No Cessa tercourse or carry analogous of contraband to the enemy; but the punishment is threatened and executed by the belligerents, not by International Law. Therefore, if neutral merchantmen commit such acts, they neither violate neutrality nor do they act against International Law, but they simply violate injunctions of the belligerents concerned. If they want to run the risk of punishment in the form of losing their property, this is their own concern, and their neutral home State need not prevent them from doing so. But to the right of belligerents to punish subjects of neutrals for the acts specified corresponds the duty of neutral States to acquiesce on their part in the exercise of this right by either belligerent. Moreover, apart from carriage of contraband, breach of blockade, and maritime transport to the enemy, which a belligerent can punish by capturing and confiscating the vessels or goods concerned, subjects of neutrals are perfectly unhindered in their movements, and neutral States have in especial no duty to prevent their subjects from selling arms, munitions, and provisions to a belligerent, from enlisting in his forces, and the like. § 297. Neutrality as an attitude of impartiality tion of In- involves the duty of assisting neither belligerent during either actively or passively, but it does not comprise Neutrality between the duty of breaking off all intercourse with the belliand Belligerents. Apart from certain restrictions necessitated gerents. by impartiality, all intercourse between belligerents Neutrals and neutrals takes place as before, a condition of peace prevailing between them in spite of the war between the belligerents. This applies particularly to the working of treaties, to diplomatic intercourse, and to trade. But indirectly, of course, the condition of 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 such territory bear 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. an Civil § 298. Since neutrality is an attitude during war, Neutrality the question arises as to the necessary attitude of Attitude foreign States during civil war. As civil war becomes War (Neuduring real war through recognition of the insurgents as a trality in belligerent Power, it is to be distinguished whether War). recognition has taken place or not. There is no doubt that a foreign State commits an international delinquency by assisting insurgents in spite of its being at peace with the legitimate Government. But matters are different after recognition. The insurgents are now a belligerent Power, and the civil war is now real war. Foreign States can either become a party to the war or remain neutral, and in the latter case all duties and rights of neutrality devolve upon them. Since, however, recognition can be granted by foreign States independently of the attitude of the legitimate Government, and since recognition granted by the latter is not at all binding upon foreign Governments, it may happen that insurgents are granted recognition on the part of the legitimate Government, whereas 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. Men-of-war of the latter can visit and See above, §§ 59 and 76, and Rougiers, Les guerres civiles et le VOL. II. droit des gens (1903), pp. 414-447. Y ligerents. search merchantmen of foreign States for contraband; a blockade declared by the legitimate Government is binding upon foreign States, 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, their men-of-war cannot visit and search merchantmen for contraband. On the other hand, if insurgents are recognised by a foreign State but not by the legitimate Government, such foreign State has all rights and duties of neutrality as far as the insurgents are concerned, but not as far as the legitimate Government is concerned.1 In practice, however, recognition of insurgents on the part of foreign States will, if really justified, always have the effect that the legitimate Government will no longer refuse recognition. Neutrality $299. Just as third States have no duty to remain to be recognised neutral in a war, so they have no right to demand by the Bel- to remain neutral. History reports many cases in which States, although they intended neutrality, were obliged by one or both belligerents to make up their minds and choose the belligerent with whom they must throw in their lot. For neutrality to come into existence it is, therefore, not sufficient that at the outbreak of war a third State takes up an attitude of impartiality, but it is also necessary that the belligerents recognise this attitude by acquiescing in it and by not treating such third State as a party to the 1 See the body of 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, in case 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 controverted, see Annuaire, XVIII. pp. 213–216. 2 But many writers assert the existence of such a right; see, for instance, Vattel, § 106; Wheaton, $414; Kleen, I. § 2. war. This does not mean, as has been maintained,1 that neutrality is based on a contract concluded either expressis verbis or by unmistakeable actions between the belligerents and third States, and that, consequently, a third State might at the outbreak of war take up the position of one which is neither neutral nor a party to the war, reserving thereby for itself the freedom of its future resolutions and actions. Since the normal relation between members of the Family of Nations is peace, the outbreak of war between some of the members has the effect that the others become neutrals ipso facto by their taking up an attitude of impartiality and by their not being treated by the belligerents as parties to the war. Thus, it is not a contract that calls neutrality into existence, but this condition is rather a legal consequence of a certain attitude at the outbreak of war on the part of third States, on the one hand, and, on the other, on the part of the belligerents themselves. III DIFFERENT KINDS OF NEUTRALITY Vattel, III. §§ 101, 105, 107, 110-Phillimore, III. §§ 138-139—Halleck, II. p. 142-Taylor, § 618-Wheaton, §§ 413-425-Bluntschli, $$ 745-748-Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 634-636-Ullmann, § 163-Despagnet, No. 673-Rivier, II. pp. 370-379-Calvo, IV. $ 2592-2642-Fiore, III. Nos. 1542-1545-Mérignhac, pp. 347349-Pillet, pp. 277-284-Kleen, I. §§ 6-22. § 300. The very first distinction to be made be- Perpetual tween different kinds of neutrality is that of perpetual trality. 1 See Heilborn, System, pp. 347 and 350. Neu General and Partial Neutrality. Voluntary and Con Neu and other neutrality. Perpetual or permanent is the neutrality of States which are neutralised by special treaties of the members of the Family of Nations, as at present Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Congo Free State. Apart from duties arising from the fact of their neutralisation and to be performed in time of peace as well as in time of war, the duties and rights of neutrality are the same for neutralised as for other States. It must be specially observed that this concerns not only the obligation not to assist either belligerent, but likewise the obligation to prevent them from making use of the neutral territory for their military purposes. Thus, Switzerland in 1870 and 1871, during the Franco-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 retained the members of this army until the conclusion of peace.' § 301. The distinction between general and partial neutrality derives from the fact that a part of the territory of a State may be neutralised, as are, for instance, the Ionian Islands, which are now a part of the territory of the Kingdom of Greece. Such State has the duty to remain always partially neutral— namely, as far as its neutralised part is concerned. In contradistinction to such partial neutrality, general neutrality is the neutrality of States whose territory is in no part neutralised. § 302. A third distinction is that between volunventional tary and conventional neutrality. Voluntary (or simple or natural) is the neutrality of such State as is not bound by a general or special treaty to remain neutral in a certain war. Neutrality is in most cases trality. |