As previously explained. war renders enemy property with certain specific exceptions liable to capture on the high seas. See PRIVATEERING: PIIIZE. On the time within and the conditions upon which enemy property will, if recaptured• be restored to the original owner, see Upon the termination of war, however brought about. the belligerents cease to be enemies and the residents of both countries resume their peaceful pursuits, as if the war had never hap pened. All rights and obligations existing at the outbreak of war may now be enforced, pro vided their nature is not such as to render their performance through lapse of time or change of circumstanees useless or impossible. Statutes of limitation cease to run at the outbreak of war, and on the declaration of peace they begin again as at the time of the beginning of the war. In this way the war. legally speaking, is simply wiped out. Otherwise to hold would be mani fest injustice: for one can hardly be blamed for not enforcing his right during the time of the statute when the court is closed to him. Official relations between the belligerents are resumed, for war of course puts an end to diplomatic in tercourse. During the continuance of war it is customary for a neutral to offer its services so that the interests of the particular belligerent may not unduly suffer. In this way Mr. E. B. Washburn. the American Minister to France, represented German interests during the Franco ( :erman War.
1Var may terminate in three ways: by treaty; by cessation of hostilities; by conquest. The treaty is the usual method and is the best; for the parties to the war can, do, and should thus settle by a careful and formal document the various issues that caused the war, and provide for peaceful and harmonious relations in the fu ture. In eases of war indemnity and cession of territory, a treaty is well-nigh indispensable. It should be said that, for purposes of public right or sovereignty. the treaty speaks from its signa ture; but private rights determine or vest from date of ratification. (Haver rs. 9 Wal lace, 32.) See TREATY.
The easos of mere cessation of hostilities are exceedingly rare; for it is hard to conceive how nations willingly choose to go on after, as before the war, with no precise and formal settlement of the outstanding difficulties or causes of the war. "The war between Sweden and Poland in 1716, and also the war between France and Spain in 1720, came to an end in this way. The war between Spain and her American colonies ceased in 1825, but no diplomatic relations were established with them till 1840, and the independ ence of Venezuela was not recognized till 1850. After the hostilities between France and Mexico (18('2-67), no diplomatic relations were entered into till 1881." (Wilson and Tucker, Interna tional Law, p. 271.) In justice to neutrals. an official statement of the termination of hostili ties should be made; otherwise the uncertainty of the exact status will seriously interfere with neutral trade. If, however, no treaty or declara
tion he made, peace may lie established as a fact and dates from the last warlike aet. As regards conquest made during the war, the principle of nil possid( (is obtains, that is each belligerent re tains what it holds or nee-mites at the conclusion of hostilities. If territory is thus occupied and possessed, the laws and customs remain in force until changed by the new sovereign, and the same is true in case of a treaty unless specific rules and regulations are agreed upon and incorpo rated into the document. A leading case on this subject is Lei tc nsdor fcr rs. Wild) (20 tfoward, 176), and the subject ineidentally underwent much discussion in the recent Insular eases (182 S„ I et seq.). In the ease of conquest, the conquered State or Territory is absorbed in the conqueror, and, succeeding to its rights and merits, it likewise assumes its debts and obliga tions. If part of a State or province be ab sorbed, the rights and duties are apportioned between the belligerents.
While the parties to a contest are more inti mately concerned by its effects, third parties or neutrals are nevertheless interested. Their trade is necessarily interrupted and at times sus pended; for military and naval operations do not accord well with trading and peaceful pur suits. The theory of neutrality is that the stranger to the contest takes no part whatever in it, and prevents its subjects directly or indi rectly so far as possible from aiding either bel ligerent. No• should it allow its ports to be used as a basis for hostile operations, supply sta tions, or ports of shelter. A neutral may, how ever, trade with either belligerent or both, in all articles except those denominated contraband of war. (J oral Code. Arts. 34-36.) (See CON TRABAND OF WAR; INTERNATIONAL LAW.) The neutral should not seek to enter a blockaded port of a belligerent, for by so doing it interferes with military or naval operation and furnishes the blockaded port with supplies and articles of trade. ( ra( Code, Arts. (See ADE; INTERNATIONAL LAW.) To see that neu tral vessels do not carry articles of contra band and that such neutral vessels are not des tined for a blockaded port, belligerents possess and exercise the right to visit and search neutral vessels, (Nara/.. Code, Articles 30-33.) This is strictly a war right and does not exist in peace. See SEARCH, RIGHT OF: NEUTRALITY.
An unrecognized rebellion is treated according to the law of the country where it occurs: for rebels as such have no standing in international law. (See REBELLION; TREASON.) Vessels of un recognized insurgents on the high seas are treated as technical pirates; but if they confine their operations to the vessels and commerce of the mother country they are dearly not guilty of piracy. See PIRACY.
For embargo, reprisal, reto•sion, pacific block ades, military commissions, and martial law, see these articles.