Moreover, apart from carriage of contraband, breach of blockade, and unneutral service to the enemy, which a belligerent may punish by capturing and confiscating the vessels or goods concerned, subjects of neutrals are perfectly unhindered in their movements, and neutral States have in especial no duty to prevent their subjects from selling arms, munitions, and provisions to a belligerent, from enlisting in his forces, and the like.

§ 297. Neutrality as an attitude of impartiality involves the duty of abstaining from assisting either belligerent either actively or passively, but it does not include the duty of breaking off all intercourse with the belligerents. Apart from certain restrictions necessitated by impartiality, all intercourse between belligerents and neutrals takes place as before, a condition of peace prevailing between them in spite of the war between the belligerents. This applies particularly to the working of treaties, to diplomatic intercourse, and to trade. But indirectly, of course, the condition of war between belligerents may have a disturbing influence upon intercourse between belligerents and neutrals. Thus the treaty-rights of a neutral State may be interfered with through occupation of enemy territory by a belligerent; its subjects living on such territory bear in a sense enemy character; its subjects trading with the belligerents are hampered by the right of visit and search, and the right of the belligerents to capture blockade-runners and contraband of war.

§ 298. Since neutrality is an attitude during war, the question arises as to the necessary attitude of foreign States during civil war. As civil war becomes real war through recognition[558] of the insurgents as a belligerent Power, a distinction must be made as to whether recognition has taken place or not. There is no doubt that a foreign State commits an international delinquency by assisting insurgents in spite of its being at peace with the legitimate Government. But matters are different after recognition. The insurgents are now a belligerent Power, and the civil war is now real war. Foreign States can either become a party to the war or remain neutral, and in the latter case all duties and rights of neutrality devolve upon them. Since, however, recognition may be granted by foreign States independently of the attitude of the legitimate Government, and since recognition granted by the latter is not at all binding upon foreign Governments, it may happen that insurgents are granted recognition on the part of the legitimate Government, whereas foreign States refuse it, and vice versa.[559] In the first case, the rights and duties of neutrality devolve upon foreign States as far as the legitimate Government is concerned. Men-of-war of the latter may visit and search merchantmen of foreign States for contraband; a blockade declared by the legitimate Government is binding upon foreign States, and the like. But no rights and duties of neutrality devolve upon foreign States as regards the insurgents. A blockade declared by them is not binding, their men-of-war may not visit and search merchantmen for contraband. On the other hand, if insurgents are recognised by a foreign State but not by the legitimate Government, such foreign State has all rights and duties of neutrality so far as the insurgents are concerned, but not so far as the legitimate Government is concerned.[560] In practice, however, recognition of insurgents on the part of foreign States will, if really justified, always have the effect of causing the legitimate Government to grant its recognition also.

§ 299. Just as third States have no duty to remain neutral in a war, so they have no right[561] to demand that they be allowed to remain neutral. History reports many cases in which States, although they intended to remain neutral, were obliged by one or both belligerents to make up their minds and choose the belligerent with whom they would throw in their lot. For neutrality to come into existence it is, therefore, not sufficient for a third State at the outbreak of war to take up an attitude of impartiality, but it is also necessary that the belligerents recognise this attitude by acquiescing in it and by not treating such third State as a party to the war. This does not mean, as has been maintained,[562] that neutrality is based on a contract concluded either expressis verbis or by unmistakable actions between the belligerents and third States, and that, consequently, a third State might at the outbreak of war take up the position of one which is neither neutral nor a party to the war, reserving thereby for itself freedom in its future resolutions and actions. Since the normal relation between members of the Family of Nations is peace, the outbreak of war between some of the members causes the others to become neutrals ipso facto by their taking up an attitude of impartiality and by their not being treated by the belligerents as parties to the war. Thus, it is not a contract that calls neutrality into existence, but this condition is rather a legal consequence of a certain attitude on the part of third States at the outbreak of war, on the one hand, and, on the other, on the part of the belligerents themselves.

