neutrality, the detachment from the high sea and neutralization
of the zone called territorial waters, and the Areopagus of nations
called the European Concert, in which the right of neutrals is
asserted as a brake upon the operation of the still venerated
right of conquest. The rights of neutrals have received their
most recent affirmation in several of the decisions of the Hague
Peace Conferences.
International trade and intercourse have become so intricate that war can no longer be waged without causing the most serious loss to neutral nations, which, moreover, suffer from it without any of the possible contingent benefits it may procure for the immediate parties. So much is it so, that most great powers have found it necessary for their self-protection to enter into defensive alliances with others, the direct object of which is the preservation of European peace by the threat of making war so gigantic a venture that no state will again embark on it “with a light heart.” The next step will probably be alliances between states which, by their nature or by their having reached the limit of their expansion, have nothing further to gain by war with each other, for the purpose of securing perpetual peace as between themselves.
Different attempts have been made to define neutrality,
but the word defines itself, so far as a succinct definition serves
any purpose. The subject covers too wide and varied
an area of matter to be condensed into a short statement
of any kind. Neutrality entails rights and duties
on both the belligerent and the neutral sides. Theoretically,
Definition
and scope.
neutrality, to be complete, would require the neutral to abstain
from everything which could even remotely be of assistance
to either belligerent. To this obligation would theoretically
correspond that the belligerent should carry on the war without
doing anything which could even remotely disturb or interfere
with the neutral state or the free activity of its citizens. Neither
the one nor the other is found to be practicable. It is not even
easy for the belligerent to observe absolutely the duty of doing
no direct injury to neutral territory. A battle may be fought to
the very edge of the neutral frontier, and shells may explode in
any neutral town within the firing range of modern artillery.
The present respect paid by belligerents to territorial waters
is a palliative in the case of a seaboard frontier; but even the
three-mile limit acknowledged by most countries would permit
belligerent vessels with present range of artillery to fire landwards
far into neutral territory. Compensation—it is true, would
be due for any damage done, but this does not alter the fact that
acts of war can produce direct consequences on neutral territory
which have the character of carrying war into a neutral state.
The neutral state, moreover, is obliged to incur heavy expenditure
to protect its frontier from being traversed by either
belligerent, and thus avoid itself being exposed to claims for
compensation for an act which it would otherwise be powerless
to prevent. In the case of a maritime war, the neutral state
is also bound to exercise strict supervision to prevent its ports
from being used by either belligerent for the purpose of increasing
its military strength. In short, war cannot be carried on without
heavy expense and inconvenience to neighbouring neutral states.
The inconvenience to the intercourse of neutral citizens is still
greater. Their ships are liable to be taken out of their course,
and their cargoes to be discharged to the bottom of the hold in
search of articles which are contraband according to circumstances
over which they have no control; and they may be
confiscated without recourse by judges appointed by one of the
interested parties. Even their whole trade with specific ports
of the one belligerent may be stopped by the ships of the other
belligerent Without indemnity. On the other hand, a great deal
of vital assistance can be given by neutral citizens to the one
or the other belligerent in money, or by supplies of arms, ammunition,
food and other commodities, which it is not at present the
duty of neutral states to interfere with.
The respective rights and duties of belligerents and neutrals in current practice may be subdivided as follows:—
1. Belligerent duty to respect neutral territory and neutral territorial waters.
2. Neutral right of official representation and mediation; of intercourse of neutral citizens with citizens of either belligerent; of convoy, &c.
3. Belligerent right of blockade, angary, visit and search, capture and confiscation of contraband of war.
4. Neutral duties: (absolute) of abstention from any direct corporate assistance to either belligerent, of enforcement of respect by both belligerents for neutral territory; (relative) of prevention of any recruiting for either belligerent, or arming or equipping of vessels for their service; and (contingent) of allowing commercial access to the one or other belligerent without distinction, and of granting impartially to one or the other belligerent any rights, advantages or privileges, which, according to the usages recognized among nations, are not considered as an intervention in the struggle.
This subdivision, we believe, covers the whole ground of neutrality. We shall follow it in this article.
Belligerent Duty.—It is now universally recognized among European states that a belligerent army must make no use of its strength in the field to carry its operations into neutral territory or into neutral waters. Belligerent forces entering neutral territory are by the practice of nations bound to surrender their arms to the neutral Duty to respect neutral territory. state, and remain hors de combat till the close of the war. (Compare arts. 11 and 12 of the Hague Convention relating to the “Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and persons in case of war on land” 18th of October 1907.)
Through territorial waters belligerent vessels are allowed to pass freely as in time of peace. Nor does the usage of nations forbid a belligerent vessel from entering a neutral port. Motives of humanity have sanctioned this distinction, between territorial and maritime warfare. The Admiralty Instructions (1893) set out the rights of belligerents Access to and duty to respect territorial waters and ports. as Great Britain views them as follows: “Subject to any limit which the neutral authorities may place upon the number of belligerent cruisers to be admitted into any one of their ports at the same time, the captain, by the comity of nations, may enter a neutral port with his ship for the purpose of taking shelter from the enemy or from the weather, or of obtaining provisions or repairs that may be pressingly necessary (I. section 592). He is bound to submit to any regulations which the local authorities may make respecting the place of anchorage, the limitation of the length of stay in the port, the interval to elapse after a hostile cruiser has left the port before his ship may leave in pursuit, &c. (I. section 593). He must abstain from any acts of hostility towards the subjects, cruisers, vessels or other property of the enemy which he may find in the neutral port (section 594). He must also abstain from increasing the number of his guns, from procuring military stores, and from augmenting his crew even by the enrolment of British subjects” (section 595).
Nor may the commander of a British warship take a capture into a neutral port against the will of the local authorities (Holland, Manual of Naval Prize Law, 1888, section 299). This subject was one of those dealt with at the Hague Conference of 1907. (See art. 18 of the “Convention relating to the rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war.”)
Neutral Rights.—Neutral powers have the right to remain, as far as possible, unaffected by the war operations, and, therefore, continue their diplomatic relations with the belligerent states. The immunities and exterritoriality of their diplomatic agents attach to them as in time of peace, subject only to necessity of war, which may entitle a belligerent to Right of legation. place restrictions on this intercourse. Thus, during the Franco-German War, on the surrounding of Paris, foreign diplomatists in the besieged city were refused by the German authorities all possibility of corresponding with their governments, except by letters left open for their inspection. Neutral legations may also undertake the representation of private interests of subjects of the one belligerent on the territory of the other. Thus in the Franco-German War of 1871 the Germans in France were placed under the protection of the United States legation, and the French in
