Hubbry Logo
AngaryAngaryMain
Open search
Angary
Community hub
Angary
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Angary
Angary
Angary
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The right of angary is the right of a belligerent (most commonly, a government or other party in conflict) to seize and use, for the purposes of war or to prevent the enemy from doing so, any kind of property on belligerent territory, including what may belong to subjects or citizens of a neutral state.[1]

Article 53 of the regulations respecting the "Laws and Customs of War on Land", annexed to the Hague Convention of 1899 on the same subject, provides that railway plant, land telegraphs, telephones, steamers and other ships (other than such as are governed by maritime law), though belonging to companies or private persons, may be used for military operations but "must be restored at the conclusion of peace and indemnities paid for them". Article 54 adds that "the plant of railways coming from neutral states, whether the property of those states or of companies or private persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible."[1]

The articles seem to sanction the right of angary against neutral property and to limit it as against both belligerent and neutral property. It may be considered, however, that the right to use implies as wide a range of contingencies as the "necessity of war" can be made to cover.[1]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Angary

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Angary is a of granting a state, during an international armed conflict, the right to requisition or destroy neutral-owned property—such as merchant vessels, railways, cables, or other —located within its territory or under its control, provided such action is necessitated by military imperatives and accompanied by subsequent compensation to the owner. The doctrine originates from the Latin ius angariae, denoting a compulsory right of transport, with roots traceable to ancient Roman practices of coerced service and evolving through medieval European customs into a recognized wartime . Central to angary's application are strict conditions of overwhelming necessity, where alternative means for or operations are unavailable, distinguishing it from mere convenience or economic gain; destruction is permissible only if usage risks enemy capture or if the property poses an immediate threat. Compensation must reflect the property's full value at the time of , underscoring the principle's balance between wartime exigency and neutral rights, though enforcement has historically relied on post-conflict claims processes rather than immediate payment. Notable historical exercises include the 1870 Prussian requisition of Belgian during the to facilitate troop movements, justified under dire logistical needs, and the 1918 U.S. seizure of Dutch merchant ships in American ports amid shortages, which prompted legal debates on neutrality but affirmed angary's validity under . These instances highlight angary's role in enabling belligerents to harness neutral assets without violating outright, though its invocation has occasionally strained diplomatic relations and tested the boundaries of neutral immunity in an era of expanding naval and aerial warfare. In contemporary contexts, the right persists as , potentially applicable to non-traditional assets like neutral communications infrastructure, but its exercise remains constrained by proportionality and the jus in bello framework of the .

Core Concept and Principles

Angary constitutes the right of a state, during an international armed conflict, to requisition for use or, if unavoidable, destroy neutral-owned situated within its or in occupied , provided the action stems from imperative . This balances wartime exigencies against neutral by limiting seizures to scenarios of urgent need for defense or prosecution of the , where no feasible alternatives exist. The core rationale rests on the to mobilize resources for in conflict, evolved from historical practices into a regulated exception to the immunity of neutral . Central principles governing angary emphasize , requiring the property's utility to directly contribute to a legitimate military objective without excess or arbitrariness, as affirmed in judicial precedents like the UK Privy Council's ruling in The Zamora. Compensation is mandatory and full, encompassing the property's value at loss (often replacement or international construction cost), plus ancillary losses such as freight or profits, with payment typically post-conflict via claims processes. Proportionality mandates preferring temporary requisition and return over destruction, ensuring measures remain confined to what is essential and not punitive toward neutrals. The applies principally to movable assets like merchant vessels, , , or other means serviceable for ends, excluding state-owned warships or inherently non- items. It does not extend to high seas beyond territorial control absent specific occupation, nor to peacetime crises, reinforcing its status as a wartime-specific restraint rather than blanket authority. Oversight mechanisms, such as prize courts, ensure compliance, preventing abuse while upholding causal imperatives of conflict.

Applicable Property and Subjects

The right of angary permits a state to requisition or, in cases of imperative necessity, destroy neutral-owned located within its , ports, or under its effective control during an armed conflict, provided such action serves urgent military needs. This doctrine specifically targets movable capable of contributing to wartime operations, distinguishing it from broader seizures of enemy assets, which lack the same compensatory safeguards. Applicable property under angary primarily encompasses , including neutral merchant vessels in port, , such as railway cars, and other vehicles transiently present in belligerent jurisdiction. These assets are subject to temporary use or destruction only if alternatives are unavailable and the action prevents enemy benefit, with ownership remaining vested in the neutral proprietor absent full expropriation. The scope may extend to associated neutral goods or cargoes aboard such transport if to military utility, though fixed or immovable neutral property, like , generally falls outside angary's purview unless exceptionally requisitioned under parallel occupation rules. Subjects amenable to angary are neutrals—private owners or entities from states—whose property happens to be situated in the requisitioning state's domain, rather than whose assets may be confiscated without equivalent protections. State-owned neutral property enjoys immunity unless waived or contextually equivalent to private commercial assets, as international custom prioritizes equality among non-parties to the conflict. This limitation underscores angary's role as a restrained exception to neutrality principles, applicable solely in international armed conflicts and not internal disturbances.

