and threatened the armed support of her views; all this was clear to Catherine II;1 and although Count Panin, who had been entrusted with the elaboration of her plan, had so formulated it as to take a leaf out of Sir Harris' plans and had brought the Empress herself into other tracks than she may have at first realized, yet the initiative of this plan can not be denied to the Empress.3

Two weeks after the issuance of the ukase to the admiralty, February 27, 1780, the world-famous declaration of Catherine was approved and on the following day forwarded to the Courts of London, Versailles and Madrid, accompanied by a rescript, which referred to the mobilization on the part of the Russian fleet for the purpose of protecting commercial navigation, and followed by a ukase to the Board of Trade with appropriate measures and directions which the Board was expected to follow. This declaration was the foundation for the treaties concluded between Russia and Denmark of July 9th and between Russia and Sweden of August 1st, which treaties, mutually recognized, led to an alliance of the three northern realms. This alliance was acceded to in the following years by Prussia, Austria, the United States, Holland, Portugal, and Naples.

Taking its appellation from the text of the declaration referred to, history has given to this neutrality alliance the name of "The Armed Neutrality of 1780," and the special significance of this alliance as a political system seems to justify its name of the "first" armed neutrality.

Page 24.-Two decades after the "first" armed neutrality we again find the northern States united under the leadership of Russia in a neutrality alliance, which belongs to the group of armed neutralities, that is to say, to the so-called second armed neutrality. In the year 1794, when the English through the occupation of the island of Corsica had won a point of support in the Mediterranean, the interference with neutral navigation started anew. To protect themselves against

1With regard to the origin of the first armed neutrality, see Bergbohm, loc. cit., pp. 239 et seq., 241, note 1; Gessner, Droit des neutres, pp. 39 et seq.; van de Poll, De principiis foederis quod dicitur neutralitas armata, pp. 10 et seq.; Poels, loc. cit., pp. 1207 et seq.

2By the use of Bernstorff's ideas.

Fauchille, La_diplomatie française et la ligue des neutres de 1780, p. 355, who credits the French Ambassador Vergennes with a considerable cooperation. 4Bergbohm, loc. cit., pp. 162-63.

Bonfils, loc. cit., p. 45.

"See Bergbohm, loc. cit., pp. 256 et seq.; Bonfils, loc. cit., p. 453; Gessner, loc. cit., pp. 44 et seq.; Poels, loc. cit., pp. 1212 et seq.

the inconsiderate exercise of the right of search on the part of the belligerents, France and England,-Sweden and Norway at first had their ships sail under convoy.' But England could not be deterred from resorting nevertheless to forcible searches, and in the year 1800 the English attacked and captured a Danish frigate which, according to her instructions, would by force prevent the search of her convoy. This was the immediate reason which led Emperor Paul I of Russia, who was kept informed by the Danes of the unavailing negotiations which took place with England with regard to this incident, to conclude, December 4, 1800, the convention of the so-called second armed neutrality. During the same month, Prussia also joined this convention. Through diplomatic notes, Great Britain soon thereafter made representations at the Prussian and Danish Courts because of the unfriendly tendencies of the agreement. When these representations did not yield the expected results, the English Government on January 14, 1801, gave orders to seize all Danish, Swedish and Russian ships (Russia had acted in like manner toward English ships) and sent a fleet to the Baltic Sea. In answer to this act, the Danish Government placed an embargo upon English ships. Unfortunately, the Danish fleet could not prevent the onward course of the English squadron. Denmark's defeat brought about the suspension of the principles of the neutrality alliance through the armistice concluded on April 9th of that year. The fate of the second armed neutrality was completely sealed through the convention which Great Britain concluded on June 17, 1801, with the successor of Paul I, Emperor Alexander I, which almost entirely disregarded the postulates of the allies of 1800.2

These historic sketches are deemed sufficient as a characterization of the development of armed neutrality in the applied law of nations.

RIVIER: Principes du Droit des Gens. Paris, 1896.

Alphonse Rivier. Swiss publicist; born in 1835; died in 1898; consul-general of Switzerland in Brussels; professor of international law in the University of Brussels; member of the Institute of International Law. Professor Rivier is known in international law for two treatises:

That is to say, under the protection of a war-ship which thus assumed the responsibility for the cargo.

2 Bergbohm, loc. cit., pp. 259 et scq.; Poels, loc. cit., pp. 1216 et seq.

1. Lehrbuch des völkerrechts. First edition, 1889; second edition, 1899. 2. Principes du droit des gens, 2 volumes, 1896.

Rivier is universally regarded as a masterly expounder of modern international law.

Volume 2, page 372.-The wars of the last century were fatal to neutrals.

England, especially, carried to the extreme the real or alleged rights of belligerents, chiefly at sea. All commerce with the enemy was forbidden to neutrals, the conception of contraband of war was extended beyond all measure; paper blockade or English blockade was in favor; the rule of war of 1756 is still famous; the admiralty invented the doctrine of continuous voyage.

The extreme practices of England brought about a reaction, which manifested itself in the armed neutrality of 1780.1 This movement owed its origin to the great Empress Catherine, who was ably seconded by the Danish Minister, André von Bernstorff (1735-1797), and also, as has recently been shown, to the diplomatic action of France. "The league of neutrals," says Mr. Fauchille, "appears to us to have been the joint work of France and of Russia. It was Louis XVI's Minister, M. de Vergennes, who first conceived the idea, but it was Catherine II who realized this great conception, and this realization was a deliberate act on her part."