III DIFFERENT KINDS OF NEUTRALITY

Vattel, III. §§ 101, 105, 107, 110—Phillimore, III. §§ 138-139—Halleck, II. p. 142—Taylor, § 618—Wheaton, §§ 413-425—Bluntschli, §§ 745-748—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 634-636—Ullmann, § 190—Despagnet, No. 685—Pradier-Fodéré, VIII. Nos. 3225-3231—Rivier, II. pp. 370-379—Calvo, IV. §§ 2592-2642—Fiore, III. Nos. 1542-1545—Mérignhac, pp. 347-349—Pillet, pp. 277-284—Kleen, I. §§ 6-22.

§ 300. The very first distinction to be made between different kinds of neutrality is that between perpetual or other neutrality. Perpetual or permanent is the neutrality of States which are neutralised by special treaties of the members of the Family of Nations, as at the present time that of Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxemburg. Apart from duties arising from the fact of their neutralisation which are to be performed in time of peace as well as in time of war, the duties and rights of neutrality are the same for neutralised as for other States. It must be specially observed that this concerns not only the obligation not to assist either belligerent, but likewise the obligation to prevent them from making use of the neutral territory for their military purposes. Thus, Switzerland in 1870 and 1871, during the Franco-German War, properly prevented the transport of troops, recruits, and war material of either belligerent over her territory, disarmed the French army which had saved itself by crossing the Swiss frontier, and detained the members of this army until the conclusion of peace.[563]

§ 301. The distinction between general and partial neutrality derives from the fact that a part of the territory of a State may be neutralised,[564] as are, for instance, the Ionian Islands of Corfu and Paxo, which are now a part of the territory of the Kingdom of Greece. Such State has the duty to remain always partially neutral—namely, as far as its neutralised part is concerned. In contradistinction to such partial neutrality, general neutrality is the neutrality of States no part of whose territory is neutralised by treaty.

§ 302. A third distinction is that between voluntary and conventional neutrality. Voluntary (or simple or natural) is the neutrality of such State as is not bound by a general or special treaty to remain neutral in a certain war. Neutrality is in most cases voluntary, and States whose neutrality is voluntary may at any time during the war give up their attitude of impartiality and take the part of either belligerent. On the other hand, the neutrality of such State as is by treaty bound to remain neutral in a war is conventional. Of course, the neutrality of neutralised States is in every case conventional. Yet not-neutralised States can likewise by treaty be obliged to remain neutral in a certain war, just as in other cases they can by treaty of alliance be compelled not to remain neutral, but to take the part of one of the belligerents.

§ 303. One speaks of an armed neutrality when a neutral State takes military measures for the purpose of defending its neutrality against possible or probable attempts of either belligerent to make use of the neutral territory. Thus, the neutrality of Switzerland during the Franco-German War was an armed neutrality. In another sense of the term, one speaks of an armed neutrality when neutral States take military measures for the purpose of defending the real or pretended rights of neutrals against threatening infringements on the part of either belligerent. The First and Second Armed Neutrality[565] of 1780 and 1800 were armed neutralities in the latter sense of the term.

§ 304. Treaties stipulating neutrality often stipulate a "benevolent" neutrality of the parties regarding a certain war. The term is likewise frequently used during diplomatic negotiations. However, at present there is no distinction between benevolent neutrality and neutrality pure and simple. The idea dates from earlier times, when the obligations imposed by neutrality were not so stringent, and neutral States could favour one of the belligerents in many ways without thereby violating their neutral attitude. If a State remained neutral in the then lax sense of the term, but otherwise favoured a belligerent, its neutrality was called benevolent.

