Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

A belligerent war-ship may not prolong its stay in a neutral port beyond the permissible time except on account of damage or Exceptions stress of weather. It must depart as soon as the cause of the delay is at an end.

The regulations as to the question of the length of time which these vessels may remain in neutral ports, roadsteads, or waters, do not apply to war-ships devoted exclusively to religious, scientific, or philanthropic purposes.

Hague Convention XIII, art. XIV, 2 Treaties, etc. (Malloy, 1910) 2352, 2360; 36 Stat. 2415, 2429.

In reply to a complaint by Mexico that an American naval vessel had called at the Mexican port of Salina Cruz on Aug. 4, 1918 and had remained for more than 24 hours, Secretary Lansing pointed out that the vessel had called for the purpose of taking on fresh water, that because of strong winds it was not practicable or safe for the vessel to pass through the drawbridge into the inner harbor until the following day, and that therefore permission had been given by the port authorities to remain longer than 24 hours. The Secretary of State (Lansing) to the Mexican Ambassador (Bonillas), no. 677, Nov. 12, 1918, MS. Department of State, file 763.72111M57/79.

In reply to the Mexican Ambassador's complaint that two American warships had remained for several months in the Mexican port of Tampico and had used their radios, Secretary Lansing explained that these vessels had been in the harbor of Tampico for the protection of the lives and property of Americans in that neighborhood and had used their radios for communications in connection therewith.

The Secretary of State (Lansing) to the Mexican Ambassador (Bonillas), no. 570, Aug. 17, 1918, MS. Department of State, file 763.72111M57/75. The Mexican Government replied that it did not recognize under the circumstances any right for the prolonged stay of the warships. Señor Bonillas to Mr. Lansing, Nov. 11, 1918, ibid. /78.

In reply to an inquiry of July 4, 1918 by the German Minister, the Chilean Government stated that it had allowed two British warships to remain in Chilean waters for more than 24 hours as they had come in connection with the visit of a special British mission, which should be regarded as essentially distinct from the situation of warships in neutral ports as foreseen by Hague Convention XIII. Chile, Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Culto y Colonizacion, Diciembre de 1915-Noviembre de 1919 (1920) 220-221.

... there seems to be no general agreement among nations as to the period within which belligerent warships may revisit neu- Revisit tral ports, except that they are not allowed to take on fuel more than once in three months and that they are not to use the ports or waters of a neutral in such a manner as to make them bases of naval operations. Nevertheless, it is understood to be competent for a neutral to place conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions, upon the admission of all belligerent vessels of war into its ports or waters, and if such vessels should abuse their privileges by running in and out of United States ports with considerable

Departure of enemy vessels

freedom, it may be necessary to place certain limitations upon their enjoyment of the hospitality of American ports.

The Secretary of State (Lansing) to the Secretary of the Treasury (McAdoo), Sept. 7, 1916, MS. Department of State, file 763.72111/3969.

A German warship keeping watch over navigation through the Öre Sund made a practice of leaving Swedish territorial waters within 24 hours and immediately returning to remain for a new period of 24 hours. The Swedish authorities raised objections and the practice was stopped. Söderquist, Droit international maritime suédois (1930) 400-401.

When war-ships belonging to both belligerents are present simultaneously in a neutral port or roadstead, a period of not less than twenty-four hours must elapse between the departure of the ship belonging to one belligerent and the departure of the ship belonging to the other.

The order of departure is determined by the order of arrival, unless the ship which arrived first is so circumstanced that an extension of its stay is permissible.

A belligerent war-ship may not leave a neutral port or roadstead until twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchantship flying the flag of its adversary.

Hague Convention XIII of 1907, art. XVI, 2 Treaties, etc. (Malloy, 1910) 2352, 2360; 36 Stat. 2415, 2430. To like effect, see pars. 8, 9, and 10 of Instructions for the Navy of the United States Governing Maritime Warfare (June 1917). See also Research in International Law, Rights and Duties of Neutral States in Naval and Aerial War (Harvard Law School), 33 A.J.I.L. Supp. (1939) 167, 478 et seq.; and 1911 U.S. Naval War College, Int. Law Situations 30.

