No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Use of Neutral Waters by Belligerents
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 October 2013
Extract
During the past century great progress has been made in international law along two lines: (1) in the extension of the practice of international arbitration, and (2) in the development of a clearer conception of the rights and duties of neutrals. Both movements tend toward peace, the one in avoiding war by the judicial determination of the matter in dispute, and the other in limiting the area of warlike operations after war has actually been declared and in restricting hostilities to the original parties to the dispute. The Hague Peace Conference of 1899 marked the formal adoption by the nations of the earth of the principle of arbitration of certain classes of disputes, but this conference felt that its work was incomplete so long as there was such wide divergence of opinion as to the rights and duties of neutrals. Before adjournment, therefore, a resolution, was passed expressing the hope that this subject might be taken under consideration by a second conference in the near future. In President Roosevelt's proposal for a second conference, issued by Secretary Hay, October 21, 1904, this is one of the three subjects suggested for consideration, and special attention is called to one aspect of it, namely, “the treatment due to refugee belligerent ships in neutral ports.” This aspect of the subject derives special importance from the events of the Russo-Japanese War, and it is to this aspect of the subject that this discussion will be directed.
- Type
- Papers and Discussions
- Information
- Proceedings of the American Political Science Association , Volume 2: Second Annual Meeting , December 1906 , pp. 45 - 58
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1906
References
1 Hall's International Law, 5Ü1 edition, p. 593.
2 Hall's Int. Law, 5th ed., p. 629; cf. also T. E. Holland in Fortnightly-Review for May, 1905.
3 La Justice Internationale, Août-Décembre, 1904, p. 139.
4 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, pp. 14-35; Archives Diplomatiques, 1904, tome 90; Revue Générale de Droit International Public, Mai-Juin, 1904.
5 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, p. 783.
6 Smith and Sibley, International Law as Interpreted during the Russo-Japanese War, p. 114.
7 War and Neutrality in the Far East, p. 282.
8 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, p. 424.
9 Smith and Sibley, op, cit., p. 117.
10 Foreign Relations of the United States,. 1904, p. 425.
11 Foreign Relations of the Undted States, 1904, p. 139.
12 Smith and Sibley, op. cit., 462.
13 Ibid.
14 The King's proclamation of neutrality, issued February n, 1904, and the letter of same date addressed to the principal departments of the government are published in the Times of February 12. In the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, p. 24, occurs an altogether erroneous and misleading statement in regard to the British letter of instructions. The statement is there made that the instructions of February 11, 1904, are the same as those issued April 23, 1898, published on page 869 of the Foreign Relations for that year. The same error occurs in the text of the British instructions published in La Justice Internationale, Aout-Décembre, 1904, from which the words named neutral are omitted. The text is correctly printed in the Archives Diplomatiques.
15 Smith and Sibley, op. cit., p. 135; cf. also Taylor, Hannis in the N. Am. Rev., Aug., 1905 Google Scholar, and T. E. Holland in the Fortnightly Review for May, 1905.
16 Nineteenth Century, March, 1904.
17 Charles Dupuis in North American Review, Aug., 1905.
18 Hall, International Law, 5th ed., p. 627.
19 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, pp. 136, 138, 140, 323, 426; Smith and Sibley, op. cit., p. 136.
20 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, pp. 428 and 785.
21 Review of Reviews, July, 1905, p. 5.