§ 305. A distinction of great practical importance was in former times that between perfect, or absolute, and qualified, or imperfect, neutrality. The neutrality of a State was qualified if it remained neutral on the whole, but actively or passively, directly or indirectly, gave some kind of assistance to one of the belligerents in consequence of an obligation entered into by a treaty previous to the war, and not for the special war exclusively. On the other hand, a neutrality was termed perfect if a neutral State neither actively nor passively, and neither directly nor indirectly, favoured either belligerent. There is no doubt that in the eighteenth century, when it was recognised that a State could be considered neutral, although it was by a previous treaty bound to render more or less limited assistance to one of the belligerents, this distinction between neutrality perfect and qualified was justified. But during the second half of the nineteenth century it became controversial whether a so-called qualified neutrality was neutrality at all, and whether a State, which, in fulfilment of a treaty obligation, rendered some assistance to one of the belligerents, violated its neutrality. The majority of modern writers[566] maintained, correctly I think, that a State was either neutral or not, and that a State violated its neutrality in case it rendered any assistance whatever to one of the belligerents from any motive whatever. For this reason, a State which had entered into such obligations as those just mentioned would in time of war frequently be in a conflict of duties. For, in fulfilling its treaty obligations, it would frequently be obliged to violate its duty of neutrality, and vice versa. Several writers,[567] however, maintained that such fulfilment of treaty obligations would not contain a violation of neutrality. All doubt in the matter ought now to be removed, since article 2 of Convention V. of the Second Peace Conference categorically enacts that "belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a neutral Power troops or convoys either of munitions of war or of supplies." The principle at the back of this enactment no doubt is that a qualified neutrality has no longer any raison d'être, and that neutrality must in every case be perfect.[568]

§ 306. For the purpose of illustration the following instances of qualified neutrality may be mentioned:—

(1) By a treaty of amity and commerce concluded in 1778 between the United States of America and France, the former granted for the time of war to French privateers and their prizes the right of admission to American ports, and entered into the obligation not to admit the privateers of the enemies of France. When subsequently, in 1793, war was waged between England and France, and England complained of the admission of French privateers to American ports, the United States met the complaint by advancing their treaty obligations.[569]

(2) Denmark had by several treaties, especially by one of 1781, undertaken the obligation to furnish Russia with a certain number of men-of-war and troops. When, in 1788, during war between Russia and Sweden, Denmark fulfilled her obligations towards Russia, she nevertheless declared herself neutral. And although Sweden protested against the possibility of such qualified neutrality, she acquiesced in the fact and did not consider herself to be at war with Denmark.[570]

(3) In 1848, during war between Germany and Denmark, Great Britain, fulfilling a treaty obligation towards Denmark, prohibited the exportation of arms to Germany, whereas such exportation to Denmark remained undisturbed.[571]

(4) In 1900, during the South African War, Portugal, for the purpose of complying with a treaty obligation[572] towards Great Britain regarding the passage of British troops through Portuguese territory in South Africa, allowed such passage to an English force which had landed at Beira[573] and was destined for Rhodesia.

IV COMMENCEMENT AND END OF NEUTRALITY

Hall, § 207—Phillimore, I. §§ 392-392A, III. §§ 146-149—Taylor, §§ 610-611—Wheaton, §§ 437-439, and Dana's note 215—Heffter, § 145—Bonfils, Nos. 1445-1446—Despagnet, No. 689—Pradier-Fodéré, VIII. Nos. 3234-3237—Rivier, II. pp. 379-381—Martens, II. § 138—Kleen, I. §§ 5, 36-42.

§ 307. Since neutrality is an attitude of impartiality deliberately taken up by a State not implicated in a war, neutrality cannot begin before the outbreak of war becomes known. It is only then that third States can make up their minds whether or not they intend to remain neutral. They are supposed to remain neutral, and the duties deriving from neutrality are incumbent upon them so long as they do not expressis verbis or by unmistakable acts declare that they will be parties to the war. It had long been the usual practice on the part of belligerents to notify the outbreak of war to third States for the purpose of enabling them to take up the necessary attitude of impartiality, but such notification was not formerly in strict law necessary. The mere fact of the knowledge of the outbreak of war which had been obtained in any way gave a third State an opportunity of making up its mind regarding the attitude which it intended to take up, and, if it remained neutral, its neutrality was to be dated from the time of its knowledge of the outbreak of war. But it is apparent that an immediate notification of the war on the part of belligerents is of great importance, as thereby all doubt and controversy regarding the knowledge of the outbreak of war are excluded. For the fact must always be remembered that a neutral State may in no way be made responsible for acts of its own or of its subjects which have been performed before it knew of the war, although the outbreak of war might be expected. For this reason article 2 of Convention III. of the Second Peace Conference enacts that belligerents must without delay send a notification of the outbreak of war, which may even be made by telegraph, to neutral Powers, and that the condition of war shall not take effect in regard to neutral Powers until after receipt of a notification, unless it be established beyond doubt that they were in fact aware of the outbreak of war.[574]