Historical Origins and Evolution

Roots in Roman and Early Law

The right of angary originated in ancient as angaria, a form of compulsory exacted by the state for essential governmental functions, particularly transportation and communication needs. This practice involved the forced provision of horses, mules, vehicles, and personal labor by subjects to support the imperial postal relay system, , which facilitated rapid message delivery across the empire. Adopted from Persian models via Greek intermediaries, angaria imposed burdens on local communities and administrators, who were obligated to supply and maintain these resources without remuneration, reflecting the primacy of state imperatives over private interests. Exemptions were rare and granted solely by imperial authority, ensuring broad enforcement across social strata. By the 6th century AD, these requisitions were formalized in the under Emperor , promulgated in 529 AD, which explicitly denied exemptions from angariarum or similar impositions to individuals of any rank or dignity, as stated: "Nullus penitus cuius libet ordinis seu dignitatis... excusationem angariarum seu parangarium habeat." This codification underscored angaria's role as a sovereign prerogative for , often tied to or administrative efficiency, where private property or services could be seized temporarily without prior . The etymology of angaria, derived from Greek angareia (compulsory transport or corvée labor), highlights its roots in enforced mobility for official purposes, a concept echoed in biblical references to compelled service but firmly embedded in Roman administrative tradition. In broader early legal contexts, angaria exemplified ius angariae, a feudal precursor allowing rulers to demand conveyance services or property for urgent necessities, evolving from Roman precedents into medieval customs where sovereigns requisitioned resources without immediate compensation, provided restoration or followed. This framework prioritized and state survival, influencing subsequent international norms by establishing necessity as justification for overriding neutral or private claims, though abuses prompted later restrictions on scope and liability.

Development in Maritime and Customary International Law

The right of angary in maritime contexts originated in medieval practice as ius angariae, permitting belligerents to seize neutral merchant vessels in port for military transport, subject to payment of freight charges. This usage evolved from earlier feudal corvée obligations and was recognized in admiralty codes, such as the Black Book of the Admiralty, which emphasized safe return of vessels and compensation. By the , jurists like Cornelius van Bynkershoek affirmed it as a , uncontested in state practice despite emerging neutral rights doctrines. During the 18th and 19th centuries, maritime angary fell into relative disuse amid growing emphasis on neutral protections and humane warfare, with several bilateral treaties explicitly renouncing or limiting it, such as the 1785 U.S.-Prussia Treaty (revised 1799) requiring equitable indemnity for seizures. Nonetheless, isolated applications persisted, including Napoleon's 1798 requisition of neutral vessels for the Egyptian campaign and German seizures of Swiss and Austrian rolling stock, alongside sinkings of British ships in the Seine during the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), where compensation was offered post-conflict. The U.S. Naval Code of 1900 codified the right to seize neutral vessels in ports for full recompense, reflecting its persistence as a sovereign prerogative tied to territorial jurisdiction. As , maritime angary solidified through consistent doctrinal acceptance by jurists like and Carlos Calvo, who grounded it in within belligerent or occupied territory, excluding high seas operations or crew due to prohibitions on forced service. Pre-20th-century practice demonstrated opinio juris, with limitations evolving to mandate proportionality and indemnity, distinguishing it from prize capture; critics like Richard Henry Dana viewed it as an exceptional necessity requiring apology, though state actions upheld its validity absent abolitionist consensus. This customary framework, uneradicated by 19th-century reforms, informed later codifications like Hague Convention V (1907), , paralleling railway requisitions.

