Blockade

That a belligerent may lawfully blockade the port, of his enemy is admitted. But it is also admitted that this blockade does not, according to modern usage extend to a neutral vessel, found in port, nor prevent her coming out with the cargo which was on board when the blockade was instituted. If, then, such a vessel be restrained from proceeding on her voyage by the blockading squadron, the restraint is unlawful.

Blockade is where a belligerent power maintains such a naval force near the shore or ports of the other belligent as to prevent access to them, or, as it is sometimes put, the vessels must be so disposed that there is an evident danger in entering the port, or approaching the shore, notwithstanding that the blockading squadron may be accidentally absent for a time, e. g., from being blown off by the wind. Under the Declaration of Paris (q. v.), a blockade is not effective unless maintained by an adequate force. A blockade de facto is where the blockade has not been notified (as is usually done) by the belligerent to neutral governments, so that every approaching vessel has to be warned off by the squadron. Vessels attempting to pass a blockade are liable t(J confiscation. It is not necessary that the place should be invested by land as well as by sea; but a blockade by sea does not impair the right of neutrals to carry on a trade by land. 1 Kent, Comm. 147. A pacific blockade is the interruption of commercial intercourse with certain ports or coasts of a state to secure redress for an international wrong. Davis Int. L. 67.

In International Law. The actual investment of a port or place by a hostile force fully competent, under ordinary circumstances, to cut off all communication therewith, so arranged or disposed as to be able to apply its force to every point of practicable access or approach to the port or place so invested. Nature and character. Blockades may be either military or commercial, or may partake of the nature of both. As military blockades they may partake of the nature of a land or land and sea investment of a besieged city or seaport, or they may consist of a masking of the enemy's fleet by another belligerent fleet in a port or anchoroperations against an enemy's trade or revenue, either localized at a single important seaport, or as a more comprehensive strategic operation, by which the entire sea frontier of an enemy is placed under blockade. A blockade, being an operation of war. any government, Independent or de facto, \ rights as a belligerent are recognized, can institute a blockade as an exercise of those rights. The justification of blockade lies in the international recognition of the necessity which the belligerent is under of imposing that restriction upon neutral commerce for the successful prosecution of hostilities. It is not settled whether the mouth of an International river can be blockaded lr one or more of the upper riparian states remain neutral. But if a river constitutes the boundary line between a belligerent and a neutral, it may not be blockaded so as to prevent access to the neutral side of the river. The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 4'.). 18 L. Ed. 564. In case of civil war, a government may blockade certain of its own ports, as was done by the United States during the American Civil War and by France during the Franco-Prussian War. Effectiveness. In international jurisprudence it is a well-settled principle that the blockading force must be present and of sufficient force to be effective, and a mere notification of one belligerent that the port of the other is blockaded, sometimes termed a paper blockade, is not sufficient to establish a legal blockade. A blockade may be made effective by batteries on shore as well as by ships afloat, and, in case of inland ports, may be maintained by batteries commanding the river or inlet by which it may be approached, supported by a naval force sufficient to warn off innocent and capture offending vessels attempting to enter; The Circassian, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 135, 17 L. Ed. 796. In 1S56 the Declaration of Paris prescribed that blockades to be obligatory must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a sufficient force really to prevent access of the enemy's ships and other vessels. The United States, although not a party to this declaration, has upheld the same doctrine since 17S1, when, by ordinance of Congress, it was declared that there should be a number of vessels stationed near enough to the pert to make the entry apparently dangerous; Journals of Congress, vol. vii. p. 186. By the convention of the Baltic Towers in 1780, and again in 1801, the same doctrine was promulgated; and in 1871, by treaty between Italy and the United States, a clearer and more satisfactory definition of an effective blockade was agreed upon, as follows: "It is expressly declared that such places only shall be considered blockaded as shall be so stationed as to create an evident danger on their part to attempt it." The French doctrine of an effective blockade is that access must be barred by a line of ships forming a chain around the blockaded port, while the United States, Great Britain and Japan hold that it is sufficient to have men-of-war cruising in the vicinity of the port, provided the disposition of the cruisers constitutes an actual danger to a vessel seeking to run the blockade. A blockade does not cease to be effective because the blockading force is temporarily withdrawn owing to stress of weather. 