Third-Country shipping during wartime

[MDFeingold]

Not really sure which forum this belongs in, but since the issue first came to me in the context of a WWII discussion, I figured I'd post it here.

 

What is the status of neutral nations' shipping in a war zone? For example, in 1942, could a ship flagged under a neutral nation, loaded with munitions or fuel sail to a German port legally immune from attack by the Allies?

 

On another discussion board, a poster announced her belief that the United States was secretly rooting for the Germans to defeat the USSR, as evidenced by the fact that Standard Oil Company shipped oil to the Germans using Panamanian (or was it Liberian) flagged tankers. Putting aside the overall preposterousness of the argument, my immediate reaction was: wouldn't any such vessel be sent to the bottom? But, on reflection, it occurred to me that a neutral ship might enjoy legal protection. Could someone eddicate me on this? Thanks.

[dpapp2]

Warring parties usually declared blockade of each other - neutral ships subjected to search for contraband. At least in theory.

[philgollin]

Yes.

 

For instance the British set up a whole system of "navicerts" which included inspection at a "Contraband Control Base or Port" and meant that if the ship was stopped at sea then the presentation of the certificate would mean that, unless something odd occured, the ship would be allowed on its way without search. Otherwise the ship would be sent to a control port/base for full inspection. There was an equivalent French system at the beginning of the war and, I PRESUME, an American one later in the war. The "navicerts" had a time limit (usually 2 months).

 

In addition, any neutral found in waters officially barred to neutrals were liable to be boarded and sent into a suitable port for further inspection.

 

Fishing boats had their own system, even ones operated by occupied countries.

 

Obviously minefields (whether real or imagined) were declared and neutrals were banned from them.

 

The Royal Navy Patrol Service did a vast amount of "shepherding" of this system through WW2 as well as, of course, trade protection patrols by RN warships and auxiliaries.

 

.

[MDFeingold]

Yes.

 

For instance the British set up a whole system of "navicerts" which included inspection at a "Contraband Control Base or Port" and meant that if the ship was stopped at sea then the presentation of the certificate would mean that, unless something odd occured, the ship would be allowed on its way without search. Otherwise the ship would be sent to a control port/base for full inspection. There was an equivalent French system at the beginning of the war and, I PRESUME, an American one later in the war. The "navicerts" had a time limit (usually 2 months).

 

In addition, any neutral found in waters officially barred to neutrals were liable to be boarded and sent into a suitable port for further inspection.

 

Fishing boats had their own system, even ones operated by occupied countries.

 

Obviously minefields (whether real or imagined) were declared and neutrals were banned from them.

 

The Royal Navy Patrol Service did a vast amount of "shepherding" of this system through WW2 as well as, of course, trade protection patrols by RN warships and auxiliaries.

 

.

 

"Yes," meaning that third party shipping could pass safely through a blockade? What would constitute "contraband," then? If fuel, munitions and other materials with similar warmaking potential could be shipped under a third-party flag, couldn't any nation circumvent a blockade easily?

[JOE BRENNAN]

"Yes," meaning that third party shipping could pass safely through a blockade? What would constitute "contraband," then?

To clarify, the general answer was no, neutral shipping could not be used to circumvent a blockade, the ships were subject to seach and they and/or the cargo to seizure if found to be contraband destined for a combatant country. The other post just referred to practical mechanisms besides searching every neutral vessel of any size going anywhere any time. The definitions were an evolving area of admiralty law over a long time. A good book on naval warfare 1860-WWI is Wilson's "Battleships in Action" 2 vols written in the 1920's. Besides naval combat itself he tells the story of evolving interpretation of such law in the wars in that period. Anyway in WWI the British definition of contraband was very strict, the idea was to cut Germany off from everything it got overseas notably food. And it worked, cumulative German public exhaustion from that blockade was a major reason, maybe No.1 reason, the Germans lost WWI. The WWII blockade was on the same practical basis, nothing for Germany. The main gray areas were trade to neutral countries that might end up in Germany, and same thing in WWII wrt to the large number of occupied countries, v. the critical sea trade and fishing needs of the neutral/occupied civilian populations.

 

On the specific scenario Standard Oil didn't exist by WWII, having been broken up into a bunch of other companies, SO of NJ (later Exxon), SO of California (Chevron), etc. and Liberian flag of convenience was a post WWII thing, but there were US oil co. owned tankers under Panamanian (Honduran, etc) flag in the WWII era. But, before Dec 1941 they weren't any more neutral than US flag tankers. After that the scenario would be totally preposterous, but before not necessarily, except oil was clearly contraband, no way the British would let it through. There were US ownership interests in oilfields in Romania which had land connection to Germany. That's a kernel of truth in 'US sold oil to Germany during WWII'.

 

An important form of shielding by flag was US munitions sent to the USSR via the Pacific in WWII, around 1/2 of everything sent, though the Northern route is much more famous. Later on most of that stuff was in preparation for the Soviets' joining the war against Japan (in August 1945). It was cargo to a neutral in neutral ships (mainly ships transferred from US to Soviets), with no plausible legal argument it was further destined for a combatant. And by the time it was becoming clear the Soviets would probably attack Japan too, Japan was in no position to force the issue, so those shipments continued without Japanese interference (US subs sank a few by mistake) right up to the declaration by the Soviets against Japan.