Hague Conventions and Key Treaties

The right of angary, primarily a customary principle of international law, was partially recognized and regulated through the Hague Conventions of 1907, which addressed related aspects of property seizure and requisition during armed conflict. Article 19(2) of the Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague Convention V, signed October 18, 1907, entered into force January 26, 1910) explicitly acknowledges the doctrine by permitting neutral states to requisition belligerent railway material or other transport resources in cases of necessity for self-defense, subject to prior payment or equivalent compensation and restoration where feasible. This provision marked an early treaty-based extension of angary-like authority beyond traditional belligerent claims over neutral property, applying it reciprocally in neutral territory bordering belligerents. Parallel rules in the Regulations annexed to the Convention Respecting the Laws and of War on Land ( Convention IV, signed October 18, 1907, entered into force January 26, 1910) further contextualize angary's principles, though focused on enemy-held areas rather than strictly neutral assets. Article 52 limits requisitions in kind or services from occupied municipalities or inhabitants to genuine army needs, prohibiting excess demands. Article 53 prohibits the destruction or seizure of enemy property unless imperatively required by military operations, mandating compensation for any takings. These stipulations embody core angary elements—necessity, proportionality, and restitution—while distinguishing requisitions in occupied zones from the broader customary right over neutral merchant vessels or goods in belligerent ports or waters. Subsequent treaties, such as the of 1949, do not codify angary, prioritizing humanitarian protections over property rights in warfare. The doctrine's maritime dimensions, including seizure of neutral ships for naval use, remain uncodified in binding instruments like Convention VI (1907) on naval bombardment or Convention XIII on restrictions to the exercise of the right of capture at sea, relying instead on customary acceptance aligned with neutrality obligations. This limited treaty framework underscores angary's enduring status as a flexible, necessity-driven exception to neutral protections, invoked sparingly to avoid escalation.

Relation to Broader Laws of War

Angary constitutes a specific manifestation of the principle within jus in bello, the corpus of (IHL) that governs belligerent conduct during international armed conflicts, irrespective of the conflict's initiation under . This principle authorizes actions indispensable for achieving a military purpose—such as utilizing neutral merchant vessels or for —provided they are not otherwise prohibited and do not inflict superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. Unlike absolute protections for neutral territory, angary applies to property voluntarily present in belligerent jurisdiction, reflecting a pragmatic exception to neutrality immunities when such assets are essential for operational imperatives, as recognized in customary IHL. In relation to the Hague Conventions of 1907, angary aligns with provisions permitting limited seizures under necessity, such as of Convention V, which allows belligerents to utilize neutral railways, telegraphs, or telephones subject to restoration and compensation upon peace. This dovetails with broader jus in bello restraints in the annexed Regulations to Convention IV, particularly Article 23(g), prohibiting seizures or destructions not "imperatively demanded" by the necessities of war, and Article 52, limiting requisitions to proportional needs of occupying forces. Angary thus embodies the balance between enabling effective prosecution of hostilities and curbing excesses, distinguishing it from uncompensated captures of enemy property or , which IHL categorically forbids. The doctrine intersects with IHL's foundational tenets of distinction and proportionality, requiring that angary targets only objects contributing effectively to military action while assessing collateral impacts against concrete advantages, as later elaborated in Additional Protocol I (1977) Articles 51 and 52, though angary predates and informs these customary norms. Compensation obligations further embed angary in IHL's humanitarian framework, promoting post-conflict equity for neutrals and incentivizing adherence through reciprocity, without extending to non-international armed conflicts where such rights lack explicit basis.

Requirements and Limitations

Criteria of Military Necessity

The exercise of the right of angary is contingent upon a demonstration of imperative , whereby the requisition, use, or destruction of neutral property must be essential to meet urgent operational demands of the belligerent's forces. This criterion demands that no feasible alternatives exist for fulfilling the military objective, such as transporting troops or supplies, and that the action is strictly limited to the minimum required for success in or defense. Such necessity arises only in exceptional circumstances, often described as "absolute" or "overwhelming," akin to scenarios where immediate peril compels without which military efforts would fail. The property in question must be situated within the belligerent's own , in occupied , or—for vessels—transiently present on the high seas or in ports, and it must be directly serviceable for ends, such as providing , communication, or logistical support. Legal analyses emphasize that mere convenience or economic advantage does not suffice; the necessity must be tied to the immediate prosecution of , ensuring the action advances a legitimate purpose without excess. For instance, railway materials from neutral sources may be requisitioned only if "absolutely necessary" for operational continuity, reflecting a high threshold to preserve neutral rights. Proportionality underpins these criteria, requiring that the interference with neutral property not exceed what is indispensable, thereby aligning angary with broader principles that prohibit superfluous harm. While destruction is permissible in dire cases, preference is given to temporary use where feasible, with the overriding test being whether the measure is "actually necessary" to accomplish the purpose without prohibited means. Customary practice, as reflected in state manuals and historical precedents, underscores that failure to meet this stringent standard renders the act unlawful, potentially constituting a violation of neutrality.

