Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 479.


forces ? And with the f acilities of transportation by sea and by land which now exist the right of a belhgerent to capture conditional contraband would be of a very shadowy value if a mere consignment to a neutral port were sufficiënt to protect the goods. It appears also to be obvious that in these days of easy transit, if the doctrine of continuous voyage or continuous transportation is to hold at all, it must cover not only voyages from port at sea, but also transport by land untü the real, as distinguished from the merely ostensible, destination of the goods is reached.'

Puis, après avoü fait mention de la résignatiön récente des EtatsUnis a l'application de la doctrine, Sir Samuel Evans conclut:

„I have no hesitation in pronouncing that, in my view, the doctrine of continuous voyage or transportation, both in relation to carriage by sea and to carriage by over land, had become part of the law of nations at the commencement of the present war, in accordance with the principles of recognised legal décisions, and with the view of the great body of modern jurists, and also with the practice of nations in recent maritime warfare."

Et plus tard:

„As to this Order (in Council of October 29, 1914), so far as it affects questions arising in these proceedings, it is right to point out that no provision in it can possibly be said to be in violation of any rule or principle of international law. It is true that in a matter of real substance it alters the proposed compromise incorporated in article 35 of the Déclaration of London, whereby, if the Déclaration had been ratüied, the doctrine of continuous voyage would have been excluded for conditional contraband. The provision in article 35 was described by Sir Robert Finlay (counsel for several of the claimants) as „An innovation in international law as hitherto recognised in the United States and by Great Britain and other States, introducing an innovation of the first importance by excluding the doctrine of continuous voyage in the case of conditional contraband."

What the Order in Councü did, therefore, was to prevent the innovation. In this regard it therefore proceeded not in violation of, but upon the basis of, the existing international law upon the subject. [Comp. ci-dessus, §§ 57. (3) et 64 et ss.]

It may be well to note, and to record, that at the London Conference which produced the Déclaration, all the alhed Powers engaged in this war, and also the United States, had been in favour of continuing to apply the doctrine of continuous voyage or continuous transportation to conditional as well as to absolute contraband

Plus tard, le Comité Judiciaüe du Conseü Privé s'est prononcé dans le même sens, entre autres dans 1'affaüe des Louisiana,

tomsk, nordic and joseph W. fordney (908) !

„The Déclaration of London was a provisional agreement embodying certain somewhat sweeping changes in international law. Its 35*