No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
If any one having an elementary acquaintance with the law of nations had been asked, twelve years ago, what were the rights of belligerents and neutrals in naval warfare, he would not have been at a loss for a reply. Subject to one or two minor points of unsettled detail, he would have been quite clear and certain as to the position. A continuous series of cases and textbooks made it plain. If some went further than others in claiming extended neutral immunities, that was a point of academic argument which was perhaps of interest, but of no particular importance, except as showing that the trend of thought was on the whole unfavorable to the belligerent.
1 See the writer’s Prize Law and Continuous Voyage, pp. 89, 111.
2 The reader of modern debates on “Tightening the Blockade” will be amused to read in Cobbett’s Parliamentary Debates, the speeches of 4 February, 1807 which afford an exact parallel to them of today. (Vol. 8, col. 620.) See also the debates of 1808–9, s. v. “Orders in Council,” ibid., Vols. 9, 10, 11, 12.
3 Cf. the cases of the Antares and the Zamora, 31 Times Law Reports, pp. 290, 513.