 

Joe

[Yooklid]

The Navicert system was used to brow beat Irish Shipping at times. They were given weird courses and generally had to travel "out of the way" to get from Ireland to the US. Part of Churchill's policy of putting pressure on de Valera and his neutral stance.

[KingSargent]

The Navicert system was used to brow beat Irish Shipping at times. They were given weird courses and generally had to travel "out of the way" to get from Ireland to the US. Part of Churchill's policy of putting pressure on de Valera and his neutral stance.

Good old Irish paranoia. You don't suppose it was just POSSIBLY to keep Irish shipping from in front of German torpedo tubes?

[Yooklid]

Good old Irish paranoia. You don't suppose it was just POSSIBLY to keep Irish shipping from in front of German torpedo tubes?

 

Arguable. Irish shipping was attacked by both Allied and Axis powers during WWII. There were incidents where it was obvious that the screws were being put in place (I believe that Churchills words were to "squeeze Eire until the pips squeak"). Ships had to wait long times to get their Navicerts, inconvenient routes had to be taken, etc. etc. Some German Navy prisoners were rescued by the a ship called the Kerlogue and taken directly to Ireland, Kerlogue ignoring orders to put into a British port.

 

After this incident, the British representative in Ireland (not a full ambassador) Maffey (later Lord Rugby) delivered a message that the Admiralty's faith in Irish procedures was "shaken".

[John T]

To clarify, the general answer was no, neutral shipping could not be used to circumvent a blockade, the ships were subject to seach and they and/or the cargo to seizure if found to be contraband destined for a combatant country.

 

The only thing to add is the British used a legal procedure that the cargo where paid for as determined at the London Prize court ,so the shipping company could ask for a higher price it they dared to.

 

Next thing that would happen is that the company gets on the Allies black list, and is basically out of business in any allied country.

 

cheers

 

/John T

[dpapp2]

Some additionall details.

 

In WWI, UK did have a total blockade, stopping every ships, not only those carrying contraband. IIRC this was contrary to pre-war conventions (which allowed food to be shipped). Ships carrying food to Europe were detained, until either the food carried was spoiled or sold in the UK.

 

There's also the question of reflagging ships. France did not acknowledge changing the flag of a hostile ship to a neutral one (e.g. German to US/Spanish/whatever in WWI).

[MDFeingold]

Thanks, Joe, that cleared it up for me.

 

To clarify, the general answer was no, neutral shipping could not be used to circumvent a blockade, the ships were subject to seach and they and/or the cargo to seizure if found to be contraband destined for a combatant country. The other post just referred to practical mechanisms besides searching every neutral vessel of any size going anywhere any time. The definitions were an evolving area of admiralty law over a long time. A good book on naval warfare 1860-WWI is Wilson's "Battleships in Action" 2 vols written in the 1920's. Besides naval combat itself he tells the story of evolving interpretation of such law in the wars in that period. Anyway in WWI the British definition of contraband was very strict, the idea was to cut Germany off from everything it got overseas notably food. And it worked, cumulative German public exhaustion from that blockade was a major reason, maybe No.1 reason, the Germans lost WWI. The WWII blockade was on the same practical basis, nothing for Germany. The main gray areas were trade to neutral countries that might end up in Germany, and same thing in WWII wrt to the large number of occupied countries, v. the critical sea trade and fishing needs of the neutral/occupied civilian populations.

 

On the specific scenario Standard Oil didn't exist by WWII, having been broken up into a bunch of other companies, SO of NJ (later Exxon), SO of California (Chevron), etc. and Liberian flag of convenience was a post WWII thing, but there were US oil co. owned tankers under Panamanian (Honduran, etc) flag in the WWII era. But, before Dec 1941 they weren't any more neutral than US flag tankers. After that the scenario would be totally preposterous, but before not necessarily, except oil was clearly contraband, no way the British would let it through. There were US ownership interests in oilfields in Romania which had land connection to Germany. That's a kernel of truth in 'US sold oil to Germany during WWII'.

 

An important form of shielding by flag was US munitions sent to the USSR via the Pacific in WWII, around 1/2 of everything sent, though the Northern route is much more famous. Later on most of that stuff was in preparation for the Soviets' joining the war against Japan (in August 1945). It was cargo to a neutral in neutral ships (mainly ships transferred from US to Soviets), with no plausible legal argument it was further destined for a combatant. And by the time it was becoming clear the Soviets would probably attack Japan too, Japan was in no position to force the issue, so those shipments continued without Japanese interference (US subs sank a few by mistake) right up to the declaration by the Soviets against Japan.

 

Joe

[redcoat]

Some additionall details.

 

In WWI, UK did have a total blockade, stopping every ships, not only those carrying contraband. IIRC this was contrary to pre-war conventions (which allowed food to be shipped).

Contraband wasn't defined under the laws, so it wasn't illegal under international law for the British to class food as contraband goods

[R011]

Contraband wasn't defined under the laws, so it wasn't illegal under international law for the British to class food as contraband goods

Actually, contraband was defined. Food could be included.

 

Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, 208 Consol. T.S. 338 (1909)

 

See Art. 24. (1)

[dpapp2]

Actually, contraband was defined. Food could be included.

 

Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, 208 Consol. T.S. 338 (1909)

 

See Art. 24. (1)

 

Then the British had deliberately broken their own law with the rubber embargo (Art. 28), hadn't they?

It's a bit strange, however that e.g. Ammonia is on the 'not contraband' list.

 

Weren't also food shipments to neutral European countries (Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden) detained?