TRADING RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 244, 16 October 1939, Page 11

TRADING RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS

HOW THE LAW LOOKS AT BLOCKADES OPERATION OF TWO RESTRIC-' LIONS Germany's attacks on the snipping j of nations such as Denmark, Nor- j way and Finland has raised the ques- ! lion of the rights of neutrals to trade with belligerents. The position is defined in Carver's “Carriage ot Goods by Sea,” the latest edition of which has been revised since the end of the Spanish civil war. When a foreign war is being carried on, the trade of neutrals with the belligerents is hampered by two restrictions. They are not at liberty to give help to one of the belligerent States by conveying to it certain classes o£ goods which will assist it in the war; these are termed contraband. Nor are they at liberty to trade with ports of one belligerent State which have been blockaded by ' the other. These restrictions are imposed, the I writer states, by the established usage < and recognition of nations, and arcenforced by the rights of visitation, and search of neutral vessels, and of capture and condemnation when they transgress, which also are allowed by international usage. ; But though neutral States recognise , these restrictions on the actions ot their subjects and acquiesce in the condemnations which follow on breaches of them, it does not necessarily follow that those breaches arc illegal in the view of the law ol the j neutral State; nor that the tribunals ; will decline to enforce contracts ■ which have been made with the ob- j ject of breaking through those rcsir— j lions, as by carrying contraband | goods, or running blockades. I

A Legal Ruling of 1865 Thus, in a case decided in 1865, it I was held by Lord Westbury that ill was not illegal for neutrals to trade ; in contraband of war with a belliger- , ent and that a contract made v .th that object was valid. He said: : In the view of international law, i | the commerce of nations is perfectly j I free and unrestricted. The subjects ; of each nation have a right to inter- ; i change the products of labour with ; the inhabitants of every other coun- i try. It hostilities occur between two; nations, and they become belligerents. ■ neither belligerent has a i ight to impose, or to require a neutral Government to impose, any restrictions on the commerce ot its subjects. The belligerent Power certainly acquires certain rights which are given to it by international law. One of these is the right to arrest and capture, when found on the sea, the highroad ot nations, any munitions ot war which are destined and in the act of be.ng transported in a neutral ship to its enemy. This right, which the laws of war give to a belligerent for his protection, does not involve as a consequence that the act of the neutral subject, in so transporting munitions of war to a belligerent country is ■either a personal offence against the i belligerent captor, or an act which I gives him any ground of complaint either against the neutral trader personally or against the Government of . which he is a subject. The title of the belligerent is limited entirely to the right of seizing and condemning as lawful prize the contraband • articles. He has no right to inflict I any punishment on the neutral trader, or to make his act a ground of representation or complaint against the neutral State of which he is a subject. In fact, the act of the neutral trader in transporting munitions of ' war to the belligerent country is quite i lawful, and the act of the other bclligerent in seizing and appropriating i the contraband articles is equally i lawful. Their conflicting rights arc co-existent, and the right of one I party does not render the act of the

other party wrongful or illegal. 1 here I is, however, much incorrectness of cx- | pression in some writers on the sttb- ! ject, who, in consequence of this right i of the belligerent to seize, in transit, munitions of war, while being conveyed by a neutral to his enemy, (speak of this act of transport by the i neutral as unlawful and prohibited i commerce. But this commerce, which ; was perfectly lawful for the neutral i with either belligerent country before I the war, is not made by the war unI lawful or capable of being prohibited j by both or either of the belligerents; ! and all that international law does is ■to subject the neutral merchant who I transports the contraband of war Io I the risk of having his ship and cargo | captured and condemned by the beli ligerent Power for whose enemy the I contraband is destined." j It is clearly laid down that a con- ! tract made with the object of blor-k-I I ade-running is not illegal in the view |of our law; and that it may be en- ; forced in our Courts. , ■