"A ship of war may not depart from a neutral port within less than twentyfour hours after the departure of an enemy warship. The one entering first shall depart first, unless it is in such condition as to warrant extending its stay. In any case the ship which arrived later has the right to notify the other through the competent local authority that within twenty-four hours it will leave the port, the one first entering, however, having the right to depart within that time. If it leaves, the notifying ship must observe the interval which is above stipulated." Convention on maritime neutrality signed at Habana, Feb. 20, 1928, art. 8, 4 Treaties, etc. (Trenwith, 1938) 4743, 4746; 47 Stat. 1989, 1992.

The Department of State called attention to the President's proclamations of neutrality directing that a belligerent warship should not depart from the ports of the United States within 24 hours after a merchant vessel of an opposing belligerent should have departed therefrom. Secretary Bryan to the Secretary of the Navy, telegram of Mar. 25, 1915, MS. Department of State, file 763.72111Ei9/17a.

The German cruiser Dresden left the Chilean port of Punta Arenas at 10 p.m. on Dec. 13, 1914, and the British cruiser Bristol arrived at that port at 2 p.m. on Dec. 14. The maritime governor of the port notified the commander of the Bristol that he must wait for the 24-hour interval laid down by article XVI of Hague Convention XIII of 1907 before departing, in as much as the captain of the Bristol had learned of the departure of the Dresden only after having entered the port. The captain of the Bristol replied that article XVI was only applicable in case the two vessels were

present simultaneously in the port. The commander in chief of the Chilean naval station agreed with the captain of the Bristol and the English cruiser left port at 3:45 p.m. Alvarez, La Grande Guerre Européenne et la neutralité du Chili (1915) 207-208. Alvarez suggests that this is a case not covered specifically by article XVI. Ibid. 208.

REPAIRS

$669

Article XVII of Hague Convention XIII of 1907 provides:

In neutral ports and roadsteads belligerent war-ships may only carry out such repairs as are absolutely necessary to render them seaworthy, and may not add in any manner whatsoever to their fighting force. The local authorities of the neutral Power shall decide what repairs are necessary, and these must be carried out with the least possible delay.

2 Treaties, etc. (Malloy, 1910) 2352, 2361; 36 Stat. 2415, 2430. See par. 19, Instructions for the Navy of the United States Governing Maritime Warfare (June 1917).

"Damaged belligerent ships shall not be permitted to make repairs in neutral ports beyond those that are essential to the continuance of the voyage and which in no degree constitute an increase in its military strength.

"Damages which are found to have been produced by the enemy's fire shall in no case be repaired.

"The neutral state shall ascertain the nature of the repairs to be made and will see that they are made as rapidly as possible."

Convention on maritime neutrality signed at Habana in 1928, art. 9, 4 Treaties, etc. (Trenwith, 1938) 4743, 4746; 47 Stat. 1989, 1992.

the German gunboat Geier put into the port of Honolulu, and on October 15 [1914] the captain requested permission to Time allowed make repairs to render the vessel seaworthy, and estimated the time for this work to be one week. The naval constructor of the United States at the port of Honolulu examined the vessel on October 20, and recommended that the time be extended eight days, from October 20, in order to place the boilers in a seaworthy condition. On October 27, the German consul at that port requested from eight to ten days additional time in which to make repairs to steam and feed piping and boilers that have been found to be in a leaking condition. Upon a further examination, the United States naval constructor reports that he is unable to state how long repairs should take, as conditions requiring remedy may be found as work progresses. It is also reported that, on account of the generally bad condition of the piping and boilers, further time may be required to complete all repairs.

The circumstances in this case point to the gunboat Geier as a ship that at the outbreak of war finds itself in a more or less broken-down condition and on the point of undergoing general

repairs, but still able to keep the sea. In this situation the Government believes that it does not comport with a strict neutrality or a fair interpretation of the Hague conventions, to allow such a vessel to complete unlimited repairs in a United States port. The Government therefore has instructed the authorities to notify the captain of the Geier that three weeks from October 15 will be allowed the Geier for repairs, and that if she is not able to leave American waters by November 6, the United States will feel obliged to insist that she be interned until the expiration of the war.

The Acting Secretary of State (Lansing) to the German Ambassador (Count von Bernstorff), Oct. 30, 1914, MS. Department of State, file 763.72111G27/4; 1914 For. Rel. Supp. 584-585. The Geier was interned on Nov. 8, 1914.

