Professor T. E. Holland contributes a valuable letter on the
Declaration of London to the Times of last Saturday. While holding that both the Prize Court Convention of 1907 and the Declaration of London stand in need of full Parliamentary discussion before being ratified, he points out two inaccuracies in Mr. Gibson Bowles's statements. First, he shows that the Declaration of Paris is neither implicitly nor explicitly adopted by the Declaration of London. The later makes no mention of the earlier one, and therefore Mr. Bowles's assertion that the Declaration of London, if adopted, would reaffirm, and its ratification for the first time ratify, the Declaration of Paris cannot be maintained. Secondly, Professor Holland traverses Mr. Bowles's assertion that it is "an unquestioned doctrine of the Law of Nations that war abrogates and annuls Treaty obligations between belligerents." As a matter of fact, large classes of Treaties are wholly unaffected by war,—e.g., conventions transitoires, the effect of which is produced once and for all, as in the case of cessions of territory, and notably Treaties for the regula- tion of the conduct of war, such as the Geneva Convention, many of the Hague Conventions of 1907, and the Declaration of Paris itself. None the less, Professor Holland welcomes Mr. Bowles's letter, and in particular agrees with him in his wish that the Naval Prize Bill as reintroduced should be withdrawn.
Previous page
