i8 
LAND & WATER 
January 17, iQiS 
A German View of Sea-Law 
By John C. van der Veer (London Editor of the Amsterdam Telegraaf) 
V 
IHE most monstrous thing," saul Mr. Asquiiii ou 
December 30tli, in tlic House of Commons, ' wlncli 
the t.crmans have done in the whole war is the 
tUcliirHtioii of a new submarine warfare by tar 
the most lawless and wanton act of violation of the letter 
and the spirit of all international convention and usage that 
any country has ever perpetrated in all its liistory. 
That Germany's submarine warfare against the merchant 
ships of neutral as well as AlUed nations is a " violation ot 
the letter and the spirit of all international convention and 
usage," can be proved on the authority of a well-known 
German expert on the Law of Nations. I refer, to Legal 
Assessor Dr. Hans Wehberg, of Diisseldorf, whose book ot 
450 compact pages, Das SeekricgsrecM (The Rights of VVarfarc 
at Sea), finished bv him during the first months of the war 
and published in 1915 by Kohlhamincr of Berlin, Stffttgart and 
Leipzig, is a running comment on, and a thorough condemna- 
tion of, Germany's lawless acts. 
Dr. Wehberg is one of the few German publicists to whom 
truth is dearer than national ambition. Referring to the 
(krman {Government's protest issued in October, 1914, against 
Great Britain's detention of German reservists on board 
overtaken ships, Dr. Wehberg says on page 313 : 
I regret sincerelv, that I cannot on that important question 
share the point of view of my Government. Byt much as I 
sliould like to stand up for the interests of my country, I cannot 
sacrifice the scientific character of my book, nor give up the 
great idea of international law, which reigns over all countiies. 
Further, mentioning a statement made on March 17th, 
1915, in the House of Commons by Mr. Winston Churchill, 
as First Lord of the Admiralty, that some British merchant ships 
had then been armed as food carriers exclusively lor defence 
which some German critics, among them Captain Persius 
in the Berlin TagcbMt, had reproved as a " backward 
step to former piracy," Dr. Wehberg saw no ground "'to 
doubt the airrectiicss of Mr. ChutchiU's statement." ,'ihe 
opinion of that German expert, who, as we shall see, stated 
that merchant ships of a belligerent country have the right to 
defend themselves against attack, incurred for him the wrath 
of the German authorities. They boycotted his book, they 
drove him out of the position he held as one of the editors 
of the German magazine for international law, and it 
was stated in the Dutch Press, that finally they had called 
him up, although he was quite unfit for military service. In 
any case Dr. Hans Wehberg has effectively been silenced and 
is no more heard in Germany. But his book Das 
Scckriegsrcchl , of which I possess a treasured copy, remains 
a witness of German lawlessness. The number of the page 
from which I am going to quote his opinion, will be given 
between brackets. 
tierman authorities and publicists have justified the V- 
boat warfare against merchantmen on the ground of the 
British blockade, which they declared to be illegal. This is 
denied by Dr. Wehberg, who finds it to be " one of the chief 
objects of naval war, to strike at the economical hfe of the 
enemy nation, in order to force them to make peace." (3 and 
4) which can only be done by " grasping the enemy in his life 
nerve." While it suffices, in his opinion, " in war on land t<j 
occupy the enemy's territory, in order to make him yield," 
the case is different in war at sea, for then " the object is only 
attainable by striking at the enemy's industrial and com- 
mercial life," and to do this, " the goods of all inhabitants 
of the enemy country must be captured at sea. "(192). 
It is not necessary to quote his opinion further in justifica- 
tion of the British blockade, which is applied fully in accor- 
ance with Dr. Wehberg's description of a legal blockade. 
The Cierman submarine blockade can in no way be squared 
with it. To be legal, says Dr. Wehberg (150), a blockade 
must be carried out and maintained by a sufficient number of 
warships, which blockade all entrance to the ene my harbours 
" as much as possible." Without a sufficient number of 
warships present, the blockade " exists only on paper," and 
\vould merely " degenerate in damaging neutral trade." 
This is not justified. 