§ 308. As civil war becomes real war through recognition of the insurgents as a belligerent Power, neutrality during a civil war begins for every foreign State from the moment recognition is granted. That recognition might be granted or refused by foreign States independently of the attitude of the legitimate Government has been stated above in § 298, where also an explanation is given of the consequences of recognition granted either by foreign States alone or by the legitimate Government alone.

§ 309. Neutrality being an attitude of States creating rights and duties, active measures on the part of a neutral state are required for the purpose of preventing its officials and subjects from committing acts incompatible with its duty of impartiality. Now, the manifesto by which a neutral State orders its organs and subjects to comply with the attitude of impartiality adopted by itself is called a declaration of neutrality in the special sense of the term. Such declaration of neutrality must not, however, be confounded, on the one hand, with manifestoes of the belligerents proclaiming to neutrals the rights and duties devolving upon them through neutrality, or, on the other hand, with the assertions made by neutrals to belligerents or urbi et orbi that they will remain neutral, although these manifestoes and assertions are often also called declarations of neutrality.[575]

§ 310. International Law leaves the provision of necessary measures for the establishment of neutrality to the discretion of each State. Since in constitutional States the powers of Governments are frequently so limited by Municipal Law that they may not take adequate measures without the consent of their Parliaments, and since it is, so far as International Law is concerned, no excuse for a Government if it is by its Municipal Law prevented from taking adequate measures, several States have once for all enacted so-called Neutrality Laws, which prescribe the attitude to be taken up by their officials and subjects in case the States concerned remain neutral in a war. These Neutrality Laws are latent in time of peace, but their provisions become operative ipso facto by the respective States making a declaration of neutrality to their officials and subjects.

§ 311. After the United States of America had on April 20, 1818, enacted[576] a Neutrality Law, Great Britain followed the example in 1819 with her Foreign Enlistment Act,[577] which was in force till 1870. As this Act did not give adequate powers to the Government, Parliament passed on August 9, 1870, a new Foreign Enlistment Act,[578] which is still in force. This Act, in the event of British neutrality, prohibits—(1) The enlistment by a British subject in the military or naval service of either belligerent, and similar acts (sections 4-7); (2) the building, equipping,[579] and despatching[580] of vessels for employment in the military or naval service of either belligerent (sections 8-9); (3) the increase, on the part of any individual living on British territory, of the armament of a man-of-war of either belligerent being at the time in a British port (section 10); (4) the preparing or fitting out of a naval or military expedition against a friendly State (section 11).

It must be specially observed that the British Foreign Enlistment Act goes beyond the requirements of International Law in so far as it tries to prohibit and penalises a number of acts which, according to the present rules of International Law, a neutral State is not required to prohibit and penalise. Thus, for instance, a neutral State need not prohibit its private subjects from enlisting in the service of a belligerent; from supplying coal, provisions, arms, and ammunition direct to a belligerent fleet, provided such fleet is not within or just outside the territorial waters of the neutral concerned; from selling ships to a belligerent although it is known that they will be converted into cruisers or used as transport ships. For article 7 of Convention VII. as well as of Convention XIII. of the Second Peace Conference categorically enacts that "a neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, on behalf of either belligerent, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet."

§ 312. Neutrality ends with the war, or through the commencement of war by a hitherto neutral State against one of the belligerents, or through one of the belligerents commencing war against a hitherto neutral State. Since, apart from a treaty obligation, no State has by International Law the duty to remain neutral in a war between other States,[581] or, if it is a belligerent, to allow a hitherto neutral State to remain neutral,[582] it does not constitute a violation of neutrality on the part of a hitherto neutral to declare war against one of the belligerents, and on the part of a belligerent to declare war against a neutral. Duties of neutrality exist so long only as a State remains neutral. They come to an end ipso facto by a hitherto neutral State throwing up its neutrality, or by a belligerent beginning war against a hitherto neutral State. But the ending of neutrality must not be confounded with violation of neutrality. Such violation does not ipso facto bring neutrality to an end, as will be shown below in § 358.

