“Within this war-zone neutral vessels are exposed to danger since, in
view of the misuse of the neutral flags ordered by the government of
Great Britain on the 31st ult., and of the hazards of naval warfare,
neutral ships cannot always be prevented from suffering from the
attacks intended for enemy ships.
“The routes of navigation around the north of the Shetland Islands in
the eastern part of the North Sea and in a strip thirty miles wide
along the Dutch coast are not open to the danger-zone.”
But those routes had been closed three months before by the British
government, which declared that it had had the North Sea planted with
anchored contact mines, but that all ships trading to neutral ports
would, if they first called at some British port, be given safe conduct
to Holland or Scandinavia, by way of the English Channel. This way
would run through the proposed “war-zone.”
International law says nothing about either “war-zones” or submarines.
In all probability, special rules for undersea warfare will be drawn
up by a conference of delegates from the leading countries of the
world soon after the end of the present war. But till then, no such
conference can be held, and the United States has always maintained,
even when it has been to its disadvantage to do so, that no one nation
can change international law to suit herself. We insist that the game
be played according to the rules. A submarine has no more rights than
any other warship. It may sink a merchantman if the latter tries
to fight or escape. If the captured vessel is found to be carrying
contraband to the enemy’s country, the warship may either take her into
port as a prize or, if this is impracticable, sink her. But before an
unarmed and unresisting merchant vessel can be sunk, the passengers and
crew must be given time and opportunity to escape.
President Wilson gave notice on February 10, 1915, that if, by act of
the commander of any German warship, an American vessel or the lives of
American citizens should be lost on the high seas, the United States
“would be constrained to hold the Imperial government of Germany to
a strict accountability for such acts of their naval authorities and
to take any steps that might be necessary to safeguard American lives
and property and to secure to American citizens the full enjoyments of
their acknowledged rights on the high seas.”
On the same day, a note to Great Britain voiced our objection to the
“explicit sanction by a belligerent government for its merchant ships
generally to fly the flag of a neutral power within certain portions
of the high seas which are presumed to be frequented with hostile
warships.”
To this Sir Edward Grey replied that “the British government have no
intention of advising their merchant shipping to use foreign flags as a
general practice or resort to them otherwise than for escaping capture
or destruction.”
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