of impartiality towards the belligerents; and each time war broke out in their vicinity, they took effectual military measures to prevent belligerents from using their neutral territory and resources.

(3) The third factor was the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which incorporated into International Law the rule 'free ship, free goods,' the rule that neutral goods on enemy ships cannot be appropriated, and the rule that blockades must be effective.

(4) The fourth factor was the general development of the military and naval resources of all members of the Family of Nations. As during the second half of the nineteenth century, all the larger States were obliged to keep their armies and navies in constant readiness for war, it followed that, whenever war broke out, each belligerent was anxious not to injure neutral States lest they should take the part of the enemy. On the other hand, neutral States were always anxious to fulfil the duties of neutrality for fear of being drawn into the war. Thus the general rule, that the development of International Law has been fostered by the interests of the members of the Family of Nations, applies also to neutrality. Unless it had been to the interest of belligerents to remain during war on good terms with neutrals, and to the interest of neutrals not to be drawn into war, the institution of neutrality would never have developed so favourably as it actually did during the nineteenth century.

in the

eth

§ 292. This development continued up to the out- Neubreak of the World War in 1914. The South African trality and Russo-Japanese Wars produced several incidents Twentiwhich gave occasion for the Second Hague Conference Century. of 1907 to bring neutrality within the range of its deliberations, and to agree upon Convention v. respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons

in War on Land,1 and Convention XIII. respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War.2 Moreover, some of the other conventions agreed upon at this conference, although they do not directly concern neutral Powers, are indirectly of great importance to them. Thus Convention VII. relative to the Conversion of Merchant-ships into War-ships indirectly concerns neutral trade as well as the Convention VIII. relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines, and Convention XI. relative to certain Restrictions on the Exercise of the Right of Capture. By Convention XII. the conference agreed upon the establishment of an International Prize Court to serve as a Court of Appeal from decisions of the Prize Courts of either belligerent which concerned the interests of neutral Powers or their subjects. But this convention secured no ratifications, and in order to find a basis of generally accepted prize law on which the proposed court might found its judgments, a Naval Conference of London met in 1908, and in 1909 produced the Declaration of London concerning the laws of naval war, which represented a code comprising rules respecting blockade, contraband, unneutral service, destruction of neutral prizes, transfer to neutral flag, enemy character, convoy, resistance to search and compensation.

During the Turco-Italian War, the first naval war

1 All the States represented at the conference signed this convention except China and Nicaragua, which acceded later, and at least twentythree States have ratified it. But Great Britain entered a reservation against Articles 16-18 (see above, § 88), and Argentina against Article 18, and Great Britain has not ratified. See above, vol. i. § 568a ; and Lémonon, pp. 407-425; Higgins, pp. 290-294; Boidin, pp. 121-134; Nippold, § 25; Scott, Conferences, pp. 541-555; Bustamante in A.J., ii. (1908), pp. 95-120.

This convention was signed by all the Powers represented at the conference, except the United States of America, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Spain; but the United States, China, and Nicaragua acceded later. At least twenty Powers have ratified, but there are a number of reservations. See above, vol. i. § 568a; and Lémonon, pp. 555-603; Higgins, pp. 457-483; Bernsten, § 13; Boidin, pp. 237-247; Dupuis, Guerre, Nos. 277-330; Nippold, § 34; Scott, Conferences, pp. 620-648; Hyde in A.J., ii. (1908), pp. 507-527.

fought after the declaration had been drawn up, both belligerents complied with it, although it had not been ratified by any Power, and Turkey was not even a signatory. When the World War came, the declaration was still unratified; but the United States of America at once invited both groups of belligerents to adopt it, although it had not become legally binding. Germany and Austria-Hungary agreed on condition that their enemies did the same; but Great Britain, France, and Russia were only prepared to adopt the declaration with certain modifications. This they in fact did during the first part of the war. Great Britain, for example, by an Order in Council of August 20, 1914,2 put the declaration into force, rejecting, however, its lists of contraband, and modifying its rules as to false papers,3 3 destination of contraband, and knowledge of the existence of a blockade.5 This order also directed the courts to regard the General Report of the Drafting Committee as an authoritative statement of the meaning and intention of the declaration. For the order of August 20, 1914, a new order was substituted on October 29, 1914. By this new order the declaration remained in force, but with additional modifications as to the carriage of contraband and without any direction as to the General Report. A further order of October 20, 1915,9 withdrew Article 57, which provided that the neutral or enemy character of a vessel was to be determined by the flag which she was entitled to fly; 10 and an order of March 30, 1916,11

