Rights and contested. men 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 belligerents are, in the first place, to act towards neutrals in accordance with their attitude of impartiality; and, secondly, not to suppress their intercourse, and in particular their commerce, with the enemy.1 1 Either belligerent has a right to demand impartiality from neutrals; 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 particular their commerce, with the enemy shall not be suppressed; on the other hand, either belligerent has a 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 2 maintain that no rights derive Duties of from neutrality for neutrals, and, consequently, no Neutrals 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. It is true indeed 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. But there are several acts which do not belong to this class-for instance, the non 1 All writers on International Law resolve the duty of impartiality incumbent upon neutrals and the duty of belligerents to act toward neutrals in accordance with their impartiality into many distinct duties. In this way quite a large catalogue of duties and corresponding rights is produced, and the whole matter is unnecessarily complicated. Heffter, § 149; Gareis, § 88; Heilborn, System, p. 341. appropriation of enemy goods on neutral vessels. And those acts which do belong to this class also fall at the same time under another category. Thus, a violation of neutral territory by 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 while every State has a right to demand reparation for an ordinary violation of its territorial supremacy, it need not take any notice of it, and it has no duty to demand reparation. But in case a violation of its territorial supremacy constitutes at the same time a violation of its neutrality, the neutral State not only has a right to demand reparation, but has a duty 1 to do so. For, if it did not, it would violate its duty of impartiality by favouring one belligerent to the detriment of the other.2 3 On the other hand, it has been asserted that, apart from conventional neutrality, from which treaty obligations arise, it is incorrect to speak of duties deriving from neutrality, since at any moment during the war neutrals can throw up neutrality and become parties to the war. This assertion is based on the erroneous doctrine that a neutral does not violate neutrality by abandoning his impartial attitude for no other reason than that it no longer serves his purpose to remain neutral. But even if that doctrine were correct, it 1 See, for instance, Article 3 of Hague Convention XIII. which enacts: 'When a ship has been captured in the territorial waters of a neutral Power, such Power must, if the prize is still within its jurisdiction, employ the means at its disposal to release the prize with its officers and crew, and to intern the prize crew. If the prize is not within the juris- 3 See Gareis, § 88. • See above, §§ 299, 312. Contents tiality. would not follow from it that, so long as a State remained neutral, no duties derived from neutrality. For to say that duties derive from neutrality only means that, so long as neutrals intend neutrality, and so long as belligerents intend to recognise that neutrality, duties derive from neutrality for both belligerents and neutrals. § 316. It has already been stated above,1 that imof Duty partiality excludes such assistance and succour to one of the belligerents as is detrimental to the other, and, further, such injuries to one of the belligerents as benefit the other, and that it includes active measures on the part of a neutral for the purpose of preventing belligerents from making use of neutral territories and neutral resources for their military and naval purposes, and of preventing either of them from interfering with his legitimate intercourse with the other. But all this does not exhaust the contents of the duty of impartiality. For, according to the present strict conception of neutrality, the duty of impartiality excludes in addition all facilities whatever for military and naval operations of the belligerents, even if granted to both belligerents alike. In former times assistance was not considered a violation of neutrality, provided it was given to both belligerents in the same way, and States were considered neutral although they allowed an equal number of their troops to fight on the side of each belligerent. To-day this could no longer happen. From Hague Conventions v. and XIII., which deal with neutrality in land and sea warfare respectively, it becomes quite apparent that any facility whatever directly concerning military or naval operations, even if it consists only in granting passage over neutral territory to belligerent forces, is illegal, although granted to both belligerents alike. The 1 § 294. duty of impartiality to-day comprises abstention from any active or passive co-operation with belligerents. Secondly, the duty of impartiality includes in addition the equal treatment of both belligerents regarding such facilities as do not directly concern military or naval operations, and which may, therefore, be granted or refused to belligerents according to the discretion of a neutral. If a neutral grants such facilities to one belligerent, he must grant them to the other in the same degree. If he refuses them to the one, he must likewise refuse them to the other. Thus, since it does not, according to the International Law of the present day, constitute a violation of neutrality for a neutral to allow his subjects to supply either belligerent with arms and ammunition in the ordinary way of trade, it would constitute a violation of neutrality to prohibit the export of arms destined for one of the belligerents only. Thus, further, if a neutral allows men-of-war of one of the belligerents to bring their prizes into neutral ports, he must grant the same facility to the other belligerent. growing intense § 317. Although neutrality has already for centuries Duty of Impartibeen recognised as an attitude of impartiality, it has ality contaken two hundred years for the duty of impartiality tinuously to attain its present range and intensity. This con- more tinuous development had by no means ceased, but was before the slowly and gradually going on when the World War World broke out. During that war the detailed rules concerning the relations between neutrals and belligerents which result from the duty of a neutral State to be impartial were put to proof, and it will be necessary to discuss them at greater length.2 1 See Articles 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 of Hague Convention v., and Articles 7, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21, 23 of Hague Convention XIII. 2 See below: Neutrals and Military Operations (§§ 320-328a); Neu trals and Military Preparations (§§ War. Contents of Duty to treat § 318. On the other hand, the contents of the duty of Belli of belligerents to treat neutrals in accordance with their gerents impartiality are so manifest that elaborate treatment Neutrals is unnecessary. This duty excludes, in the first place, ance with any violation of neutral territory for military or naval partiality. purposes of the war, and any interference with the in accord their Im legitimate intercourse of neutrals with the enemy; and, secondly, the appropriation of neutral goods, contraband excepted, on enemy vessels.2 On the other hand, it includes, in the first place, due treatment of neutral diplomatic envoys accredited to the enemy and found on occupied enemy territory; and, secondly, due treatment of neutral subjects and neutral property on enemy territory. A belligerent who conquers enemy territory must at least grant to neutral envoys accredited to the enemy the right to quit the occupied territory unmolested. He must likewise abstain from treating neutral subjects and property established on enemy territory more harshly than the laws of war allow; for, although neutral subjects and property, by being established on enemy territory, have acquired enemy character, nevertheless they have not lost the protection of their neutral home State. He must, lastly, pay full damages in case he exercises his right of angary against neutral property in course of transit through enemy territory. 5 § 319. The duty of each belligerent not to suppress intercourse between neutrals and the enemy requires no detailed discussion either. It is a duty which is in accordance with the development of the institution of 1 See Articles 1-4 of Hague Convention v., and Articles 1-5 of Hague Convention XIII. 2 This is stipulated by the Declaration of Paris of 1856. The position of foreign envoys found by a belligerent on occupied enemy territory is not settled as See above, § 88. |