Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:28:29.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Closure of Ports in Control of Insurgents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Edwin D. Dickinson
Edwin D. Dickinson*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The case of the Oriental Navigation Company, decided October 3, 1928, by the Claims Commission established between the United States and Mexico, has brought up anew the difficult question of the de jure government's right to close ports which are at the time in the de facto control of insurgents.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 1930 , pp. 69 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Docket No. 411, Opinions of Commissioners (September 26, 1928, to May 17, 1929), p. 23; this Journal , Vol. 23 (1929), p. 4 34 .

2 See Wiesse, , Le droit international appliquis aux guerres civiles, pp. 225-231; and cases before mixed claims commissions constituted between Venezuela and other states in 1903, discussed infra, p. 75 Google Scholar.

3 Tant que l’insurrection n’a pas pris, par la reconnaissance des insurgés en qualité de belligérants, un caractère international et reste une lutte purement interne, le gouvemement légal peut fermer tout ou partie des ports de pays par voie d’autorité, par mesure de police, sans y établir, à proprement parler, un blocus.” Politis, Acadimie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, 1925,1, pp. 5, 94.

4 Wheaton, Dana's 8th ed., 34, note 15 (1866).

5 Op. ctt., 35-36.

6 See Commissioner Nielsen's dissenting opinion in the Oriental Navigation Company case, Opinions of Commissioners, p. 26 , this Journal , Vol. 23 , p. 437 ; and practice supporting the third solution, discussed infra, p. 72.

7 See Moore, Digest of International Law, VII, 803-820.

8 See Hall, 8th ed., 41 note; Hyde, II, 655

9 Westlake, 2d ed., I, 52.

10 Wilson, , “ Insurgency and International Maritime Law,” this JOURNAL, Vol. I (1907), pp. 46, 58 Google Scholar; Wilson, Handbook of International Law, 2d ed., 37. McNair says that blockade must be distinguished from “ the policing of territorial waters to intercept access to insurgents. Oppenheim, 4th ed., II, 596, note 2.

11 This Journal, Vol. I (1907), pp. 46, 55; Handbook of International Law, 2d ed., 35.

12 Hansard s Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, Vol. 163, p. 1645.

13 Moore, Digest of International Law, VII, 806.

14 Westlake, 2d ed., I, 53; Wilson, Handbook of International Law, 2d ed., 43.

15 Moore, Digest of International Law, VII, 806-807.

16 Wheaton, Lawrence's 7th ed., 845-850, note 241 (1863). This note did not appear in Lawrences 6th ed. (1855).

17 Op. eit., 846.

18 U. S. Foreign Relations (1885), 254.

19 Das Internationale öffentliche Seerecht der Qegenwart, 52 (1882).

20 U. S. Foreign Relations (1885), 254, 256-257.

21 See, for example, U. S. Foreign Relations (1889), 494, 496; ibid. (1903), 396-405.

22 Moore, , Digest of International Law, VII, 815 Google Scholar.

23 Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903 (Ralston's Report), 72.

24 Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903 (Ralston's Report), 95.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., 331.

27 Ibid., 336-337

28 Ibid., 586.

29 Ibid., 810.

30 Ibid., 819.

31 See Bluefields Incident, Moore, Digest of International Law, I, 49; Santa Clara Estates Company Case, Venezuela Arbitrations of 1903 (Ralstons Report), 397; Guastini Case, iW., 730.

32 It is generally agreed that prior to the recognition of insurgents as belligerents neither neuthe insurgents (FauchiUe, I, Pt. I, 308-311; Wilson, Handbook of International Law, 2d ed.,36, 355; U. S. Naval War College, International Law Situations (1902), 57, 60, 62, 74) nor the de jure government (Hall, 8th ed., 42; Pradier-Fod6r6, VI, 547; Wilson, op. tit., 36; U. S. Naval War College, International Law Situations (1912) 9, 27) may have recourse to those interferences with neutral commerce which are permitted in maritime war.

33 It has seemed unnecessary to refer to what was said of the argument that the old rules of blockade had fallen into disuse since the majority declined expressly to pass upon this contention. (Opinions of Commissioners, p. 25.) The question is discussed at length in the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Nielsen. (Ibid., 26, 37.)

34 Ibid., 24.

35 Ibid.

36 Opinions of Commissioners, p. 25.

37 Ibid., 26.