1 C. Rob. 86, 154. If a single modern cruiser, blockading a port, renders it in fact dangerous for other craft to enter the port, the blockade is practically effective; the Olinde Rodrigues, 174 U. S. 510, 19 Sup. Ct. 851, 43 L. Ed. 1065. Neutrals. To involve a neutral in the consequences of violating the blockade, it is indispensable that he should have due notice of it This information may be communicated to him in two ways: either actually, by a formal notice from the blockading power, or constructively, by notice to his government, or bv the notoriety of the fact; Prize Cases, 2 Black (U. S.) 635, 17 L. Ed. 459; 6 C. Rob. Adm. 367; 2 id. 110, 128; 1 Act. Prize Cas. 61. Formal notice is not required; any authentic information is sufficient; 1 C. Rob. Adm. 334; 5 id. 77, 286; Edw. Adm. 203; 3 Phill. Int. Law 397; The Revere, 24 Bost. L. Rep. 276, Fed. Cas. No. 11,716; 'Hall, Int. L. 648; it is a settled rule that a vessel in a blockaded port is presumed to have notice of a blockade as soon as it begins; 2 Black 630. Breach. A violation may be either by going into the place blockaded, or by coming out of it with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade. Also placing himself so near a blockaded port as to be in a condition to slip in without observation, is a violation of the blockade, and raises the presumption of a criminal intent; 6 C Rob. Adm. 30, 101, 1S2; Radcliff v. Ins. Co., 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 47; 1 Edw. Adm. 202; Fitzsimmons v. Ins. Co., 4 Cra. (U. S.) 185, 2 L. Ed. 591; The Josephine, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 83, 18 L. Ed. 65. The sailing for a blockaded port, knowing it to be blockaded, is held by the English prize courts to be such an act as may charge the party with a breach of the blockade; British instructions to their fleet in the West India station, Jan. 5, 1S04; and the same doctrine is recognized in the United States; Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cra. (U. S.) 335, 3 L. Ed. 117; The Nereide, 9 Cra. (U. S.) 440, 3 L. Ed. 769; 1 Kent *150; The Bermuda, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 514, 18 L. Ed. 200; Phill. Int. Law, 397; Hall, Int. L. 662; The Revere, 24 Bost. L. Rep. 276, Fed. Cas. No. 11,716. See Fitzsimmons v. Ins. Co., 4 Cra. (U. S.) 185, 2 L. Ed. 591; Maryland Ins. Co. 469; 10 Moore, P. C. 5S; The Adula, 176 U. S. 361, 20 Sup. Ct. 432, 44 L. Ed. 505. But in the case of long voyages, sailing for a blockaded port, contingently, might be permitted, if inquiry were afterwards made at convenient ports; Maryland Ins. Co. v. Woods, 6 Cra. (U. S.) 29, 3 L. Ed. 143; Sperry v. Delaware Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C. 243, Fed. Cas. No. 13,236; but the ordinance of 1781 authorized the condemnation of vessels "destined" to any blockaded port, without any qualification based upon proximity or notice. A neutral vessel in distress may enter a blockaded port; The Diana, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 354, 19 L. Ed. 165. Penalty. When the ship has contracted guilt by a breach of the blockade she may be taken at any time before the end of her voyage; but the penalty travels no further than the end of her return voyage; 2 C. Rob. Adm. 128; 3 id. 147; The Wren, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 582, 18 L. Ed. 876. When taken, the ship is confiscated; and the cargo is always, prima facie, implicated in the guilt of the owner or master of the ship; and the burden of rebutting the presumption that the vessel was going in for the benefit of the cargo, and with the direction of the owners rests with them; 1 C. Rob. Adm. 67, 130; 3 id. 173; 4 id. 93; 1 Edw. Adm. 39. The Declaration of London (q. v.) Arts. 1-21, apart from re-stating existing practice, lays down the following rules upon controverted points: The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact, that is, each case must be decided upon its own merits; a "declaration" of the blockade must be made by the blockading government or by the naval authorities acting in its name. This declaration must be followed by a "notification," first, to the neutral powers themselves, and, secondly, to the local authorities, who must, in turn, notify the foreign consular officers at the place. The liability of a' neutral vessel is dependent upon the knowledge of the blockade, and this knowledge is presumed if the vessel left port subsequently to the notification of the blockade to the neutral power. Neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the war-ships maintaining the blockade, nor, if they have broken blockade "outwards," are they liable to capture after pursuit has been abandoned by the blocking force. This overrules the British and American doctrine stated above.

