l'ays-Bas en réquisitionnant des navires néerlandais est fondé sur ce que le Gouvernement de la Reine n'a pas réussi à empêcher l'Allemagne de porter une atteinte beaucoup plus forte encore à la propriété néerlandaise sur mer en détruisant des navires néerlandais. Or, cette argumentation ne repose sur aucun principe de droit. Il en est de même de la comparaison invoquée par le Gouvernement britannique, d'après laquelle si l'Allemagne envahissait une partie des Pays-Bas malgré leur résistance, la Grande-Bretagne serait justifiée à en faire autant, sous prétexte qu'un neutre impuissant à repousser l'attaque d'un belligérant permet à e dernier d'obtenir un avantage sur son adversaire. Cette théorie est contraire aux principes élémentaires du droit des gens.

Le fait que la guerre sous-marine a eu pour la marine marchande néerlandaise des effets autrement désastreux que la réquisition dont il s'agit n'est pas un argument juridique pour motiver cette réquisition. Le seul point qui décide de la légitimité de la mesure britannique est celui de savoir si, et, dans l'affirmative, dans quelles circonstances, le droit des gens établi confère à un Gouvernement belligérant la faculté de réquisitionner des navires de commerce battant pavillon neutre.

Or, cette faculté, autrefois reconnue dans les cas où une opération militaire nécessitait l'emploi immédiat des navires de commerce neutres se trouvant dans un port belligérant, est fortement contestée à l'heure qu'il est. L'article 456 des Queen's Regulations, 1899," démontre que le Gouvernement britannique ne l'admet pas à l'égard des navires de commerce britanniques dans l'hypothèse d'une guerre dans laquelle la Grande-Bretagne serait parmi les Etats neutres.

L'extension de cette faculté à des cas d'une tout autre nature n'est donc point conforme au droit des gens, et la prétention du Gouvernement britannique de réquisitionner des navires de commerce néerlandais dans le but d'augmenter le tonnage de sa flotte marchande parce que le transport de marchandises d'outre-mer est pour la GrandeBretagne d'un intérêt militaire vital, manque de base au point de vue du droit international.

Aussi le Gouvernement de la Reine maintient-il sa protestation et sa réclamation.

Veuillez agréer, &c.

J. LOUDON.

SIR,

(No. 5.)-Mr. Balfour to Sir W. Townley.

Foreign Office, February 28, 1918. I HAVE had under consideration the note from the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs enclosed in your despatch of the 26th January containing the reply of the Netherlands Government to the arguments set forth in my despatch of the 18th July in support of the requisitioning by His Majesty's Government of certain vessels under the Netherlands flag.

2. In answer to the contentions now put forward by the Netherlands Government, I request that you will inform M. Loudon that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to admit that, according to the established principles of international law, a belligerent State has no right to requisition a ship flying the neutral flag. On the contrary, they hold the opposite view. The fact that the practice has been but seldom resorted to during the last century does not imply that it is obsolete. The methods of conducting war employed by the Central Powers have led to many belligerent rights being revived, even though they had been passing into disuse.

3. Article 456 of the Queen's Regulations, 1899, to which reference is made in the 5th paragraph of M. Loudon's note, has no bearing on the case, as it dealt solely with coercing a neutral ship to take part in hostile acts; and no requisitioned Netherlands vessels have been required to take any part in hostile action.

4. A case more analogous to that under discussionthough taken from the rules relating to land warfare-is that of the requisition of railway rolling-stock; an instance where the right to requisition has been recognised in the Land War Conventions and Regulations, and the efforts of the framers of the regulations have been directed to ensuring fair treatment for the parties affected. The reason why no corresponding provision is to be found in any convention as to the requisitioning of merchant shipping in naval warfare is no doubt that the plenipotentiaries at international conferences, even as the writers of books on international law, failed to foresee that any belligerent would perpetrate such acts as Germany and her Allies have resorted to in their submarine campaign.

I am,
&c.

A. J. BALFOUR.

CORRESPONDENCE between the British and Netherlands Governments respecting the Treatment by the latter of Belligerent Merchant Vessels whose status has been changed as the result of an Act of War.September 1914-April 1918.*

PART I.-CASES OF THE STEAMSHIPS

MARIA" AND

HUNTSTRICK.'

,,

(No. 1.)-Memorandum communicated by Sir A. Johnstone to M. Loudon.

His Britannic Majesty's Minister is instructed to inform the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs that His Majesty's Government propose to send some requisitioned merchant ships to Java for the purpose of bringing back sugar.

His Majesty's Government would be glad to know whether there is any possible chance that the Netherlands Government would raise objections to the employment for this purpose of ships which have been used some time during the war for the transport of coal or stores for the fleet or for the army.

Such vessels are being freely used for the carriage of sugar from the United States of America, Peru, and Cuba, and these and all other countries with which the question has been raised allow such ships to trade with their ports in the same way as other merchant ships.

These ships will be under the control of the Admiralty, which is the only Department with power to requisition them, but this in no way alters the fact that they will be engaged on purely commercial operations.

