A PROJECT REPORT ON - “RIGHT OF ANGARY AND ITS LEGALITY”

SCHOOL OF LAW
MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR

UNDER SUPERVISION OF: - SUBMITTED BY:-

Mr. KANISHKA SEWAK MUKUL BAJAJ
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 151301052
 CERTIFICATE

This is certified that Mr. Mukul Bajaj student of B.A. LL.B(Hons.) eighth semester school of
Law Manipal University Jaipur has completed the project work entitled “Right of Angary and
its Leagality”under my supervision and guidance.
It is further certified that the candidate has made sincere efforts for the completion of the
project work.

SUPERVISOR NAME

(Mr. Kanishka Sewak)

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express deep sense of gratitude and indebtness to our teacher Mr. Kanishka Sewak under
whose guidance valuable suggestions, constant encouragement and kind supervision the
present project was carried out. I am also grateful to college faculty of law for their feedback
and for keeping us on schedule.
I also wish to express my sincere thanks to my friends who held directly or indirectly by giving
their valuable suggestions.

MUKUL BAJAJ
Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5
RIGHT OF ANGARY – A BRIEF HISTORY.......................................................................... 6
CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE RIGHT OF ANGARY .................................................. 6
FURTHER LIMITATIONS – WHERE THE RIGHT OF ANGARY MAY NOT APPLY ..... 8
OPINION ................................................................................................................................... 9
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 11
INTRODUCTION
Prior to delving into this topic, it is essential to understand four key terms in the context of war:
belligerent, right of Angry, requisition, and neutral state. In warfare, a belligerent state is one
which is engaged in combat, war or “conflict”. This means that any country involved in war is
considered a belligerent. On the contrary, a country not participating in the war nor aiding any
belligerents is considered a neutral party. Requisition refers to formally demanding something
from another party. The right of Angary deals with these three terms, and in times of war, gives
a belligerent state the right to requisition, or formally demand the usage of ships or goods
belonging to neutral states that are within the territorial jurisdiction of the belligerent state. This
right is derived from the laws of war, and is deemed acceptable in times of war due to the
necessities of extreme measures that may arise.

The basic concept of the right of Angary is nothing new; in fact, traces of it date back to “early
Roman times”. However, the right was subject to much abuse, even as of the early 17th and 18th
century, hence a modern revision was made, which included the obligation to make
compensation for requisitioning the neutral ships or goods.[1] Even in the 19th and early 20th
century, there were debates and confusions about whether the obligation to compensate should
be abided by according to the right of Angary, or whether the right of Angary itself was a
violation of neutrality. These situations will be addressed later on. A neutral ship is not
forbidden from navigating the waters falling under belligerent jurisdiction, but if it does, then
the belligerent state has the option of requisitioning the ship(s) by exercising the right of
Angary. However, the belligerent may in no way exercise this right within a neutral territory.
Neutral parties may also not exercise the right of Angary on one another; one such case arose
where one neutral party had claimed the use of the right of Angary to seize ships of another
neutral party. However, this action was ruled unlawful, as both parties were neutral and the
right of Angary only gave authority to a belligerent state to requisition neutral ships or goods.
The basic concept is that if a neutral ship, although it has full right to, is in an area under
belligerent jurisdiction, the belligerent state has the right to, under absolute necessity,
requisition the ship and/or goods, and destroy them if they feel it necessary to do so.
RIGHT OF ANGARY – A BRIEF HISTORY
The first incidence of requisitioning of neutral ships by belligerents dates back to Antwerp in
1539 and 1587. As already mentioned earlier, the right was being abused by many parties, so
the right was revised, and an obligation to pay adequate compensation was included. Taylor
recognized the modern right of Angary, stating that it may be exercised by belligerents in time
of war if they find neutral ship within their territory; however, he noted that indemnity, or
appropriate compensation needed to be paid. This right was apparently referred to as Angaria,
which has since come to be known as Angary. An event of Napoleon’s requisitioning neutral
ships in order to carry his troops to Egypt is given, and it is mentioned that he had paid adequate
compensation. Another similar situation has been put forth – during the Franco-Prussian War
of 1870, where Prussian troops had taken control of 16 British ships in order to barricade the
Seine River to stop the French from entering via the river. During the Franco-German War, the
Germans had formally sought the permission to sink six British coal ships in order to stop the
French from entering and attacking. The Germans considered it a necessary action, and when
the captains of the ships refused to give up the ships, the Germans fired and sunk them. The
British government did not react sharply to this, but demanded adequate compensation. So the
right of Angary was also exercised here (recall that under the right of Angary, belligerents are
allowed to destroy neutral ships if necessary). To date, the most significant “use of the right of
angary” was in World War I.

CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE RIGHT OF ANGARY

The exercise of the right of Angary is subject to mainly two conditions: (i) the right may be
exercised under situations of dire need and absolute necessity, and (ii) that full compensation
needs to be paid to the owner(s) in case the right is exercised.

As Cheng has noted, the right of Angary must be used only in “cases of serious necessity”, and
that the owner(s) must be compensated accordingly. Another noted writer from the 17th century
also admitted the necessity for requisition of neutral goods only if the belligerent state
absolutely requires it, but believed that they could not do it if the other (neutral) state had an
equal need for that purpose. In fact, most well-known writers have nodded in favour of allowing
the right of Angary in extreme cases during war when national security is concerned, although
they have admitted that they view this right as “imperfect”. In short, proper “justification”[2]
is necessary to exercise the right, and full indemnity needs to be paid. Portugal has also
expressed his belief that the right can be used “only in case of urgent military necessity”, and
that compensation must be paid in full. Harley has mentioned an event where the British
government had requisitioned some Dutch ships lying in British territorial waters, and the
Dutch government had written to the British government lodging a complaint since it believed
the requisitioning was not for necessary military purpose. The British government had
responded by saying that the materials being carried by the ships were of vital military concern
to it, so it claimed that the requisition had been justified. In another instance, several Dutch
ships were requisitioned by the United States – there was difficulty using the right of Angary,
so an appeal was lodged with the then-US President, who gave the right to use the Dutch ships
for their military purposes. However the then US President declared that the Dutch ships that
they had requisitioned, were only for a “temporary” period, and that the ships would be duly
returned; and in case some damage was inflicted upon the ship(s), the owner would be given
the liberty to claim a replaced ship, or payment for the lost ship/damages. A further instance of
German ships requisitioned by Portuguese is also given.

