Den Telegraaf 1916

[The Rock Doctor]

Gran Colombian policy is, "It all depends on the circumstances."

[Kaiser Kirk]

I had about a paragraph written about what I think I know about blockades- mainly from the US Civil War and WWI blockades. Once I got into it, I found I needed allot of qualifiers.

I think standard practice was a ship heading into a blockaded port could be seized and a prize court would adjudicate, with the ship possibly forfeit. Likewise blockade runners outbound from Confederate ports could be seized. In WWI, Dutch ships were seized by the US, pretty much for being Dutch.

But...those could be the exceptions... dunno

I don't know what the accepted international standard was ~1900, prior to the Hague Conventions and WWI.

Looking at Wiki :

Blockades were first defined in international law at the Congress of Paris in 1856. One of the agreed rules was that a blockade had to be effective in order to be lawful. This banned so-called "paper" blockades (blockades that were declared to the blockaded nation, but were not actively enforced). Such a blockade did, however, allow the blockading party to seize the cargo of neutral states trading with blockaded harbors.[7]

[miketr]

Iberian Views on blockade in simple form (IE when I got some time I will write up something more detailed).

1) A blockade has to be legal, IE only belligerents have the right to institute a blockade and a blockade can only be in place within the territorial waters of the belligerent being blockaded.

Note the Baltic's conduct is illegal on its face as it has issued no declaration of war.

2) A blockade has to be effective, IE the blockading the force has have enough ships on station to prevent the movement of ships into and out of ports / coastline being blockaded. 

3) Neutral shipping can't be stopped on the high seas for search of its cargo for contraband; they can ONLY stopped to confirm that the flag they are flying under is in fact there own.  A check of the ships registry is all that is required.  Even if the neutral ship is carrying contraband destined for enemy ports or enemy nationals (even enemy troops that have been rescued from the sea for example).  The ships neutral flag provides absolute protection while on the high seas.

4) If there is a legal and effective blockade in place then the blockading for has the right to stop ALL shipping neutral or otherwise within the area of the blockade.  The blockading force has the right to seize contraband cargo from neutral shipping; not the ship itself.  If neutral shipping is not carrying contraband it is free to continue even if it enters or exits a port under blockade.


Mikes Comments the Iberian view point is extremely old school and more in keeping with the 17th or 19th century of naval warfare.  It ignores issues such as mines, subs and the increased power and range of coastal defense guns.

[ledeper]

Note the Baltic's conduct is illegal on its face as it has issued no declaration of war.

Once again the ESC apparently have to state ,that the ESC is NOT,repeat,NOT participating in the conflict between the Netherlands and Siam,the ESC has loaned the Koninlijke Marine a handful of ships from the Gujarat squadron,thats all!!

[maddox]

Oh, that's a handy explanation.

[miketr]

Note the Baltic's conduct is illegal on its face as it has issued no declaration of war.

Once again the ESC apparently have to state ,that the ESC is NOT,repeat,NOT participating in the conflict between the Netherlands and Siam,the ESC has loaned the Koninlijke Marine a handful of ships from the Gujarat squadron,thats all!!

1) Are the ESC ships under direct Dutch command?  IE is there a Dutch naval officer in command?
2) Are the ships flying their own flag or the Kingdom of the Netherlands Flag?
3) If the ships are destroyed by enemy action (Siam or Brandenburg since they have entered the war) how will the Baltic Confederation view the matter?

[Korpen]

Iberian Views on blockade in simple form (IE when I got some time I will write up something more detailed).

1) A blockade has to be legal, IE only belligerents have the right to institute a blockade and a blockade can only be in place within the territorial waters of the belligerent being blockaded.

That really makes the rest pointless, as territorial waters are something that a country chooses itself; there is nothing that prevents a blockaded country from claiming a territorial water of 100 meter, making any form of blockade impossible. While 6nm is the common recognised limit here, nothing prevents a country form claiming less, or recognising more.

