Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:15:14.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognition of Insurgency and Belligerency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Robert R. Wilson
Robert R. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Fourth Session
Information
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its annual meeting (1921-1969) , Volume 31 , 1937 , pp. 136 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1937

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 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Ser., CLXII, 2088.

2 Ibid., 1830.

3 Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Nov. 15, 1630, Rymer, , Foedera, Conventiones, Literae, etc., VIII, pt. 3, pp. 141-144 Google Scholar; Franco-Spanish Treaty of the Pyrenees, 1659, Leonard, Frederic, Recueil des traitéz, etc., IV, p. 7 of this treatyGoogle Scholar.

4 Sparks, Jared, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 121-124, 129-130, 146, 307Google Scholar; Lawrence, W. B., Commentaire sur les éléments du droit international de Henry Wheaton (1868) I, 175-179 Google Scholar; Moore, J. B., International Adjudications, Modern Series, IV, 493-495 Google Scholar.

5 Moore, J. B., Digest, I, 242 Google Scholar; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheaton 610, 623 (1818); The Divina Pastora, 4 Wheaton 52, 63 (1819)Google Scholar; The Nueva Anna, 6 Wheaton 193 (1821)Google Scholar.

6 Smith, H. A., ed., Great Britain and the Law of Nations, I (1932), 276, 281, 293Google Scholar.

7 See the 1828 British declaration that a blockade existed in Portugal, 15 British and Foreign State Papers 1092, and President Van Buren’s proclamation of Jan. 5, 1838, concerning insurrection in Canada, 38 ibid., 1074.

8 Moore, J. B., Digest, I, 182 Google Scholar.

9 Sen. Exec. Doc. No. 69, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 24; referred to in Moore’s Digest, I, 182.

10 Del reconocimiento de beligerancia y sus efectos imediatos (1895).

11 Annuaire, XVIII, 227-229.

12 Wilson, G. G., “Insurgency and International Maritime Law,” Amer. Jour. Int. Law, Vol. I (1907), 46, 49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Naval War College, International Law Situations, 1918, 209-211.

14 37 Stat. 630 (1912).

15 46 Stat. 2749 (1930); Bulletin of Treaty Information, No. 39, Supp., pp. 24-25; No. 40, p. 9; No. 42, p. 4; No. 48, p. 4; No. 59, p. 2; No. 84, p. 4; No. 89, p. 5.

16 29 Stat. 870-871.

17 29 Stat. 881-882. See the criticism of United States administrative policy during this Cuban insurgency, in one of a series of articles by Olivart, , on “Le différend entre l’Espagne et les États Unis au sujet de la question Cubaine,” Revue Générale de Droit International Public, V, 358, 376 et seq. (1898)Google Scholar.

18 See the statement by Wiesse, Carlos, Le droit international appliqué aux guerres civiles (1898), p. 23 Google Scholar, that, since the interests of outside States are determining factors, and since they are never the same for all, recognition is never general.

19 It appears that the parent State can be assured of this only as toward outside States recognizing belligerency. Rougier, Antoine, Les Guerres Civiles et le Droit des Gens (1903), 403, 410 Google Scholar.

20 Harlan, J., in Ford v. Surget, 97 U. S. 594, 605: “To the Confederate army was, however, conceded, in the interest of humanity, and to prevent the cruelties of reprisals and retaliation, such belligerent rights as belonged under the law of nations to the armies of independent governments engaged in war against each other. …”

21 Olivart’s second rule, op. cit., p. 122. See also Lehr, Ernest, in Revue de Droit International et de législation comparée, XXVIII, 100-103 (1896)Google Scholar.

22 Text of decree of May 13, 1869, in Coleccion de los Tratados … (Aranda, Ric., ed., Lima, 1892), III, 527-528 Google Scholar, and explanatory statement in the Memoria del Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores for 1870, pp. 15-16. It has seemed to some writers that, if Peru had not been already at war with Spain, the Peruvian declaration might have been considered one of war against Spain (Wiesse, op. cit., 24 n). On Aug. 13, 1869, Peru recognized the republican government established in Cuba as the legitimate one (treaty collection cited, III, 528-529).

23 Moore, J. B., Digest, I, 195 Google Scholar.

24 Naval War College, loc. cit., 1900, pp. 16-17: “The recognition of belligerency involves not only a recognition of a fact, but also questions of policy touching many other considerations than those consequent upon the simple existence of hostilities.” See also G. G. Wilson, loc. cit., 46, 53; Naval War College, loc. cit., 1912, p. 19.

25 Diplomatic correspondence referred to in Moore, J. B., Digest, I, 188, 192 Google Scholar; Owsley, F. L., King Cotton Diplomacy (1931), 59-61 Google Scholar.

