Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1911. DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10152, 31 January 1911, Page 4

Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1911. DECLARATION OF LONDON.

J civ Zealanders are being trentrsJ just now to a variety of information concerning the probable effect of the "Declaration of London." A great number, possibly, do not appreciate the full significance of this proposed change in international law." The Declaration of London was signed in February, 1909, by the delegates representing Great Britain and the other great Powers at a conference held in London. - The declaration, consisting of 71 articles, after being •signed by the delegates, had still to be ratified '"by their respective Governments, Although this was to be done as early as possible ("shall be ratified as soon as possible"), it is still in abeyance. This ratification .jdoes not require the approval or sanction of Parliament, but simply that of his Majesty's Ministers, which may be given at any time. The chief object of the conference of delegates was to draw up a code which should regulate naval operations in war time in connection with contraband, neutral vessels," privateers, etc., and of "endeavouring to secure an understanding between the Powers as to the general principles of law recognised by them to be binding upon their respective prize courts in the more important questions that might come before the International Court of Appeal." The conference met in December,, 1908, and on February 26, 1909, signed l and presented what is known as the "Declaration of London." The sittings lasted barely twenty days,

some of wliich were purely formal, and a most important and entirely new code ol : international law was thus in a few days created, approved, and signed. In'the "Declaration of London" Great Britain appears to be greatly handicapped, as may be seen in the following. In article 24 of the Declaration there is a list of articles which "may without notice be treated as contraband," and among those are foodstuffs, forage, fuel and lubricants. In article 33, "conditional contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined for tile use of the armed forces or of a Government department of the enemy State, unless in this latter case the circumstances show that the goods cannot in fact be used for the purposes of the war in progress." This is admirably simple, but unfortunately its good intentions are nullified, for article 34 says : "The destination referred to in article 33 is presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to enemy authorities, or to a contractor established in the enemy country, who, as a matter of common knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy, or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of tli3 enemy. No such presumption, however, arises in the case of a merchant vessel bound for one of these places if it is sought to prove that ©he herself is contraband. In cases where the above presumptions do not arise, the destination is presumed to -be innocent,'' The • presumptions set up by this article may be rebutted. Again in article 35: "Conditional contraband is not liable to capture, except when found on board a vessel bound for territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy, or for the armed 1 forces- of the enemy, .and when it is not;to be discharged in an intervening natural port." Great Britain,, being, isolated, is handicapped in comparison with Germany as regards neutral ports. Germany might , have supplies sent via Antwerp' and- an enemy could not interfere with the merchant vessel carrying, these; but what foreign enemy would consider any of Great Britain's ports-neutral? With regard to neutral vessels, article 40 reverses article 48-,. which states emphatically that captured neutral vessels may not be sunk, but "must be taken into such ports as is proper for the 'determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the capture." Article 49, stating: "A neutral vessel which, 'has been captured by a belligerent warship and whiolx. would, be liable to condemnation may be destroyed if taking her into port would . involve danger to the safety of the warship or to the success of: the operations in which she was engaged at the time." It is presumed that the decision as to who will decide as to whether the operations would be imperilled or hampered or not would be | the officer commanding the com- j fner.ee destroyer, who would natur- , ally decide in the affirmative and j claim the protection of the Declara- > tion of London. !