The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915Various
History
The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
There is no Hague Convention which deals with absolute or conditional
contraband and, as the Declaration of London is not in force, the
rules of international law only apply. As to the articles to be
regarded as contraband, there is no general agreement between nations.
It is the practice of a century, either in time of peace or after the
outbreak of war, to declare the articles which it will consider as
absolute or conditional contraband. It is true that a neutral
Government is seriously affected by this declaration, as the rights of
its subjects or citizens may be impaired. But the rights and interests
of belligerents and neutrals are opposed in respect to contraband
articles and trade and there is no tribunal to which questions of
difference may be readily submitted.
The record of the United States in the past is not free from
criticism. When neutral this Government has stood for a restricted
list of absolute and conditional contraband. As a belligerent, we have
contended for a liberal list, according to our conception of the
necessities of the case.
The United States has made earnest representations to Great Britain in
regard to the seizure and detention by the British authorities of all
American ships or cargoes bona fide destined to neutral ports, on the
ground that such seizures and detentions were contrary to the existing
rules of international law. It will be recalled, however, that
American courts have established various rules bearing on these
matters. The rule of "continuous voyage" has been not only asserted by
American tribunals, but extended by them.
They have exercised the right to determine from the circumstances
whether the ostensible was the real destination. They have held that
the shipment of articles of contraband to a neutral port "to order,"
from which, as a matter of fact, cargoes had been transshipped to the
enemy, is corroborative evidence that the cargo is really destined to
the enemy, instead of to the neutral port of delivery. It is thus seen
that some of the doctrines which appear to bear harshly upon neutrals
at the present time are analogous to or outgrowths from policies
adopted by the United States when it was a belligerent. The
Government, therefore, cannot consistently protest against the
application of rules which it has followed in the past, unless they
have not been practiced as heretofore.
_(5) Acquiescence without protest to the inclusion of copper and other
articles in the British lists of absolute contraband._
The United States has now under consideration the question of the
right of a belligerent to include "copper unwrought" in its list of
absolute contraband instead of in its list of conditional contraband.
As the Government of the United States has in the past placed "all
articles from which ammunition is manufactured" in its contraband
list, and has declared copper to be among such materials, it
necessarily finds some embarrassment in dealing with the subject.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account