One of the contributory factors in the failure of the revolt was that the rebels were unable to get the status of belligerency attached to their cause. This meant that they could never install a full and proper blockade of Rio, and the semi-blockade they had was shattered by the pro-president Peixoto Americans on 29/1/94 when the USN forced their merchant ships through under threat of force. The revolt at Rio collapsed soon after.
Some of the European nations that favoured the rebels, such as Britain and Germany, would have liked to have given them belligerency status, but did not want to do so on their own against American wishes. If some nations had granted the rebels Belligerent status, how would that work in practice? Can the rebels only stop merchant vessels from those nations? Or is it not valid unless all nations do so?
I'm hoping someone out there will know the legal implications of this situation.
Some of the European nations that favoured the rebels, such as Britain and Germany, would have liked to have given them belligerency status, but did not want to do so on their own against American wishes. If some nations had granted the rebels Belligerent status, how would that work in practice? Can the rebels only stop merchant vessels from those nations? Or is it not valid unless all nations do so?
I'm hoping someone out there will know the legal implications of this situation.