Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

resistance to visit and search, participation of the owner or captain in the venture otherwise than as carriers, involves penalities for the vessel. There could not be said to be any absolutely uniform rule in international law upon the subject of penalty for the carriage of contraband. As Prof. Oppenheim said in 1906:

For beyond the rule that absolute contraband can be confiscated there is no unanimity regarding the fate of the vessel and the innocent part of the cargo.

Great Britain and the United States of America confiscate the vessel when the owner of the contraband is also the owner of the vessel; they also confiscate such part of the innocent cargo as belongs to the owner of the contraband goods; they, lastly, confiscate the vessel, although her owner is not the owner of the contraband, provided he knew of the fact that his vessel was carrying contraband, or provided the vessel sailed with false or simulated papers for the purpose of carrying contraband. Some States allow such vessel carrying contraband as is not herself liable to confiscation to proceed with her voyage on delivery of her contraband goods to the seizing cruiser, but Great Britain and other States insist upon the vessel being brought before a prize court in every case. (2 Oppenheim, International Law, p. 443.)

The further divergence in practice and opinion is shown in the attitude of the powers which took part in the International Naval Conference of 1908-9 at London.

Early practice and opinion as to nature of penalty.In early times it was the practice to confiscate the ship carrying contraband. The theory was that the goods became of service to the enemy only by the transportation to the enemy. It was held that the vessel transporting contraband should therefore be as justly liable to confiscation as the contraband itself. Bynkershoek maintained that penalty for carriage of contraband should attach to the vessel as well as to the goods. (Quaestiones Juris Publici, Lib. I, cap. 2.) Heineceius also maintains that vessel and contraband fall under the same law. Earlier writers who mention the subject at all in general are of the same opinion. Grotius does not make any special mention of the penalty to which the vessel would be liable because she had carried contraband. There seem to have been variations in practice in the late middle ages, but there was no recognition of neutral rights as such.

[blocks in formation]

A British proclamation of 1625, aimed against the King of Spain, after enumerating articles considered contraband, says:

And therefore if any person whatsoever, after three months from the publication of theis presentes, shall, by anie of his Majesties owne shippes, or the shippes of anie his subjects authorized to that effect, be taken sayling towards the places aforesaid, having on board anie of the things aforesaid, or returning thence in the same voyage, having vented or disposed of the said prohibited goods, his Majestie will hould both the shipps and goods soe taken for lawful prize, and cause them to be ordered as duely forfeited, whereby as his Majestie doth putt in practice noe innovation, since the same course hath been held, and the same penalties have been heretofore inflicted by other States and Princes, upon the like occasions, and avowed and maintayned by publique wrytings and apologies, so nowe his Majestie is in a manner inforced thereunto, by proclamations set forth by the King of Spaine and the Archduchesse, in which the same and greater severity is professed against those that shall carry or have carried without limitation the like commodities into theis his Maj. esties domynions. (Robinson, Collectanea Maritima, p. 66.)

The French ordinance of 1584 embodied the principles of ordinances as early as the year 1400. The provision making a neutral ship good prize for carriage of enemy goods seems to have been introduced about 1543. This was set forth in the ordinance of 1584 as article 69. The ordinance of 1681 strengthened this rule.

The treaty of Utrecht, 1713, between Great Britain and France makes definite provision in contravention of the principle of confiscation :

Art. XXVI. But if one party, on the exhibiting the abovesaid certificates, mentioning the particulars of the things on board, should discover any goods of that kind which are declared contraband or prohibited, by the nineteenth article of this treaty, designed for a port subject to the enemy of the other, it shall be unlawful to break up the hatches of that ship wherein the same shall happen to be found, whether she belong to the subjects of Great Britain or of France, to open the chests, packs, or casks therein, or to remove even the smallest parcel of the goods, unless the lading be brought on shore in the presence of the officers of the court of admiralty and an inventory thereof made; but there shall be no allowance to sell, exchange, or alienate the same in any manner, unless after that due and lawful process shall

8901--11-08

have been had against such prohibited goods, and the judges of the admiralty, respectively, shall, by a sentence pronounced, have confiscated the same; saving always, as well the ship itself, as the other goods found therein, which by this treaty are to be esteemed free; neither may they be detained on pretense of their being, as it were, infected by the prohibited goods, much less shall they be confiscated as lawful prize; but if not the whole cargo, but only part thereof shall consist of prohibited or contraband goods, and the commander of the ship shall be ready and willing to deliver them to the captor who has discovered them, in such case the captor, having received those goods, shall forthwith discharge the ship, and not hinder her by any means freely to prosecute the voyage on which she was bound.

The practice and opinion of the eighteenth century was not uniform. Treaties also show the variation as during the seventeenth century. Article XXVI of the treaty of Utrecht mentioned above became in effect Article XIII of the treaty of 1778 between the United States and France. Article XIII of the treaty of 1800 between the same powers, after enumerating articles contraband of

war, said:

All the above articles, whenever they are destined to the port of an enemy, are hereby declared to be contraband and just objects of confiscation; but the vessel in which they are laden, and the residue of the cargo, shall be considered free and not in any manner infected by the prohibited goods, whether belonging to the same or a different owner.

Pillet, reviewing the attitude toward the carriage of contraband, says:

La sanction de l'interdiction du commerce de la contrebande de guerre est dans la confiscation des marchandises de contrebande, confiscation qui doit être régulièrement prononcée par le tribunal des prises compétent. Cette confiscation doit-elle s'étendre même aux marchandises qui n'ont pas le caratère de contrebande, lorsqu'elles sont comprises dans le même chargement?

