CHAPTER I ON NEUTRALITY IN GENERAL I DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTITUTION OF NEUTRALITY Hall, §§ 208-214-Lawrence, § 223-Westlake, ii. pp. 198-206-Phillimore, iii. §§ 161-226-Twiss, ii. §§ 208-212-Hershey, No. 446-Taylor, §§ 596613-Walker, History, pp. 195-202, and Science, pp. 374-387-Geffcken in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 614-634-Ullmann, § 190-Bonfils, Nos. 14941521-Despagnet, No. 687-Rivier, ii. pp. 370-375—Nys, iii. pp. 535546-Calvo, iv. §§ 2494-2591-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1503-1535-Martens, ii. § 130-Dupuis, Nos. 302-307-Mérignhac, iii. p. 495-Boeck, Nos. 8-153—Kleen, i. pp. 1-70-Cauchy, Le Droit maritime international (1862), ii. pp. 232-439-Gessner, pp. 1-69-Bergbohm, Die bewaffnete Neutralität 1780-1783 (1884)-Fauchille, La Diplomatie française et la Ligue des Neutres 1780 (1893)-Schweizer, Geschichte der schweizerischen Neutralität (1895), i. pp. 10-72—Boye, De Vaebnede Neutralitetsforbund (1912)-Wehberg, § 2-Pyke, The Law of Contraband (1915), pp. 20-88 -Piggott and Ormond, Documentary History of the Armed Neutralities (1919)-Roxburgh in the Journal of Comparative Legislation, 3rd Ser. i. p. 17. Times. § 285. Since in antiquity there was no notion of an NeutralInternational Law,1it is not to be expected that neutrality ity not practised as a legal institution should have existed among the in Ancient nations of old. Neutrality did not exist even in practice, for belligerents never recognised an attitude of impartiality on the part of other States. If war broke out between two nations, third parties had to choose between the belligerents, and become allies or enemies of one or other. This does not mean that third parties had actually to take part in the fighting. Nothing of the kind was the case. But they had, if necessary, 1 See above, vol. i. § 37. Neutrality during the Middle Ages. to render assistance; for example, to allow the passage of belligerent forces through their country, to supply provisions and the like to the party they favoured, and to deny all such assistance to the enemy. Several instances are known of efforts 1 on the part of third parties to take up an attitude of impartiality; but belligerents never recognised such impartiality. § 286. During the Middle Ages matters only changed to the extent that, in the latter part of this period, belligerents did not exactly force third parties to a choice; legal duties and rights connected with neutrality did not exist. A State could maintain that it was no party to a war, although it furnished one of the belligerents with money, troops, and other kinds of assistance. To prevent such assistance, which was in no way considered illegal, treaties were frequently concluded, during the latter part of the Middle Ages, specially stipulating that neither party was to assist the enemies of the other in any way during time of war, or allow his subjects to do so.2 Through the influence of such treaties, the difference between real and feigned impartiality of third States during war became recognised; and neutrality, as an institution of International Law, gradually developed during the sixteenth century. It was of great importance that the Swiss Confederation from the end of the sixteenth century adopted 1 See Geffcken in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 614-615. The collection of rules and customs of maritime law which goes under the name of the Consolato del Mare made its appearance about the middle of the fourteenth century. One of its rules, i.e. that in time of war enemy goods on neutral vessels might be confiscated, but that, on the other hand, neutral goods on enemy vessels must be restored, became of great importance, since Great Britain acted accordingly from the beginning of the eighteenth century until the outbreak of the Crimean War in 1854. See above, § 176. 3 See 'Neutrality and Neutralisation in the Sixteenth CenturyLiége,' by W. S. M. Knight (Journ. Comp. Leg., 3rd Ser. ii. p. 98), and Neutrality of the Channel Islands during the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries,' by E. T. Nicolle (Journ. Comp. Leg., 3rd Ser. ii. p. 238). |