Letters to "The Times" upon War and Neutrality (1881-1920) — John Shaqi
Letters to "The Times" upon War and Neutrality (1881-1920)Holland, Thomas Erskine
History
Letters to "The Times" upon War and Neutrality (1881-1920)
Holland, Thomas Erskine
Neutrality; War (International law)
If this be indeed the Pope's meaning, his aspirations are now less
likely than ever to be realised. It is curious to reflect that the
proposal actually made by our own Government at The Hague Conference of
1907, apparently under the impression that Great Britain would be always
neutral, for protecting the carriage of contraband was most fortunately
defeated by the opposition of the other great naval Powers, of which
Germany was one.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, August 16 (1917).
* * * * *
SECTION 2
_In Other Waters_
THE SUEZ CANAL
Sir,--Your correspondent "M.B." has done good service by calling
attention to the misleading nature of the often-repeated statement that
the Suez Canal has been "neutralised" by the Convention of 1888. Perhaps
you will allow me more explicitly to show why, and how far, this
statement is misleading.
In the first place, this Convention is inoperative. It is so in
consequence of the following reservation made by Lord Salisbury in the
course of the negotiations which resulted in the signature of the
Convention:--
"Les Délégués de la Grande-Bretagne ... pensent qu'il est de
leur devoir de formuler une réserve générale quant à
l'application de ces dispositions en tant qu'elles ne
seraient pas compatibles avec l'état transitoire et
exceptionnel où se trouve actuellement l'Egypte, et qu'elles
pourraient entraver la liberté d'action de leur Gouvernement
pendant la période de l'occupation de l'Egypte par les forces
de sa Majesté Britannique."
Being thus unaffected by the treaty, the canal retains those
characteristics which it possesses, under the common law of nations, as
a narrow strait, wholly within the territory of one Power and connecting
two open seas. The fact that the strait is artificial may, I think, be
dismissed from consideration, for reasons stated by me in the
_Fortnightly Review_ for July, 1883. The characteristics of such a
strait are unfortunately by no means well ascertained, but may perhaps
be summarised as follows. In time of peace, the territorial Power is
bound by modern usage to allow "innocent passage," under reasonable
conditions as to tolls and the like, not only to the merchant vessels,
but also, probably, to the ships of war, of all nations. In time of war,
the territorial Power, if belligerent, may of course carry on, and is
exposed to, hostilities in the strait as elsewhere, and the entrances to
the strait are liable to a blockade. Should the territorial Power be
neutral, the strait would be closed to hostilities, though it would
probably be open to the "innocent passage" of belligerent ships of war.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account