In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 The U.S. decision to conduct unrestricted warfare was intimately tied up with a change in conception regarding a parallel concept—freedom of the seas. Unrestricted warfare deliberately targeted noncombatant merchant ships, leaving survivors of an attack to the mercy of the elements and the sea. This was diametrically opposed to the Wilsonian view of freedom of the seas, which called for the protection of merchant sailors and their passengers. To understand why the U.S. decision to conduct unrestricted warfare was such a monumental change in American policy, one needs to follow the evolution of the concept of freedom of the seas from its inception through the First World War. FREEDOM OF THE SEAS Freedom of the seas is an old and important concept that has played a pivotal role in peace and war, particularly in the history of the United States of America . The distinguished American historian Samuel Flagg Bemis called it the “ancient birthright” of the United States.1 Over time, however, the exact meaning of “freedom of the seas” has changed considerably. At the core of this change has been the conflict between the privileges of belligerent navies and the rights of noncombatant and neutral sailors. This conflict became even more intense in the twentieth century, with the advent of new technologies. Increasingly, the noncombatant status of merchant sailors and their ships came into doubt. HUGO GROTIUS AND FREEDOM OF THE SEAS The concept of freedom of the seas is an ancient one, but it was not seriously defined and intellectually defended until the seventeenth century. In 1609 Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius anonymously published a small but important book, Mare Liberum, or “The Free Sea.” Grotius’s work set the conceptual CHAPTER 1 Freedom of the Seas, the Submarine, and the First World War 6 Chapter 1 boundaries of freedom of the seas, starting with the very first paragraph of the first chapter: We will lay this certain rule of the law of nations (which they call primary) as the foundation, the reason whereof is clear and immutable: that it is lawful for any nation to go to any other and to trade with it.2 Grotius asserted that the seas were different from land because while solid land could be owned as property, the ever-shifting liquid seas could not be possessed. Furthermore, while land could be garrisoned and guarded, no nation could ever maintain a permanent presence in one stretch of water. Grotius believed that while a kingdom could rightly tax its own subject sailors and fishermen, it could not extend that control to the ships and sailors of other nations that sailed in waters claimed by that kingdom. In short, because of its fluid nature, “the sea is incomprehensible, no less than the air, [and] it can be added to the goods of no nation.”3 Understandably, Grotius’s ideas drew a great deal of debate and controversy. Because of his detailed denials of the Catholic Church’s right to apportion territory or the seas, the Church banned his book. Additionally, a number of scholars wrote detailed critiques, which added important heft and nuance to Grotius’s concept, establishing the justification for territorial waters and other caveats to freedom of the seas. Grotius’s argument became so thoroughly accepted that he even suffered the ignominy of having his own book used to undermine his negotiating position in a fishing dispute with England in 1613.4 Grotius’s ideas contributed not only to the concept of freedom of the seas in peacetime but also to a growing debate about the ability to search and seize ships of other nations on the high seas. Grotius’s Mare Liberum actually served as the twelfth chapter of a much larger philosophical work, not fully published until 1864, De Jure Praedae Commentaris, or “Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty.” Within the larger context of De Jure Praedae Commentaris, Grotius’s explanation dealt with the rights of neutral and belligerent merchant ships in time of war as well as with trade disputes in peacetime.5 Grotius confirmed that by natural law, private property was usually inviolable and to seize it was an act of theft. However, the concept of justice demanded that wrongful actions be punished and virtuous actions rewarded. In a just war, therefore, private property could be legitimately seized to recompense the virtuous side while depriving the wicked side of vitally needed sup- [18.116.62.45] Project MUSE (2024-04-26 06:27...

Share