The German Ambassador complained because two officers of the Geier who had been granted sick leave and had left the vessel were interned (with their orderlies) although they had left Honolulu for the continental United States. He admitted that such internment would “undoubtedly be correct if the officers had not left the ship until after internment, as in that case the whole crew should be treated exactly like troops that cross the border of a neutral country". The Department of State replied that the United States"in its observance of a strict neutrality, is under obligation to retain these gentlemen in custody as a part of the Geier's company when she entered American jurisdiction. It appears that these men were not only duly incorporated in the armed forces of Germany, a belligerent power, but were also in a sense a part of an organized body of such forces entering a neutral port. In such a case the laws of maritime warfare permit a limited hospitality to be extended to them, dependent upon their observing certain conditions. In the case of the Geier, these conditions were, it is believed, very generous. After a delay of several days within the hospitality of the United States, instead of the conventional twenty-four hours, these officers and their orderlies appear to have been granted sick leave by the captain of the Geier. This fact, however, can not, it is believed, properly be urged as separating them from the Geier in relation to its subsequent treatment. They arrived within United States jurisdiction as a part of an organized armed force of the German Empire, and this fact, in the opinion of this Government, appears to be the crux of the whole matter. Were a distinction to be made on the grounds set forth in your note a ship in danger from her enemy might enter a neutral port, and before the twenty-four hour period had elapsed, and before there was any danger of internment, her officers and crew might leave her and afterwards claim the right to return to their country as individuals. This course would manifestly not comport with the principles of neutrality as they are understood by the Department." Count von Bernstorff to Mr. Bryan, Nov. 11, 1914, and the Acting Secretary of State (Lansing) to Count von Bernstorff, Nov. 27, 1914, MS. Department of State, file 763.72111G27/21; 1914 For. Rel. Supp. 588, 589, 590, 591.

The United States interned the German warships Kronprinz Wilhelm and Prinz Eitel Friedrich in Apr. 1915, when they were unable to complete repairs and depart within the time allotted. See 1915 For. Rel. Supp. 832, 835, et seq.

to enemy action

Article 9 of the convention on maritime neutrality adopted at Habana in 1928 provides that "Damages which are found to have been Damage due produced by the enemy's fire shall in no case be repaired." The Harvard Research draft convention concerning neutrality in naval and aerial war provides in article 34 that "a condition of distress which is the result of enemy action may not be remedied and if the vessel is unable to leave it shall be interned".

4 Treaties, etc. (Trenwith, 1938) 4743, 4746; Research in International Law, Draft Convention on Rights and Duties of Neutral States in Naval and Aerial War (Harvard Law School), art. 34, 33 A.J.I.L. Supp. (1939) 175, 462. See also ibid. 470–472.

The Scandinavian neutrality rules of 1938 provided that no aid might be secured on the territory of the neutral powers for the repairing of damages manifestly caused by acts of war of the adversary. 32 A.J.I.L. Supp. 141, 144. See also 1939 U.S. Naval War College, Int. Law Situations 45.

The German torpedo boat V 69 entered Netherlands territorial waters at IJmuiden on January 23, 1917, suffering from damages sustained in combat with a British warship. While the Netherlands Government was investigating to determine whether the boat should be allowed to leave after making repairs, the British Minister stated that his Government thought that the Netherlands was under an obligation to intern it, since international law prohibited repairs in neutral harbors of belligerent warships when the damages were the result of naval battles. The British Government cited several cases, notably during the Russo-Japanese War, in which belligerent warships entering neutral ports after sustaining damages in combat were not allowed to depart upon the completion of repairs; stated that at the Second Hague Peace Conference Great Britain had proposed that repairs of naval combat damages in neutral harbors should be declared inadmissible; and said that the British Delegation at that Conference had accepted the wording of article XVII on the understanding that its meaning was the same as their proposal. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Mr. Loudon, replied on February 6, 1917:

Conformably to article 17 of Hague Convention 13 reproduced in article 6 of the proclamation of neutrality, the German torpedo boat V 69 will be allowed to repair its damages to the extent indispensable for the safety of navigation without augmenting in any way its military force. The Netherlands Government has scrupulously fixed the maximum of repairs admissible

and the delay within which they must be effected. If the ship
remains in the Netherlands after the expiration of this period,
it will be interned with its crew. . . . Article 17 does not dis-
tinguish between damages caused by combat and those caused
by an accident of the sea. Until the end of the nineteenth century
it was generally recognized by international law writers that

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »