Abstract
The mechanism for the creation of instant and universal international law, which we still use today, was established through an instrument that was celebrated when introduced but is now largely obscure: the 1856 Declaration of Paris. While earlier multilateral treaties had attempted to order Europe, the Declaration of Paris called upon all nations worldwide to join new rules for naval war, inviting them to do so through a simple declaration of accession. The Declaration of Paris additionally provides an opportunity to observe the lifespan and transformations of a treaty and its rules, as the Declaration succeeded in achieving universality against the determined opposition of the United States, which refused to join the treaty and fought a campaign to prevent the creation of a customary norm banning privateering. Finally, given the collapse of the neutral rights protected by the Declaration at the beginning of the First World War and the disregard for these rights under the United Nations’ framework, the Declaration of Paris also enables to study the process of how a treaty dies but (some of) its rules may survive and continue to apply.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Declaration of Paris Respecting Maritime Law [1856].
- 2.
See Tunkin (1961) 420.
- 3.
North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v Denmark) Judgment [1969] ICJ Rep 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
Charney (1986) 1–24.
- 7.
Kohen (2011) 350–359.
- 8.
Rehausen-Clarendon, 2 January 1854, and Reventlow Criminil-Clarendon, 2 January 1854, British and Foreign State Papers (BFSP) vol 44, 94. See also Parliamentary Papers, Correspondence relative to Neutrality of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, 1854 (1711) LXXII.601.
- 9.
Declaration of 28 March 1854, BFSP vol 46, 36.
- 10.
Clarendon to Cowley, 13 March 1854, Akten zur Geschichte des Krimkriegs (AGKK) III/2, no 155, 280–282.
- 11.
This new provision was praised by the Morning Chronicle, 6 January 1854, which condemned privateering as ‘legalized piracy’. After war had been declared, King Oskar of Sweden-Norway confirmed the closure of his ports to privateers and also banned the sale of prizes captured by privateers, see Declaration of 8 April 1854, BFSP vol 46, 833–835, art 9.
- 12.
The circular of 4 April 1854 is printed in Nicholas Tracy (2005) no 2, 24.
- 13.
Economist, 14 October 1854.
- 14.
Marcy to Buchanan, 13 April 1854, BFSP vol 46, 835.
- 15.
Convention entre la Russie et les Etats-Unis d’Amerique relative au droit des neutres sur mer [1854], Martens Nouveau Recueil Generale des Traites (Martens NRG), vol 16, no 78, 571; BFSP vol 45, 125. Russia ratified the treaty on 31 October 1854.
- 16.
Mason to Marcy, 31 October 1855, no 85, National Archive and Record Administration II, College Park, Maryland, USA (NARA), M34, vol 37, roll 40.
- 17.
Clarendon to Cowley, 2 November 1855, no 1273, The National Archives, Kew (TNA), FO/27/1059.
- 18.
Clarendon to Palmerston, 4 April 1856, AGKK III/4, no 608, 963.
- 19.
Palmerston to Clarendon, 5 April 1856, ibid no 609, 964.
- 20.
Cabinet Minutes respecting the Declaration of Paris of 1856, TNA, FO/881/5104.
- 21.
See Archive du Ministère des affaires Étrangères (AMAE), Memoires et documents, France, vol 2117, ‘Congrès de Paris, 1856: Pièces diverses’, folio 35.
- 22.
Palmerston to Clarendon, 12 April 1856, British Library, Add.48580, folio 80/162.
- 23.
Martens NRG vol 15, 791.
- 24.
John Louis O’Sullivan to Marcy, 20 July 1856, no 39, NARA, M43, vol 17.
- 25.
See Protocol No. 24, 16 April 1856, Martens NRG, vol 15, 768–769.
- 26.
Lemnitzer (2014) 93.
- 27.
See Walewski (1858).
- 28.
Marcy to Sartiges et al, 28 July 1856, BFSP vol 55, 589.
- 29.
Gorchakov to Stoeckl, 22 June 1856, cited in Frank Golder, ‘Russian-American Relations During the Crimean War’ (1926) 31(3) American Historical Review 462–476, 475.
- 30.