There has been confusion in several instances, over whether the right to compensate the owner
of the neutral property should be made obligatory. One of the earliest documentations of this
confusion carries back to the times of early British Rule, during the times of The Crown. It was
once being debated whether once requisitioned, indemnity needed to be paid to the neutral
owner. It was even agreed that the laws regarding the right of Angary do indeed comply or
adhere strongly with the municipal laws, and therefore the right to compensate the neutral
owner could be deemed as per law. However, it was maintained at one point that whatever
compensation was due to the neutral party was not bound by law to be paid to the owner of the
goods that were requisitioned, but to “the owner’s State of nationality”. Despite some confusion
regarding the incorporation of compensation into the municipality law, it was decided that
compensation was an associated obligation whenever property is taken; hence compensation
of requisitioned neutral goods was also as per law.

Oppenheim and Roxburgh have said that as opposed to the previous or old right of Angary, the
modern one does not give belligerents the power to elicit services from neutral persons by
force, but the modern one only extends their right to seize neutral goods/vessels in their
jurisdiction or within an enemy territory. The Crown itself has in the past, even after a ruling
by the prize court that neutral ships or goods could not be requisitioned, passed an Order
awarding itself the power to requisition neutral ships or goods within its territories. Oppenheim
and Roxburgh have further contended that damages arising from exercising this right must
always be compensated.[4] It has also been explicitly stated here, that the right of Angary itself
is derived from the law of war, not from the law of neutrality – it is merely the right of
belligerent states to make use of neutral ships in their territory or in certain cases, on enemy
territory. But the associated obligation to compensate is derived from the law of neutrality, not
from the law of war.

Contrary to the acceptance of the right of Angary by majority of writers, there are those,
although few in number, who are opposed to the right. The main belief held by these writers is
that despite the necessity to exercise the right, it is to some degree, in violation of neutrality;
however they have also accepted to some extent, that it may be deemed appropriate in such
cases, if and only if full indemnity was paid to the corresponding owner(s).

FURTHER LIMITATIONS – WHERE THE RIGHT OF ANGARY MAY

NOT APPLY
We have seen above, from the works of multiple authors, that majority of them have nodded
in agreement to the right of Angary given its strict stipulations. However, there is one particular
instance when the right of Angary may not be exercised at all – that is when the right is
specifically denied in treaties between countries. It is important to note here, however, that, the
mere exclusion of the right of Angary in a treaty does not mean that the right cannot be
exercised by either party of the treaty against each other; rather, if the right is specifically
denied, or if it is agreed that the parties to the treaty are against the usage of the right of Angary,
then only may there be a bar to using it. Over time, many treaties have been formed, some of
which were against the right of Angary since the nations in the treaty viewed it as a violation
of neutrality.[5] The United States, for instance, after its independence, did not include the right
of Angary in its treaties with several countries, though it did mention it in its treaty with Peru
(in 1870). A few other treaties which denied the right of Angary are: “the United States-
Prussian Treaty of 1785, Article 16; the French-Russian Treaty of 1787, Article 24; and the
United States-Spanish Treaty of 1796, Article 7”. Furthermore, treaties of the 19th and 20th
centuries which deny the right of Angary are: “the Danish-Prussian Treaty of June 17, 1818,
and two Italian treaties with San Domingo and Nicaragua, October 18, 1886, and June 25,
1906”, respectively. Apart from these three, the rest of the treaties formed after the 18th century
have allowed the right of Angary to be used, given that compensation is paid to the affected
neutral owner in full.
An issue was once raised that in the absence of treaties between parties, neutral ships or goods
could be requisitioned without paying due compensation. However, this proposition had
serious flaws, and it was decided that the right of Angary would hold even if there were no
treaties regarding it, between nations – that is, upon requisition, full indemnity would have to
be paid, no matter what.

OPINION
We have personally felt that the right of Angary does in fact seem like an abrasive measure in
times of war, and extremely unfair for neutral parties, and somewhat a major violation of the
right and intention of those who wish to remain neutral and have nothing to do with war.
However, under the modern definition of this right, given the consideration that the neutral
ships need to be within territorial jurisdiction of belligerent states and that complete
compensation will be paid upon requisition, we have also felt that the exercise of this right may
become an absolute necessity in certain situations, some of which have been put forth in this
paper.
CONCLUSION
The right of Angary, although undoubtedly not completely free from violation of neutrality,
has evolved and become more favourable than it had been since the time it first came into
existence. Despite the condition of full compensation, several writers have remained wholly or
partially against its use. Nevertheless, given the many historical events put forth in this paper,
it would be unwise to not recognize the significance of the right of Angary in some of the wars
which have shaped the world.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Harley, J. U. (1919). The Law of Angary, p. 268.

2. United Nations. (1932). The “Kronprins Gustaf Adolf”, p.1257.

3. Hurley, E. N. (1927). The bridge to France, p.53.

4. Oppenheim, L. F. (2012). International law: A treatise, Volume II, p.447.

5. Verzijl, J. H. W. (1978). International law in historical perspective: The laws of war, Volume
9, Part 9, p.43