TOPICS OF THE DAY.
NEUTRALS AND COMMERCE IN WAR.
Loan Joint Russzu, has announced that Ministers have under consideration " the whole question relating to neutrals in war time," and will probably be prepared to state their decision and the principles on which they intend to act, before any declaration of war. It is to be believed that a Cabinet like the present cannot take such a subject into consideration without advancing the ra- tionale of the treatment of neutrals in war time, and without in- troducing great practical improvements into the law on the sub- ject. We say the law, not in a strict sense, because properly speaking it can scarcely be said that the rights of neutrals have been reduced to a fixed law. We have oftener than once had occa- sion to remark that the whole subject of international law rests on very uncertain grounds, and is liable to great modifications. It is obvious that any code of rules formed by the practice of separate nations, with the commentaries of writers belonging to those sepa- rate nations, cannot have the effect of laws given autocratically by a dictator, or agreed upon in a legislative assembly, and enforced by an executive with a jurisdiction. In the instance of international law, there wants, in the first place, the general consent; in the second place, the concentrated interpretation • and in the third place, the comprehensive jurisdiction. As all nations have con- tributed to the common stock, so each arrogates to itself the right of separate interpretation ; and as none can enforce the decrees, so each enforces what it can. The judgments on the subject of in- ternational law are enforced only where the whole incidence of the case lies within a particular jurisdiction. The balance is made up by the power of one state to coerce another, with something like an appeal to the common sense and good feeling of the civilized world.
It follows that both the rationale and the practice of inter-
national law must be liable to alteration with the development of intelligence in legists devoted to the subject, and still more with that development of civilization in the States generally. which fa- cilitates the improved practice and interpretation. Formerly it was regarded as a very praiseworthy and patriotic act to assist the armed force of a country by vessels going under letters of marque ; and even the subjects of neutrals were thought to display enter- prise and courage by obtaining the same mercenary commissions. At the present day there is a strong disposition to regard the trading in the capture of ships under letters of marque as nothing better than a species of piracy. In recent treaties, the -United States have done much to procure the recognition of that prin- ciple; that Republic having treaties with most of the principal States of Europe and America containing stipulations to such ef- fect. It is probable that in the approaching war the most power- ful and influential states of Europe, perhaps with with one excep- tion, will adapt the principle of the -United States convention as their rule of conduct on the strength of its own good sense and honest feeling.
Nothing, however, illustrates both the uncertain basis of inter-
national law, and the opening for improvement, more distinctly than the right of neutrals in regard to goods on board ship. Ac- cording to the doctrine of the English courts, it is a recognized prin- ciple that neutral ships do not afford protection to an enemy's pro- perty; it may be seized if found on board a neutral vessel beyond the limits of the jurisdiction. The English courts have sustained this doctrine in their decrees ; but the opposite doctrine has also been sustained, and a new rule has in many cases been introduced by convention, stipulating that "free ships make free goods." In another respect English authority has been controverted. That great judge Lord Stowell, while controverting "many unwar- rantable rules laid down by public authority," in 1673, respecting articles contraband of war, enumerated amongst articles which had been considered contraband, corn, wine, and oil, butter, salt, fish, rice, and other provisions ; speaking of such cases as in- stances in which the rule had been unduly stretched. Yet he drew a distinction, declaring that such articles are not contraband, but may become so under circumstances arising out of the peculiar condition of the war ; and he pointed to two circumstances which have usually obtained indulgence for the articles in question, as "where they are the growth of the country that exports them," and "'where the articles are in their native and unmanufactured state," Thus, said Lord Stowell, "iron is treated with more in- dulgence" than anchors ; hemp "is more favourably considered than cordage "; and wheat is " not so noxious a commodity as any of the final preparations of it for human use,"—which, being in- terpreted, means that wheat is "not so noxious" as bread, hasty pudding:, or Norfolk dumplings. The rationale of these dis- tinctions is easily seen but the altered character of the times, and of intelligence, calls for new rules. Already we have intro-
duced an additional restriction, comprehended no doubt in the Spirit of Lord Stowell's remarks, to prevent the export of marine engines ; but it is evident that a larger consideration also calls for new "indulgences."
