THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1940 ALLIES' NEW MOVE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23626, 9 April 1940, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1940 ALLIES' NEW MOVE

The Allies' decision to lay mines in Norwegian territorial waters may seem, on a casual glance, to be unjustifiably high-handed. It is certainly unusual; just as certainly, however, it will evoke much emphatic approval in the course of the world-wide attention it is bound to attract. Its prompting cause is easy to understand, in relation to the Allies' blockade of Germany. German endeavours to defeat this blockade have included use of these waters. Shipping on the way to and from German ports has traversed them, rather than run the risk of capture in the North Sea. The fact that Norway is a neutral has invited this taking of refuge within the range of Norwegian territory, for in ordinary circumstances it would be a serious violation of neutral rights if ships proceeding on their lawful occasions inside that limit were attacked there by a belligerent. In such circumstances the neutral would be entitled to offer more than verbal protest. But the neutr.il has also a duty, corresponding to this right of immunity from hostile entry to its territorial waters —the duty of seeing that the refuge there available is not abused by a belligerent merely traversing them in order to avoid capture. This uso of them, by a vessel carrying contraband, is also a breach of neutrality, and against it the neutral has, in theory, the right and duty of preventive and even punitive action. However, in the instance of Norway, the situation is affected by fear of Germany, and in the case of the Altmarck there was reason to believe that this fear induced a culpable slackness in dealing with her illegal resort to shelter. When the Allies' notification to Norway of their intention to lay mines in her territorial waters is

considered, all that is known to have

i occurred in them, adversely to the 3 Allies' interests, must be taken into - account. The facts are sufficiently J clear to provide a sound basis for fi thought. 6 In any thorough consideration of ® the notification, which has been (j broadcast "to whom it may concern" f j as well as made directly to Norway, i it will be remembered that the term s "international law, pavticulaily 0 with reference to its second word, •2 stands apart from any body of : enactments promulgated by a State within its own borders. The latter implies a lawgiver capable of enforcing obedience or exacting penalties with a view to compelling obedience. Whether this exercise of compulsion be narrowly or broadly conceived, a whether it be based on arbitrary power or on the general consent of the governed, the method of it is '* largely the same ; there is a manifest tribunal, possessing the power to " compel, and its fiats and judgments can be explicit, final and effective. In so-called international "law" the sanctioning authority is less definite and less certain in action ; it resides in the public opinion of the civilised world —an opinion not always precise and reasoned, a world not com pletely civilised. The development of it is fluid, irregular, and often merely tentative. If a. strong State so wills, reckless defiance of the law can be safely ventured. Such a State may be sent to Coventry by its betters, but their combined condemnation can be defeated. At the present time, for example, the perfidy 'of Russia and Germany has made barbaric inroads into the alleged sanctity of principles supposed to have become established in the behaviour of States to one another. Nevertheless, there survives a large body of decent opinion for reference, and to an appreciable extent this code of honour is operative. What has it to say about this Allied decision? Technically, the laying of mines in Norway's territorial waters is a serious breach of her neutrality, but this fact does not dispose of the right to do so. All relevant circumstances have to be weighed. Germany has committed breach on breach. Norway herself has suffered from Germany's studied brutality in defiance of the international code of honour; law-abiding Norwegian ships have been ruthlessly sunk and their seamen ruthlessly killed in the course of the German policy of intimidation. Yet Germany has demanded from Norway the use of her territorial %vaters in unlawful ways, because by so doing there may be reaped a belligerent advantage. Are the Allies to have ,no [recourse? There is none, unless by some such means as are now to be adopted. In marked contrast to Germany's methods, the Allies have been considerate of Norwegian interests, and in their present decision they adhere to this standard of conduct. The mines will be so laid that they will not interfere with Norway's legiti- : mate shipping ; the minefields, noti- • fied with full precision as to their scope, will leave safe avenues for ] the working of Norwegian ports, and ; British naval vessels will patrol the ! dangerous areas. This consideration i is in keeping with the highest stand- j ard of international conduct; there ] could not be, when everything is < considered, greater care for a non- t belligerent brought within the zone < of war by an unscrupulous Power. 1 In effect, Norway will be liberated j from a peril. It may happen, of <• course, that Germany will endeavour | to counter the Allies' move by } sweeping up the mines, and that an ] eventual outcome will be naval f fighting within Norwegian waters; ( but it is doubtful whether Norway ( will suffer by this to any great I extent. She herself, in the circum- r stances, may accept without demur t the Allies' decision. What may J happen cannot be forecast; what j matters most is that Germany's i deliberate and constant behaviour j i in affronting international law has 1 made legitimate, according to recog- t nised principles, a retaliatory action i wholly appropriate. f