See eg the dispatch to Mexico, Marcy to John Forsyth, 29 August 1856, no 5, NARA, M77, vol 17, roll 113.
- 31.
Ferrer-Wheeler, 29 September 1856, printed in David Hunter Miller, Treaties and other International Acts of the USA, vol VI (Washington 1942) 146. Wyllie-Gregg, 8 April 1857, ibid 133.
- 32.
See Lemnitzer (n 26) ch 4 for a full discussion.
- 33.
Cass to Mason, 27 June 1859, no 190, NARA, M77, vol 15, roll 55.
- 34.
Order in Council, 7 March 1860, Parliamentary Papers, Correspondence respecting Affairs in China, 1859–60, 1861 (2754) LXVI.1, inclosure 3 in no 28, 56; Times, 27 June 1860, 12.
- 35.
Cobden to W. S. Lindsay, undated (May 1860), cited in Lemnitzer (n 26) 114 (emphasis added).
- 36.
BFSP vol 55, 584ff. The application form for letters of marque is printed at 586.
- 37.
Lyons to Russell, 17 June 1861, TNA, FO/414/15, no 19, 16.
- 38.
Russell to Adams, 31 July 1861, Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) vol 1 (1861) 126.
- 39.
After negotiations in London and Paris had broken down, Russian Foreign minister Gorchakov cooperated in burying the convention signed on 24 August by not forwarding it to the Tsar for ratification, see Napier to Russell, 26 August 1861, no 269 and 27 August 1861, no 277, TNA, FO/65/578. None of this is mentioned in the relevant files in the US National Archives.
- 40.
- 41.
See Lemnitzer (n 26) ch 6 for a full discussion.
- 42.
Chile was a signatory of the Declaration but tried to issue letters of marque against Spain, a non-signatory, in September 1865, see the Chilean Declaration of 26 September 1865, attached to a dispatch from the French legation in Santiago to Drouyn de Lhuys, 9 October 1865, no 67, AMAE, Correspondence Politique Chili vol 17. Bolivia tried to use privateers to counter its invasion by Chile in 1879, but having lost its entire coastline, nobody was tempted, see Sater (2007), 102/3.
- 43.
See Proclamation by President McKinley, 26 April 1898, printed in FRUS 1898, 772; Royal Decree of 23 April 1898, printed ibid 774.
- 44.
Hague Convention (VII) Relating to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships, [1907] art 1 states: ‘A merchant ship converted into a war-ship cannot have the rights and duties accruing to such vessels unless it is placed under the direct authority, immediate control, and responsibility of the Power whose flag it flies.’ (emphasis added).
- 45.
Convention on the High Seas [1958].
- 46.
Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War of 26 February 1909, printed in Schindler and Toman (1988) 845–856.
- 47.
For a more detailed account see Lemnitzer (2016) 615–638.
- 48.
Bryan to Page, 6 August 1914, FRUS 1914. Supplement. The World War (Washington, DC, 1928) 216.
- 49.
Gerard to Bryan, 10 August 1914, Penfield to Bryan, 13 August 1914, Crowe to Page, 22 August 1914, all ibid 216, 217, 218–219.
- 50.
Order-in-Council, 20 August 1914, FRUS 1914. Supplement, 219–220.
- 51.
Lansing to Page, 26 September 1914, FRUS 1914. Supplement, 229.
- 52.
Washington Post (28 September 1914) 6.
- 53.
Declaration of 4 February 1915, FRUS 1915. Supplement, 93; Order-in-Council, 11 March 1915, ibid 144.
- 54.
On this topic see also Coogan (n 40).
- 55.
See the correspondence in TNA, ADM/167/54, folio 262f.
- 56.
Treaty of Versailles [1919] art 440.
- 57.
Glennon (2005).
- 58.
‘Rights and Duties of Neutral States in Naval and Aerial War: Introductory Comment’ (1939) 33 American Journal of International Law, Supplement: Research in International Law, 204–206, 204.
- 59.
American Society of International Law. Draft Convention on Rights and Duties of Neutral States in Naval and Aerial War (1939).
- 60.
See Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1949) 281.
- 61.
