THE LAW OF THE SEA.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10760, 6 May 1911, Page 6

THE LAW OF THE SEA.

(By Harry Jones.)

To most people "the Declaration of London" is a vague term of uncertain import. But it is a subject of which a great deal will be heard in the next six months, and it is one of peculiar importance to this country as possessor of the greatest Navy and the largest fleet of merchant ships. The Declaration had its origin in, and is a sequel to, the last Peace Conference held in the Hague. That conference disappointed expectation in many respects. No arrangements could be arrived at for an arrest of armaments. There was no convention to prohibit the barbarous practice of sowing the sea with floating mines. But .the representatives of the Powers did succeed in reaching a large measure of agreement as to the general' conditions under which naval warfare should bo waged. The sea is a great highway of rhe nations, and a naval war must- necessarily tend to impinge on the rights of neutrals. We know from recent experience how innocent British shipping suffered during the Russo-Japanese war, and how the owners of tiio vessels failed to get redress. Obviously it is to" the advantage of all the Powers, and especially of Great Britain,, which owns more than half of the merchant shipping of the world, to get a clear definition of the rights of neutrals in naval warfare.

The long deliberations of The Hague Conference marked a great advance in this direction. Its most notable decision was that establishing an International Prize Court at The Hague. Every naval Power has its own national Prize Court, but from the decision of these municipal tribunals there has hitherto been no appeal. Our British Prize Courts have a long and an honorable and unmatched history, extending back to centuries —a history illuminated by tile wisdom of some of the greatest English lawyers. These courts will, of course, continue to exist, but in future, when the property of neutrals is affected, appeal will be possible from a- National I'rif.e Court to the international tribunal at The Hague. To take a concrete case. The claim o! the owners of the British ship Knight Commander for compensation for the loss of that vessel during the ' Russ.o-Japanese War .failed in the Russian Court, and the owners had perforce to accept the decision. Under the new order o! things they would have tlie right of appeal to the independent international tribunal.

The Powers having -decided to set up nil International Prize Court it became necessary to draw up for the guidance of the Court a code of rules governing naval warfare. In the absence of such a code the Internationa] Court was to decide appeals "in accordance with the general principles of justice and equity" a very flexible phrase. In different countries different conceptions of legal right prevail, and little advantage would accrue from the creation of an International Court unless the Powers could agree oil some uniform code of legal doctrine for it- to administer and interpret. Accordingly the British Government invited the Powers to send representatives to a conference in London to assist in drawing up the law of the sea as a code for interpretation by the new International Court. The object of the conference, in Sir Edward Grey's language, was to define "the generally recognised rules of international law," so as "to put an end to many uncertainties and doubts which are a danger both to peaceful commerce and to good: political relations, and which only too often are caused by the mere fact that the law to which all nations are really anxious to conform lacks the authority of an accepted definition." The conference opened at the Foreign OJhco on December 4tli, 1908. Alter many sittings and prolonged discussion there emerged from it what is now known as "The Declaration of London." This historic document received tile adhesion of all the Powers in May. 1909. It may be asked where does the British Parliament come in ? Has the House of Commons no rights in a matter of such vital concern to the British people, to whom, as to no other people, sea power is the very basis of national existence? The answer is that the House cf Commons will have rull opportunity of debating the subject on the Naval Prize Bill, presented by Sir Edward Grey, supported by Mr M'Kenna (First Lord of the Admiralty), the At-torney-Genera), and the Solicitor-Gene-ral. The International P'ize Court, with its corollary the Declaration of Londonf cannot be operative so far as concerns Great Britain until this Bill is passed. Thus the last word remains, as it ought to remain, with the House of Commons.

Meantime ;i vigorous agitation against tile Declaration of London has been commenced. AinuV of the Chambers of Commerce, some ol' them an -obviously imperfect knowledge, have protested against its ratification by this country, and clamorous articles and remonstrance have appeared in the magazines. The two most conspicuous assailants of the Declaration are ex-M.P.'s —Mr Gibson Bowles and Mr Leverton Harris who, though absent from the new House of Commons are, and will be, very active outside. Their lines of attack are not the same. Mr Gibson Bowles quarrels with the Declaration because, as he alleges, it hampers the right of the belligerent at sea, and therefore, so runs his argument, it must be piejudicial to this country as the Jirst. naval Power. Mr Leverton Harris takes the line that tlio Declaration impairs the rights of neutrals; and argues therefrom, as we are the greatest of all carriers by sea, that it must operate to the detriment of our shipping trade and our commercial interests. Mr Bowles lias written a book—"Sea Law and Sea Power" —in support of his thesis. A very able book it is; racy, trenchant, and packed with, information. Its defect is vehemence and over-em-phasis. Its value is impaired by the strange notion haunting its author's mind that the International Prize Court and the Declaration of London are the outcome of a deep conspiracy on the part of the land powers against the na-val-might of England. This fixed idea explains the quotation on its title page of a saying of Selden: "The English people are many times in treaties overmatched by them whom they overmatch in arms." He recurs again and again in his hook to the contrast between war on land, where the generals are free to act as they please, and war on sea, where the admirals are hampered by legal theories. This contrast ignores a fundamental distinction between land and: sea. warfare. Rarely does land warfare involve any direct interference with the rights of neutrals, for land, war is usually waged in the territory of one of the belligerent- Powers. But sea warfare always does, and must, interfere with neutral commerce, since the sea is the common roiite for the merchant fleets of the world. The Dt-rlarrtion gives 110 immunity to enemy merchant ships. What it does is to enlarge the rights of neutrals. By so doing it reduces the chances of international friction and limits the destructiveness of naval war without impairing the effectiveness of anv material belligerent rights. The Declaralion of London (1900) harmonises entirely with the Declaration of Paris j (1856), whose second article read: "The neutral flag covers" enemy, merchandise with the exception of contraband of war." Mr Bowles regards the Declaration of Paris as "an abandonment by I England of: all she fought for," and had asserted for centuries. He is, therefore, consistent in his opposition to the Declaration of London. But his views are in opposition to the whole tendency of international law, and they would be discountenanced by all the great jurists, British and foreign. Admiral Mahan, whose authority on all that relates to sea. power is indisputable, h.is 'said with emphasis "the-principal enunciated: by the; Declaration of Park that the neutral flag covers the goods is for ever secured." Tho. Declaration of London is the .logirafo£orollary of the Declaration of Paris'. " In making clear the rights of neutrals and in eircumsribing as far as possible the area of naval war, those who have assisted in the drafting <jf the charter of ; commerce have rendered liiemorable - service .to humanity. /' /