26 Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864, III, 55. Great Britain’s Case before the Geneva tribunal set forth that her proclamation was published fourteen days after receipt in London of news that Fort Sumter had been reduced, twelve days after receipt of word that Lincoln had published a proclamation of blockade, and after Jefferson Davis had taken measures for issuing letters of marque and reprisal. Moore, J. B., International Arbitrations, I, 595 Google Scholar.

27 H. A. Smith, op. cit., I, 312; Hyde, C. C., International Law (1922), I, 79 Google Scholar.

28 Moore, J. B., “The Question of Cuban Belligerency,” Forum, Vol. 21, pp. 288, 291 (1896)Google Scholar. In agreement with this general view are Hall (7th ed., 33-34), Lawrence (1895, pp. 303-4) and Dana (Dana’s Wheaton, p. 34 n). See also President Grant’s seventh annual message, Dec. 7, 1875, in Poore, B. P., ed., Messages (1875), 6-10 Google Scholar. Cf. SirWilliams, John Fischer, “La Doctrine de la reconnaissance en droit international et ses développements récents,” Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, Vol. 44 (1933), p. 264 Google Scholar.

29 Wiesse, op. cit., pp. 4-6.

30 See the criticism of this action of the Powers in Revue Générale de droit International Public, I, 53-57, 161-167 (1894).

31 Text in Archives Diplomatiques, XXXIX (t. ii, 1891), 160. See also Rougier, op. cit., p. 393, and Geffeken, M. F-H., “Incidents de droit international dans la guerre civile du Chili,” Revue de Droit International et de Législation comparée, XXIII, 577-589 (1891)Google Scholar.

32 On means that may be employed, see G. G. Wilson, loc. cit., p. 59.

33 Naval War College, loc. cit., 1912, p. 19; Wiesse, op. cit., p. 115.

34 The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 65-66. (1897).

35 By the loyalists, the British part in this activity was taken as a rebuff, in that it virtually put the legitimate government upon the same plane with what Premier Caballero called a “handful of traitors.” Fernsworth, L. A., “Foreign Aims in Spain,“ Current History, March, 1937, 52, 58 Google Scholar.

36 A statement and explanation of the German recognition is in the Völkischer Beobachter, Nov. 19, 1936, p. 1. See also the Zeitschrift für Politik, XXVI, 12, p. 745 (Dec, 1936).

The opinion has been expressed editorially that the German Government “can scarcely withhold belligerent rights” from the loyalists in Spain, and that seizure of the German vessel Palos was possibly “an act approved by international law.” (Manchester Guardian, Jan. 1, 1937, 2:4.)

37 25 Fed. 408. Cf. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller’s statements in Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250 (1897).

38 Sen. Exec. Doc., referred to in note 9, supra.

39 See the sixth rule of Olivart, op. cit., p. 128; Rougier, op. cit., p. 398.

40 That it can be so regarded is the view of Spiropoulos, J., Théorie général du droit international (1930), p. 189 Google Scholar. The contrary view is set forth by Erich, R., “La Naissance et la reconnaissance des États,” Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, Vol. 13, 431-505, at p. 480Google Scholar.

41 Woolsey, T. D., International Law (5th ed.), p. 302 Google Scholar.

42 Naval War College, loc. cit., 1912, p. 28.

43 Idem. Cf. C. C. Hyde, op. cit., I, 82: “ … the bare recognition of insurgency does not itself create the burden or affect its weight.”

44 Citation in note 15, supra.

45 Moore, J. B., Digest, I, 193 Google Scholar. Wiesse believes that this question cannot be answered a priori in the affirmative or negative, and that in each case neutrals will decide according to circumstances. Op. cit., p. 224.

46 Naval War College, loc. cit., 1912, 29-31.

47 New York Times, April 15, 1937, p. 5.

48 On recognition of belligerency as “constitutive de droit” rather than purely “declarative,” see Raestad, A., “La reconnaissance internationale des nouveaux États et des Gouvernements,” Revue de Droit International et de législation comparée, XVIII (1936, No. 2), 257, 263 Google Scholar.

49 Rougier, op. cit., p. 403; G. G. Wilson, loc. cit., p. 57.

50 Annuaire, XVIII, 208-209.

51 Rougier, op. cit., p. 403.

52 Ibid., p. 397; Moore, J. B., Digest, I, 187 Google Scholar (on withdrawals of recognitions of Confederates in 1865). The opinion that a recognizing State can under certain conditions retract its recognition, although not retroactively, is stated in Féraud-Giraud, L., “De la reconnaissance de la qualité de belligérants dans les guerres civiles,” Revue Générale de Droit International Public, III, 277, 289 (1896)Google Scholar.

53 Cf. H. A. Smith, op. cit., I, 330-333.

54 Scott, James Brown, “The Neutrality of the Good Neighbor,” Proceedings, American Society of International Law, 1935, p. 2 Google Scholar.