Some Questions of International Law.
821
partial neutrality—a neutrality which con sists in absolute abstention from any acts or services which would tend to strengthen the fighting forces of either belligerent or which would amount to an actual or potential par ticipation in the war. For this reason a bel ligerent armed vessel should not be allowed to remain in a neutral port for a longer period of time than is absolutely necessary in order to procure innocent supplies or to effect necessary repairs (i. c., those abso lutely necessary); and steamships should n Dt be allowed to coal except in case of neces can war in 1898. The provisions of the Britisli Neutrality Regulations of 1862 were repeated in sity, and then only in quantity sufficient to the Neutrality Proclamations issued by Great take them to the nearest home port or (Let Britain and the United States at the opening of the present war, and, as has been noted, Great ter still) to the nearest available neutral Britain issued still more stringent instructions in destination.1 August, 1904. The Scandinavian States have also issued very stringent rules regulating the admis The measure or amount of repairs per sion and conduct of belligerent vessels in their mitted or supplies allowed to belligerent ports, Sweden, as it appears, going to the ex tent of excluding them altogether. See an article armed vessels in neutral ports should be by the eminent German jurist Laband in Die determined by what is absolutely needed to ll'oche for May ¿8. 1004. Cf. Lawrence War and Neutrality, p. 133, whose statement that all the make them navigable or seaworthy as dis Scandinavian States "have closed their ports to tinct from rendering them more efficient as the public vessels of both belligerents, with the exception of hospital ships," appears to be in fighting machines or increasing their war correct. "The brench Circular of Neutrality, is like capacity.2 "Speaking generally, we sued on 1'cbruary 18. 1904, limited permissiuie supplies and repairs to those nec may say that a belligerent ship must not essary for 'the subsistence of the crews and the safety of the navigation,' and for- I leave a neutral port a more efficient fighting bade the use of French waters for warlike pur- i machine than she entered it, except in so far poses, or for the acquisition of information, or as increased efficiency may come from in as bases of operation against the enemy." Law rence, op. cit., p. 123. The vessels belonging to creased seaworthiness or a better supply of the Russian Mediterranean fleet at Jibutil were, provisions. On the other hand, neutrals however, as we have seen, permitted to fill their bunkers with coal and they were allowed to en may permit the supply of things necessary joy the hospitality of that port for more than twenty-four hours. All such details are said to! for subsistence, and they may repair in their be omitted in the German Proclamation of Neu ports and waters damage due to the action trality, issued on February 13, 1904, according to of the sea. A distinction is drawn between the terms of which all Germans, whether at home or abroad, are simply enjoined to observe "the what is necessary for life and what is neces strictest neutrality in all their relations," officers sary for war.3 of the Crown being charged with the enforce
As has been said, neutral Governments may impose such conditions upon belliger ent armed vessels in their ports as they deem necessary or advisable for the purpose of enforcing their neutral obligations provid ed such rules or regulations as they choose to make are impartially enforced against both belligerents. But they are bound by the law of nations to make such rules and pro vide such means for their enforcement as mav be necessary to insure a strict and im-
ment of such neutrality. See Chicago Record'It has also been customary to interpose a Herald for February 14. 1904. Germany, as has, time limit of twenty-four hours between the sail been noted, enforced the twenty-four-hour rule ings of two or more hostile ships in belligerent in the case of the Russian cruiser Novik at Tsingwaters. The object of this rule is to prevent Tau, although she appears to take a more lenient fighting in the neighborhood of neutral waters. view of her neutral obligations in respect to the It dates from the middle of the eighteenth cen coaling of the Baltic fleet. Spain also at first tury. This is the custom which is generally re showed a disposition to enforce the twenty-fourferred to in treatises as the twenty-four-hour rule. hour rule in the case of the Baltic Fleet at Vigo, 'Under this rule the engines and boilers of and only extended the time for a special purpose such a vessel might be repaired, but not «o her and after consulting the Powers. A limited supply guns or armament. of coal is said to have been furnished to Russian "Lawrence, War and Neutrality, p. 121. Law vessels belonging to this fleet during its stay at rence adds, "It is not very logical, because a man that port in October. must live before he can fight, and those things
