with the use of its territory for the maintenance of belligerent communications by wireless telegraphy? (3) To prevent the exit of even partially equipped war-ships? (4) To prevent, with more care than has hitherto been customary, the exportation of supplies, especially of coal, to belligerent fleets at sea ? (5) By what specific precautions must a neutral prevent abuse of the "asylum" afforded by its ports to belligerent ships of war ?-with especial reference to the bringing in of prizes, duration of stay, consequences of over-prolonged stay, the simultaneous presence of vessels of mutually hostile nationalities, repairs and approvisionment during stay, and, in particular, renewal of stocks of coal. (6) Interruption of safe navigation over territorial waters and the High Seas respectively? (7) The distance from the scene of operations at which the right of visit may be properly exercised? (8) The protection from the exercise of this right afforded by the presence of neutral convoy? (9) The time and place at which so-called "volunteer" fleets and subsidised liners may exchange the mercantile for a naval character? (10) Immunity for mail ships, or their mail bags ? (11) The requirement of actual warning to blockade-runners, and the application to blockade of the doctrine of "Continuous Voyages"? (12) The distinction between "absolute" and "conditional" contraband, with especial reference to food and coal? (13) The doctrine of "Continuous Voyages" with reference to contraband? (14) The cases, if any, in which a neutral prize may lawfully be sunk at sea, instead of being brought in for adjudication? (15) The due constitution of Prize Courts ? (16) The legitimacy of a rule condemning the ship herself, when more than a certain proportion of her cargo is of a contraband character? Conception of Neutrality. II CHARACTERISTICS OF NEUTRALITY Grotius, III. c. 17, § 3-Bynkershoek, Quaest. jur. publ. I. c. 9—Vattel, III. §§ 103-104-Hall, §§ 19-20-Lawrence, § 243-Phillimore, III. §§ 136-137-Halleck, II. p. 141-Taylor, § 614-Walker, § 54— Wheaton, $412-Bluntschli, §§ 742-744-Heffter, § 144-Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 605-606-Gareis, § 87-Liszt, § 42Ullmann, § 162-Bonfils, Nos. 1441 and 1443-Despagnet, No. 675 -Rivier, II. pp. 368-370-Calvo, IV. §§ 2491-2493-Fiore, III. Nos. 1536-1541-Martens, II. § 129—Dupuis, No. 316—Mérignhac, pp. 349-351-Pillet, pp. 272-274-Heilborn, System, pp. 336-351 -Perels, § 38-Testa, pp. 167-172—Kleen, I. §§ 1-4-Hautefeuille, I. pp. 195-200-Gessner, pp. 22-23-Schopfer, "Le principe juridique de la neutralité et son évolution dans l'histoire de la guerre" (1894). § 293. Such States as do not take part in a war between other States are neutrals. The term "neutrality" derives from the Latin neuter. Neutrality may be defined as the attitude of impartiality towards belligerents adopted by third States and recognised by belligerents, such attitude creating rights and duties between the impartial States and the belligerents. Whether or not a third State will adopt and preserve an attitude of impartiality during war 1 Grotius (III. c. 17) calls them c. 9) non hostes qui neutrarum medii in bello; Bynkershoek (I. partium sunt. is not a matter of International Law, but of International Politics. Therefore, unless a previous treaty stipulates it expressly, no duty exists for a State, according to International Law, to remain neutral in war. On the other hand, it ought not to be maintained, although this is done by some writers,1 that every State has by the Law of Nations a right not to remain neutral. The fact is that every Sovereign State, as an independent member of the Family of Nations, is master of its own resolutions, and that the question of remaining neutral or not is, in absence of a treaty stipulating otherwise, one of policy and not of law. However, all such States are supposed to be neutral as do not expressly declare the contrary by word or action, and the rights and duties arising from neutrality come into and remain in existence through the mere fact that a State takes up and preserves an attitude of impartiality and is not dragged into the war by the belligerents themselves. A special assertion of intention to remain neutral is, therefore, legally not necessary on the part of neutral States, although they often expressly and formally proclaim" their neutrality. an Atti $294. Since neutrality is an attitude of impar- Neutrality tiality, it excludes such assistance and succour to one tude of of the belligerents as is detrimental to the other, and, Imparti ality. further, such injuries to the one as benefit the other. But it requires, on the other hand, active measures from neutral States. For neutrals must prevent belligerents from making use of their neutral territories and of their resources for military and naval purposes during the war. This concerns not only actual fighting on neutral territories, but also transport of troops, war materials, and provisions for the 1 See, for instance, Bonfils, No. 1443. 2 See below, § 309. 7 Neutrality an Atti tude creat and troops, the fitting out of men-of-war and privateers, the activity of Prize Courts, and the like. But it must be specially observed that the necessary attitude of impartiality is not incompatible with sympathy with one and antipathy against the other belligerent, as long as such sympathy and antipathy are not realised in actions violating impartiality. Thus, not only public opinion and the Press of a neutral State, but also the Government, may show their sympathy to one party or another without thereby violating neutrality. And it must likewise be specially observed that acts of humanity on the part of neutrals and their subjects, such as the sending of doctors, medicine, provisions, dressing material, and the like, to military hospitals, and the sending of clothes and money to prisoners of war, can never be construed as acts of partiality, although these comforts are provided to the wounded and the prisoners of one of the belligerents only. § 295. Since neutrality is an attitude during the condition of war only, this attitude calls into exising Rights tence special rights and duties which do not generally obtain. They come into existence with the knowledge of the outbreak of war between two States, third States taking up the attitude of impartiality, and they expire ipso facto by the termination of the Duties. war. Rights and duties deriving from neutrality do not exist before the outbreak of war, although such outbreak may be expected every moment. Even socalled neutralised States, as Switzerland and Belgium, have during time of peace no duties connected with neutrality, although as neutralised States they have even in time of peace certain duties. These duties are not duties connected with neutrality, but duties imposed upon the neutralised States as a condition of their neutralisation. They contain restrictions for the purpose of safeguarding the neutralised States from being dragged into war.1 an Atti States. § 296. As International Law is a law between Neutrality States only and exclusively, neutrality is an attitude tude of of impartiality on the part of States, and not on the part of individuals.2 Individuals derive neither rights nor duties, according to International Law, from the neutrality of those States whose subjects they are. Neutral States are indeed obliged by International Law to prevent their subjects from committing certain acts, but the duty of these subjects to comply with such injunctions of their Sovereigns is a duty imposed upon them by Municipal, not by International Law. Belligerents, on the other hand, are indeed permitted by International Law to punish subjects of neutrals for breach of blockade, and for carriage of contraband and of analogous of contraband to the enemy; but the duty of subjects of neutrals to comply with these injunctions of belligerents is a duty imposed upon them by these very injunctions of the belligerents, and not by International Law. Although as a rule a State has no jurisdiction over foreign subjects on the Open Sea,3 either belligerent has, exceptionally, by International Law, the right to punish foreign subjects with confiscation of cargo, and eventually of the vessel itself, in case their vessels break the blockade, carry contraband, 1 See above, Vol. I. § 96. 2 It should be specially observed that it is an inaccuracy of language to speak (as is commonly done in certain cases) of individuals as being neutral. Thus, article 2 of the Geneva Convention speaks of persons employed in hospitals as participating in the benefit of 3 See above, Vol. I. § 146. |