In international law. A marine investment or beleaguering of a town or harbor. A sert of circumvallation round a place by which all foreign connection and correspondence is, as far as human power can effect it, to be cut off. 1 C. Rob. Adm. 151. It is not necessary, however, that the place should be invested by land, as well as by sea, in order to constitute a legal blockade; and, if a place be blockaded by sea only, it is no violation of belligerent rights for the neutral to carry on commerce with it by inland communications. 1 Kent, Comm. 147. The actual investment of a port or place by a hostile force fully competent, under ordinary circumstances, to cut off all communication therewith, so arranged or disposed as to be able to apply its force to every point of practicable access or approach to the port or place so invested. Bouvier; The Olinde Rodrigues (D. C.) 91 Fed. 274; Id., 174 U. S. 510, 19 Sup. Ct. 851, 48 Lt Eld. 1065; U. S. v. The William Arthur, 28 Fed. Cas. 624; The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 50, 18 I. Eld. 564 ; Grinnan v. Edwards, 21 W. Va. 347. It is called a "blockade de facto" when the usual notice of the blockade has not been given to the neutral powers by the government causing the Investment, in consequence of which the blockading squadron has to warn off all approaching vessels.

— Paper blockade. The state of a line of coast proclaimed to be under blockade in time of war, when the naval force on watch is not sufficient to repel a real attempt to enter.

— Public blockade. A blockade which is not only established in fact, but is notified, by the government directing it, to other governments ; as distinguished from a simple blockade, which may be established by a naval officer acting upon his own discretion or under direction of superiors, without governmental notification. The Circassian, 2 Wall. 150, 17 L. Ed. 796.

— Simple blockade. One established by a naval commander acting on his own discretion and responsibility, or under the direction of a superior officer, but without governmental outers or notification. The Circassian, 2 Wall. 150, 17 L. Ed. 796.

In international law. The investment of a seaport by a competent naval force, with the view of cutting off all communication of commerce.

In international law. A marine investment or beleaguering of a town or harbor. A sort of circumvallation round a place by which all foreign connection and correspondence is, as far as human power can effect it, to be cut off. 1 C. Rob. Adm. 151. It is not necessary, however, that the place should be invested by land, as well as by sea, in order to constitute a legal blockade; and, if a place be blockaded by sea only, it is no violation of belligerent rights for the neutral to carry on commerce with it by inland communications. 1 Kent, Comm. 147. The actual investment of a port or place by a hostile force fully competent, under ordinary circumstances, to cut off all communication therewith, so arranged or disposed as to be able to apply its force to every point of practicable access or approach to the port or place so invested. Bouvier. It is called a "blockade de facto" when the usual notice of the blockade has not been given to the neutral powers by the government causing the investment, in consequence of which the blockading squadron has to warn off all approaching vessels.

TJ^e ii;i Vestment of a seaport by a competent naval force, with a view of cutting off all coramunioation of comnjerce.i Every nation, of common right, as a municipal regulation, may declare what places shall be ports of entry and delivery, and enforce the regulation by such means and with such penalties as it pleases. The term does not apply to an embargo, like that of 1808. That exists only where the forces of one nation encompass the ports of another. A blockade interrupts trade and commimication to neutrals. ^ The President has a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the government, on principles of international law. Neutrals have a right to challenge the existence of a blockade de facto, and also the authority of the party exercising the right to institute it.. They have a right to enter the ports of a friendly nation for purposes of trade and commerce, but are bound to recognize the rights of a belligerent engaged in actual war to use this mode of coercion for the purpose, of subduing the enemy. 3 Simple blockade. Such blockade as may be established by a naval ofiacer acting upon his own discretion or under direction of superiors, without governmental notification. Public blockade. Is not only established in fact, but is notified, by the government directing it, to other governments.* In the case of a simple blockade, the captors of prize property, are bound to prove its existence at the time of the capture; while in Hie case of a public blockade, the claimanf^ are held to proof of discontinuance in order to protect themselves from the penalties of attempted violation. The blockade of the rebel ports was of the latter sort. It is the duty of the belligerent government to give prompt notice of the discontinuance of a public blockade. If it fails to do so, proof of discontinuance may be otherwise made; but, subject to just responsibility to other nations, it must judge for itself when it can dispense with a blockade.* Evidence of intent to violate a blockade may be collected from bills of lading, from letters and other papers found on board the captured vessel, from acts and words of the owners or hirers of the vessel and the shipper of the cargo and their agents, and from the spoliation of papers in apprehension of capture.* No paper or oonstruotive blockade is allowed by international law. ^ Compare Embargo.

In international law. The investment of a seaport by a competent naval force, with the view of cutting off all communication of commerce.* 1 Kent's Com. 1 44 — 146. A sort of circumvallation round a place by which all foreign connexion and correspondence is, as far as human power can effect it, to be cut off. Sir Wm. Scott, (Vrow Judith,) 1 Bob. Adm. B. 1 26. It is not necessary, however, that the place should be invested by land as well as by sea, in order to constitute a legal blockade; and if a place be blockaded by sea only, it is no violation of belligerent rights for the neutral to carry on commerce with it by inland communications. 1 Kent's Com. 147.