CHAPTER II RELATIONS BETWEEN BELLIGERENTS AND NEUTRALS

I RIGHTS AND DUTIES DERIVING FROM NEUTRALITY

Vattel, III. § 104—Hall, § 214—Phillimore, III. §§ 136-138—Twiss, II. § 216—Heffter, § 146—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 656-657—Gareis, § 88—Liszt, § 42—Ullmann, § 191—Bonfils, Nos. 1441-1444—Despagnet, Nos. 684 and 690—Rivier, II. pp. 381-385—Nys, III. pp. 582-639—Calvo, IV. §§ 2491-2493—Fiore, III. Nos. 1501, 1536-1540, and Code, Nos. 1776-1778, 1784—Martens, II. § 131—Kleen, I. §§ 45-46—Mérignhac, pp. 339-342—Pillet, pp. 273-275.

§ 313. Neutrality can be carried out only if neutrals as well as belligerents follow a certain line of conduct in their relations with one another. It is for this reason that from neutrality derive rights and duties, as well for belligerents as for neutrals, and that, consequently, neutrality can be violated as well by belligerents as by neutrals. These rights and duties are correspondent: the duties of neutrals correspond to the rights of either belligerent, and the duties of either belligerent correspond to the rights of the neutrals.

§ 314. There are two rights and two duties deriving from neutrality for neutrals, and likewise two for belligerents.

Duties of neutrals are, firstly, to act toward belligerents in accordance with their attitude of impartiality; and, secondly, to acquiesce in the exercise of either belligerent's right to punish neutral merchantmen for breach of blockade, carriage of contraband, and rendering unneutral service to the enemy, and, accordingly, to visit, search, and eventually capture them.

The duties of either belligerent are, firstly, to act towards neutrals in accordance with their attitude of impartiality; and, secondly, not to suppress their intercourse, and in especial their commerce, with the enemy.[583]

Either belligerent has a right to demand impartiality from neutrals, whereas, on the other hand, neutrals have a right to demand such behaviour from either belligerent as is in accordance with their attitude of impartiality. Neutrals have a right to demand that their intercourse, and in especial their commerce, with the enemy shall not be suppressed; whereas, on the other hand, either belligerent has the right to punish subjects of neutrals for breach of blockade, carriage of contraband, and unneutral service, and, accordingly, to visit, search, and capture neutral merchantmen.

§ 315. Some writers[584] maintain that no rights derive from neutrality for neutrals, and, consequently, no duties for belligerents, because everything which must be left undone by a belligerent regarding his relations with a neutral must likewise be left undone in time of peace. But this opinion has no foundation. Indeed, it is true that the majority of the acts which belligerents must leave undone in consequence of their duty to respect neutrality must likewise be left undone in time of peace in consequence of the territorial supremacy of every State. However, there are several acts which do not belong to this class—for instance, the non-appropriation of enemy goods on neutral vessels. And those acts which do belong to this class fall nevertheless at the same time under another category. Thus, a violation of neutral territory on the part of a belligerent for military and naval purposes of the war is indeed an act prohibited in time of peace, because every State has to respect the territorial supremacy of other States; but it is at the same time a violation of neutrality, and therefore totally different from other violations of foreign territorial supremacy. This becomes quite apparent when the true inwardness of such acts is regarded. For every State has a right to demand reparation for an ordinary violation of its territorial supremacy, but it need not take any notice of it, and it has no duty to demand reparation. Yet in case a violation of its territorial supremacy constitutes at the same time a violation of its neutrality, the neutral State has not only a right to demand reparation, but has a duty[585] to do so. For, if it did not, this would contain a violation of its duty of impartiality, because it would be favouring one belligerent to the detriment of the other.[586]