of Governments are frequently so limited by Municipal Law that they may not take adequate measures without the consent of their parliaments, and since, so far as International Law is concerned, it is no excuse for a Government to plead that its Municipal Law prevents it 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 they 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. Enlist § 311. The United States of America enacted 1 a British Neutrality Law on April 20, 1818; Great Britain Foreign followed her example in 1819 by passing a Foreign ment Act. Enlistment Act,2 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,3 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 (§§ 4-7); (2) the building, equipping,4 1 Printed in Phillimore, i. pp. 667672. On the resolution of Congress of March 4, 1915, see A.J., ix. (1915), pp. 490-493. See also the Act 'to punish Acts of Interference with the Foreign Relations, the Neutrality, and the Foreign Commerce of the United States, etc.,' passed on June 15, 1917 (A.J., xi. (1917), Supplement, pp. 178-198). 2 59 Geo. iii. c. 69. 333 & 34 Vict. c. 90. See Sibley in the Law Magazine and Review, xxix. (1904), pp. 454-467, and xxx. (1905), pp. 37-53. According to § 30, the interpretation clause of the Act, 'equip. ping' includes the furnishing a ship with any tackle, apparel, furni It ture, provisions, arms, munitions, or and despatching 1 of vessels for employment in the military or naval service of either belligerent (§§ 8-9); (3) the increase by 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 (§ 10); (4) the preparing or fitting out of a naval or military expedition against a friendly State (§ 11). 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 that the fleet is not within, or just outside, the territorial waters of that neutral; or 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 v. and Article 7 of Convention XIII. categorically enact 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.' taken on board Welsh coal at Cardiff for the purpose of carrying it to the Russian fleet en route to the Far East. See below, § 350. 1 An interesting case occurred during the Russo-Japanese War. Messrs. Yarrow and Co., the shipbuilders, possessed a partly completed vessel, the Caroline, capable of being finally fitted up either as a yacht or as a torpedo boat. In September 1904 a Mr. Sinnet and the Hon. James Burke Roche called at their shipbuilding yard, bought the Caroline, and ordered her to be fitted up as a high-speed yacht. The required additions were finished on October 3. On October 6 the vessel left Messrs. Yarrow's yard and was navigated by a Captain Ryder, via Hamburg, to the Russian port of Libau, there to be altered into a torpedo boat. That 8 of the Foreign Enlistment Act applied to this case there is no doubt. But there is also no doubt that it was this Act, and not the rules of International Law, which required the prosecution of Messrs. Sinnet and Roche by the British Government. For, in International Law, the case was merely one of contraband. See below, $$ 321, 334, 397. Neutral ity. § 312. Neutrality ends with the war, or through a End of hitherto neutral State beginning war against one of the belligerents, or through one of the belligerents commencing war against a hitherto neutral State. But two classes of cases must be distinguished. There is, in the first place, the class of cases in which war breaks out between one of the belligerents and a hitherto neutral State, either (a) on account of a dispute not connected with the cause of the war then in progress, or (b) because the belligerent has violated fundamental rules of warfare, or (c) because either the belligerent or the neutral has committed a violation of neutrality so grave that the injured party considers it necessary to answer it by a declaration of war. In such and similar cases a declaration of war does not ipso facto constitute a violation of neutrality. There is, secondly, the class of cases in which war breaks out between one of the belligerents and a hitherto neutral State simply because it does not suit the belligerent any longer to recognise its impartial attitude, or because it does not suit the neutral to remain neutral any longer. For instance, a belligerent may desire to march troops through a neutral country, and the neutral will not permit this; or a neutral may desire to abandon neutrality although it can find no cause for war in the events which have occurred since it decided to remain neutral. In such cases a declaration of war ipso facto constitutes a violation of neutrality because, neutrality having previously come into existence in fact and in law, a neutral ought not to abandon it except for a reason not connected with the cause of the war in progress, nor ought a belligerent to draw the neutral into the war.1 1 See above, § 299. The doctrine propounded by me in the previous editions of this work that a belligerent has no duty to allow a hitherto neutral VOL. II. State to remain neutral, and that a neutral State has no duty to remain neutral, cannot be upheld in face of the modern development of the in2 D However this may be, duties of neutrality exist only so long as a State remains neutral. They come to an end ipso facto by a neutral State throwing up its neutrality, or by a belligerent beginning war against a hitherto neutral State. Yet the ending of neutrality must not be confounded with mere violation of neutrality. A mere violation does not ipso facto bring neutrality to an end.1 stitution of neutrality. Once a State has made up its mind to remain neutral and the belligerents have recognised such neutrality, neither party can, without violat ing neutrality, declare war in case it does not suit its purpose any longer to observe the duties deriving from neutrality. 1 See below, § 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, § 88Liszt, § 42-Ullmann, § 191-Bonfils, Nos. 1441-1444-Despagnet, Nos. 684 and 690-Rivier, ii. pp. 381-385-Nys, iii. pp. 560-625-Calvo, iv. S$ 2491-2493-Fiore, iii. Nos. 1501, 1536-1540, and Code, Nos. 17991801, 1807-Martens, ii. § 131-Kleen, i. §§ 45-46-Mérignhac, iii". pp. 512-516-Pillet, pp. 273-275. in general § 313. Neutrality can be carried out only if neutrals Conduct as well as belligerents follow a certain line of conduct of Neu in their relations with one another. It is for this reason trals and Belliger. that from neutrality derive rights and duties, for belli- ents. gerents as well as for neutrals, and that, consequently, neutrality can be violated by both belligerents and neutrals. These rights and duties are correlative :the duties of neutrals to the rights of the belligerents, and the duties of the belligerents to the rights of the neutrals. Rights and § 314. There are two rights and two duties deriving What from neutrality for neutrals, and likewise two for belligerents. Duties of Neutrals Belliger Duties of neutrals are, in the first place, to act toward and of belligerents in accordance with their attitude of impar- ents there tiality; and, secondly, to acquiesce in the exercise by are. either belligerent of the right to punish neutral merchant |