Catherine's declaration to the Courts of London, Versailles, and Madrid, is dated March 9/February 27, 1780. It received the sanction of Denmark and of Sweden by their treaties of July 9 and of August 1 of the same year; between 1781 and 1783 the Netherlands, Prussia, Austria. the Two Sicilies, Portugal, France, and the United States acceded to it. The following are the most important passages thereof: "[The Empress] thought it but just to publish to all Europe the principles she means to follow, which are the most proper to prevent any misunderstanding, or any occurrences that may occasion

1On the armed neutrality: Bergbohm, Die bewaffnete Neutralität, 1780-1783. Eine Entwickelungsphase des Völkerrechts im Seekriege, 1884. Martens, Revue de droit international, vol. 13, pp. 94–97; vol. 16, pp. 312–314. Recueil des traités de la Russie, vol. 9 (10), pp. 295 et seq. Mr. Martens attempts to prove, contrary to the opinion expressed by Wheaton, which was founded especially on the dissertation of Goertz and the authority of Dohm, that the league of neutrals was indeed the personal accomplishment of the great Empress. Fauchille, La diplomatie française et la ligue des neutres de 1780 (1776-1783). Work crowned by the Institute of France. 1893.

it. Her Imperial Majesty does it with the more confidence, as she finds these principles coincident with the primitive right of nations which every people may reclaim, and which the belligerent Powers can not invalidate without violating the laws of neutrality, and without disavowing the maxims they have adopted in the different treaties and public engagements. They are reducible to the following points: (1) That neutral vessels may navigate freely from port to port and along the coasts of the nations at war; (2) that the effects belonging to subjects of the said Powers at war shall be free on board neutral vessels, with the exception of contraband merchandise; (3) that, as to the specification of the above-mentioned merchandise, the Empress holds to what is enumerated in the 10th and 11th articles of her treaty of commerce with Great Britain, extending her obligations to all the Powers at war; (4) that to determine what constitutes a blockaded port, this designation shall apply only to a port where the attacking Power has stationed its vessels sufficiently near and in such a way as to render access thereto clearly dangerous; (5) that these principles shall serve as a rule for proceedings and judgments as to the legality of prizes.

"Her Imperial Majesty, in making these points public, does not hesitate to declare, that to maintain them, and to protect the honor of her flag, the security of the trade and navigation of her subjects, she has prepared the greatest part of her maritime forces. This measure will not, however, influence the strict neutrality she does observe, and will observe, so long as she is not provoked and forced to exceed the limits of moderation and perfect impartiality. It will be only in this extremity that her fleet have orders to go wherever honor, interest, and need may require."

The Russo-Prussian treaty of May 8, 1781, defines the fifth point still further: "that neutral vessels may be detained only for just cause and when the facts are perfectly evident; that they shall be adjudged without delay; that the procedure shall always be uniform, prompt, and legal; and that, in addition to the compensation granted to vessels which have suffered loss without having been at fault, complete satisfaction shall in each case be rendered for the insult to the flag."

"It is perfectly true," says Mr. Geffcken, "that the allied States. themselves, and Russia in particular, afterwards abandoned and sacrificed the principles which they had proclaimed as the palladium of neutrals and the foundation of international maritime law. The armed

neutrality of 1780 retains none the less its great historical and legal scope. It has shown that even the strongest maritime Power may be constrained to conform its conduct to the demands of neutrals, when the latter are united." Although England did not renounce any of its principles, it found itself forced to deal gently with neutrals, and in the later years of the war it comported itself, on the whole, in conformity with the principles proclaimed in the declaration of 1780.

In the matter of the rights of neutrals, as in divers other matters, the wars of the revolution and of the Empire marked a step backward. Neither the allies nor France permitted neutrality in fact. France, by its laws and decrees of 1793, renounced the principles of armed neutrality, and even the principles that had been sanctioned by earlier treaties. In its ordinances of the same year, England maintained its old maxims, and with the support of Prussia forced the other States to accept them. In Denmark, however, Bernstorff resisted, but Russia was easily converted to the theories which it had combatted thirteen years before. Article 3, and especially Article 4 of the Anglo-Russian treaty of March 25, 1793, are significant. The King and the Empress "engage to unite all their efforts to prevent other Powers, not implicated in this war, from giving, on this occasion of common concern to every civilized State, any protection whatever, directly, or indirectly in consequence of their neutrality, to the commerce or property of the French, on the sea, or in the ports of France." Thenceforth forcible measures against neutrals increased on all sides. It would be a waste of time to state them in detail.

A new phase developed in 1800. The installation of the Prize Council (1801) inaugurated it in France. For the four Powers of the North and France, the second armed neutrality of December 6/18, 1800, renewed in general, though in weakened form, the declarations of the first, and it added provisions with regard to convoy. Russia once again became the protector of neutrals. England did not keep them waiting long for a reply. A cabinet order, dated January 14, 1801, put an embargo on Russian, Swedish, and Danish vessels, and the maritime convention of June 17, 1801, put an end to the second league of neutrals. Six years later, however, Alexander annulled the convention of June 17 and again proclaimed the principles of 1780.1

1On the history of the maritime convention and the declaration of 1807, see Martens, Recueil des traités russes, vol. 11, pp. 1-28; 106–142.