7. Partial or temporary occupation of territory. 1. Sequestration. The sequestration or seizure of property belonging to the offending state has been more than once threatened and actually enforced. Great Britain in 1849, in the Don Pacifico case, enforced an embargo upon Greek shipping and seized several Greek ships of war in the Pireus. In 1895 Great Britain, having been unable to secure the required redress and indemnity from Nicaragua for the expulsion of the British vice-consul and other British subjects and their property from Bluefields and the Mosquito reservation, sent a naval force to Corinto, a Pacific port of Nicaragua, and gave an ultimatum that unless the indemnity was paid in three days Corinto would be occupied by the British forces. Proper response not having been made a force was landed and the custom house and public offices of Corinto occupied. Ultimately, the Government of Nicaragua agreed to pay the indemnity within fifteen days after the evacuation of Corinto by the English forces, the payment of the same being guaranteed by the Government of Salvador. The fleet left on May 5, 1895, the public property of Nicaragua being in its possession during the occupation. As to (2) the sequestration of the property of citizens of the offending state this is exemplified by the action of Great Britain in 1861 in the seizure of Brazilian merchant vessels, and in 1872 by that of Germany by the seizure of Haitian merchant vessels. 3. Embargo. As to embargo or suspension of intercourse between two nations, a practical example of this occurred in our own history in 1807, after the "Chesapeake" affair, it being further directed that all English men-of-war should be denied our ports. Great Britain apologized for this affair and offered indemnity for the victims. 4. Suspension of treaties.-In 1798, at the time of the quasi-war with France, the United States annulled its treaties with France and directed the seizure of armed French vessels in certain portions of the world. 5. Withdrawal of privileges to aliens.-This is rarely done, but is within the power of states in times of peace. 6. Pacific blockade.-As to pacific blockade there are numerous cases arising of this species of reprisal or application of force. The latest cases are of the Greek ports in 1850 by England, that of Formosan ports by France in 1884, of the Greek ports by the Allied Powers in 1886, of the coast of Siam by France in 1893, the blockade of Crete in 1897 by the Allied Powers, and of the blockades of Venezuelan ports during the régime of Castro. The increasing tendency to use the powerful argument of a pacific blockade to coerce a nation as a step short of war is somewhat due to the combination of the six great powers of Europe, with a view of keeping matters quiet in the Levant for fear of a general European war. The legal position of a pacific blockade is unsettled, as the attitude of the blockaders towards vessels of states not concerned has varied with almost every blockade, and the blockade itself has always been applied by a strong naval power against a weaker one as a means short of war, the alternative of war not being accepted by the weaker power on account of the disparity of forces and hopelessness of success. It is an anomaly in international law: there being no war, there are no belligerents, no neutrals. It is illegal to have a blockade apply to third or unconcerned powers when there is no war, and yet such a blockade will not be effective if the vessels and goods of these powers are allowed to enter freely, and if the blockade is confined to the blockading and blockaded vessels. Each case will probably depend upon its own merits, and above all whether it will be worth while for any third or out side great power to interfere. In the so-called pacific blockade of Formosa by the French, which involved the capture of vessels other than Chinese and French, Great Britain took the position that it was not proper and would not be recognized by her unless regular war was declared against China. But in the late blockade of Crete by the European powers, of which she was one, the right of search was exercised by the blockaders upon the so-called neutral vessels, and they were prohibited to land cargo destined for the Greek troops in the interior. De Martens says as to the legality, that it is admissible but not logical; while Perels, the German authority, speaks decidedly of it as coming clearly under the head of reprisals and as an evil less than war. The last statement is probably the one that will make it acceptable alone, and it will probably be treated in the future as a blockade with war powers, but confined to the parties concerned and a localized and definitely bounded area of operations. Two instances not generally mentioned in the text-books may be profitably discussed as late examples of this means of reprisal. Case of Zanzibar.—One is the blockade of Zanzibar in 1888 by Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Portugal, and was specifically directed against the slave trade which the authorities of Zanzibar were unable or unwilling to stop. As this action was against a specific evil, recognized as such by the civilized world, no international complications were involved. Case of Crete.—The pacific blockade of Crete commenced March 21, 1897. The naval forces of Great Britain, AustroHungary, France, Germany, Italy and Russia put the Island of Crete in a state of blockade on that date at 8 a. m. The blockade was to be general for all ships under the Greek flag. The ships of the six great powers or of what may, for the locality, be called neutral powers were allowed to enter in the ports occupied by the blockading powers and to land their cargoes, provided they were not intended for the Greek troops in the interior. The ships of the neutral and blockading powers were to be visited by the ships of the international fleet. This, though infringing the rights of neutrals, was less radical than the first definite pacific blockade of the French at Vera Cruz in 1838, where the vessels of the third powers were captured and confiscated. Attitude of the United States as to pacific blockade.-The United States declared with respect to this blockade, and has taken the position as a general one, that it does "not acquiesce in any extension of the doctrine of pacific blockade which may adversely affect the rights of states not parties to the controversy, or discriminate against the commerce of neutral nations." In regard to the blockade of Venezuelan ports in 1902 by Germany and Great Britain this enunciation of the position of the United States was repeated. The blockade of the Venezuelan forces was stated to be a warlike blockade, and a notice was published to that effect on December 20, 1902, for the information of neutrals. 66 Moore says that it may be observed that the United States did not take the ground that there could not be such a thing as a pacific blockade, for it stated that it could not acquiesce “in any extension" of the doctrine of pacific blockade so as to affect the rights of states not parties to the controversy." It can thus be seen that without admitting the pacific blockade to be a legal means of restraint or reprisal short of war, the tendency of writers and of states is to favor its exercise in a manner not to involve the third powers or to antagonize their interests. Localized, as it should be, in its field of operations it is far better than actual war, especially a European war, which would be likely to be a widely spread calamity. |