left undone in time of peace in consequence of the territorial supremacy of every State. However, there are several acts which do not belong to this class-for instance, the non-appropriation of enemy goods on neutral vessels. And those acts which do belong to this class fall nevertheless at the same time under another category. Thus, a violation of neutral territory on the part of 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 every State has a right to demand reparation for an ordinary violation of its territorial supremacy, but it has no duty to demand such reparation, it might not take any notice of it, or overlook it. Yet in case a violation of its territorial supremacy constitutes at the same time a violation of its neutrality, the neutral State has not only a right to demand reparation, but has a duty to do so. For, if it did not, this would contain a violation of its duty of impartiality, because it would be favouring one belligerent to the detriment of the other.1 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 every moment during the war neutrals could throw up neutrality and become parties to the war. With this opinion I cannot agree either. That a hitherto neutral can at any moment throw up neutrality and take part 1 See below, § 360. 2 Gareis, § 88; Ullmann, § 164. Contents of Duty of Impartiality. in the war, is just as true as that a belligerent can at any moment during the war declare war against a hitherto neutral State. Yet this only proves that there is no duty to remain neutral, and no duty for a belligerent to abstain from declaring war against a hitherto neutral State. This is a truism which ought not to be doubted, and is totally different from the question what duties derive from neutrality as long as a certain State remains neutral at all. The assertion that such duties derive from neutrality is in no way inconsistent with the fact that neutrality itself can at any moment during the war come to an end through the beginning of war by either a neutral or a belligerent. This assertion only states the fact that, as long as neutrals intend neutrality and as long as belligerents intend to recognise such neutrality of third States, duties derive from neutrality for both belligerents and neutrals. § 316. It has already been stated above, in § 294, that impartiality 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 neutrals for the purpose of preventing belligerents from making use of neutral territories and neutral resources for their military and naval purposes. But all this does not exhaust the contents of the duty of impartiality. It must, on the one hand, be added that according to the present strict conception of neutrality the duty of impartiality of a neutral excludes any 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 either belligerent. To-day this could no longer happen. And the majority of writers agree 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 duty of impartiality comprises to-day abstention from any active or passive co-operation with belligerents. On the other hand, it must be added that the duty of impartiality includes 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 not 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 that a neutral allows his subjects to supply in the ordinary way of trade either belligerent with arms and ammunition, 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.1 § 317. Although neutrality has already for centuries been recognised as an attitude of impartiality, growing more intense. Contents of Duty of Belligerents to treat in accord their Im partiality. it took two hundred years for the duty of impartiality to attain its present range and intensity. Now this continuous developement has by no means ceased. It is slowly and gradually going on, and there is no doubt that during the twentieth century the duty of impartiality will become much more intense than it is at present. The fact that the intensity of this duty is the result of gradual development bears upon many practical questions regarding the conduct of neutrals. It is therefore necessary to discuss the relations between neutrals and belligerents separately for the purpose of ascertaining what line of conduct must be followed by neutrals. The following sections of this chapter will therefore deal with-Neutrals and Military Operations (§§ 320-328); Neutrals and Military Preparations (§§ 329-335); Neutral Asylum to Soldiers and War Materials (§§ 336-341); Neutral Asylum to Naval Forces (§§ 342-348); Supplies and Loans to Belligerents (§§ 349-352); Services to Belligerents (§§ 353356). § 318. Whereas the relations between neutrals and belligerents require detailed discussion with regard to the duty of impartiality incumbent upon Neutrals neutrals, the contents of the duty of belligerents to ance with treat neutrals in accordance with their impartiality are so manifest as to dispense with elaborate treatment. Such duty Such duty excludes, first, any violation of neutral territory for military or naval purposes of the war; and, secondly, the appropriation of neutral goods, contraband excepted, on enemy vessels.1 On the other hand, such duty includes, first, due treatment of neutral diplomatic envoys accredited to the This is stipulated by the Declaration of Paris, 1856; see below, Appendix II. (p. 498). 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 unmolested the occupied territory. And such belligerent 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 have by being established on enemy territory acquired enemy character, they have nevertheless not lost the protection of their neutral home State.2 And such belligerent must, lastly, pay full damages in case he makes use of his right of angary 3 against neutral property transitorily on enemy territory. of Duty Inter between Enemy. $319. The duty of either belligerent not to Contents suppress intercourse of neutrals with the enemy not to requires no detailed discussion either. It is a duty suppress which is in accordance with the development of the course institution of neutrality. It is of special importance Neutrals with regard to commerce of subjects of neutrals with and the belligerents, since formerly attempts have frequently been made to intercept all neutral trade with the enemy. A consequence of the now recognised freedom of neutral commerce with either belligerent is the rule, enacted by the Declaration of Paris of 1856, that enemy goods, with the exception of contraband, on neutral vessels on the Open Sea or in enemy territorial waters cannot be appropriated by a belligerent. But the recognised freedom of The position of foreign envoys found by a belligerent on occupied enemy territory is not settled as regards details. But there is no doubt that a certain consideration is due to them, and that they must |