File No. 763.72112/458
No. 37]
[Subenclosure—Translation]
The Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs
(Wallenberg) to the
German, French, British, and Russian
Ministers
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Stockholm
,
November 12,
1914.
Mr. Minister: It is in the natural
order of things that the baleful conflagration which has
involved so many powers should also very perceptibly affect the
neutral countries and impose very, heavy sacrifices upon them.
These sacrifices, which, within certain limits, might be termed
unavoidable, ought not to be arbitrarily aggravated through
measures taken by the belligerents. The law of nations has
established in the matter of neutral rights and duties certain
principles which are not open to the charge of favoring the
neutrals at the expense of the belligerents. Yet even the very
moderate measure of protection accorded to neutral interests by
existing international law seems to be vanishing in the course
of the present war. The neutral countries, careful to observe
the strictest impartiality and pursuing their trade in a spirit
of perfect honesty toward the belligerents, trusted that they
could rely on the inviolability of the fundamental rules of
international law. Nevertheless they have had to note, day after
day, and to their sorrow, that the belligerents are presuming to
enforce principles compatible neither with the rights of
neutrals nor with the precepts of international law. It is
perhaps conceivable that in the heat of conflict a belligerent
may be prone to apply none but the rules which seem to be to his
advantage at the time and this set up a purely opportunistic
international law. But invasions of neutral rights are not
justified thereby. And in the long run this opportunism is
against the interests of the belligerents themselves. The
present crisis will come to an end some day, and then the
belligerents will surely not be sorry to find still in force
some of the principles which were dear to them in the past and
which they themselves have often gloriously defended.
To keep in mind the principles of international law is to
conserve the common heritage of the civilized nations,
preventing the obliteration of gains made through more than a
century’s effort. Furthermore, the uncertainty that has
[Page 361]
overwhelmed neutral
maritime commerce has increased to such a n extent as to cause
serious anxiety to the governments of the neutral powers;
wherefore they feel obliged to protest against measures which;
at the hands of belligerents on both sides, now imperil the
lawful commerce of their countries.
As regards several of its most important portions, international
law was codified at the time of the Hague and London
conferences. To be sure not all the conventions there framed
have been ratified. They are however, to be regarded as the most
authoritative expression of the juridical conscience of nations,
depicting from that standpoint the existing status of
international law. This holds good especially in the case of the
Declaration of London, approved by the representatives of ten
maritime powers, six of which are now belligerents. The text
itself of that convention expressly states that the rules
therein set forth substantially agree with the generally
accepted principles of international law. Even apart from the
declarations according to which the London convention is to be
enforced like a ratified treaty, full and entire validity must
henceforth be conceded to nearly all its provisions.
In order further to emphasize our grounds for complaint, it will
suffice briefly to mention a certain number of particularly
important points.
Grave danger menaces neutral trade from the laying of mines
across the main commercial highways of the seas. The planting of
mines without due regard to the safety of peaceful navigation is
in flagrant violation of neutral rights and has not only caused
considerable damage but has even led to the loss of many human
lives.
The freedom of the seas and the inalienable right of neutrals to
use the highways common to all have also been curtailed and
circumscribed through the pretension to compel neutral vessels
to take certain routes and call at certain ports without just
cause being given by the neutrals for suspicion that might
occasion, not to say justify, such restrictions.
The ideas of both absolute and conditional contraband have been
distorted and amplified beyond measure, encroaching by so much
upon the rights of neutrals. The attempt to apply to conditional
contraband the theory of continuous voyage and certain
presumptions disadvantageous to the neutrals amounts, in
reality, to a claim to wipe out all distinction between that and
absolute contraband, which would constitute a most dangerous
innovation.
With regard to visit and capture, the rules that have been
universally accepted for centuries are no longer observed,
lawful trade suffering thereby delays which involve considerable
loss.
In the measures above adverted to, and in others besides, there
appears a tendency to exercise a control over the commerce of
neutral countries which is not compatible with the rights or
even with the duties of neutrals.
The Royal Government entertains the hope that the belligerent
powers will take pains to act upon the foregoing remarks which
they cannot but find well-grounded.
Accept [etc.]
S. A. Wallenberg
