Article 1. A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy.
The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark were not allowed to import whatever they wished for during the North Sea blockade. It certainly made sense to establish pre-war quotas for neutrals to stop them from supplying Germany.
Legally speaking though I would call that a violation. Then again the British Empire never ratified said treaty and the neutral countries didn’t complain too much. So the US let that one slide in OTL I guess.
Not only was it never ratified, but:
1) There's a thing called the Doctrine of Continuous Voyage (which the US used in the Civil War, IIRC) which says that if it's intended for the enemy it can be blocked even if it's going to be unloaded for transshipment at a neutral port.
2) If it's not intended for the enemy then it goes through.
3) If there's dispute, then it goes to a prize court. This is the whole reason prize courts exist, to determine what's legal and what's not under this law.
Is there an example of a neutral ship being stopped and having something unlawfully seized, given the Doctrine of Continuous Voyage?
(Since I asked for the BEST example, I'd expect there to be some good cases it happened.)
It is the first time I have encountered that site, but I have read the contents from a number of different sources. Having read the Declaration of Paris provided by you, a literal interpretation supports the position of the website. To prevent access to the coast, the blockading force needs to be in sight of the coast (e.g. a doorman who is rooming a car park becomes a security guard).
As an alternative, lets just use your interpretation for fun. To be effective, the blockade must prevent access to the coast by the enemy. The truth of the matter was that the Royal navy never had the capacity to make its blockade 'watertight' as you assert. Many concede that the blockade only became effective (in real terms) when the US entered and stopped the supplies at source. Using your interpretation, a successful blockade runner would make the blockade illegal because it demonstrates it is not effective.
In the most part the size of the royal navy enabled it to play the role the privateers had played in the past, something the Paris declaration did not tolerate.
The bit about privateers is a completely absurd interpretation. Do you even know what a privateer is?
They're
private citizens operating with a Letter of Marque. By definition a naval vessel cannot be a privateer - the closest they can get is sinking ships without warning, which is illegal but for a different reason.
As for effectiveness - blockade runners do not by themselves neutralize a blockade, that one was played out as far back as the American Civil War (when blockade runners merrily violated the Union blockade almost daily).
My understanding - which may be flawed - is that a blockade is effective when it stops most of the traffic and manages to at least pursue most of the blockade breakers.
Do you have any evidence that ships loaded with contraband intended for Germany routinely broke the RN blockade of Germany, as your post suggests?