Obligations for Compensation and Proportionality

The exercise of the right of angary requires the state to provide just compensation to the neutral owner for any requisitioned , such as vessels or , covering the value of the , duration of use, and any resulting losses or damage. This obligation stems from , where full payment ensures the neutral party's , distinguishing legitimate wartime requisition from uncompensated . For specific assets like railway material under Hague Convention V (1907), Article 19, compensation is calculated proportionally to the material employed and the period of usage, payable by the relevant party. Failure to compensate may render the act unlawful, potentially exposing the to claims under the law of . Proportionality in angary mandates that the requisition or destruction not exceed what is strictly indispensable for urgent military needs, aligning the measure's scope with the anticipated military advantage while minimizing harm to neutral interests. This , rooted in the broader laws of , prohibits excessive takings that go beyond imperative necessity, such as preempting capture without alternative means available. For instance, neutral on the belligerent's own or in occupied areas may be subject to angary only under exceptional circumstances, with the action calibrated to the immediate threat or operational requirement, ensuring no broader infringement on neutral sovereignty than warranted. Violations of this proportionality can invalidate the right's , subjecting the act to as a breach of neutrality protections.

Historical Applications and Examples

Instances in World War I

In March 1918, amid a severe Allied shipping crisis exacerbated by German —which had sunk over 11 million tons of shipping since 1917—the Allied powers invoked the right of angary to requisition Dutch vessels sheltering in their ports. This measure addressed critical shortages in needed for transporting American troops and supplies to , with more than 2 million U.S. soldiers requiring overseas deployment by mid-1918. The led the action with President Woodrow Wilson's proclamation on , , authorizing the seizure of Dutch ships in American harbors, while Britain and other Allies simultaneously requisitioned vessels in their territories, totaling approximately 137 ships—about one-third of the ' merchant fleet. These vessels, totaling around 600,000 gross tons, were primarily steamers that had evaded attacks by remaining in neutral refuge but were now pressed into Allied service for operations and . The Dutch government lodged formal protests, asserting a breach of neutrality, but the Allies defended the seizures as essential under angary for immediate , promising compensation equivalent to plus interest. countered by demanding Dutch concessions on and supply transit , threatening and nearly precipitating conflict, though a compromise averted escalation. Post-Armistice in , the ships were returned by April 1919, with the U.S. paying over $19 million in claims settled via , underscoring angary's requirement for while demonstrating its practical limits in wartime exigency. This episode remains the most extensive application of angary in , with no comparable large-scale uses against other neutrals like Scandinavian fleets documented.

Cases from World War II

During , belligerent states, particularly the Allies, extensively invoked the right of angary to requisition neutral merchant vessels located in their ports and to address acute shortages in military transport capacity amid global naval campaigns and blockades. This practice was predicated on imperatives of , with international custom requiring compensation to neutral owners and, where feasible, return of the vessels post-hostilities. , upon entering the war in , applied angary to seize idle foreign-owned ships in American harbors, utilizing them for troop and supply movements across the Atlantic and Pacific theaters; most such vessels were returned after the conflict, accompanied by payments to mitigate claims of unlawful seizure. A documented instance involved the U.S. Navy's requisition of the Dutch-registered motorship (Id. No. 2567), a neutral vessel present in U.S. waters, which was pressed into service under angary to support wartime logistics demands. Similar requisitions targeted ships from other neutral flag states, such as those of Scandinavian or Iberian registry, reflecting the doctrine's role in bolstering Allied when domestic tonnage proved insufficient—U.S. merchant marine losses exceeded 700 vessels by 1945, heightening reliance on such measures. employed analogous tactics, requisitioning neutral craft in occupied or controlled ports for supply lines, though post-war tribunals and settlements often scrutinized these actions for proportionality and compensation adherence, amid broader accusations of neutral rights violations. Diplomatic frictions arose, as neutrals protested the seizures despite legal justifications; for instance, U.S. State Department records from reveal debates over affirming angary's validity in specific claims, with officials opting against rigid insistence to facilitate reparations negotiations. Overall, WWII applications underscored angary's practical utility in but also its tensions with evolving norms on neutral immunity, influencing later treaty interpretations under the 1907 Hague Conventions.

