網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

are no longer entirely friendly, and that the party breaking these relations desires to emphasize the fact that it considers its rights infringed, denied, or imperiled. On April 20, 1898, the Spanish Minister to the United States sent the following communication to the Secretary of State:

"The resolution adopted by the Congress of the United States of America, and approved to-day by the President, is of such a nature that my continuance in Washington becomes impossible and obliges me to request of you the delivery of my passports.

"The protection of Spanish interests will be intrusted to the French Ambassador and to the Austro-Hungarian Minister." 1

On February 6, 1904, the Japanese Minister addressed a note to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, which, after giving a résumé of the Japanese contentions, states that "the Imperial Government have no other alternative than to terminate present futile negotiations. In adopting that course the Imperial Government reserve to themselves the right to take such independent action as they may deem best to consolidate and defend their menaced position, as well as to protect their established rights and legitimate interests." 2

After considerable negotiation in regard to the killing of certain Italians in New Orleans in 1891, the Italian government considered that the United States was not willing to grant sufficient satisfaction. Baron Fava, the Italian Minister to the United States, in a communication to the Secretary of State March 31, 1891, said: "Under these circumstances, the government of His Majesty, considering that the legitimate action of the King's minister at Washington becomes inefficacious, has ordered me to take my departure on leave." 3

SAME-RETORSION.

89. Retorsion is a species of retaliation in kind. It usually consists in treating the subjects of the state giving cause for retaliation in a manner analogous, if not identical, with that accorded to the subjects of the state resorting to retorsion.

1 Foreign Relations U. S. 1898, p. 765. 2 Id. 1904, p. 412, full text of note.

8 Id. 1891, p. 675.

Certain acts which may be entirely within the legal competence of a state may place the subjects of another state under disabilities. In such cases protest is sometimes made by the other state by resort to identical or similar measures. The act of a state may be unfriendly, discourteous, or an unfair discrimination.

While an act at which retorsion is aimed may not be illegal, yet it may be such as to affect a state or its citizens in such manner as to require remedy. Just how far retorsion will be applied will be a matter of policy rather than law.

A state may restrict the action or privileges of certain foreigners sojourning or entering within its borders. The state whose nationals have been restrained may place similar restrictions on the action of the nationals of the first state, who in turn come within its borders. A state may place restrictions upon commerce and trade, which may be met with corresponding restrictions by other states. How far such restrictions may go is not a matter of law, but of political policy. The use of various means of retorsion has in recent years become common, particularly in commercial relations through tariffs or discriminating duties. When heavy duties have been placed on articles which are especially produced by one state, that state may resort to imposition of special duties or special restrictions upon articles produced by the state first levying heavy duties. This may lead the first state to impose still further restrictions, and the commercial relations between the two states may be interrupted or practically at an end.

Since the influence of those engaged in commerce and trade has in modern times had much weight with those in political power, retorsion, or the fear of retorsion, has frequently led to the repeal of objectionable legislation or prevented action. which, while legal according to domestic law, would be unfair, would be discourteous, or would work undue hardship.

SAME-REPRISALS.

90. Reprisals consist in the adoption of measures of retaliation in order to obtain redress for action committed in violation of international right.

Heilborn, Das System des Völkerrechts, 352.

Retorsion is usually resorted to as a matter of political expediency, when by acts which may not be internationally illegal a state has conducted itself in an unfair manner toward another state or its citizens. Reprisals, on the other hand, attempt to secure remedy in case of international delinquency. or injustice either toward a state or its citizens. Acts of reprisal may be of the same character as acts of war; but, as îney are aimed to secure redress for a given act, they are not necessarily regarded as hostile. Reprisals may involve the seizure and confiscation of private property, and in extreme cases personal restraint, or compulsion commensurate with the injury done and sufficient to obtain reparation. Suspension of judicial, commercial, or other rights has been common. early days letters of marque and reprisal were issued to private persons, in order that they might avenge supposed wrongs. The modern tendency has been to restrict the measures of reprisal more to the field of commercial intercourse. The range of action, however, still varies.

