1 German War, could not prevent hundreds of French soldiers, who after the capitulation of Metz fled into her territory, from rejoining the French forces, because, according to the condition of her neutralisation, she is not allowed to keep an army, and therefore, in contradistinction to Switzerland and Belgium, was unable to mobilise troops for the purpose of fulfilling her duty of impartiality. Fugitive § 339. On occasions during war large bodies of Neutral Territory troops, or even a whole army, are obliged to cross and the neutral frontier for the purpose of escaping Troops. captivity. A neutral need not permit this, and can repulse them on the spot, but he can also grant asylum. It is, however, obvious that the presence of such troops on neutral territory is a danger for the other party. The duty of impartiality incumbent upon a neutral obliges him, therefore, to disarm such troops at once, and to guard them so as to insure their not again performing military acts during the war against the enemy. Article 57 of the Hague Regulations enacts now :-"A neutral who receives in his territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall detain them, if possible, at some distance from the theatre of war. He can keep them in camps, and even confine them in fortresses or localities assigned for the purpose. He shall decide whether officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole that they will not leave the neutral, territory without authorisation." It is usual for troops who are not actually pursued by the enemy, so that they have no time for it, to enter through their commander into a convention with the representative of the neutral concerned, stipulating the conditions upon which they cross the 1 See above, vol. I. § 100. frontier and give themselves into the custody of the neutral. Such conventions are valid without needing ratification, provided they contain only such stipulations as do not disagree with International Law and as concern only the requirements of the case. Failing such a convention, article 58 of the Hague Convention enacts now that the neutral must supply the detained troops with food, clothing, and relief required by humanity, the expenses to be paid by the home State at the conclusion of the war. It must be specially observed that, although the detained troops are not prisoners of war captured by the neutral, they are nevertheless in his custody, and therefore under his disciplinary power, just as prisoners of war are under the disciplinary power of the State which keeps them in captivity. They do not enjoy the exterritoriality—see above, vol. I. § 445 -due to armed forces abroad because they are disarmed. As the neutral is required to prevent them from escaping, he must apply stern measures, and he can punish severely every member of the detained force who attempts to frustrate such measures or does not comply with the disciplinary rules regarding order, sanitation, and the like. The most remarkable instance known in history is the asylum granted during the Franco-German War by Switzerland to a French army of 85,000 men with 10,000 horses crossing the frontier on February 1, 1871.1 France had, after the conclusion of the war, to pay about eleven million francs for the maintenance of this army in Switzerland during the rest of the war. 1 See the Convention regarding this asylum between the Swiss General Herzog and the French General Clinchant in Martens, Members § 340. The duty of impartiality incumbent upon Neutral a neutral obliges him to detain in the same way as and NonTerritory soldiers such non-combatant1 members of belligerent combatant forces as cross his frontier. He can, however, not of Belliretain army surgeons and other non-combatants who gerent are privileged according to article 2 of the Geneva Convention. Forces. Territory of Belli § 341. It happens during war that war material Neutral belonging to one of the belligerents is brought into and War neutral territory for the purpose of saving it from Material capture by the enemy. Such war material may be gerents. brought by troops crossing the neutral frontier for the purpose of evading captivity, or it may be purposely sent there by order of a commander. Now, a neutral is not at all obliged to admit such material, just as he is not obliged to admit soldiers of belligerents. But if he admits it, his duty of impartiality obliges him to seize and detain it till after the conclusion of peace. War material includes, besides arms, ammunition, provisions, horses, means of military transport such as carts and the like, and everything else that belongs to the equipment of troops. But means of military transport belong to war material only so far as they are the property of a belligerent. If they are hired or requisitioned from private individuals, they cannot be detained by the neutral. It likewise happens during war that war material originally the property of one of the belligerents but seized and appropriated by the enemy is brought by the latter into neutral territory. Does such material, through coming into neutral territory, become free, and must it be restored to its original owner, or must it be retained by the neutral and after the war 1 See Heilborn, Rechte, pp. 43-46. be restored to the belligerent who brought it into the Asylum to Naval Contra distinc V NEUTRAL ASYLUM TO NAVAL FORCES Vattel, III. § 132-Hall, § 231-Twiss, II. § 222-Halleck, II. p. 151— § 342. Whereas asylum granted to land forces and Forces in single members of them by a neutral is conditioned by the obligation of the neutral to disarm such forces and to detain them for the purpose of preventing them from partaking in further military operations, a neutral can grant asylum to men-of-war of belli tion to Asylum to Land Forces. 1 See Hall, § 226. 2 See Heilborn, Rechte, p. 60. Heilborn (pp. 61-65) also discusses the question whether a neutral can claim a lien over war material brought into his territory for expenses incurred for the maintenance of detained troops belonging to the owner of the war material. gerents without being obliged to disarm and detain them. The reason is that the sea is considered an international highway, that the ports of all nations serve more or less the interests of international traffic on the sea, and that the conditions of navigation make a certain hospitality of ports to vessels of all nations a necessity. Thus the rules of International Law regarding asylum of neutral ports to men-of-war of belligerents have developed on somewhat different lines from the rules regarding asylum to land forces. But the rule, that the duty of impartiality incumbent upon a neutral must prevent him from allowing belligerents to use his territory as a base of operations of war, is nevertheless valid regarding asylum granted to their men-of-war. Asylum § 343. Although a neutral can grant asylum to Neutral belligerent men-of-war in his ports, he has no duty to to Naval do so. He can prohibit all belligerent men-of-war Forces Optional. from entering all his ports, whether these vessels are pursued by the enemy or desire to enter for other reasons. However, his duty of impartiality must prevent him from denying to the one party what he grants to the other. And he can, therefore, not allow entry to men-of-war of one belligerent without giving the same permission to men-of-war of the other belligerent. Neutrals as a rule admit men-of-war of both parties, but they frequently exclude all menof-war of both parties from entering certain ports. Thus Austria prohibited during the Crimean War all belligerent men-of-war from entering the port of Cattaro. Thus, further, Great Britain prohibited during the American Civil War the access of all 1 See, however, below, § 347, concerning the abuse of asylum, which must be prohibited. VOL. II. BB |