While it is justifiable and desirable, even in the interests of hu- manity, to bring coercion to a final point as decisively and speedily as possible, it is not desirable to do a great mischief that a small amount of coercion may be gotten out of it. Keeping this truth • In refreshing our memory on the specific rules relating to this subject, we have taken advantage of a useful Me treatise which we noticed lately, from the pen of Mr. Byerly Thompson, "On the Laws of War, affecting Com- merce and Shipping," published by Messrs. Smith, Elder, and Co. in view, we may say, that any goods may be sacrificed for a direct military object, when the military result can be considered worth the sacrifice. The incidence of the loss is also a question : when it falls upon the military power waging the war against us, we are clear of it, and the military result is a net gain. It does not follow, when the loss is entailed upon " the enemy's eountry," —the enemy's people, or the enemy's land,—that the military re- sult is such a net gain. The circumstances of the world have con- siderably altered since the devastation of an enemy's country was regarded as necessarily a military advantage justified to the ag- gressor. Development of the art of war has concentrated mili- tary power much more completely in the hands of executive ad- ministrations. Notwithstanding the development of constitu- tional self-government in many countries of Europe, in other countries, on the contrary, the executive power is severed from the people, distinct from it, and in many cases almost adverse to it. In countries so constituted, it would almost follow that an injury to the people would be distinct from an injury to the government —would be the infliction of a misery without a military gain. But it may be even a loss to the power inflicting the injury. Mr. Cobden was right when he pointed to the fact, that if our ex- ports to Russia are not considerable, our imports are more so, and that imports, in true political economy, are as important as ex- ports. They are an increase to the substantial resources of our own country, and supply the things which we want more easily and therefore in larger proportion than we could obtain the same things by our own exertions ; and to cut off that supply is to injure us. If we can cripple the Russian Government promptly by cutting off its exports, the result might be worth the sacrifice to ourselves ; but it might not. Different cases must be judged by the actual circumstances. All that any one influential power can do in mooting the state of the international law on such subjects, is to lay down sound principles for the guidance of the state itself as a means of securing that its own action shall be as little mischievous as possible, and of offering an example to the rest of the world. The particular principles would appear to be these. Any injury which is inflicted for direct military purposes may be fairly in- flicted, if the result is worth the sacrifice, supposing that it were represented in money, and it could not be attained by cheaper means. It is of course, as we have already said, a net gain if the actual cost falls entirely upon the government with whom we are at war. The destruction of Russian war-ships—the blockade of a port en- closing a Russian navy—the blockade, or even devastation of a city and its neighbourhood, the seat of the supreme Russian Go- vernment—the cutting off of supplies to starve a Russian army— are examples of material injury, with direct military objects and direct military results which speak for themselves. It does not follow that the devastation of a Russian province would inflict upon the Russian Government any damage at all ; and even if it did, it is quite possible that the damage might be far too slight in degree to justify the infliction entailed upon Russian subjects, who have physically, politically, and morally, so little responsibility for the acts of the Government at St, Petersburg. It might, indeed, in- flict an injury upon the provincials and upon ourselves even greater than that on the Russian Government. For example, to desolate Bessarabia, which is at the present moment on the verge of in- surrection against Russia, would be to afflict the inhabitants, and to damage ourselves to the extent of any trade derivable from that province ; while to Russia the result would be scarcely appreciable. Such injury would evidently be as wicked as it would be impolitic. These considerations prove that even in the case of an enemy's property, sound sense as well as high moral law would in many cases grant immunity. To put the matter quite broadly, it may be said that it would be a sound principle on the whole to give im- munity to commerce, conducted belie% fide for strictly commercial purposes, and to limit the damaging aggression solely to military engines, military stores, or military operations, including, of course, such as might be disguised under a commercial cover. The idea of cutting off the enemy's revenue by destroying its trade, involves, on the face of it, a destruction enormously disproportionate to the net military result, and would of course dictate a freedom for com- merce. Turkey appears to have taken the lead in recognizing this principle, although it was not theoretically stated, when even Rus- sian ships were allowed to go free for a given time in order to com- plete commercial arrangements already made. In some cases it may become necessary to blockade a whole state, if that state can exercise any coercion over its government ; but that again is a question for consideration according to the circumstances. The broad rule should be to allow freedom for commerce, where that can be allowed consistently with security against espionage. The application of the principle would save immense loss to the world ; for a loss can seldom be entailed to a large extent without the aggregate wealth and the welfare of the whole civilized world having to sustain an abstraction to that amount. It follows from what we have already said, that the doctrine opposed to the prin- ciple of free ships making free goods is well worthy of revision; those who have the subject under discussion remembering that their hands are not tied by any absolute or final law. If the in- ternational rules bearing upon warfare can be made to concentrate liability as powerfully as possible upon governments and military resources, while they leave peaceful commerce unassailed, much will be done to save the worst miseries of war, to prevent the ac- cumulation of bad feeling, which is the worst sequel of war, and to accumulate those relations of peaceful commerce, continued even during hostilities, which are the best guarantee against too frequent and frivolous resort to war.
Previous page
