One point of considerable interest in International Law is the very differentdegree of durability which the various parts of the system have proved topossessThe oldest rules which belong to its structure are simply rulesof religion and morality ordinarily applied between man and manbut so modifiedby the international writers as to be capable of application between stateand stateBy the side of these are borne rules which have been inheritedfrom the oldest stratum of the Roman Lawrules of great simplicityanddistinguished at the same time by a great amount of common senseThese rulesstill survive and are still available for the solution of international questions.
On the other handthere are parts of International Law which are comparativelymodemwhich are highly complexand which in their day were of great importance,but which have now become thoroughly obsolete through changes in the socialcondition of nations or international intercourseA good example may bepointed out in what was once known as the Rule of the War of 1756If youlook into an international discussion dating from the latter part of thelast centuryif you look into the reports of the decisions of courts belongingto the same epochyou will find constant allusions to this rulewhich ultimatelybecame the subject of a serious quarrel between England and the United States,a sovereign community which had not been in existence when the rule asfirst heard of Englandlike probably all the nations of the European continent,adhered to the doctrine that trade with colonies and dependencies was theexclusive privilege of the subjects of the mother countryThe question arosewhether war made any difference to this monopolyWhen the mother countrybecame a belligerentthe route followed by the colonial trade was less obstructedthan in ordinary timesThe ships which watched the foreigner who in peacetried to intrude upon itwere perhaps driven away by the vessels of theother belligerentand the route being more openneutrals constantly triedto engage in trade which in time of peace would have been forbidden to them.
Whatthenwas the consequence of neutral invasions of this privilegeItwas argued on behalf of the neutral traderthat there being nobody elseto undertake the transport of commoditieshe was entitled to share in it.
This was denied by the English courts of justiceand they decided that aneutral shipengaged in a trade of this descriptionwas liable to capture.
This was the rule of the war of 1756which denied to neutral shipownersparticipation in the trade which was a monopoly of the mother country orthe country which was sovereign over the dependencyThere was at that timea rule which forbade certain articles to be exported from Irelandand ofcourse the trade of Indiawhich was in the hands of a companywas evenless open to nonprivileged tradersBut this ruleand the state of thingswhich it impliedare now completely obsoleteand all the dissertationsabout them which once filled the books are obsoleteIt was the United States,then new as a sovereign communitywhich first contested most strongly thelegality of the ruleBut it has been in fact destroyed by the indirect influenceof the United StatesThe fortune of the United States showed that a greatincrease of national wealth followed independenceand the demonstrable profitablenessof open trade sapped the old colonial theorieswhileno doubtthe successof the United States in securing their independence showed the danger ofattempting to control extensive and distant dependencies.
A specially interesting set of questions arises on the four articles ofthe Declaration of Paristhe great modern system of reformed maritime lawwhichbut for one dissentientwould have become the law of the whole civilisedworldThis Declarationas we have seenkeeps alive two sub-departmentsof the old law of nations in very much their original statethe law of contrabandof warand the law of blockadeLet us ask ourselves whether these branchesof law are likely to be long-lived even as slightly altered by the arrangementsof ParisI have already pointed out that the list of articles of contrabandof war was not yet closedThe proposal to include certain things in thisclass has not in some cases been conclusively rejectedwhileon the otherhandas it is very generally allowed that commodities may become contrabandthrough the circumstances of a particular warperfectly new kinds of contrabandmay yet make their appearancePerhaps the articles as to which there hasbeen most dispute have been those which follow the first class and head thesecondthe first class being munitions of warand the second class thingsof whatin International Laware called 'doubtful use;timbersail cloth,hemp in the early stages of manufacturecordagepitch and tarLord Stowelladmits thisand gives the reasonthat wars have become more and more naval,so that articles of most use in regard to shipsand the propulsion of ships,gain more and more likeness to munitions of warThere were endless controversieson the subjectThere were repeated differences with the Baltic Powers itwhose territories the materials of these things were for the most part produced.
Many treaties gave lists of articles of contrabandand to some of theseEngland was a partyThe principle which the English Government several timesadopted wasthat naval stores might be taken possession ofbut thatunlikearticles of contrabandthey must be paid for by the captorBut changesin the structure and mode of propulsion of ships tend to make this kind ofcontraband or quasi-contraband obsoleteSteam renders sails of little utility,and diminishes their numberThe hulls are now more and more made of iron,and iron wire even takes the place of cordageIt is possible that navalstores may disappear from the list of contrabandwhile there may be a struggleto include such innocent articles as coal and food.