Contemporary Relevance and Debates

Potential Use in Modern Conflicts

In international armed conflicts, the right of angary permits states to requisition or destroy neutral property, such as vessels or situated within their territory or , when imperative arises, with an obligation to provide compensation. This doctrine, rooted in , applies to contemporary state-on-state warfare where logistical imperatives demand immediate access to neutral transport assets for purposes like supply or evacuation. For example, a could seize neutral shipping in its ports to bolster capabilities during rapid phases of conflict. The extension of angary to and other modern conveyances reflects adaptations to 20th-century , enabling its potential invocation for operations in conflicts involving extended supply lines. Legal analyses affirm its persistence in regulating resource use amid armed hostilities, distinct from broader occupation rules under Regulations. However, practical application remains limited by requirements of proportionality and the exclusion of high-seas , confining use to jurisdictionally controlled areas. Post-1945 interstate wars have infrequently tested the doctrine explicitly, owing to alliance structures and UN Charter constraints , yet it endures as a targeted exception to neutral immunity. Debates on angary's modern viability highlight tensions with evolving norms, such as those prohibiting unrestrained requisition under , though it aligns with principles when neutrals' assets enable operational imperatives without feasible alternatives. In high-stakes scenarios, like naval encirclements or amphibious assaults, failure to compensate or exceed necessity could invite reprisals or international adjudication, underscoring the doctrine's balance between exigency and restraint. Scholarly consensus holds that angary's framework supports causal linkages between wartime imperatives and neutral burdens, without supplanting peacetime .

Criticisms Regarding Neutral Rights and Effectiveness

The right of angary has been criticized for undermining the principle of neutral rights, which traditionally afford neutral property immunity from interference except in cases of clear unneutral conduct. Critics argue that by permitting the requisition or destruction of neutral vessels and goods within a 's territory or occupied areas, angary effectively assimilates neutral assets to those of enemies, eroding the and expected under neutrality doctrines. This assimilation is viewed as particularly vexatious, as it burdens neutrals with the risks of despite their non-participation, prompting historical protests and diplomatic strains, such as during the U.S. requisition of Dutch ships in 1918, which was justified partly as a but fueled resentment among neutrals. Jurists including and Thomas De Boeck have labeled the practice "odious and vexatious," questioning its compatibility with beyond extreme necessity, while the Institut de Droit International in its 1898 Oxford Manual advocated its outright suppression for neutral ships in or to protect . Regarding effectiveness, angary's practical enforcement has proven limited by persistent disputes over compensation and the risk of abuse, often resulting in inadequate remedies for affected neutrals. Historical applications, such as German seizures of Swiss and Austrian rolling stock during the (1870–1871), involved sinking neutral vessels like British ships in the , where compensation claims were contested, with earlier doctrines restricting payouts to freight value rather than full value, leading to unresolved grievances. In the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865), requisitions of neutral vessels drew opposition from the British government and even the U.S. Attorney-General, who deemed certain legislative expansions as exceeding international bounds, highlighting inconsistent application and a lack of clear legal precedents that diminished its reliability as a regulated tool. Treaties like the 1785 U.S.- agreement and the 1828 U.S.- pact imposed restrictions or required indemnification, yet violations persisted, underscoring angary's vulnerability to high-handed actions that provoke retaliation or neutral alignment shifts rather than achieving unhindered military utility. In contemporary contexts, angary's is further questioned due to its territorial scope—limited to property within —and the of warfare, where rapid mobility and alternative reduce reliance on neutral assets in ports. Critics note that without robust enforcement mechanisms for proportionality and compensation, as mandated under criteria, the doctrine risks becoming a for expropriation, as evidenced by Napoleon's requisition of neutral ships for the expedition, which bypassed owner consent and strained alliances. This has led to calls for its obsolescence in modern frameworks, where broader prohibitions on arbitrary interference prioritize neutral economic stability over exceptional claims.

References

  1. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e240
  2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/law-of-angary/6F237261414EE03DA6E2E7A72B133A70
  3. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1917&context=mlr
  4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2188082
  5. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1937/february/jus-angaria
  6. https://www.britannica.com/topic/angary
  7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/international-law-of-belligerent-occupation/seizure-and-requisition-of-property-in-occupied-territories/EBFB133D868D633B1981A6E35B07AB81
  8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4515224
  9. http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/military-necessity
  10. https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/military-necessity/
  11. https://dn790005.ca.archive.org/0/items/hagueconventions00interich/hagueconventions00interich.pdf
  12. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/assets/treaties/195-IHL-19-EN.pdf
  13. https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/department_of_defense_law_of_war_manual%20(1).pdf
  14. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e294
  15. https://repository.law.umich.edu/context/mlr/article/5039/viewcontent
  16. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2049&context=ils
  17. https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/department_of_defense_law_of_war_manual.pdf
  18. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/sea-transport-and-supply/
  19. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp01v02/d487
  20. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp01v02/d501
  21. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/foreign-policy-the-netherlands/
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2190057
  23. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp01v02/d490
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/554A28AEF5F8A6FE312DFA5F6541096F/S0002930000180789a.pdf/taking_over_and_return_of_dutch_vessels_19181919.pdf
  25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40107865
  26. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945v04/d575
  27. https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/w/winterswijk.html
  28. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2497&context=lcp
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.