The Dutch view is much more sensible; a blockade can physically be wherever one wants as long as it does not put Neutral ports and/or coastline behind blockade.

[Korpen]

Note the Baltic's conduct is illegal on its face as it has issued no declaration of war.

Once again the ESC apparently have to state ,that the ESC is NOT,repeat,NOT participating in the conflict between the Netherlands and Siam,the ESC has loaned the Koninlijke Marine a handful of ships from the Gujarat squadron,thats all!!

1) Are the ESC ships under direct Dutch command?  IE is there a Dutch naval officer in command?
2) Are the ships flying their own flag or the Kingdom of the Netherlands Flag?
3) If the ships are destroyed by enemy action (Siam or Brandenburg since they have entered the war) how will the Baltic Confederation view the matter?

They are opearting under Dutch command, In a similar fashion to the Habsburgs in kolkata.

[ctwaterman]

A country undergoing a Blockade can indeed try to claim its territorial limits to only be 100 Meters.  That wont stop the rest of the world from Laughing our Assess off at their claims and Ignoring them.   Escpecially if last week they were claiming 100 NM as their territorial limit.   Its unrealistic to think anyone in the real world would try such a manuver and even more funny that anyone would take them seriously if they did.

[miketr]

Iberian Views on blockade in simple form (IE when I got some time I will write up something more detailed).

1) A blockade has to be legal, IE only belligerents have the right to institute a blockade and a blockade can only be in place within the territorial waters of the belligerent being blockaded.

That really makes the rest pointless, as territorial waters are something that a country chooses itself; there is nothing that prevents a blockaded country from claiming a territorial water of 100 meter, making any form of blockade impossible. While 6nm is the common recognised limit here, nothing prevents a country form claiming less, or recognising more.

No the standard is the standard.. A nation can claim more or less but without international backing THAT is what is pointless.  From the Iberian point of view the Dutch are free to maintain a blockade within 6 miles of the coast of Siam (assuming no overlap in territorial waters)

The Dutch view is much more sensible; a blockade can physically be wherever one wants as long as it does not put Neutral ports and/or coastline behind blockade.

Iberia will view seizing of its ships on the high seas as a hostile act.  If Madrid receives reports of its shipping being harassed there will be a response.

[Korpen]

No the standard is the standard.. A nation can claim more or less but without international backing THAT is what is pointless.  From the Iberian point of view the Dutch are free to maintain a blockade within 6 miles of the coast of Siam (assuming no overlap in territorial waters)

International backing as such is irrelevant; the two things that matter is 1: What the country claim and 2: What other countries are willing to recognise.
These two are de facto a bilateral agreement (not necessarily put on paper), and usually it is the willingness of others to adhere to a claim that limits it. But a country reducing its claim do not really require and adherence from other states and as such can be done freely (or at least without frictions). At that point a country saying "6nm" is just as arbitrary as one saying 1nm or 200nm.

Oh, and 6nm of the cost is not the same thing as territorial sea, for example I think all of the bay of bangkok is internal waters with a baseline across the mouth.

A country undergoing a Blockade can indeed try to claim its territorial limits to only be 100 Meters.  That wont stop the rest of the world from Laughing our Assess off at their claims and Ignoring them.   Escpecially if last week they were claiming 100 NM as their territorial limit.   Its unrealistic to think anyone in the real world would try such a manuver and even more funny that anyone would take them seriously if they did.

That is because in the real world it has been irrelevant were the limit of the territorial waters has been when it comes to blockades and suchlike. Especially considering the fact that most precedence on naval blockades predates the concept of the existence of a territorial sea... 
As far as I have found out there have never been any blockades ever (exempting sieges) that have been kept as close as 5-10km (3-6nm), at least since the sailing ships came into use.

Countries using territorial sea as a guideline are not old school; they are very much new school.

[Sachmle]

Note the Baltic's conduct is illegal on its face as it has issued no declaration of war.

