DECLARATION OF PARIS (1856) owes its origin to the diametrically opposing views of Great Britain and France on the carriage of property at sea at the time of the Crimean War. In 1854 France allowed enemy goods in neutral vessels to go free, but confiscated neutral goods in enemy vessels, whilst Great Britain confiscated enemy goods in neutral vessels, but respected neutral goods in enemy vessels. The situation was an impossible one for neutrals. Accordingly each Power abandoned part of its doctrines and acceded to part of its ally's doctrines. This com promise finds expression in Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration, which stated four principles of international law: I. Privateering is and remains abolished; 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag; 4. Blockades in order to be binding must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. (See Hertslet, Treaties, X. P. 547.) The Declaration was signed by Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey, and acceded to by all the Powers except Bolivia, Spain, United States, Uruguay and Vene zuela. Spain acceded in 1908. The United States withheld formal adherence on the ground that, not possessing a large navy, she was obliged to rely upon privateers, and she would not agree to their abolition unless the principle of the immunity of private property at sea were generally accepted. At the commencement, however, of the Civil War and again in the Spanish American War, 1898, she declared her adherence to the Declaration for the duration of hostilities only. Spain in the latter war, whilst repudi ating any obligation to the Declaration, announced that she would take a similar course.
During the World War it was declared in the British Prize Court that the court would regard the Declaration not only in the light of rules binding in the conduct of war, but as a recog nized and acknowledged part of the law of nations; see The Marie Glaeser, i B. and C. P. C. 38 (414). But with the dis appearance of the "Free List"; by the extension of the term "contraband" to all commodities of use, directly or indirectly, to the enemy in the operations of war; by the presumption of hostile destination ; by the application of the doctrine of continu ous voyage, Article 2 became almost wholly nullified. Article 3 was also rendered almost wholly nugatory by the German sub marine method of indiscriminate destruction. Whilst the neutral owner of goods on board an enemy vessel was entitled to their restitution or value when brought in for adjudication, he took the risk of all necessary acts of war. It was held by the French and German Prize Courts that in the case of lawful destruction of an enemy merchant vessel compensation for loss of neutral goods on board could not be claimed. Sinking at sight, without visit and search, was, however, illegal, and it has now been pro hibited by the Treaty of Washington, 1922, Parl. Pap. 1922 [Cmd. 1627], ratified by the United States, the British Empire, Italy and Japan. Article 4 was reproduced in the Declara tion of London and it was objected that the so-called blockade of the German coast on the Baltic was not effective, since neutral Baltic States still had access to German Baltic ports. The answer is that the British measures were taken under the law of contra band and not under those of blockade. (H. H. L. B.)