ог

of Neutral Powers in Maritime War, there was a growing tendency to restrict the amount of coal that might be taken in a neutral port. By article 19 of that convention, the neutral State was left the option of limiting the supply to an amount necessary to reach "the nearest home port or some nearer named neutral destination” the neutral might permit the vessels "to take fuel necessary to fill their bunkers." Those who maintain the doctrine of an unlimited supply of fuel regard fuel simply as one form of supplies which makes navigation possible. Those who would restrict the supply regard fuel as more in the nature of war supplies. The drift of opinion as shown by The Hague regulations is toward the allowing of freedom in taking on fuel in a neutral port when not oftener than once in three months.

Even with this extension of the right of coaling, the entrance of a balloon into neutral territory may be in marked contrast to the entrance of a vessel of war into a neutral port. One belligerent may easily learn of the entrance of a vessel of his enemy to a neutral port. The course which the vessel will follow on departure, the time of sojourn, and other facts may be reasonably determined. A vessel in a neutral port must ordinarily put to sea before reaching a home or an enemy port. A belligerent would ordinarily, therefore, have an opportunity to meet and to engage the vessel of his opponent in an area where battle is lawful and without material risk to the neutral.

It is possible, however, that the territory of States might be so situated that a neutral State might be directly between the two belligerents; e. g., if war existed between Germany and Spain. In such a case would the bringing of a war balloon to the French frontier from Germany place France under any obligation to permit the balloon to enter and take the necessary gas to make it navigable? If German balloons were permitted to enter French territory, take gas, and from points of advantage attack Spanish forces and territory, would such permission by France be analogous to the entrance of German troops, or would it be the use of French territory as a base? Whether or not the right of absolute sovereignty in the air is in the subjacent State, certainly France would be under no obligation to receive a German war balloon into its territory when France is neutral except on ground of humanity or vis major. France could scarcely permit German war balloons to use French territory as a point from which to attack Spain, and if German forces should enter French territory internment would be the penalty.

If, however, a war balloon were brought into a French port on board a German cruiser or other German public vessel, would it not be entitled to the exemptions to which the boats, launches, etc., of

such vessels are entitled, and would it receive such treatment so long as it is appurtenant to the vessel? Undoubtedly the vessel would be allowed to take coal, oil, or other fuel for navigation; the launches would have similar privileges. Would the taking of gas by an air craft appurtenant to the public ship be analagous?

When the air craft appertains to the land forces The Hague Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, 1907, would prevail. Article 2 provides that:

Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral power.

Article 2 of the same convention provides for internment of troops entering neutral territory.

When the air craft belongs to the naval forces and comes into port under its own power, it may probably be allowed to take on supplies analogous to the supply of fuel for war vessels without violation of any neutral obligation. The taking of coal is often with a view to bringing the war vessel within range of the enemy. The taking of gas by a balloon might be for a similar purpose. The neutral has full right to regulate the taking of coal, as has been shown in recent wars. The neutral would have a similar right to regulate the supply of gas.

In the use of neutral land for balloons for land warfare the neutral territory becomes practically a base, and the neutral power is in reality receiving the belligerent forces into its territory, which is, according to the Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, Article 2, prohibited, unless internment follows.

An air craft of a belligerent that is brought, on board a war vessel, into the territorial waters of a neutral may or may not be fitted for use in war. If at the time it is not fitted for use and the neutral State allows it to make the preparations necessary to adapt it for war the State will doubtless be liable to the suspicion that its territory has been used as a base for warlike preparations.

Review of Situation II (a).—

In the situation as stated the balloon is brought to neutral State Z to be filled with gas with view to a flight in order to destroy a part of the fleet of Y. This would seem to be an act in the nature of the use of the territory of State Z as a base for warlike operations and should be forbidden.

Solution (a).-The protest of belligerent State Y should be heeded by neutral State Z.

U. S. Naval War College Discussions, 1912, pp. 85-88.

Firing into neutral territory.