L'ordonnance française de 1778 admettait que la carga ison entière ainsi que le navire peuvent être confisqués lorsque la contrebande y figure pour les trois quarts de l'ensemble. Ailleurs, cette proportion est abaissée à la moitié. La jurisprudence la plus sévère, celle de l'Angleterre, admet d'autres cas encore dans lesquels la marchandise innocente devra partager le sort de la marchandise illicite. Il est fort à souhaiter que cette nouvelle application de la doctrine de l'infection hostile disparaisse complètement. Étendue à la totalité de la carga ison, la confiscation French Instructions, 1870.

115

revêt le caractère d'une peine, et cesse d'être ce qu'elle est en réalité, un moyen de défense employé par le belligérant contre un trafic particulièrement funeste à ses intérêts.

Le navire transporteur sera-t-il lui-même confisqué? Il règne sur ce point dans la doctrine la plus grande indécision, mais il paraît raisonnable d'étendre la confiscation au navire lorsque le transport de la contrebande a lieu à la connaissance de l'armateur ou du patron. Bien que cette mesure paraisse dépasser la limite stricte de la défense, elle est indispensable. Seule, elle permet de donner une sanction à la prohibition du commerce de la contrebande, lorsque le vaisseau n'appartient pas au même propriétaire que la marchandise. Sans prétendre donner à la confiscation du vaisseau un caratère pénal, on aperçoit aisément qu'elle est le seul moyen d'action du belligérant sur les armateurs neutres qui se livrent à ce genre de trafic.

On a quelquefois proposé de remplacer le droit de confiscation par un droit de préemption d'après lequel le belligérant saississant serait simplement autorisé à acheter à leur prix courant dans le lieu de destination les objets de contrebande trouvés à bord des navires neutres. La préemption par elle-même paraît avoir été la première sanction en vigueur, et on cite une ordonnance française de 1543 qui est en effet dans ce sens. Elle fournissait un moyen de tempérer les rigueurs du droit dans les circonstances les plus favorables, par exemple, en cas de contrebande simplement relative. Mais l'usage maritime est généralement contraire à cet adoucissement et on peut craindre en effet qu'il ne soit une sanction bien insuffisante de la prohibition qu'il importe de maintenir. Le droit de préemption ne devra donc être appliqué que s'il est adopté par un traité commun aux deux belligérants et aux neutres intéressés, et aussi peut-être dans une hypothèse particulière que nous rencontrerons un peu plus loin.

En vertu d'une règle générale qui se justifie d'elle-même, les marchandises de contrebande échappent à la confiscation s'il apparaît qu'elles n'ont été mises à bord du vaisseau que pour le service même de sa navigation. (Les lois actuelles de la guerre, p. 325.)

French instructions, 1870.-The Instructions Complémentaires issued by France during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 make mention of the proportion of contraband.

9. Cas le chargement rend le navire neutre saisissable.—Est passible de capture tout navire qui transporte des troupes, des dépêches officielles ou de la contrebande de guerre pour le compte ou la destination de l'ennemi. Toutefois, si la contrebande de guerre ne se trouve à bord que dans une proportion inférieure aux trois-quarts de la cargaison, vous pouvez, suivant les circonstances, soit retenir le navire lui-même, soit le relâcher, si le capitaine consent à vous remettre tous les objets de contrebande dont il est porteur. (Art. 6 des instructions générales du 25 juillet 1870.)

Ne sont pas réputées contrebande de guerre les armes et les munitions, en quantité telle que le permet la coutume, exclusive ment destinées à la défense du bâtiment, à moins qu'il n'en ait été fait usage pour résister à la visite.

This rule was less severe than that of 1778, which prescribed that,

1. Fait défense S. M. à tous armateurs d'arrêter et de conduire dans les ports du royaume les navires des puissances neutres, quand même ils sortiraient des ports ennemis, ou qu'ils y seraient destinés; à l'exception toutefois de ceux qui porteraient des secours à des places bloquées, investies ou assiégées. À l'égard des navires des États neutres qui seraient chargés de marchandises de coutrebande destinées à l'ennemi, ils pourront être arrêtés et lesdites marchandises seront saisies et confisquées; mais les bâtiments et le surplus de leur cargaison seront relâchés, à moins que lesdites marchandises de contrebande ne composent les trois-quarts de la valeur du chargement; auquel cas les navires et la cargaison seront confisqués en entier. Se réservant, au surplus, S. M. de révoquer la liberté portée au présent article, si les puissances ennemies n'accordent pas la réciproque dans le délai de six mois à compter de la publication du présent règlement.

English prize cases.—The English prize cases have often been cited as authority and as showing the development of the law in regard to contraband carriage because Great Britain has had such a large carrying trade.

The case of the Ringende Jacob of 1798 shows the attitude of the English court at the end of the eighteenth century. The first and second of the three points raised in this case bear upon the carriage of contraband. After speaking of the contention as to the ownership and character of the property, Lord Stowell says:

Three other grounds, however, have been taken on which it is contended that the vessel is liable to condemnation: First, on account of the use and occupation in which she was employed; secondly, on account of the contraband nature of the cargo; and thirdly, for violating a blockade.

On the former point reference has been made to an ancient treaty (Oct. 21, 1666) between England and Sweden, which forbids the subjects of either power" to sell or lend their ships for

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »