The status of a revolting faction which has not yet been recognized as a belligerent is that of "insurgency," and the recognition accorded at this stage goes no farther than is essential for the transaction of absolutely necessary busi ness; such, for example, as arranging for the security of the life and property of foreign citizens resident within the territory controlled by the insurgent au thorities. The privileges which may be accorded to insurgents are not clearly defined, nor is the practice uniform. It is certain that insurgent ships have no right of "visit and search," and no right to enter neutral ports. Nor may they blockade the ports of the parent state even when, as in the case of the Bra zilian insurgents in 1893, they have con trol of the entire navy of the state. On the other hand, the parent state is not in a position to blockade the insurgent ports. In the nature of the case, a sov ereign state cannot blockade itself, and so long as the war is held to be merely an insurrection, the ports controlled by the insurgents are theoretically ,subject to the laws of the state itself, not to in ternational law. And blockade is a func tion of international, not of municipal, law. At the beginning of the American Civil War, in 1861, the Federal Govern ment declared a blockade of the Confed erate ports, thereby inadvertently rec ognizing the Confederacy as a bellig erent power; and Great Britain and other European powers immediately ac corded the same recognition, in spite of protests from the United States Govern ment.
It sometimes happens that the parent state recognizes the belligerency of an insurgent faction for the purpose of re lieving itself of responsibility for the actions of the insurgents. So long as the state maintains that the struggle going on within its borders is merely an insurrection, not a war, just so long the state remains responsible to the world for damage done to other powers by the insurgents. With the recognition of bel ligerency by the parent state, this re sponsibility ceases. Similarly, if the parent state refuses recognition but other states grant it, the responsibility ceases for damage suffered by such states but not for states which have not granted recognition.
It is sometimes stated, even by au thorities on international law, that in surgents have no standing in law and that they are subject to treatment as pirates and outlaws. This view cannot be maintained. Their rights, although limited and undefined, are real, and un questionably include the right to treat ment in accordance with the laws of war so long as they themselves observe these laws.
The recognition of belligerency is a very different thing from the recognition of independence. The two may go to gether, but whereas the recognition of independence carries with it that of bel ligerency, the converse is far from being the case. Belligerency without independ ence gives no right to diplomatic repre sentation at a foreign capital, althowzh envoys are sometimes informally re ceived as a matter of convenience.