In Situation II (b), the question is raised as to what could be done if the forces of one belligerent, State X, so maneuvers a balloon that if shot at by the forces of the other belligerent, State Y, the shot will fall in the jurisdiction of neutral State B.

Unquestionably Y has a right to fire at a war balloon of State X. At the same time State B may demand that its jurisdiction be not violated.

The Hague Convention respecting the Rights and duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land of 1907 provides, in article 1, "The territory of neutral powers is inviolable." The firing of a shot which would land in neutral territory would be a violation of neutrality and the neutral might, without offense, proceed against the party committing such violation.

That the hostilities are in such neighborhood that the risk of firing into a neutral State is present does not in any way excuse the belligerent from guarding against such action.

Solution (b).-Y may take any action which would not involve a violation of neutral jurisdiction, as would be the case if the projectile should fall in the territory of State B.

U. S. Naval War College Discussions, 1912, p. 88.

Jurisdiction over neutral air craft.

It is evident from Situation II (c) that there may be a risk to a belligerent from the flight of a neutral air craft over belligerent territory. If the jurisdiction of the air space is not in the subjacent State, the belligerent's right to control the use of the air space in the time of war would be limited. It would seem that such a claim would lead to many unfortunate complications. On the other hand, if the belligerent has jurisdiction over the air space above the territory, the Government can prescribe regulations for its use. Whether the theory that the air is free or the theory that the jurisdiction is in the subjacent State prevails, the belligerent must have the right to regulate the use of the air space by neutrals in order that his operations may not be thwarted intentionally or unintentionally by them.

As a general rule, a belligerent must have the right to exercise such control of neutral air craft as may be necessary and possible.

In situation II (c) when a neutral air craft flies over the belligerent State in such manner as to observe the disposition of its forces and in such direction as to make it possible that it may disclose this disposi tion to the enemy, it would be competent for the belligerent State to take such action as it was able in order to prevent the disclosure.

Solution (c).-When the neutral air craft lands within belligerent territory it may be detained or other measures may be taken to prevent the disclosure of military movements.

While the neutral air craft is still in the air, the belligerent may take such measures as possible to prevent disclosure of his military

movements.

U. S. Naval War College Discussions, 1912, pp. 88–90.

[See "The Laws of Land Warfare," United States Government Printing Office, 1919, citations under Article 23 (e) and Article 25 for some further discussion of the question of the use of aircraft in bombardment.]

INVIOLABILITY OF A PUBLIC MINISTER IN TIME OF WAR.

Legal immunity.

ARTICLE 5. It [the privilege of inviolability] shall continue to be effective as long as the minister or diplomatic official remains, in his official capacity, in the country to which he has been sent.

It shall hold good, even in time of war between the two Powers, for as long a time as is necessary for the minister to leave the country with his staff and his effects.

Institute, 1895, p. 120.

Legal immunity [of a public minister] remains effective even in case of offenses endangering public order or safety or of a crime attacking the safety of the State, without prejudice to the right of the territorial government to take such conservatory measures as shall be deemed advisable (Article 6, Section 3).

Institute (1895), p. 123.

Not subject to reprisals.

Ambassadors of course are excepted, with their property, [from Reprisals], whatever country and to whatever country they be sent, for the limitation of Grotius to those "non ad hostes nostros missi” is, pace tanti viri, wholly inadmissible.

Phillimore, vol. III, p. 32.

Necessity of safe conduct or passport.

In passing through the country to which he is sent, in order to reach his destined post, he [a public minister] only requires, in time of peace, a passport from his own government, certifying to his official character. But in time of war, he must be provided with a safe conduct, or passport, from the government of the state with which his own country is in hostility, to enable him to travel securely through its territories. A refusal to give such safe conduct is a virtual refusal to receive or admit such ministers. "If they undertake," says Vattel, "to pass privately, and without permission, into places belonging to their master's enemy, they are liable to be arrested; and of this, the last war furnished a signal instance. An ambassador of France, going to Berlin, by the imprudence of his guides, took his way through a village within the electorate of Hanover, of which the sovereign, the king of England, was at war with France. He was arrested, and afterward sent over to