SITUATION VI. CONVERSION OF MERCHANT SHIPS INTO SHIPS OF WAR. There is war between the United States and State D. Other States are neutral. A cruiser of the United States enters port N of State F and finds the Robin, a vessel registered as belonging to a private citizen of State D. The Robin is well adapted for transformation into a vessel of war and is taking on supplies of the nature of contraband. The commander of the cruiser has reason to believe that as soon as the Robin reaches the high seas she will be transformed into a war vessel, and informs the neutral authorities, requesting that the Robin be interned or otherwise restrained. Is the action of the commander warranted? What regulations should be made in regard to the transformation of private vessels into war vessels? SOLUTION. The action of the commander of the cruiser of the United States is warranted. Neutral State F should take such action as would maintain its neutrality by obliging the Robin to give a guaranty that it would not change its private character till it reached a port under the jurisdiction of its own flag or a port under jurisdiction of an ally; or neutral State F may maintain its neutrality by other means of restraint, even by internment if necessary. NOTES. General. The subject of conversion of merchant vessels into war vessels has naturally received much attention since the abolition of privateering. While certain States did not accede to the declaration of Paris of 1856 by which "Privateering is and remains abolished," it may be said that the principle of abolition of privateer ing is generally adopted. The conversion of merchant vessels into war vessels in time of war is, however, approved, but the essential difference is in the fact that the converted vessel, unlike the privateer, is placed under a duly commissioned officer of the State which accepts the service, and the State thereby becomes responsible for the acts of the converted vessel. The vessel may have belonged to the class of volunteer, auxiliary, or subsidized vessels with a quasi-public character, or may have been a private vessel in the strict sense. To whatever class a vessel belongs, it may be expected that a State will in time of war on the sea, as well as in time of war on land, use so far as possible the resources at its disposal. It may be further said that such a course is in every way justifiable. If the State can call upon its citizens to give up their lives in its defense, there is no reason why it should not require their property whether on land or sea. The opposing belligerent is entitled to know, however, whether a ship which he may meet is a public or a private ship of the enemy, as his conduct must be governed by that knowledge. The neutral State is similarly bound to distinguish public and private vessels. The neutral State may allow a private vessel to remain in its ports for an indefinite period. The usual limit of sojourn for a public ship of war in time of war is 24 hours. Other obligations for the treatment of a belligerent ship of war also rest upon the neutral. It is, therefore, very important that means should be devised for determining the character of vessels flying a belligerent flag in time of war. Discussion in 1906.-This War College considered in 1906 the question, "What regulations should be made in regard to subsidized, auxiliary, or volunteer vessels in time of war?" This discussion was prior to the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907, at which the question of transformation of merchant vessels into ships of war was considered, but subsequent to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, during which the question had become one of vital importance and one which gave rise to considerable international friction. The result of the discussion in 1906, which was as full as the limited time of the conference permitted, is shown in the following: Need of established character.-It is necessary that there should be some mark by which the character of a vessel may be established so far as a neutral may be concerned. It is not in any way reasonable to expect that a vessel may one day fly a merchant flag and the next day that of a ship of war and the following day that of a merchant vessel again. If it is proper for a vessel to sail from a port as a merchant vessel and on the high sea to assume the character of a war vessel, would it not be possible to reverse the process and make such changes as frequently as might serve a belligerent's purpose. It is certain that acts of war on the sea should be confined to war vessels and that merchant vessels should not visit, search, or capture merchant vessels of an enemy or of a neutral. Under certain conditions a war vessel may, however, do these things. A merchant vessel is subject to the jurisdiction of the port in which it may be, so far as the local regulations require. A vessel of war is to a large extent exempt from local jurisdiction. There is little restriction upon the nature of articles which a merchant vessel may take on board. A war vessel of a belligerent in time of hostilities may not in a neutral port do certain acts or take certain articles on board which would be allowed in time of peace or to a merchant vessel in time of war. If no restrictions are made, the neutrals may through ignorance of the character of a vessel furnish it with supplies of a forbidden amount or character. A vessel which could change its character at will might enter a neutral port repeatedly as a merchant vessel and after each departure again assume a warlike character, thus making of a neutral port a base. Of course, it is not reasonable to expect that such acts would be tolerated. Summary: There seem to be certain general considerations which should guide in the regulation of the use of subsidized, auxiliary, or volunteer vessels: 1. Such vessels should be during the war public vessels under regularly commissioned officers in order that the principle of Article I of the declaration of Paris, 1856, may be regarded. They should be incorporated in the navy. 2. The neutral in whose port such vessel may be or within whose port such vessel may come is entitled to know the character of the vessel in order that the laws of neutrality in furnishing supplies, etc., may be observed. 