FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147  
148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   >>   >|  
dividuals in the enemy's country should be necessarily free from seizure and condemnation, since provisions and such articles of dual use, though intended for the military or naval forces of the enemy, would obviously, under such circumstances, be addressed to private individuals, possibly agents or contractors for the naval or military authorities. Lord Lansdowne in answer stated that while H.M. government did not contend that the mere fact that the consignee was a private person should necessarily give immunity from capture, they held that to take vessels for adjudication merely because their destination was the enemy's country would be vexatious, and constitute an unwarrantable interference with neutral commerce. To render a vessel liable to such treatment there should be circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the provisions were destined for the enemy's forces, and it was in such a case for the captor "to establish the fact of destination for the enemy's forces before attempting to procure their condemnation" (September 30, 1904). The protests of Great Britain led to the reference of the subject by the Russian government to a departmental committee, with the result that on October 22, 1904, a rectifying notice was issued declaring that articles capable of serving for a warlike object, including rice and food-stuffs, should be considered as contraband of war, if they are destined for the government of the belligerent power or its administration or its army or its navy or its fortresses or its naval ports; or for the purveyors thereof; and that in cases where they were addressed to private individuals these articles should not be considered as contraband of war; but that in all cases horses and beasts of burden were to be considered as contraband. As regards cotton, explanations were given by the Russian government (May 11, 1904) that the prohibition of cotton applied only to raw cotton suitable for the manufacture of explosives, and not to yarn or tissues. Analogues of contraband. The carriage of belligerent despatches connected with the conduct of a war or of persons in the service of a belligerent state falls within the prohibition of contraband traffic, but to distinguish such traffic from that of contraband, properly so called, the term applied to it in international law is "analogues of contraband." The penalty attaching to such carriage necessarily varies according to the degree of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147  
148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
contraband
 

government

 

private

 

belligerent

 

cotton

 
considered
 
articles
 

necessarily

 
forces
 

condemnation


provisions

 

carriage

 
Russian
 

destined

 
applied
 

country

 
destination
 
prohibition
 

individuals

 

addressed


circumstances

 

military

 

traffic

 

object

 

thereof

 

including

 

warlike

 

declaring

 

purveyors

 

stuffs


fortresses

 
capable
 

horses

 

administration

 

serving

 
tissues
 

properly

 
called
 

distinguish

 
service

international
 

varies

 
degree
 
attaching
 

penalty

 

analogues

 
persons
 

conduct

 
explanations
 

burden