1 Above, vol. i. § 50a; A.J., ix. (1915), Special Supplement, pp. 1-8.

2 The Declaration of London Order in Council (No. 1), 1914; London Gazette, August 21, 1914.

* See below, § 404.

4 See below, § 403a.

See below, § 384.

• See above, vol. i. § 554 (8).

7 The Declaration of London Order

in Council (No. 2), 1914; London Gazette, October 30, 1914.

8 See below, § 403a.

The Declaration of London Order in Council, 1915; London Gazette, October 26, 1915.

10 See above, § 89.

11 The Declaration of London Order in Council, 1916; London Gazette, March 31, 1916.

withdrew Article 19, relating to capture for breach of blockade,1 and made further modifications in the rules as to contraband.

This was the last of the Declaration of London Orders in Council. For by a joint memorandum of July 7, 1916,2 Great Britain and France notified the neutral Powers that, whereas at the beginning of the war the Allied Governments had adopted the declaration because it seemed to present in its main lines a statement of the rights and duties of belligerents based on the experience of previous naval wars, as the World War had developed it became clear that its rules, while not in all respects improving the safeguards afforded to neutrals, did not provide belligerents with the most effective means of exercising their admitted rights. These rules, they argued, could not stand the strain imposed by the test of rapidly changing conditions and tendencies which could not have been foreseen, and they had therefore come to the conclusion that they must confine themselves simply to applying the historic and admitted rules of the Law of Nations. In pursuance of this policy Great Britain, by the Maritime Rights Order in Council of July 7, 1916,3 withdrew all the Declaration of London Orders in Council, declared that she would exercise her belligerent rights at sea in strict accordance with the Law of Nations, and laid down four special rules with regard to contraband 4 and continuous voyage.5

From July 7, 1916, therefore, the Declaration of London was no longer applied, even in part, and it still remains unratified.6 Uncertainties in maritime

1 See below, § 385a.

2 Parl. Papers, Misc., No. 22 (1916), Cd. 8293; and above, vol. i. § 50a.

3 Ibid. and London Gazette, July 11, 1916.

See below, §§ 391-406a.

See below, §§ 385a, 403a.

6 For the arguments for and against ratification as they appeared before the World War, see Smith, International Law, 4th ed. (1911), pp. 353-371, and the literature cited above, vol. i. § 568b n.

law, which the declaration was intended to abolish, were before the war regarded as among the chief obstacles to the proposed International Prize Court, and as many uncertainties still exist to-day. There is, therefore, no hope of seeing that court established, unless another attempt to codify prize law proved to be more successful than the attempt made at the Naval Conference of London.

Apart from the fate of the Declaration of London, the World War wrought many changes in current conceptions of neutrality. All the Great Powers and very many others took part in the fighting, and among their war-tried peoples the view was widely held that a neutral shirks his share of the burden of humanity.' Such an attitude was natural enough in the circumstances, but may well disappear in years to come. More enduring perhaps will be the lesson then learned that in a protracted modern war the position of neutrals becomes hardly more tolerable than that of belligerents, while the increased value of neutral support, and the great efforts which the belligerents will make to obtain it, may make a policy of neutrality more difficult to follow. Moreover, it is now understood that to make neutrality easy is not necessarily to lessen the danger of war, because a State may be encouraged to begin hostilities by a conviction that its neighbours will stand aside.

Reflections such as these may have inspired Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which would abolish neutrality in all wars in which the League takes part. Accordingly, the institution of neutrality has entered upon a new phase, and might in future find a place only in wars waged apart from the League. Whether such wars will be many or few cannot yet be foretold.