60252-12-11 3. The character once assumed should not be changed except under adequate restrictions in order that reasonable security may be given to the neutral in his relation to the vessel. Conclusions: From the foregoing it is evident that the use, for all purposes of naval warfare of auxiliary, subsidized, or volunteer vessels, regularly incorporated in the naval forces of a country, is in accord with general opinion and practice, and that this addition to their regular naval forces in time of war is contemplated by nearly all if not all the principal maritime nations. In fact auxiliaries have been so used in all recent naval wars. To secure for subsidized, auxiliary, and volunteer vessels the proper status in time of war, the following regulations are proposed: 1. When a subsidized, auxiliary, or volunteer vessel is used for military purposes it must be in command of a duly commissioned officer in the military service of the Government. 2. When subsidized, auxiliary, or volunteer vessels, or vessels adapted for or liable to be incorporated into the military service of a belligerent, are in a neutral port in the character of commercial vessels at the outbreak of hostilities, the neutral may require that they immediately furnish satisfactory evidence whether they will assume a military or retain a commercial character. 3. Subsidized, auxiliary, or volunteer vessels, or vessels adapted for or liable to be incorporated into the military service of a belligerent, on entering a neutral port after the outbreak of hos tilities, may be required by the neutral immediately to make known whether their character is military or commercial. 4. Until publicly changed in a home port, such vessels as have made known their character must retain as regards neutrals the character assumed in the neutral port. 5. The exercise of belligerent authority toward a neutral by subsidized, auxiliary, or volunteer vessels is sufficient to establish their military character. (International Law Topics and Discussions, Naval War College, 1906, p. 122.) Propositions at the Second Hague Conference, 1907.— Several States made propositions for the regulation of the conversion of merchant vessels into vessels of war at The Hague conference in 1907. As there was a considerable divergence in the point of view of some of these States, these propositions are given in full. Great Britain proposed to classify and define vessels of war as follows: Il y a deux catégories de vaisseaux de guerre: A. Vaisseaux de combat. B. Vaisseaux auxiliaires. A. Sera compris dans le terme "vaisseau de combat": Tout navire battant un pavillon reconnu, armé aux frais de l'État pour attaquer l'ennemi et dont les officiers et l'équipage sont dûment autorises à cet effet par le Gouvernement dont ils dépendent. Il ne sera pas licite au navire de revêtir ce caractère sauf avant son départ d'un port national ni de s'en devêtir sauf après être rentré dans un port national. B. Sera compris dans le terme "vaisseau auxiliaire": Tout navire marchand, soit belligérant soit neutre, qui sera employé au transport de marins, de munitions de guerre, combustibles, vivres, eau ou toute autre espèce de munitions navales, ou qui sera destiné à l'exécution de réparations ou chargé du port de dépêches ou de la transmission d'information si le dit navire est obligé de se conformer aux ordres de marche à lui communiqué soit directement soit indirectement, par la flotte belligérante. Sera de même compris dans la définition tout navire employé au transport de troupes militaires. (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Tome III, p. 1135.) Russia: Est considéré comme bâtiment de guerre tout navire commandé par un officier de marine en activité de service et pourvu d'un équipage soumis au code militaire. Le batiment doit porter, par ordre de son Gouvernement, le Pavillon de guerre, ce qui implique, dès le moment, où cet ordre est donné, l'inscription du bâtiment dans la liste des navires de guerre de son pays. p. 1135.) (Ibid., Italy proposed definite limitations on transformation: Un navire de commerce ne pourra être transformé en navire de guerre qu'à condition d'être placé sous les ordres d'un officier de la marine militaire de son État et d'être pourvu d'un équipage soumis à toutes, les règles de la discipline militaire. Les navires qui quittent les eaux territoriales de leur pays après l'ouverture des hostilités, ne peuvent changer leur qualité ni dans la mer libre ni dans les eaux territoriales d'un autre État. (Ibid., p. 1136.) With this proposition Mexico agreed. (Ibid., p. 814.) Netherlands would also impose a penalty as well as provide regulations: 1o. Il est permis de transformer un navire de commerce au service de l'État en navire de guerre. 2o. Les navires transformés doivent être commandés par un Chef militaire et composés en tout ou en partie d'un équipage militaire. |