The stoppage by the King of Prussia in 1753 of the interest due to British subjects on the Silesian loan, until he obtained indemnities for the unjust capture of certain Prussian vessels and their condemnation by British prize courts may be considered a form of retorsion. Upon the refusal of China in 1855 to pay a claim for personal injuries to an American citizen, the American Minister was instructed "to resort to the measure of withholding duties" to the amount of the claim.1

Retorsion is more often used in cases where a country has placed the citizens or interests of another country under a general disability, e. g., the exclusion from its ports of the vessels of a certain nation, the exclusion of products of a certain country by differential import duties or the enactment of discriminatory laws against the citizens of one particular country as compared with aliens generally. The state affected may retaliate by the enactment of similar measures. Recent tariff acts of the United States, prior to the Act of 1913, have given the President power to prescribe a differential duty against the products of a country discriminating against American products, and discriminations against American vessels in foreign ports were to be met by retaliatory measures.

§ 194. Display of Force.

The display of force and the threat to use it if reparation for an international offense is not promptly made, have frequently proved an effective means of obtaining redress in the form of an indemnity or a guarantee of security. This display of force usually takes the form of a national war-ship appearing before the port of the foreign country alleged to be in default. The moral influence exerted by the presence of a war-vessel is great, and has served not only to secure demanded reparation in given cases, but in quarters of the world subject to frequent domestic disorder has served to prevent an abuse of aliens' rights, particularly of the nationals of the country to which the vessel belongs. War-vessels have therefore on occasion been stationed for extended periods of time in the waters of the Mediterranean, around Turkey, and in the waters near Haiti and the Dominican Republic. 1 1 Mr. Marcy, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Parker, Oct. 5, 1855, Moore's Dig. VII, 106.

At a time when revolutions were more frequent in Latin-America than they now are, it was not unusual to have numbers of foreign war-ships in certain harbors for the protection of aliens. The use of war-ships for such a purpose of police, perhaps the most defensible use of armed vessels, was recently illustrated in the harbor of Vera Cruz, Mexico.

Practically all the great powers have at different times resorted to a display of force to give moral support to a request for the protection of nationals in foreign countries or for the redress of injuries inflicted upon nationals. Joint action has often been taken by various powers for this purpose, e. g., in China, in Buenos Aires, in Mexico and in Venezuela.' The United States resorted to the display of force in Japan in 1852, in Turkey on several occasions,2 and within recent years in Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Mexico. In 1902, a French war-ship threatened to fire upon a town in Venezuela, unless certain French merchants, arrested for the non-payment of customs dues previously paid to revolutionists, were released. In 1897, the threatened bombardment of Port-au-Prince by German war-ships effected the release of a Mr. Lüders, a German subject, alleged to have been arbitrarily imprisoned by the Haitian authorities. In May 1914, the appearance of a British war-ship in the harbor of Port-au-Prince successfully supported a demand of Great Britain for the prompt settlement of the British portion of the Peters claim, decided in favor of Germany and Great Britain by an arbitral tribunal in Haiti.

3

4

There seems little doubt that the great powers in their ready resort to ultimatums and threats of the use of force to exact the payment of pecuniary claims, particularly in Latin-America, have often abused their rights and have inflicted gross injustice upon weak states.5

In response to an inquiry of the Turkish minister at Washington

1 See Instruction of Lord J. Russell to Sir C. Wyke, Mar. 30, 1861 (Mexico), 52 St. Pap. 239.

2 Moore's Dig. VII, §§ 1091, 1093.

3 Suchet case, 9 R. G. D. I. P. (1902), 628. The threat achieved its object.

4 23 Law Mag. and Rev. (1897), 129–131; 5 R. G. D. I. P. (1898), 103; PradierFodéré, Cours de droit diplomatique, 2nd ed., Paris, 1899, pp. 528-531, note. See also Ménos, Solon, L'affaire Lüders, Paris, 1898.

" Pradier-Fodéré, I, § 402.

asking an explanation of the sending of an American war-vessel to Turkish waters, Secretary Olney stated that the visit of the vessel was "in pursuance of a long-established usage of this government to send its vessels, in its discretion, to the ports of any country which may for the time being suffer perturbation of public order and where its countrymen are known to possess interests. This course is very general with all other governments, and the circumstance that a transient occasion for such visits may exist does not detract from their essentially friendly character." 1

It may be said that the United States urges upon consuls and diplomatic officers the use of caution and discretion in summoning the assistance of national war-vessels, in time of disorder, for the protection of citizens.2

195. Use of Armed Force.

The army or navy has frequently been used for the protection of citizens or their property in foreign countries in cases of emergency where the local government has failed, through inability or unwillingness, to afford adequate protection to the persons or property of the foreigners in question. This action has by some writers been denominated as intervention and has given rise to much confusion, due to a failure to distinguish between political intervention and non-political intervention or interposition. The landing of armed forces for the protection of citizens has practically always been free from any attempt to interfere in the internal political affairs or administration of the country entered, and when confined to the purpose of assuring the safety of citizens abroad, or exacting redress for a delinquent failure to afford local protection, the action must be considered, not as a case of intervention, but as non-belligerent interposition.3 This form of 1 Mr. Olney, Sec'y of State, to Mavroyem Bey, Oct. 15, 1895, For. Rel., 1895, IL 1324.