The Hague, March 25, 1916.

(No. 2.)-Memorandum communicated by M. Loudon to Sir A. Johnstone.

LE Ministre de Grande-Bretagne a exprimé le désir de savoir si le Gouvernement de la Reine s'opposerait à l'admission dans les ports de l'île de Java de navires marchands réquisitionnés par l'Amirauté britannique et qui au cours de la guerre ont été affectés au transport de combustible et d'approvisionnements pour la flotte et l'armée, mais dont

*Parliamentary Paper, " Miscellaneous, No. 12 (1918)."

It is to be noted that in the later part of the correspondence the "Maria" is called "Marie."

l'emploi envisagé actuellement aurait un caractère essentiellement commercial.

En réponse, le Ministre des Affaires Étrangères a l'honneur de déclarer que si, comme il s'entend, les bâtiments en question sont des navires marchands non armés, qui battaient déjà le pavillon britannique avant le commencement de la guerre, le Gouvernement de la Reine n'a aucune objection à admettre ces vaisseaux dans les ports de l'île de Java,

Par contre, s'il s'agissait de navires ennemis, confisqués ou réquisitionnés pendant la guerre actuelle par le Gouvernement britannique, le Gouvernement néerlandais devrait leur refuser l'entrée dans sa juridiction, car l'observation d'une stricte neutralité s'oppose à ce qu'une Puissance neutre, en admettant dans sa juridiction des vaisseaux saisis ou tout autre butin de guerre, fournisse à l'un des Etats belligérants l'occasion d'y poursuivre dans ses effets un acte de guerre commis au détriment de son adversaire. C'est dans ce même ordre d'idées que le Gouvernement de la Reine s'est opposé* au passage éventuel par l'Escaut des vaisseaux de commerce allemands saisis à Anvers par l'autorité belge au commencement de la guerre, ainsi qu'au transport par territoire néerlandais de toute marchandise saisie en Belgique par le Gouvernement allemand.

La Haye, le 1er avril, 1916.

(No. 3.)-Sir A. Johnstone to M. Loudon.

M. LE MINISTRE,

The Hague, May 9, 1916. I DID not fail to transmit to my Government a copy of your Excellency's Memorandum of the 1st ultimo, containing the views of your Government on the general question of the species of ships which they consider can be admitted into Netherlands ports in accordance with their views as to neutral conduct obligatory on the Netherlands during the war.

I have the honour to inform your Excellency, with regard to the special question of ships employed for the carriage of sugar from Java to the United Kingdom, that it is not proposed to employ for this purpose either vessels which were not flying the British flag at the outbreak of war or defensively-armed merchant ships.

The conditions stipulated by the Netherlands Government will not, therefore, interfere with the arrangements of His Majesty's Government in this connection, but Sir Edward Grey wishes it to be understood that he does not accept in any way the Netherlands view of the status of either of these categories of vessels.

Page 504.

His Majesty's Government do not desire to repeat their reasons for combating the view of the Netherlands Government that defensively-armed merchant ships must be regarded as vessels assimilated to warships. They cannot, however, allow to pass without comment the claim now put forward by the Netherlands Government to refuse admission within their jurisdiction to former enemy merchant ships, irrespective, apparently, of whether these ships are duly condemned prizes, prizes awaiting trial, or vessels detained by order of the Prize Court, and requisitioned under Article 2 of The Hague Convention No. 6 (1907).*

Sir Edward Grey remarks that the Netherlands Government appear to base this view upon the argument that the utilisation of such ships without the consent of their former owners is an act of war, and, as such, cannot be permitted within Netherlands jurisdiction.

I am directed by Sir Edward Grey to express to your Excellency the great surprise with which His Majesty's Government have taken note of this claim. They had previously regarded it as universally accepted that the property in a prize passes on condemnation by a duly-constituted Prize Court. If any authority were required in support of this proposition, the following passage from Rivier (Vol. II, p. 353) might be cited as one authority among many :

64

Si la légitimité de la capture est reconnue, le navire, ou la cargaison, ou tous deux, selon les cas, sont déclarés de bonne prise. Dès ce moment la propriété est transférée. Le propriétaire l'a perdue, l'Etat capteur l'a acquise. C'est à lui désormais que la prise appartient: Bello parta cedunt reipublicae.'"

His Majesty's Government presume that the Netherlands Government cannot intend seriously to suggest that a German sailing ship which has been condemned by a British Prize Court, and sold to a neutral subject (a case which has frequently arisen during the present war) ought to be refused admission to Dutch ports. And if they do not take this attitude, it is not easy to see on what grounds they could defend the exclusion of a former German vessel which is now running in the ordinary service of a British steamship line to whom she was sold after condemnation by the Prize Court. The correct principle to apply in such cases is that the treatment of a vessel depends not on her past ownership, which is extinguished by condemnation, but on her present employ

ment.

As to ships detained and requisitioned under Article 2 of The Hague Convention No. 6, the same principle applies, and

* Vol. C, page 377.