2.2 The Treaty Relating to the Use of Submarines (1922),
the Convention on Duties and Rights of States
in the Event of Civil Strife (1928), and the Nyon
Agreement (1937)
During World War I, there was some discussion as to whether German submarine
attacks on non-combatants constituted piracy.
14 This controversy obviously
influenced discussions at the 1922 Washington Conference on the Limitation of
Naval Armaments.
15 The resulting Treaty Relating to the Use of Submarines
analogized such prohibited behavior to an act of piracy: “any person in the service
of any Power who shall violate any of these rules, . . . shall be deemed to have
violated the laws of war and shall be liable to trial and punishment as if for an act of
piracy . . .”
16
The Latin American initiative which resulted in the 1928 Convention on Duties
and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife, dealing with maritime crimes such as
insurgency or mutiny, noted that “[t]he declaration of piracy against vessels which
have risen in arms, emanating from a Government, is not binding upon the other
States.”
17 This statement seems to have arisen from the consideration of numerous
nineteenth and early twentieth century South American insurgencies,
18 but represents an early discussion of the topic in a multilateral forum.
During the Spanish Civil War, several neutral ships suffered attacks by
unidentified submarines, generally believed to be German and/or Italian. In one
month in the summer of 1938 alone, some eighteen such attacks were recorded. The
Nyon Agreement analogized such actions to “acts of piracy.” The Conference
resolved on effective steps being taken . . . based on the rules on submarines laid
down in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and reaffirmed in the Naval Protocol of
November 1936. The patrolling warships of the signatory Powers . . . operating
within specified areas of the Mediterranean, were authorized to counter-attack and,
if necessary, destroy submarines actually engaged in attacking any merchant vessel
not belonging to either of the conflicting parties. The same action was to be taken
against any submarine found so close to the scene of an actual attack that there was
no reasonable doubt of her guilt.
19 While this drew in part on the World War I
discussions noted above, it also represents a reversion to nineteenth century debates
concerning the elimination of the slave trade.
14 See Menefee (1987), p. 196; The German-American Submarine Controversy; Colombos (1962),
pp. 404–405; Hackworth (1941), pp. 690–991.
15 See Menefee (1995), p. 6.
16 Id. See also Treaty Relating to the Use of Submarines (Washington, 6 February 1922) art. 3, in
Ronzitti (1988), p. 345; Rubin (1998), p. 316.
17 Menefee (1995), p. 6. See also Convention on Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil
Strife, art. 2; Rubin (1998), p. 320.
18 See Menefee (1990), pp. 193–195.
19 Colombos (1962), p. 415.
550
S. P. Menefee
the Convention on Duties and Rights of States
in the Event of Civil Strife (1928), and the Nyon
Agreement (1937)
During World War I, there was some discussion as to whether German submarine
attacks on non-combatants constituted piracy.
14 This controversy obviously
influenced discussions at the 1922 Washington Conference on the Limitation of
Naval Armaments.
15 The resulting Treaty Relating to the Use of Submarines
analogized such prohibited behavior to an act of piracy: “any person in the service
of any Power who shall violate any of these rules, . . . shall be deemed to have
violated the laws of war and shall be liable to trial and punishment as if for an act of
piracy . . .”
16
The Latin American initiative which resulted in the 1928 Convention on Duties
and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife, dealing with maritime crimes such as
insurgency or mutiny, noted that “[t]he declaration of piracy against vessels which
have risen in arms, emanating from a Government, is not binding upon the other
States.”
17 This statement seems to have arisen from the consideration of numerous
nineteenth and early twentieth century South American insurgencies,
18 but represents an early discussion of the topic in a multilateral forum.
During the Spanish Civil War, several neutral ships suffered attacks by
unidentified submarines, generally believed to be German and/or Italian. In one
month in the summer of 1938 alone, some eighteen such attacks were recorded. The
Nyon Agreement analogized such actions to “acts of piracy.” The Conference
resolved on effective steps being taken . . . based on the rules on submarines laid
down in the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and reaffirmed in the Naval Protocol of
November 1936. The patrolling warships of the signatory Powers . . . operating
within specified areas of the Mediterranean, were authorized to counter-attack and,
if necessary, destroy submarines actually engaged in attacking any merchant vessel
not belonging to either of the conflicting parties. The same action was to be taken
against any submarine found so close to the scene of an actual attack that there was
no reasonable doubt of her guilt.
19 While this drew in part on the World War I
discussions noted above, it also represents a reversion to nineteenth century debates
concerning the elimination of the slave trade.
14 See Menefee (1987), p. 196; The German-American Submarine Controversy; Colombos (1962),
pp. 404–405; Hackworth (1941), pp. 690–991.
15 See Menefee (1995), p. 6.
16 Id. See also Treaty Relating to the Use of Submarines (Washington, 6 February 1922) art. 3, in
Ronzitti (1988), p. 345; Rubin (1998), p. 316.
17 Menefee (1995), p. 6. See also Convention on Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil
Strife, art. 2; Rubin (1998), p. 320.
18 See Menefee (1990), pp. 193–195.
19 Colombos (1962), p. 415.
550
S. P. Menefee