CHAPTER XVI MEASURES OF CONSTRAINT SHORT OF WAR There are several methods that are of a non-amicable nature by which pressure more or less forcible is brought to bring about a solution of international difficulties without actually causing formal war. The advantage of these measures over actual war is that not only do they avoid the actual fighting with its bloodshed but also the complications, commercial and otherwise, that arise in the intercourse and relations with neutrals in formal and declared warfare. These measures are the suspension of diplomatic relations, retorsions, reprisals, embargo, and pacific blockade. 130. The Suspension of Diplomatic Relations.-The suspension of diplomatic relations by the withdrawal of the diplomatic agents is a marked manifestation of disapprobation of the action and policy of one government toward another. Mr. Hannis Taylor says, with respect to this method of redress, that "as permanent ministers and ambassadors are maintained as the best mediums through which views may be exchanged and business amicably adjusted between nations, a refusal to settle just claims within a reasonable time may become a sufficient cause for the withdrawal of a diplomatic agent from the offending capital. Under such circumstances the representative may retire, leaving the business of his embassy or legation in the hands of a chargé d'affaires; or the mission may be entirely closed, and the envoy of some friendly power requested to look after the interests of citizens. Thus, in 1827, the American chargé at Rio de Janeiro, when 'his representations in behalf of the rights and interests of his countrymen were disregarded and useless, deemed it his duty, without waiting for instructions to terminate his official functions, to demand his passports and return to the United States.' Not until the Brazilian Government promised 'that indemnity should be promptly made for all injuries inflicted on citizens of the United States or their property contrary to the laws of nations' did President Adams authorize the renewal of diplomatic intercourse. In 1834, when France failed to pay the indemnity due under the spoliation treaty, like pressure was applied; and when in 1858 a tax was imposed by Mexico which unduly discriminated against citizens of the United States, it was deemed such an unfriendly act that the American minister, under instructions, suspended diplomatic relations with that country. A notable repetition of the same procedure recently occurred during the boundary controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela. Mild as this remedy appears to be, it is often efficacious, especially when the injury results from mere delay rather than from hostile intention."2 In the case of the suspension of diplomatic relations as an event preceding war, the charge of the nationals and interest of the withdrawing country is placed in the hands of the representative of another country. President John Quincy Adams, in his annual message of December 4, 1827, said: "At their last session Congress were informed that some of the naval officers of that empire (Brazil) had advanced and practiced upon principles in relation to blockade and to neutral navigation which we could not sanction and which our commanders found it necessary to resist. It appears that they have not been sustained by the government of Brazil itself. Some of the vessels captured under the assumed authority of these erroneous principles have been restored, and we trust that our just expectations will be realized, that adequate indemnity will be made to all the citizens of the 1 Wharton, "Int. Law Digest," sec. 317. United States who have suffered by the unwarranted captures which the Brazilian tribunals themselves have pronounced unlawful. "In the diplomatic discussions at Rio de Janeiro of these wrongs sustained by citizens of the United States and of others which seemed as if emanating immediately from that government itself, the chargé d'affaires of the United States, under an impression that his representations in behalf of the rights and interests of his countrymen were totally disregarded and useless, deemed it his duty, without waiting for instructions, to terminate his official functions, to demand his passports, and return to the United States. This movement, dictated by an honest zeal for the honor and interest of his country-motives which operated exclusively on the mind of the officer who resorted to it has not been disapproved by me. The Brazilian Government, however, complained of it as a measure for which no adequate intentional cause had been given by them; and upon an explicit assurance, through their chargé d'affaires residing here, that a successor to the late representative of the United States near that government, the appointment of whom they desired, should be received and treated with the respect due to his character and that indemnity should be promptly made for all injuries inflicted on citizens of the United States or their property contrary to the law of nations; a temporary commission as chargé d'affaires to that country has been issued, which it is hoped will entirely restore the ordinary diplomatic intercourse between the two governments and the friendly relations between their respective nations."1 131. Retorsions.-The difference between retorsion and reprisal is well defined by Nys, who says that retorsions are caused by a want of justice, while reprisals are used for a violation of law. Westlake defines it more fully when he says that retorsion is "the action taken by a state in order to compp. 103-4. 1 Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, pensate it for some damage suffered through the action of another state, or in order to deter the latter from continuing the action complained of. There may be no breach of law on either side, as when state A imposes customs duties which do not contravene any treaty, and state B, which believes its interests to be damaged by them, imposes by way of retorsion customs duties from which it also is not debarred by any treaty.' These are matters of policy, and retorsion generally is retaliation in kind. It has been resorted to often as a means of securing fair treatment, rather than as a means of punishment, and always as a step in avoidance of war by a rectification or remedy for grievances. It is less serious than reprisal, as the offence is less serious than the ones calling for reprisals. "By the act of April 18, 1819, the ports of the United States were closed, after September 30, 1818, against British vessels arriving from a British colony which, by the ordinary laws, was closed against American vessels. "A British ship, coming from a foreign port, not British, to a port of the United States, did not become liable to forfeiture under this act by touching at an intermediate British closed port from necessity, in order to procure provisions, and without trading there. Nor did the act prohibit the coming of British vessels from a British closed port, through a foreign port, not British, where the continuity of the voyage was actually and fairly broken." In 1855 Secretary Marcy gave the following instructions: "The Chinese Government having persistently refused to pay a claim for personal injuries to a citizen of the United States which it admitted to be due, the United States minister at China was, in 1855, instructed, at his discretion 'to resort to the measure of withholding duties to the amount thereof."" 132. Reprisals.-Reprisals in what may be termed peace time are sometimes known as general reprisals to distinguish them from special acts done in the course of regular warfare 1 Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, p. 106. and in accordance with the laws of modern warfare. These reprisals are in accord with modern tendencies exercised more against the state whose subjects have committed acts which may be considered as culpable rather than against the subjects themselves. Bonfils makes a general definition of reprisals as being measures of constraint, of more or less extent, causing injuries more or less considerable; ways and means which vary indefinitely according to the nature of the disputes, according to the means of forcible action of the states, and in accordance with the form of the injustice committed.1 The following acts of general reprisal may be considered as having the sanction of usage and of jurists: 1. The seizure and sequestration of the property of the offending state found in the territory of the other state. 2. The withdrawal of rights which had been conceded to subjects of the offending state. 3. The refusal to allow such subjects to enter the offended state. 4. Expulsion of all subjects of such state from the territory of the offended state. 5. A prohibition of the vessels of the offending state from entry into the ports of the offended state. 6. A suspension of the treaties between the two states. 7. A suspension partial or complete of the commercial intercourse between the two states. 8. A display of naval force in the littoral waters of the offending state. 9. A seizure and management of the custom-houses. 10. A pacific blockade. This will be treated separately elsewhere. The occupation by force of certain portions of the territory to be held until redress is given, or the capture of vessels, ports, or arsenals, to be held as pledges, are practically hostile operaBonfils, "Int. Law," 3d ed., p. 553. |