By: Stephen C. Neff, Reader in Law – Public International Law, University of Edinburgh Law School
We
all know the feeling of being saddled with unwanted guests, of various
descriptions. At the moment, the United States government is playing reluctant
(but stern) host to some 165 people in Guantanamo Bay, on Cuba. If it is any
consolation to the American officials – and it probably is not – it may be
noted that they are not the first to grapple with delicate issues as to the
legal status of their visitors. The British government faced some eerily
similar dilemmas in 1815, in the wake of the Battle of Waterloo. Its problem
was smaller in quantitative terms, as it had only one awkward guest on its
hands. But he was quite a famous one: Napoleon Bonaparte, native of Corsica
and erstwhile bearer of the grand title of Emperor of France (no paltry king,
he).
Britain’s
custody of the ex-Emperor was to a large extent involuntary. Bonaparte,
huddling in the French port of Rochefort after his defeat at Waterloo, slipped
off to sea and surrendered himself to a British fleet that was hovering
offshore. The admiral of the fleet then sailed with his newly acquired cargo
to the south coast of England. From that point, the legal advisers of the
British government became very busy. The principal issue was to determine the
legal status – and, by extension, the consequent fate – of their renowned, and
unwelcome, guest. To this vital question, an instructive variety of answers
were put forward.
The
preferred course of the British government was to treat Bonaparte as an
insurgent against the legitimate (i.e., Bourbon) government of France -- i.e.,
as an accused criminal under French domestic law. This proposed solution
received the approval of the government’s legal advisers. As the British prime
minister Lord Liverpool candidly put it, in somewhat non-legalistic terms, “we
wish the King of France would hang or shoot Bonaparte as the best termination
of the business.” Unfortunately, “the business” was not to be so easily
disposed of. The restored Bourbon monarchical government, only just installed
in power, feared the disorder that might be caused by such an action on its
part. As a consequence, it staunchly refused to take custody of the former
“emperor.”
The
obvious alternative solution was to regard Bonaparte as a prisoner of war.
This, however, would have a very undesirable consequence: that, as such, he
would be entitled to be released at the conclusion of the hostilities. A way
around this was suggested by Lord Ellenborough (Chief Justice of the King’s
Bench). When a formal peace treaty was concluded with France, Bonaparte should
be explicitly excluded from its terms. He would then continue to be detainable
as a prisoner of war, i.e., Britain would remain at war with him, though
now at peace with the rest of France. Opposing this solution was the
redoubtable admiralty judge William Scott (the future Lord Stowell), who was
well versed in international law. Scott insisted that a peace arrangement
must, by its nature, bring peace with all of the nationals of the
erstwhile enemy state.
For
political reasons, however, it was widely agreed within the British government
that this dangerous adventurer could not simply be released. But on what basis
could he be held? The ensuing debates on this question provide, if nothing
else, a fine show of legal creativity at work.
One
proposal was to regard Bonaparte as a prisoner of war whose home state would
not allow his return. Britain could then continue holding him in custody as,
in effect, an illegal immigrant. This option had some drawbacks, though. It
might be contended – as it certainly would be today – that states are legally
obligated to permit their own nationals to enter their territory. There was
also the problem that a future French government would relent and permit
Bonaparte’s return – in which case Britain would then, awkwardly, be compelled
to accede to the request. It may be noted, incidentally, that Bonaparte’s own
thinking ran broadly along these lines. He never accepted the thesis that he
was a prisoner of war. Instead, he saw himself as an asylum seeker, having (as
noted above) voluntarily placed himself into the merciful hands of the British.