FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274  
275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   >>   >|  
crew or weapons on board for the purpose of any kind of hostilities, should doubtless, according to general law, be liable to destruction without notice. The Austrian Government need not go into the question of how far a belligerent is released from any obligation as to provision for safety of human life when his opponent sinks enemy merchant vessels without such previous warning, as in the well-known cases, previously referred to, of the _Elektra_, _Dubrovnik_, _Zagreb_, etc., since, in this respect, despite its evident right, the Austrian Government itself has never returned like for like. Throughout the entire course of the war Austro-Hungarian warships have not destroyed a single enemy merchant vessel without previous warning, though this may have been of a general character. The theory of the Union Government, frequently referred to, also admits of several interpretations; the question arises, for instance, whether, as has frequently been maintained, only armed resistance can be held to justify destruction of ship and persons on board, or whether the same applies to resistance of another sort, as, for example, when the crew purposely refrain from getting the passengers into the boats (the case of the _Ancona_), or when the passengers themselves decline to enter the boats. In the opinion of the Austrian Government cases such as those last should also justify destruction of the vessel without responsibility for the lives of those on board, as otherwise it would be in the power of anyone on the vessel to deprive the belligerent of his right to sink the ship. For the rest it should also be borne in mind that there is no unanimity of opinion really as to when the destruction of enemy merchant tonnage is justifiable at all. The obligation as to issuing a warning immediately before sinking a vessel will, in the view of the Austrian Government on the one hand, involve hardships otherwise avoidable, while, on the other, it may in certain circumstances be calculated to prejudice the rightful interests of the belligerent. In the first place it cannot be denied that saving lives _at sea_ is nearly always a matter of blind uncertainty, since the only alternatives are to leave them on board a vessel exposed to the operations of the enemy, or to take them off in small boats to face the dangers of the elements. It is, therefore, far more in accordance with the dictates of humanity _to restrain people from venturing upon vesse
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274  
275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Government

 

vessel

 

destruction

 

Austrian

 

belligerent

 

merchant

 

warning

 

referred

 

opinion

 

resistance


previous

 

passengers

 

justify

 
frequently
 

question

 

general

 
obligation
 
dictates
 

tonnage

 

justifiable


immediately

 

sinking

 
issuing
 

accordance

 

deprive

 

venturing

 

people

 

humanity

 

restrain

 

unanimity


denied

 

saving

 

matter

 

operations

 

exposed

 

uncertainty

 

alternatives

 

dangers

 

avoidable

 

hardships


involve

 

elements

 

interests

 
rightful
 

prejudice

 

circumstances

 

calculated

 

maintained

 
Elektra
 
Dubrovnik