voluntary, and States whose neutrality is voluntary may at any time during the war give up their attitude of impartiality and take the part of either belligerent. On the other hand, the neutrality of such State as is by treaty bound to remain neutral in a war is conventional. Of course, the neutrality of neutralised States is in every case conventional. Yet not-neutralised States may likewise by treaty be obliged to remain neutral in a certain war, just as in other cases they may by treaty of alliance be obliged not to remain neutral, but to take the part of one of the belligerents. Neu § 303. One speaks of an armed neutrality when a Armed neutral State takes military measures for the purpose trality. of defending its neutrality against possible or probable attempts of one or either belligerent to make use of the neutral territory. Thus, the neutrality of Switzerland during the Franco-German War was an armed neutrality. In another sense of the term, one speaks of an armed neutrality when neutral States take military measures for the purpose of defending the real or pretended rights of neutrals against threatening infringements on the part of one or either belligerent. The First and Second Armed Neutrality of 1780 and 1800 were armed neutralities in the latter sense of the term. lent Neu. § 304. Treaties stipulating neutrality often stipu- Benevolate a "benevolent " neutrality of the parties regarding trality. a certain war. The term is likewise frequently used during diplomatic negotiations. However, at present there is no distinction between benevolent neutrality and neutrality pure and simple. The idea dates from former centuries, when the obligations imposed by neutrality were not so stringent and neutral States could favour one of the belligerents in many ways 1 See above, §§ 289 and 290. Perfect and Qualified Neutrality. without thereby violating their neutral attitude. If a State remained neutral in the then lax sense of the term, but otherwise favoured a belligerent, its neutrality was called benevolent. § 305. A distinction of great practical importance is that between perfect, or absolute, and qualified, or imperfect, neutrality. The neutrality is qualified of such State as remains neutral on the whole, but actively or passively, directly or indirectly, gives some kind of assistance to one of the belligerents in consequence of an obligation entered into by a treaty previous to the war and not for the special war exclusively. On the other hand, a neutrality is termed perfect when a neutral State neither actively nor passively, and neither directly nor indirectly, favours either belligerent. There is no doubt that in the eighteenth century, when it was recognised that a State could be considered neutral, although it was by a previous treaty bound to render more or less limited assistance to one of the belligerents, this distinction between neutrality perfect and qualified was justified. But nowadays it is controverted whether a so-called qualified neutrality is neutrality at all, and whether a State, which, in fulfilment of a treaty obligation, renders some assistance to one of the belligerents, violates its neutrality. The majority of modern writers maintain, correctly I think, that from the present condition of International Law a State is either neutral or not, and that a State violates its neutrality in case it renders any assistance what 1 See, for instance, Ullmann, $163; Despagnet, No. 673; Rivier, II. p. 378; Calvo, IV. § 2594; Taylor, 618; Fiore, III. No. 1541; Kleen, I. § 21; Hall, § 215 (see also Hall, § 219, concerning passage of troops). Phillimore, III. § 138, goes with the majority of publicists, but in § 139 he thinks that it would be too rigid to consider acts of "minor partiality which are the result of conventions previous to the war as violations of neutrality. Historical ever from any motive whatever to one of the belligerents. Consequently, a State which has entered into such obligations would in time of war frequently be in a conflict of duties. For in fulfilling its treaty obligations it would frequently be obliged to violate its duty of neutrality, and vice versa. Several writers,1 however, maintain that such fulfilment of treaty obligations would not contain a violation of neutrality.2 §306. For the purpose of illustration the following Some instances of qualified neutrality may be mentioned:- Examples (1) By a treaty of amity and commerce concluded of Qualiin 1778 between the United States of America and trality. France, the former granted for the time of war to French privateers and their prizes the right of admission to American ports, and entered into