Suchergebnisse

International law allows a belligerent two means of preventing wholly or in part sea-borne commerce between his enemy and neutral states. These are: first, the right to seize and confiscate absolute contraband goods destined to enemy territory and conditional contraband intended for the use of the armed forces or government of the enemy state; and, second, the right to blockade the ports and coasts of the enemy and thereby to prevent commercial intercourse with him in all articles whether contraband or not. In the April number of this Journal (pp. 372–401) I discussed in the light of the rules of international law applicable thereto the measures that have been adopted by the British Government in respect to trade in contraband since the beginning of the present war. The present article will be devoted mainly to a consideration of the British order in council of March 11,1915, the purpose and effect of which was to establish a blockade of all commerce entering and leaving Germany.

On February 4, 1915, the German Admiralty published the following decree:
The waters around Great Britain, including the whole of the English Channel, are declared hereby to be included within the zone of war, and after the 18th inst. all enemy merchant vessels encountered in these waters will be destroyed, even if it may not be possible always to save their crews and passengers.Within this war zone neutral vessels are exposed to danger, since, in view of the misuse of the neutral flags ordered by the Government of Great Britain on the 31st ult. and of the hazards of naval warfare, neutral vessels cannot always be prevented from suffering from the attacks intended for enemy ships.The route of navigation around the north of the Shetland Islands, in the eastern part of the North Sea, and in a strip thirty miles wide along the Dutch Coast are not open to the danger zone.

By an order in council issued on the 4th of August, 1914, the British Government announced a list of articles which it proposed to treat as contraband "during the war with the German Emperor"; by an order of August 12th the first mentioned order was extended to the war with "the Emperor of Austria—King of Hungary," and by an order of September 21st certain additions were made to the list of contraband articles published in the two preceding orders. By an order in council of October 29th the list of contraband articles in the earlier proclamations was withdrawn in consequence of the complaint of the Swedish Government that it included metallic ores, which were on the free list in the Declaration of London, and that the treatment of such articles as contraband would seriously injure Swedish trade. A new list was therefore substituted, from which ores were omitted.

With the possible exception of the violation of Belgian neutrality, no acts have provoked wider criticism than the burning of Louvain with its university, its cathedral, its library, including its books, manuscripts and scientific collections, the partial destruction of the cathedrals of Rhcims and Soissons, the alleged "massacre" at Aerschot, the "sacking" of Senlis, including the partial destruction of its cathedral, and the "atrocities" at Linsmeau, Termonde and Orsmael. The British Prime Minister, in his Guildhall speech of September 4th, characterized the burning of Louvain as "the greatest crime committed against civilization and culture since the Thirty Years War—a shameless holocaust of irreparable treasures lit up by blind barbarian vengeance." Sir Frederick Pollock also declared that "it exceeded in horror and calculated wickedness any military crime committed since the Thirty Years War." The London Times denounced it as "an atrocious act without a parallel even in the Dark Ages and one which would turn the hands of every civilized nation against the Germans." These expressions fairly represent the opinion of the English and, to a large degree, the American public in regard to the character of the act.

The general opinion among English and American political writers is that the French system of cabinet government is very nearly a régime of "parliamentary anarchy." In recent years it has also been the object of severe attack by many French scholars, notably by Professors Duguit, Moreau, Barthélemy and Faguet, and by public men like Charles Benoist, Raymond Poincaré and others, who assert that while the cabinet system has been established by law, it does not exist in fact, but in its place is to be found a poor imitation of the true cabinet sytem of England, upon which that of France was supposed to have been modeled.One undoubted reason why cabinet government in France has not worked smoothly is to be found in the fact that it is not an indigenous institution. It was transplanted from the country of its origin where it had taken deep root and had developed to a high state of efficiency through a long process of evolution, and was suddenly introduced into one where the historical traditions, political habits and mental aptitudes of the people were very unlike those of the English.

Since the separation of church and state in 1905 the paramount question of French internal politics has been that of electoral reform. No other question has been so much discussed in parliament and in the country, or has been the subject of so many reports, books, brochures and magazine articles. It has occupied a leading place in the ministerial declarations of the last five cabinets and has caused the downfall of one. It was one of the paramount issues in the parliamentary elections of 1910 and an overwhelming majority of the deputies in the present chamber were chosen upon programs which pledged them to the support of electoral reform. Furthermore, the present chamber, elected in 1910, has on four different occasions by large majorities voted in favor of electoral reform and on July 10, 1912, it passed a bill by a vote of 339 to 217 embodying the more important reforms demanded by the country. But so far the senate has refused its concurrence.