" All nations nowadays have accepted tlie principle of 
effectiveness. The paper blockade endangers neutral ship- 
ping in an endless manner. , . . The nations are to-day 
convinced, that a war necessity cannot more justify a fictitiou. 
blockade, because the harm it Causes to the enemy is not greas 
enough, in comparison with the harm done to neutral tradet 
If through absence of the necessary warships a large portion 
of the enemy merchant ships, which run through the blockade, 
cannot be captured, the mere prohibition acts neverthe- 
less as a preventive and keeps many vessels away from the 
blockaded ports. And in spite of that damage caused to 
neutral shipping, a profound blow is not at the same time 
given to the enemy." This is exactly the effect of Germany's 
fictitious submarine blockade. 
Use of Mines 
The use of mines for that purpose is also illegal in the 
opinion of Dr. Wehberg, who emphatically declares, that 
" it is prohibited to establish a blockade merely by laying 
mines." For, " the protection of international trade demands, 
to apply blockade by acts directed by the human will. The 
placing of mines is only allowed to destroy enemy warships 
and their bases, but not to impede the enemy's sea trade. It 
would be getting round the ineffective blockade, if a mine- 
blockade stopped the mercantile marine." (73). Neverthe- 
less, Germany has, throughout the war, used mines to destroy 
Allied and neutral merchant shipping. 
Nor has she heeded the proposal made in 1907 at the Hague 
Conference by the German delegation, that " by using auto- 
matic mines, all possible precautions must be taken to safe- 
guard peaceful shipping." It was agreed at The Hague, that 
only such mines should be used, which become harmless 
" one hour '' after they break loose. To that precaution, 
belligerents " are bound," says Dr. Wehberg (79). But to 
that rule Germany has never adhered in this war. Nor to the 
rule regarding t(jrpedoes, which " must become harmless, 
after faihng to strike their object." (77). The German Govern- 
ment has, in the case of the Tuhaniia, admitted, that this 
Dutch steamer was destroyed by a German torpedo, launched 
some days before at a British warship. 
More brutally lawless is the sinking of merchant ships with- 
out warning and, worse still " without leaving a trace 
behind." Dr. Wehberg underUncs the word " cluty " in 
the following statement : " A warship, which meets an enemy 
merchant sliip, has the duly to call upon it to stop, in order 
to make sure whether it is liable to capture and wilhng to 
surrender." (258). And it is in his opinion, " according to the 
ancient common law," that " a warship must, before attack- 
ing an enemy merchant ship, call it to stop." C^S?)- He 
further quotes this from the German Prize Law: " .\ll 
measures must be applied in a manner, the observance of 
which, also against the enemy, enhances the honour of the 
German Empire, and with such respect towards neutrals, as 
the Law of Nations and German interests demand." (259). 
This is an admisuon, that the ruthless submarine warfare 
has lowered the honour of the German Empire. History will 
not forget that fact. 
Although Dr. Wehberg admits the right to sink an enemy 
merchant ship, if it cannot be brought into harbour, he 
nevertheless treats it as exceptional, while insisting that care 
must be taken for the fives of the crew, and the papers of the 
destroyed ship must be secured, " to serve as evidence before 
the Prize Court." The German submarine commanders 
never take that trouble, and how can they take it, in executing 
their order to shik ships at sight ? Dr. Wehberg wrote in his 
book, seventy pages about the procedure of the Prize Court, 
of which Germany has made a farce. He never contem- 
plated that his country would use submarines as commerce 
destroyers. He always kept in view the recognised principle, 
that cruisers have the task to capture, or to detain and 
search, merchant sliips at sea. He found the objection against 
their sinking " chiefly based on the critical position of the 
crew and passengers, who had to be taken on board the 
cruiser and were then in constant danger to lose their lives by 
war operations." The German submarines leave those 
crews not only adrift in the roughest se,i, but even fire on 
them while they try to escape in their lifeboat. 
Implicitly Dr. Wehberg condemns the e.\ecution of Captain 
Fryatt as a juridical murder, when he says : " An enemy 
merchant ship has the right to defend itself against attack, 
and has even the right to resist s,"arch. Should large mer- 
chant ships, worth millions (of marks) without more ado 
allow themselves to be: captured by smaller vessels, simply 
because the latter agree to the destiiiction of so-called war- 
ships ? " (284). And he emphatically declares, that " the 
act of resistance has no influence on the fate of the crew of the 
enemy merchant ship." They must be treated as prisone rs 
of war. 
The .shelling of open coast places and attacks on hospital 
ships are also condemned by Dr Wehberg. But his book is 
chiefly valuable as proving the complete illegahty of Germany's 
new submarine warfare, stamping it as" the most monstrous 
XhkiK " of all her many atrocious acts. 
