Mitä ihmiset sanovat - Kirjoita arvostelu
Yhtään arvostelua ei löytynyt.
Muita painoksia - Näytä kaikki
admitted American argument Armed Neutrality asserted attempt authority belligerent blockade Britain called carried cause claim commerce common conduct consequence considered contest contraband course Court decisions discussion doctrine droit duty effect enemy England English entitled equally established Europe existing fact force foreign France French give going Government ground Hautefeuille hostile important independence instance insurgents intention interests international law intervention judgement jurisdiction justify law of nations less letter Lord maintain maritime matter necessary neutral neutres never object observed opinion Orders in Council original particular party passage peace persons port Powers practice precedents present pretensions principles prohibit protection question reason recognition regard relations remarks respect rule seems ship South Sovereign sufficient taken territory things thought tion trade traité treaty true United vessel violation whole wholly writer
Sivu 129 - But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. It is a commercial adventure which no nation is bound to prohibit, and which only exposes the persons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation.
Sivu 132 - In pursuance of this policy, the laws of the United States do not forbid their, citizens to sell to either of the belligerent Powers articles contraband of war, or to take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although, in so doing, the individual citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality, nor of themselves implicate the Government.
Sivu 129 - It is a general understanding, -grounded on true principles, that the powers at war may seize and confiscate all contraband goods, without any complaint on the part of the neutral merchant, and without any imputation of a breach of neutrality in the neutral sovereign himself, (c) It was contended, on the part of the French nation, in 1796...
Sivu 116 - November in that year; the effect of a notification to any foreign government would clearly be to include all the individuals of that nation ; it would be the most nugatory thing in the world, if individuals were allowed to plead their ignorance of it; it is the duty of foreign governments to communicate the information to their subjects, whose interests they are bound to protect. I shall hold therefore that a neutral master can never be heard to aver against a notification of blockade, that he is...
Sivu 32 - King, having been informed that a treaty of amity and commerce had been signed between the Court of France and certain persons employed by his Majesty's revolted subjects in N"orth America...
Sivu 113 - Now, in order to justify a condemnation for breach of blockade three things must be proved: 1st, the existence of an actual blockade; 2dly, the knowledge of the party ; 3dly, some act of violation, either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade.
Sivu 154 - A capture made within neutral waters is, as between enemies, deemed, to all intents and purposes, rightful ; it is only by the neutral sovereign that its legal validity can be called in question ; and as to him and him only, is it to be considered void.
Sivu 191 - I trust that I have shown that the four persons who were taken from the Trent by Captain Wilkes, and their despatches, were contraband of war. The second inquiry is, whether Captain Wilkes had a right by the law of nations to detain and search the Trent. The Trent, though she carried mails, was a contract or merchant vessel — a common carrier for hire.
Sivu xii - American diplomatic statesmanship, at the close of the last and the beginning of the present century.