concluded which stipulated immunity from visit and search of neutral merchantmen under convoy. But Great Britain refused to recognise the principle, and when, in July 1800, a British squadron captured a Danish man-of-war and her convoy of several merchantmen for having resisted visit and search, Russia invited Sweden, Denmark, and Prussia to renew the "Armed Neutrality," and to add to its principles the further one, that belligerents should not have a right of visit and search in case the commanding officer of the man-of-war, under whose convoy neutral merchantmen are sailing, should declare that the convoyed vessels do not carry contraband of war. In December 1800 Russia concluded treaties with Sweden, Denmark, and Prussia consecutively, by which the "Second Armed Neutrality" became a fact. But it lasted only a year through the assassination of the Emperor Paul of Russia on March 23, and the defeat of the Danish fleet by Nelson on April 2, 1801, in the battle of Copenhagen. Nevertheless, the Second Armed Neutrality proved likewise of importance, for it led to a compromise in the "Maritime Convention " concluded by England and Russia under the Emperor Alexander I. on June 17, 1801, at St. Petersburg.2 By article 3 of this treaty, England recognised, as far as Russia is concerned, the rules that neutral vessels may navigate from port to port and on the coasts of belligerents, and that blockades must be effective. But in the same article 3 England enforced recognition by Russia of the rule that enemy goods on neutral vessels may be seized, and she did not recognise the immunity of neutral vessels under convoy from visit

1 Martens, R., VII. pp. 127-171. IV. pp. 218-302. See also Martens, Causes Célèbres,

2 Martens, R., VII. p. 260.

and search, although, by article 4, she conceded that the right of visit and search should be exercised only by men-of-war, and not by privateers, in case the neutral vessels concerned sail under convoy.

But this compromise did not last long. When in November 1807 war broke out between Russia and England, the former annulled in her declaration of war1 the Maritime Convention of 1801, proclaimed again the principles of the First Armed Neutrality, and asserted that she would never drop these principles again. Great Britain proclaimed in her counter-declaration 2 her return to those principles against which the First and the Second Armed Neutrality were directed, and she was able to point out that no other Power had applied these principles more severely than Russia under the Empress Catharine II. after the latter had initiated the First Armed Neutrality.

Thus all progress made by the Maritime Convention of 1801 fell to the ground. Times were not favourable to any progress. After Napoleon's Berlin decrees in 1806 ordering the boycott of all English goods, England declared all French ports and all the ports of the allies of France blockaded, and ordered her fleet to capture all ships destined to these ports. And Russia, which had in her declaration of war against England in 1807 solemnly asserted that she would never again drop the principles of the First Armed Neutrality, by article 2 of the Ukase 3 published on August 1, 1809, violated one of the most important of these principles in ordering that neutral vessels carrying enemy (English) goods were to be stopped and the enemy goods seized, and the

1 Martens, R., VIII. p. 706. 2 Martens, R., VIII. p. 710.

3 Martens, N.R., I. p. 484. ·

during the

vessels themselves seized if more than the half of their

cargoes consisted of enemy goods.

Neutrality § 291. The development of the rules of neutrality during the nineteenth century is caused by four factors.

Nineteenth Century.

(1) The most prominent and influential factor is the attitude of the United States of America towards neutrality from 1793 to 1818. When in 1793 England joined the war which had broken out in 1792 between the so-called First Coalition and France, Genêt, the French diplomatic envoy accredited to the United States, granted Letters of Marque to American merchantmen manned by American citizens in American ports. These privateers were destined to cruise against English vessels, and French Prize Courts were set up by the French Minister in connection with French consulates in American ports. On the complaint of Great Britain, the Government of the United States ordered these privateers to be disarmed and the French Prize Courts to be disorganised. As the trial of Gideon Henfield, who was acquitted, proved that the Municipal Law of the United States did not prohibit the enlistment of American citizens in the service of a foreign belligerent, Congress in 1794 passed an Act forbidding temporarily American citizens to accept Letters of Marque from a foreign belligerent and to enlist in the army or navy of a foreign State, and forbidding the fitting out and arming of vessels intended as privateers for foreign belligerents. Other Acts were passed from time to time. Finally, on April 20, 1818, Congress Congress passed the Foreign Enlistment Act, which deals definitely with the

matter, and is still in force,1 and afforded the basis of the British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819. The example of the United States initiated the present practice, according to which it is the duty of neutrals to prevent the fitting out and arming on their territory of cruisers for belligerents, to prevent enlistment on their territory for belligerents, and the like.

(2) Of great importance for the development of neutrality during the nineteenth century became the permanent neutralisation of Switzerland and Belgium. These States naturally adopted and retained throughout every war an exemplary attitude of impartiality towards either belligerent. And each time when war broke out in their vicinity they took effectual military measures for the purpose of preventing belligerents from making use of their neutral territory and resources.

(3) The third factor is 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 blockade must be effective.

(4) The fourth and last factor is the general development of the military and naval resources of all members of the Family of Nations. As every big State was, during the second half of the nineteenth century, always obliged to keep its army and navy at every moment ready for war, in consequence, whenever war broke out, each belligerent was always anxious not to hurt neutral States in order to avoid their taking the part of the enemy. On the other hand, neutral States were always anxious to fulfil the

1 See Wheaton, §§ 434-437; Taylor, § 610; Lawrence, § 244.

in the

Century.

war.

duties of neutrality for fear of being dragged into the 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 the special case of neutrality. But for the interest of belligerents to remain during the war on good terms with neutrals, and but for the interest of the neutrals not to be dragged into the war, the institution of neutrality would never have developed so favourably as it actually has done during the nineteenth century.

Neutrality § 292. After only five years of the twentieth cenTwentieth tury have elapsed, it is difficult to say what factors will influence the development of International Law concerning neutrality during this century, and what direction this development will take. But there is no doubt that the Russo-Japanese War has produced several incidents which show that an agreement of the Powers concerning many points of neutrality is absolutely necessary. And it is to be hoped that the "wish" of the Final Act of the Hague Peace Conference-it is only one of the six there expressed"that the question of the rights and duties of neutrals may be inserted in the programme of a Conference in the near future" will soon be fulfilled. The questions for discussion and settlement at such a Conference are enumerated and arranged by Professor Holland in the following list: 1

(1) Are subsidised liners within the prohibition of the sale to a belligerent by a neutral Government of ships of war?

2) Is a neutral Government bound to interfere

1 See Holland, Neutral Duties in the Proceedings of the British a Maritime War, as illustrated by Academy, vol. II. recent events (1905), p. 15. From