the obligation not to admit the privateers of the enemies of France. When subsequently, in 1793, war was waged between England and France, and England complained of the admission of French privateers to American ports, the United States met the complaint by advancing their treaty obligations.3 (2) Denmark had by several treaties, especially by one of 1781, undertaken the obligation to furnish Russia with a certain number of men-of-war and troops. When, in 1788, during war between Russia and Sweden, Denmark fulfilled her obligations towards Russia, she nevertheless declared herself neutral. And although Sweden protested against such possibility of qualified neutrality, she acquiesced in the fact and did not consider herself to be at war against Denmark.4 'See, for instance, Heffter, § 144; Manning, p. 225; Wheaton, §§ 425426; Bluntschli, § 746; Halleck, II. p. 142. 2 See above, § 77, where it has been pointed out that a neutral who takes up an attitude of quali fied neutrality may nowadays be 3 See Wheaton, § 425, and 4 See Phillimore, III. § 140. fied Neu (3) In 1848, during war between Germany and Denmark, Great Britain, fulfilling a treaty obligation towards Denmark, prohibited the exportation of arms to Germany, whereas such exportation to Denmark remained undisturbed.1 2 (4) In 1900, during the South African War, Portugal, for the purpose of complying with a treaty obligation towards Great Britain regarding the passage of British troops through Portuguese territory in South Africa, allowed such passage to an English force destined for Rhodesia and landed at Beira.3 Neutrality commences with Knowledge of the War. IV COMMENCEMENT AND END OF NEUTRALITY Hall, § 207-Phillimore, I. §§ 392-392A, III. §§ 146-149-Taylor, §§ 610-611-Wheaton, §§ 437-439, and Dana's note 215-Heffter, $ 145-Bonfils, Nos. 1445-1446-Despagnet, No. 674-Rivier, II. pp. 379-381-Martens, II. § 138-Kleen, I. §§ 5, 36-42. §307. Since neutrality is an attitude of impartiality deliberately taken up by a State not implicated in a war, neutrality cannot begin before the outbreak of war becomes known. It is only then that third States can make up their minds whether or not they intend to remain neutral. They are supposed to do this, and the duties deriving from neutrality are incumbent upon them as long as they do not expressis verbis or by unmistakeable acts declare that they will be parties to the war. It has become the usual practice on the part of belligerents to notify the outbreak of war 1 See Geffcken in Holtzendorff, (Martens, N.R.G., 2nd ser. XVIII. VI. p. 610, and Rivier, II. p. 379. 2 Article 11 of the treaty be. tween Great Britain and Portugal concerning the delimitation of spheres of influence in Africa. p. 185.) 3 See below, § 323, and Baty, International Law in South Africa (1900), p. 75. to third States for the purpose of enabling them to take up the necessary attitude of impartiality, but such notification is in strict law not necessary. The mere fact that a State gets in any way to know of the outbreak of war gives it opportunity to make up its mind regarding its intended attitude, and, if it remains neutral, its neutrality is to be dated from the time of its knowledge of the outbreak of war. But it is apparent that an immediate notification of the war on the part of belligerents is of great importance, as thereby all doubt and controversy regarding the knowledge of the outbreak of war are excluded. For it must be emphasised that a neutral State can in no way be made responsible for acts of its own or of its subjects which have been performed before it knew of the war, although the outbreak of war might be expected. mence in Civil § 308. As civil war becomes real war through re- Comcognition of the insurgents as a belligerent Power, ment of neutrality during a civil war begins for every foreign Neutrality State from the moment recognition is granted. That War. recognition might be granted or refused by foreign States independently of the attitude of the legitimate Government has been stated above in § 298, where also an explanation is given of the consequences of recognition granted either by foreign States alone or by the legitimate Government alone. ment of by Decla § 309. Neutrality being an attitude of States Establishcreating rights and duties, active measures on the part Neutrality of a neutral state are required for the purpose of pre- rations. venting its officials and subjects from committing acts incompatible with its duty of impartiality. Now, the manifesto by which a neutral State orders its organs and subjects to comply with the attitude of impartiality adopted by itself is called declaration or |