In

In 1887 the United States Congress passed an act empowering the President, in case the rights of United States fishermen were denied or abridged in Canadian waters, to deny Canadian vessels entrance to the waters of the United States, and also to deny entry to any or all Canadian products. France in 1901 seized the island of Mitylene in order to secure the recognition by Turkey of certain financial and other claims.

In December, 1908, the Netherlands ship of war Gelderland seized the Venezuelan coast guard ship Alix off the Venezuelan coast and took her to the near by Dutch port of Willemstad.

SAME-EMBARGO.

91. Embargo is a special form of reprisal, and consists in general in the sequestration of the public or private property of an offending state. It may sometimes be applied by a state to its own vessels.

Embargo was formerly a common method of redress. If war followed before the embargo was raised, the detained

24 Stat. 475 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2785).

ships of the offending state were seized as prize. Otherwise they were released when the embargo was raised. The United States resorted to this means of redress in 1794, 1797, 1807, 1808, and 1812. An embargo, sometimes called civil or pacific, may by domestic law regulate the movements of the vessels belonging to a state, in order to prevent the seizure by another state, or in order to put other pressure upon an offending

state.

With the growth of international commerce, it has now become common to allow innocent vessels of foreign states, even of enemy states, as large a degree of freedom as possible, even a certain number of "days of grace" for loading and departure on the outbreak of war."

SAME-NON-INTERCOURSE.

92. Non-intercourse laws may, for the purpose of placing stress upon a state which is regarded as an offender, prohibit trade or other relations with its nationals.

Non-intercourse acts have often been associated with embargo acts, but are usually more general in character. The United States passed several non-intercourse acts in the late years of the eighteenth and in the early nineteenth century. Commercial intercourse with France was suspended by an act of Congress of June 13, 1798. Other acts of similar nature followed. The non-intercourse act of March 1, 1809, aimed at Great Britain, was broad in its provisions, and its enforcement created much friction. The irritation caused by embargo and non-intercourse acts is so great that these are now commonly regarded as impolitic methods of obtaining redress.

DISPLAY OR RESTRICTED USE OF FORCE.

93. The display of force as a form of constraint to insure observance of rights is sometimes resorted to where the course of justice is uncertain or the political conditions are disturbed. The force may be used to a lim

ited degree without resorting to war.

6 Post, p. 289.

The display of force carries with it the intimation that the state making the display may use the force if its rights are not respected. In the report of the Secretary of State of the United States, December 19, 1895, in regard to disturbed conditions in the Turkish Empire it is said that: "The efforts of the minister have had the moral support of the presence of naval vessels of the United States on the Syrian and Adanan coasts from time to time as occasion required, and at the present time the San Francisco and Marblehead are about to be joined by the Minneapolis, which has lately been ordered to the eastern waters of the Mediterranean.” 7

In March, 1900, the diplomatic representatives in China, fearing a Boxer outbreak, asked their respective governments to make a naval demonstration in Chinese waters. A ship was detailed by the United States, according to telegram, "for independent protection of American citizens and interests in China." The display of force was not sufficient. The legations at Pekin were besieged and cut off from communication. Forces of the various nations were dispatched to their rescue, though there was no war. In the award of the Venezuelan Arbitration in 1903, preferential treatment was given to the powers which had resorted to hostile measures to enforce their claims.10

In many cases the display of force is merely to emphasize the urgency of the demand. Its use should be simply to preserve rights or to secure those already possessed. When this end is attained, all measures of redress should terminate. In the case of the display of force in 1902 in order to enforce claims against Venezuela, the powers concerned felt it necessary to pass beyond the measures short of war to actual war, though the hostilities were confined to a single object. The range of redress may thus pass from the simple show of force to the border line of war, or to actual war.

7 Foreign Relations U. S. 1895, p. 1257.

8 Id. 1900, p. 102.

9 Id. 1900, p. 102 et seq.

10 Penfield's Report, Venezuelan Arbitration, 1903, p. 110.

« 上一頁繼續 »