Once again the ESC apparently have to state ,that the ESC is NOT,repeat,NOT participating in the conflict between the Netherlands and Siam,the ESC has loaned the Koninlijke Marine a handful of ships from the Gujarat squadron,thats all!!

1) Are the ESC ships under direct Dutch command?  IE is there a Dutch naval officer in command?
2) Are the ships flying their own flag or the Kingdom of the Netherlands Flag?
3) If the ships are destroyed by enemy action (Siam or Brandenburg since they have entered the war) how will the Baltic Confederation view the matter?

They are opearting under Dutch command, In a similar fashion to the Habsburgs in kolkata.

So manned by ESC crews with ESC flags. Brandenburg would have to inquire, to prevent unnessessary loss of life of a other wise neutral nations sailors, which specific ships are under Dutch command, so we don't accidentally sink ones not pretending to be Dutch.

[miketr]

No the standard is the standard.. A nation can claim more or less but without international backing THAT is what is pointless.  From the Iberian point of view the Dutch are free to maintain a blockade within 6 miles of the coast of Siam (assuming no overlap in territorial waters)

International backing as such is irrelevant; the two things that matter is 1: What the country claim and 2: What other countries are willing to recognise.
These two are de facto a bilateral agreement (not necessarily put on paper), and usually it is the willingness of others to adhere to a claim that limits it. But a country reducing its claim do not really require and adherence from other states and as such can be done freely (or at least without frictions). At that point a country saying "6nm" is just as arbitrary as one saying 1nm or 200nm.

Oh, and 6nm of the cost is not the same thing as territorial sea, for example I think all of the bay of bangkok is internal waters with a baseline across the mouth.

There is a standard of territorial waters... That is 6nm.  If that standard changes to 1 nm or 200 its not arbitrary.  Iberia's standard isn't 1 nm or 200 nm its the internationally accepted standard of whats territorial waters.  The Dutch are free to view this as arbitary but Iberia does not.

In any event Iberia's view are what they are.  The Dutch can take what action it sees fit and it will just have to accept the results of its actions.  The choice lies with the Netherlands.

[Blooded]

I would probably agree more to Miketr's definition. I think that only beligerents vessels should be effected for the most part. Neutral shipping would in effect be under the protection of that nations flag. Not honoring that flag comes at your own risk.

Honestly with the short length of the 'wars' we have been having, anything delivered during the conflict would be largely unusable for that conflict. IE, It would take 6 months or more for a corps worth of weapons to be delivered to an area and then be used.

Without the concept of 'Total War', extending the fight to 'civilian' merchants seems wrong.

In the definition Kirk came up with it does specify 'blockaded harbors' as well. Turning away a merchant would solve most issues. Also, given the poor communications of the period, more time should be provided for 'neutrals' to desist from trade in a region, and to learn of areas that are 'off limits'.

[ctwaterman]

My Personal view is very much old school, the View I am taking for the Empire of Italia is that the body of law currently in existance has its uses but it is obviously still under refinement for a variety of reasons.

So we need to clarrify some points of the rules and make some changes.  We need to define what is and is not contraband and where a nation should and shouldnt lay minefields.

I will point out that the Entire Conflict between The Empire of Italia and the Republic of Orange began as a freedom of Navigation Issue durring the Ottoman/ Iberian and Habsburg war.  Closing the straits of Hormuz with mines and stopping and Searching Italian Flagged ships on their way to Persian gulf ports to drop off good and buy oil was viewed as a violation of Imperial Soverignty. 

My point of view over all is simple without a body of law [Internaional Consensus] to make such actions legal or Illegal it appears that a nation can get away with doing it at their whim.  But I think its a very bad way to try and make and keep friendly nations.  No matter how liberal ones view on the freedom of neutral and innocent navigation is stopping a foreign flagged vessel on the High Sea;s sets a very bad precidence that one should expect to have thrown back into ones face some time in the future. ;D