Freedom and control of the seas, 1856–1919

Abstract

ABSTRACT. In wartime, belligerent naval powers always exercised their power by restricting neutrals' freedom to trade. Britain and France reached a compromise position during the Crimean War, and afterwards offered it as a model international treaty, the 1856 Declaration of Paris, which abolished privateering, guaranteed neutral trade and restricted the right of blockade. This became the basis of a new international law of naval warfare. The Declaration of London of 1909 was meant to extend and refine it, but it was not ratified in 1914, and few of its provisions survived the war. RESUME. En temps de guerre, les puissances navales belligerantes ont toujours exerce leur pouvoir en reduisant la liberte commerciale des pays neutres. La France et la Grande-Bretagne parvinrent a etablir un compromis pendant la guerre de Crimee, qu'ils proposerent par la suite comme modele de traite international. La Declaration de Paris, signee en 1856, abolit la guerre de course, garantit le commerce neutre et restreignit le droit au blocus. Ceci devint la base d'un nouveau droit international relatif a la guerre maritime que la declaration de Londres de 1909 avait pour intention d'etendre et de preciser. Cette derniere n'ayant toujours pas ete ratifiee en 1914, peu de ses propositions survecurent a la guerre. The birth of modern international law was a result of one of the most famous legal disputes, namely the controversy over the principle of freedom of the seas. In the early 17 th century, the Dutch philosopher and lawyer Hugo Grotius argued in a pamphlet, Mare Liberum , defending a case for the Dutch East India Company, that [t]he sea is common to all, because it is so limitless that it cannot become a possession of any one, and because it is adapted for the use of all, whether we consider it from the point of view of navigation or of fisheries. Grotius' claims were directed against the Portuguese, who had proclaimed sovereignty of the seas, and thus a monopoly in the East India trade. The Dutch East India Company, on the other hand, desired access to those markets, which was the underlying reason for the dispute. At the same time, other lawyers(among them John Selden) disagreed with Grotius and defended the concept of the sovereignty of the seas.