91. Methods of Non-hostile Redress Good offices, mediation, arbitration and judicial procedure are not always acceptable to both parties. Consequently certain other practices have arisen with the view of obtaining satisfaction by measures short of war. Sometimes there may be resort to non-intercourse or to a boycott. Formerly an individual might be commissioned by a letter of marque and reprisal to obtain satisfaction from a state for injuries which he had suffered. This practice is, however, discontinued, and satisfaction must be obtained through the proper state channels. There may be a simple display of force, though the usual means are classed as non-intercourse retorsions, reprisals, of which embargo is an important variety, and pacific blockades. 92. Non-intercourse and Boycott The resort to non-intercourse as a method of putting pressure upon a state has been common. The non-importation and nonintercourse acts of the early nineteenth century are examples of such measures short of war. In recent years propositions have been made to extend the idea of non-intercourse so that by international agreement, as by Article XVI of the Covenant of the League of Nations, an offending state shall be entirely isolated as regards international trade and other contact.1 Non-intercourse measures have met with varying degrees of success depending upon the conditions of the parties concerned. The boycott, generally involving refusal by nationals of one state to deal in any way with the nationals of another state, has sometimes been effective in bringing a state to settle differences which diplomacy did not speedily adjust. This has been particularly illustrated in Chino-Japanese relations of recent years. 1 Appendix, p. cxvi. 93. Retorsion Retorsion is a species of retaliation in kind.1 Retorsion may not consist in acts precisely identical with those which have given offense, though it is held that the acts should be analogous. The offense in consequence of which measures of retorsion are taken may be an act entirely legitimate and desirable from the point of view of the offending state. Another state may, how ever, consider the act as discourteous, injurious, discriminating, or unduly severe. In recent years commercial retorsion has become a very important means of retaliation which, bearing heavily upon modern communities, may lead to a speedy settlement of difficulties. The tariff wars of recent years show the effectiveness of commercial retorsion, e.g. the measures in consequence of the tariff disagreements between France and Switzerland in 1892. These measures of retorsion should always be within the bounds of municipal and international law. 94. Reprisals Reprisals are acts of a state performed with a view to obtaining redress for injuries. The injuries leading to reprisals may be either to the state or to a citizen, and the acts of reprisal may fall upon the offending state or upon its citizens either in goods or person. The general range of acts of reprisal may be by (1) the seizure and confiscation of public property or private property, and (2) the restraint of intercourse, political, commercial, or general. In extreme cases, acts of violence upon persons belonging to one state, when in a foreign state, have led to similar acts, upon the part of the state whose subjects are injured, against the subjects of the foreign state. This practice is looked upon with disfavor, though it might be sanctioned by extremest necessity. In consequence of the arrest by Mex 1 Pradier-Fodéré, 2634-2636. ? For the rules in regard to the collection of contract debts, see Sec. 101 (c), p. 240. ican authorities of two American seamen at Tampico in 1914 Congress authorized the employment of American forces disclaiming "any purpose to make war on Mexico." Acts of retaliation for the sake of revenge are generally discountenanced. Reprisals in time of peace here mentioned are distinct from reprisals by belligerents. 95. Embargo Embargo consists in the detention of ships and goods which are within the ports of the state resorting to this means of reprisal. It may be (1) civil or pacific embargo, the detention of its own ships, as by the act of the United States Congress in 1807, to avoid risk on account of the Berlin Decree of Napoleon, 1806, and the British Orders in Council, 1807; or (2) hostile, the detention of the goods and ships of another state. It was formerly the custom to detain within the ports of a given state the ships of the state upon which it desired to make reprisals, and if the relations between the states led to war to confiscate such ships. Hostile embargo may now be said to be looked upon with disfavor, and a contrary policy is generally adopted, by which merchant vessels may be allowed a certain time in which to load and depart even after the outbreak of hostilities. By the proclamation of the President of the United States declaring that war with Spain had existed since April 21, 1898, thirty days were allowed and Spain, by the royal decree of April 23, 1898, allowed five days.2 The Hague Convention of 1907 relative to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities, while not fixing the number of days of grace, stated that "it is desirable that it should be allowed to depart freely, either immediately or after a reasonable number of days of grace, and to proceed, after being furnished with a pass, direct to its port of 138 Sts. at Large, 1770. 2 Proclamations and Decrees, p. 93. destination or any other port indicated." At the outbreak of the World War, Great Britain granted in some cases ten days of grace, France seven days, and Italy and some other states granted no days of grace.2 An embargo of somewhat different character was provided for in American legislation of March 14, 1912, and January 31, 1922, by which the President of the United States was authorized to prohibit the export of arms or munitions to certain countries where a condition of domestic violence existed.3 96. Pacific Blockade Pacific blockade is a form of reprisal or constraint which consists in the blockading by one or more states of certain ports of another state without declaring or making war upon that state. In the conduct of such blockades practice has varied greatly. In general, however, the vessels of states not parties to the blockade are not subject to seizure. Such vessels may be visited by a ship of the blockading squadron in order to obtain proof of identity. Whether vessels under foreign flags are liable to other inconveniences or to any penalties is not defined by practice or opinion of text writers. "The Institute of International Law," in 1887, provided that pacific blockade should be effective against the vessels of the blockaded party only. This position seemed to be one which could be generally accepted. From the nature of pacific blockade as a measure short of war, its consequences should be confined only to the parties concerned. The pacific blockade of Greece in 1886 extended only to vessels flying the Greek flag, but the admirals of the Great Powers in the pacific blockade of Crete in 1897 endeavored to establish the right to control other than Greek vessels if they carried merchandise for the Greek troops or for 1 Appendix, p. lxxvi. 2 N. W. C. 1915, p. 16. Parl. Papers, Greece, No. 4, 1886. the interior of the island. As no case arose to test the claim, this question cannot be regarded as settled. The provisions of the pacific blockade of Crete in 1897 were as follows: "The blockade will be general for all ships under the Greek flag. "Ships of the six powers or neutral may enter into the ports occupied by the powers and land their merchandise, but only if it is not for the Greek troops or the interior of the island. These ships may be visited by the ships of the international fleets. "The limits of the blockade are comprised between 23° 24′ and 26° 30' longitude east of Greenwich, and 35° 48′ and 34° 45′ north latitude." 1 The Secretary of State of the United States, in acknowledging the receipt of the notification of the action of the powers, said: "I confine myself to taking note of the communication, not conceding the right to make such a blockade as that referred to in your communication, and reserving the consideration of all international rights and of any question which may in any way affect the commerce or interests of the United States."2 The weight of authority supports the position of the United States. Instances of pacific blockades. (a) The first attempt to establish a blockade without resorting to war was in 1827, when Great Britain, France, and Russia blockaded the coasts of Greece with a view to putting pressure upon the Sultan, its nominal ruler. Since that time there have been pacific blockades varying in nature: blockade of the Tagus by France, 1831; New Granada by England, 1836; Mexico by France, 1838; La Plata by France, 1838 to 1840; La Plata by France and England, 1845 to 1848; Greece by England, 1850; Formosa by France, 1884; Greece by Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Russia, 1886; Zanzibar by Portugal, 1888; Crete by Great Britain, Germany, Austria, 1 The London Gazette, March 19, 1897. 2 U. S. For. Rel. 1897, p. 255. |