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 enemy 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. trality Attitude War (Neu Civil § 298. Since neutrality is an attitude during war, Neuthe question arises as to the necessary attitude of it an foreign States towards civil war. As civil war becomes during real war through recognition of the insurgents as a trality in belligerent Power, a distinction must be made between War). cases where recognition has taken place and those where it has not. There is no doubt that a foreign State commits an international delinquency by assisting insurgents in spite of being at peace with the legitimate Government. But matters are different after recognition. The insurgents are then a belligerent Power, and the civil war is then real war. Foreign States can either become a party to the war or remain neutral, and in the latter case all the 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 legitimate Government is not binding upon foreign Governments, it may happen that insurgents are granted recognition by the legitimate Government while foreign States refuse it, and vice versa.2 In the first case, the rights and duties of neutrality devolve upon foreign States as far as the legitimate Government is concerned. Its men-of-war may visit and search their merchantmen for contraband; 1 See above, §§ 59 and 76, and Rougier, Les Guerres civiles et le Droit des Gens (1903), pp. 414-447. Neutrality to be recognised by ligerents. a blockade declared by it is binding upon them, 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, and 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, that foreign State has all the rights and duties of neutrality so far as the insurgents are concerned, but not so far as the legitimate Government is concerned.1 In practice, however, recognition of insurgents by foreign States will, if really justified, always cause the legitimate Government to grant recognition also. § 299. Although third States have no duty to remain neutral when war breaks out,2 and may take up the cause of one of the belligerents, they have a right 3 to demand that neither belligerent should force them into war. A belligerent who, at the outbreak of war, refuses to recognise a third State as a neutral, does not indeed violate neutrality, because neutrality does not come into existence in fact and in law until both belligerents have acquiesced in the attitude of impartiality taken up by third States. For neutrality to come into being it is not sufficient that a third State should take up an attitude of impartiality; it is also necessary that both belligerents should recognise this attitude by acquiescing in it, and not forcing the would-be neutral 1 See the nine rules regarding the position of foreign States in case of an insurrection, adopted by the Institute of International Law at its meeting at Neuchâtel in 1900 (Annuaire, xviii. p. 227). The question whether, if foreign States refuse recognition to insurgents, although the legitimate Government has granted it, the legitimate Government has a right of visit and search for contraband, is controversial; see • The doctrine propounded by me in the previous editions of this work, and also by other writers, that third States have no right to demand to be neutral, cannot be upheld in face of the modern development of the institution of neutrality. to take part in the war.1 But the Law of Nations in its present development objects to a would-be neutral State being forced into war, and a belligerent who refuses to recognise it as neutral violates International Law, although not neutrality. But though the acquiescence of belligerents in the attitude of impartiality taken up by third States is necessary to bring neutrality into existence, this does not mean, as has been maintained, that neutrality is based on a contract concluded either expressis verbis, or by unmistakable actions, between both belligerents and third States, with the consequence that a third State might at the outbreak of war take up the position of being neither neutral nor a party to the war, and thereby reserve for itself freedom of action for the future. Since the normal relation between the members of the Family of Nations is peace, when war breaks out between some of the members, the others become neutrals ipso facto by taking up an attitude of impartiality and by not being treated by the belligerents as parties to the war. It is not a contract that calls neutrality into existence; it is rather the legal consequence of a certain attitude on the part of third States on the one hand, and the belligerents on the other, taken up at the outbreak of war. Once third States have taken up an attitude of impartiality and the belligerents have recognised it, neutrality exists in fact and in law, and belligerents as well as neutrals violate neutrality if they commit any act incompatible with it.3 Belligerents, therefore, violate it if at any time afterwards they declare war upon a neutral State just because it does not serve their 1 History records several cases in which States which intended to be neutral were compelled by one or both belligerents to throw in their lot with one or the other. 350. See Heilborn, System, pp. 347, 3 See above, § 293, and below, § 312. Perpetual Neutrality. purpose any longer to acquiesce in its neutrality. Likewise, a neutral violates neutrality if at any time afterwards he declares war upon a belligerent just because it does not suit his purpose any longer to remain neutral. Yet, although in such cases a declaration of war is ipso facto a violation of neutrality, neutrality is nevertheless thereby brought to an end, and thenceforth the former neutral is a belligerent with all the rights granted to him and all the duties imposed upon him by International Law.1 III DIFFERENT KINDS OF NEUTRALITY Vattel, iii. §§ 101, 105, 107, 110-Westlake, ii. pp. 206-207-Phillimore, iii. §§ 138-139-Halleck, ii. p. 142-Taylor, § 618-Wheaton, §§ 413-425Bluntschli, §§ 745-748-Geffcken in Holtzendorff, iv. pp. 634-636Ullmann, § 190-Despagnet, Nos. 685, 686-Pradier-Fodéré, viii. Nos. 3225-3231-Rivier, ii. pp. 376-379-Calvo, iv. §§ 2592-2642-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1542-1545—Mérignhac, iii“. 509-512-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 neutrality and other neutrality. Perpetual or permanent neutrality is the neutrality of States which are neutralised by special treaties of the members of the Family of Nations, as at the present time is Switzerland. Apart from the duties arising from their neutralisation which are to be performed in time of peace as well as in war, the duties and rights of neutrality are the same for them as for other States. This applies not only to the obligation not to assist either belligerent, but also to the obligation to prevent both from using the neutral territory for their military purposes. Thus, Switzerland in 1870 and 1871, during the Franco 1 The assertion that a declaration of war which is ipso facto a violation of International Law is not operative, has been refuted above, § 61. 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 its members until the conclusion of peace.1 and trality. § 301. The next distinction is between general and General partial neutrality which derives from the fact that a Partial part of the territory of a State may be neutralised,2 as Neuare, for instance, the Ionian Islands of Corfu and Paxo, which are part of the territory of Greece. Such a State has a duty always to remain partially neutralnamely, as far as its neutralised part is concerned. General neutrality, on the other hand, is the neutrality of States no part of whose territory is neutralised by treaty. tary and Neu § 302. A third distinction is that between voluntary Volun and conventional neutrality. Voluntary (or simple or Conven natural) is the neutrality of a State which is not bound tional by a general or special treaty to remain neutral in a trality. certain war. Neutrality is in most cases voluntary. On the other hand, the neutrality of a State by treaty bound to remain neutral in a war is conventional. Of course, the neutrality of neutralised States is in every case conventional; States which are not neutralised can also be obliged by treaty to remain neutral in a particular war, just as they can by treaty of alliance be obliged not to remain neutral, but to take the part of one of the belligerents. Neu § 303. One speaks of an armed neutrality when a Armed neutral State takes military measures for the purpose trality. of defending its neutrality against possible or probable attempts by either belligerent to make use of the neutral territory. Thus, the neutrality of Switzerland during the Franco-German War was an armed neutrality. The 1 See below, § 339. 2 See above, § 72. As to the occupation of Corfu by the Allies |