Hague Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land [1907]; Hague Convention (XIII) concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War [1907].
- 62.
Doswald-Beck (1995) (San Remo Manual).
- 63.
Ronzitti (1988) 66.
- 64.
Roberts and Guelff (2000) 47.
- 65.
Joint Services Manual on the Law of Armed Conflict (2004 edn) <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27874/JSP3832004Edition.pdf> (UK Manual).
- 66.
ibid 348.
- 67.
United States Department of Defense Law of War Manual (2015 edn) <http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/law_war_manual15.pdf> (US Manual).
- 68.
ibid 931.
- 69.
US Manual (n 67) 870; UK Manual (n 65) 350; San Remo Manual (n 62) para 13.
- 70.
UK Manual (n 65) 363; San Remo Manual (n 62) para 95.
- 71.
US Manual (n 67) 888.
- 72.
ibid 880.
- 73.
ibid 885. The US Manual explains that ‘A belligerent State may not purport to deny access to neutral States, or to close an international strait to neutral shipping, pursuant to this authority unless another route of similar convenience remains open to neutral traffic.’ ibid 881.
- 74.
UK Manual (n 65) 371.
- 75.
San Remo Manual (n 62) paras 147–150.
- 76.
US Manual (n 67) 931.
References
Bruce A, Cogar W (1998) An encyclopedia of naval warfare. Facts on File
Charney J (1986) The persistent objector rule and the development of customary international law. Br Yearb Int Law 56(1):1
Cheng B (1965) United Nations resolutions on outer space: “Instant” international customary law? Indiana J Int Law 5:23
Coogan J (1981) The end of neutrality: the United States, Britain and maritime rights 1899–1915. Cornell University Press
Doswald-Beck L (ed) (1995) San Remo manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea, 12 June 1994. Cambridge University Press
Glennon M (2005) How international rules die. Georgetown Law J 93:939
Kohen M (2011) Desuetude and obsolescence of treaties. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The law of treaties beyond the Vienna convention. Oxford University Press
Lemnitzer JM (2014) Power, law and the end of privateering. Palgrave Macmillan
Lemnitzer JM (2016) Woodrow Wilson’s neutrality, the freedom of the seas, and the myth of the “Civil War Precedents”. Dipl Statecraft 27(4):615
Mejía-Lemos DG (2015) Some considerations regarding “‘Instant’ International Customary Law”, fifty years later. Indian J Int Law 55:85
Rights and Duties of Neutral States in Naval and Aerial War: Introductory Comment’ (1939) Am J Int Law Suppl Res Int Law 33:204
Roberts A, Guelff R (eds) Documents on the laws of war, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press
Ronzitti N (ed) (1988) The law of naval warfare: a collection of agreements and documents with commentaries. Martinus Nijhoff
Sater W (2007) Andean tragedy: fighting the war of the Pacific, 1879–1884. Lincoln, NE
Scharf M (2013) Customary international law in times of fundamental change: recognizing Grotian moments. Cambridge University Press
Scharf M (2014) Accelerated formation of customary international law. ILSA J Int Comp Law 20:305
Scheuner U (1997) Privateering. In: Bernhardt R (ed) Encyclopedia of public international law, vol 3. North-Holland
Schindler S, Toman J (eds) (1988) The laws of armed conflicts: a collection of conventions, resolutions, and other documents. Martinus Nijhoff
Tracy N (ed) (2005) Sea power and the control of trade: belligerent rights from the Russian war to the Beira Patrol, 1854–1970. Aldershot
Tunkin G (1961) Remarks on the judicial nature of customary norms in international law. Calif Law Rev 49:419
Walewski A (1858) Rapport a L´Empereur sur la Publication des notes officiellesportant accession a la declaration du congrès de Paris du 16 avril 1856, relative au droit maritime on temps du guerre (Paris 1858)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lemnitzer, J.M. (2022). How Instant and Universal International Law Is Born and How It Dies: The 1856 Declaration of Paris. In: Van der Ploeg, K.P., Pasquet, L., Castellanos-Jankiewicz, L. (eds) International Law and Time. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 101. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09465-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09465-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-09464-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-09465-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)