notify in the same way, and immediately, the discontinuance of it; to suffer the fact to cease, and to apply the notification again at a distant time, would be a fraud on neutral nations, and a conduct which we are not to suppose that any country would pursue. I do not say that a blockade of this sort may not, in any case, expire de facto; but I say that such a conduct is not hastily to be presumed against any nation; and, therefore, till such a case is clearly made out, I shall hold that a blockade by (s) The Mercurius, 1 C. Rob. 83. (t) The Jonge Petronella, 2 C. Rob. 131. The Calypso, Ibid. 298. notification is, primâ facie, to be presumed to continue till the notification is revoked" (u). And in another case he says:"The effect of a notification to any foreign government would clearly be to include all the individuals of that nation; it would be nugatory, if individuals were allowed to plead their ignorance of it; it is the duty of foreign governments to communicate the information to their subjects, whose interests they are bound to protect. I shall hold, therefore, that a neutral master can never be heard to aver against a notification of blockade that he is ignorant of it. If he is really ignorant of it, it may be subject of representation to his own government, and may raise a claim of compensation from them, but it can be no plea in the court of a belligerent. In the case of a blockade de facto only, it may be otherwise; but this is a case of a blockade by notification. Another distinction between a notified blockade and a blockade existing de facto only, is, that in the former the act of sailing for a blockaded place is sufficient to constitute the offence. It is to be presumed that the notification will be formally revoked, and that due notice will be given of it; till that is done, the port is to be considered as closed up, and from the moment of quitting port to sail on such a destination, the offence of violating the blockade is complete, and the property engaged in it subject to confiscation. It may be different in a blockade existing de facto only; there no presumption arises as to the continuance, and the ignorance of the party may be admitted as an excuse for sailing on a doubtful and provisional destination "(x). In the case of a simple blockade, the captors are bound to prove its § 515a. existence at the time of capture; while in the case of a public blockade, Simple and the claimants are held liable to proof of discontinuance, in order to pro- blockades. public tect themselves from the penalties of alleged violation (y). In the case of a public blockade, a ship hovering near a blockaded port cannot say she was going to the blockading squadron to ask for authority to continue her voyage (z). "A notice of blockade," says Prof. Bernard, "must not be more ex§ 515b. tensive than the blockade itself. A belligerent cannot be allowed to Extent of proclaim that he has instituted a blockade of all the ports of the notice. (u) The Neptunus, 1 C. Rob. 171. (x) The Neptunus, Hempel, 2 C. Rob. 112. (y) [The Circassian, 2 Wallace, 150.] enemy, (2) The Admiral, 3 Wallace, 603; "The Josephine, Ibid. 83; The Cheshire, Ibid. 231.] |