2 Mr. Bayard, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Neill, Nov. 16, 1887, Moore's Dig. VII, 109. 3 The ablest discussion of the distinction between political and non-political intervention, and the true nature of interposition, with quotations from authorities and a compilation of illustrative cases is to be found in a Memorandum of J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Solicitor for the Department of State on the "Right to protect citizens in foreign countries by landing forces," Washington, August, 1912. Revised edition. 70 folio p.

protection has frequently been exercised by strong countries whose citizens are found in weak states where governmental control is at times inadequate for the preservation of order, and for the fulfillment of their international duty of protection. The United States has on many occasions, either alone or in conjunction with other powers, used its military forces for the purpose of occupying temporarily parts of foreign countries to secure adequate protection for the lives and property of American citizens. While such action has generally been necessary under the circumstances, and while it cannot be considered political intervention, it is, nevertheless, an impeachment of the effective sovereignty of the country occupied.1

Among the various purposes for which troops and marines have been landed, are the following: 2 (1) for the simple protection of American citizens in disturbed localities, the activity of the troops being in the nature of police duty; 3 (2) for the punishment of natives for the murder or injury of American citizens in semi-civilized or backward countries; (3) for the suppression of local riots, and the restoration and preservation of order; 5 (4) for the collection of indemnities, either with or without the delivery of a previous ultimatum; 6 (5) for the seizure of custom-houses, as security for the payment of claims; and

4

1 See address of Mr. Root, printed in 4 A. J. I. L. (1910), 520, 521.

7

2 A brief statement of most of the occasions on which American forces have been landed in foreign countries for the protection of American interests will be found in the Appendix to the Solicitor's Memorandum, op. cit., 47 et seq. These occasions are classified in some detail at p. 31 et seq. See also Moore's Dig. VII, §§ 1092 and 1093, and Robin, R., Des occupations militaires en dehors des occupations de guerre, Paris, 1913, 824 p.

3 Memorandum, pp. 31 and 33 and citations to Appendix.

4 Memorandum, pp. 31 and 32 and citations to Appendix. Such punitive expeditions were undertaken at various times, among other places, in the Fiji Islands, Samoa, Formosa, China, Korea, and the Falkland Islands.

5 In Hawaii, 1874; in Egypt, 1882; in Mexico, 1876; Appendix to Memorandum, 60, 61; Organization of police by France and Spain in Morocco, 1907, For. Rel., 1907, 899.

⚫ Island of Johanna, 1851; Nicaragua, 1854; Japan, 1864; Haiti, 1888 (Case of the Haitian Republic, For. Rel., 1889, 491 et seq., 503). Occupation by French marines in 1901 of part of Turkish island of Mitylene, a measure to obtain payment of claims of Lorando and Tubini. See Moncharville in 9 R. G. D. I. P. (1902), 677. Memorandum 32, 33, and citations to Appendix.

7 Action by France in Dominican Rep. and various powers in Venezuela. U. S.

for purposes such as the maintenance of a stable government, the destruction of pirates infesting certain areas, and other objects.

At times the punitive operations undertaken for the protection of nationals and their interests have bordered close upon belligerent action in the full sense and would have been so considered had they been directed against stronger states. This is so particularly in the case of bombardments, which on occasion have been directed against coast towns by British and American naval forces as a punishment for offenses against nationals or for the failure to make reparation.1 It is hardly less so in the case of pacific blockade, an anomalous action in the nature of reprisal whose principal justification lies in the fact that it has often successfully achieved its object in a measurably short time, without precipitating war between the countries in controversy or third states whose interests are unavoidably, in some degree, deleteriously affected.

The occasions on which troops have been landed have varied, although it has always been under circumstances where the protective faculties of the local government have been so weakened that the security of aliens, particularly nationals of the interfering state, seemed so precarious that some measure of self-help was deemed necessary. This has been the case particularly in time of revolution and civil war, when the belligerent activities of the factions seeking control of the government deprived aliens of all guaranty of safety for their persons or property.2

The landing of foreign troops has not always been against the will of the local government, but on the contrary, has sometimes been carried out in response to an express invitation. The activities of the intervening troops, belonging to one nation or to several acting jointly, have assumed various forms; sometimes they have remained absolutely neutral between the contending factions, confining themselves seizure of custom-house and occupation of Vera Cruz in 1914 was a reprisal ostensibly for insult to U. S. flag at Tampico.

1 E. g., Bombardment of Greytown by the U. S. S. Cyane, 1854, Moore's Dig. VII, 112-116; Bombardment of Omoa, Honduras, by British S. S. Niobe, 1873, 67 St. Pap. 955 et seq.

2 See the many occasions enumerated in Memorandum, pp. 32 and 33 and Appendix.