be given impartially to all belligerent states and, properly, should not be given to one belligerent without the consent of the other.

Its possible effect may be seen from circumstances that occurred during the Franco-German War of 1870. After the battle of Sedan, the German army was embarrassed by masses of wounded whom it was difficult to move into Germany by the ordinary open routes, while, at the same time, their support affected the commissariat in supplying the active forces. The German Government hence applied to Belgium for leave to transport the wounded by railway across Belgian territory to Germany. As a result of the strong protest of France, Belgium after consultation with England, refused the application. If Belgium had consented, the Germans could have increased their transport service very materially by devoting their railway service entirely to warlike purposes.1

Article 15 of this convention closes the chapter by stating that "the Geneva convention applies to the sick and wounded interned in neutral territory."

Article 16 of the next chapter states that:

"The nationals of a state which is not taking part in the war are considered to be neutrals."

Neutral persons residing in the territory of a belligerent are liable to suffer, with the other inhabitants of the country, the vicissitudes of war. They are liable to be removed from their homes or even from the country, either for military reasons or on suspicion of affiliation with the invading force of an enemy or general misconduct during the operations of war.

This article with the following Articles 17 and 18 were not accepted by Great Britain and were duly reserved upon the signing of the convention by that power.2

Articles 17 and 18 read that "a neutral cannot claim the benefit of his neutrality—

1 Hall, 6th ed., pp. 595, 596.

2 Higgins, "Hague Conferences,” pp. 293, 294.

"(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;

66

(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one

of the parties."

In such a case the neutral shall not be more severely treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent state could be for the same act.

"18. The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favor of one of the belligerents within the meaning of Article 17, letter (b).

"(a) The furnishing of supplies or the making of loans to one of the belligerents, provided that the person so furnishing or lending neither lives in the territory of the other party nor in territory in the occupation of that party and that the supplies do not come from these territories.

"(b) The rendering of services in matters of policy or civil administration."

The two following wishes (vœux) were embodied in the final act of The Hague conference of 1907 and are enumerated there as (2) and (3).

They read as follows:

"(2) The conference expresses the wish that, in case of war, the responsible authorities, civil as well as military, should make it their special duty to insure and safeguard the maintenance of pacific relations, more especially of the commercial and industrial relations between the inhabitants of the belligerent states and neutral countries."

"(3) The conference expresses the wish that the powers should regulate by special treaties, the position, as regards military charges, of foreigners residing within their territories."

Of these vœux Westlake says: "The second of the above wishes is a very proper one and will be understood when it is remembered that several Spanish-American states, led by the great immigration into them to claim the children of immi

grants as subjects by reason of their birth on the soil, have been engulfed in controversies with European powers who have considered that the principle of nationality by parentage ought to exempt such children from military service."1

The single Article 19 of Chapter IV of the Convention V under discussion treats of railway material, allowing as it does the free transfer of railway material except in cases of necessity.

178. Proclamations and Declarations of Neutrality.-While it is not a duty on the part of a neutral state to issue any proclamation or declaration of neutrality after the notification of the commencement of war, it has become customary to do so, especially when commercial interests are involved or the proximity of the hostile operations makes it advisable.

The practice of issuing such declarations or proclamations has several advantages: it calls the attention of the nationals of the state to the neutrality or corresponding municipal laws, to the obligations and penalties of citizens arising from the existence of a state of war; it is useful as a supplement to the neutrality laws in publishing the policy of the government toward the belligerents and in a maritime war giving the rules to be enforced as to the entry and use of its waters and ports by belligerent fleets and vessels. See Appendix V.

Proclamations of this sort have been issued by the Presidents of the United States from the earliest days in wars in which the country and its citizens were likely to come in contact. So far as the British Empire is concerned, it is not unusual for the governors of colonies likely to be involved to issue separate proclamations with especial reference to use of their ports by belligerent vessels of war.

In a civil war it is not unusual to combine with the proclamation of neutrality the recognition of a state of belligerency in the war; in fact, without such recognition there can be hardly an existence of a state of neutrality. Of course, there is no state of neutrality required or existing in international law be

1 Westlake, 2d ed., vol. II, p. 135.

tween a state and its insurgents when unrecognized. This, as we have seen can, however, be made a matter of neutrality laws or acts as municipal statutes.

TOPICS AND REFERENCES

1. The Creation of Neutral States by Commencement of WarWestlake, 2d ed., vol. I, 52-54; vol. II, 20-31. Higgins, "Hague Peace Conferences," 202-5. Oppenheim, "International Law," 2d ed., vol. II, 373–7.

2. The Status and Principles of Neutrality—

Westlake, "International Law," 2d ed., vol. II, 190-8. Hall, "International Law," 6th ed., chap. III, 588, etc. Moore's "Digest of International Law," vol. VII, 860-871.

3. The Development of the Law of Neutrality

G. B. Davis, "International Law," 3d ed., 377-394. Westlake, "International Law," 2d ed., vol. II, 198-207. Woolsey, "International Law," 6th ed., 267-296.

4. Neutral Rights and Duties in Land Warfare

Higgins, "Hague Peace Conferences," 281-294. Oppenheim, 2d ed., 386-393, 397, 398, 409-416, 426-432. Holland, "Laws of War on Land," 62-68.

5. Proclamations and Declarations of Neutrality

Moore's "Digest of International Law," vol. VII, 1002–10. Fenwick, "Neutrality Laws of the United States," 1913, 5, 17, 25, 33, 42, 44-46, 53, 55-59, 145, etc. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 374. Appendix V.

CHAPTER XXIV

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF NEUTRALS AND
BELLIGERENTS IN MARITIME WARFARE

179. The Inviolability of Neutral Territory and Waters.The first article of Convention XIII of The Hague conference respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers in maritime war treats of the inviolability of neutral territory and waters in maritime war. It is in a sense a repetition of Article 1 of Convention V, relating to land warfare but emphasizing the water area of that territory. The articles that follow detail some of the possible violations. The first article reads as follows:

"Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from any act which would, if knowingly permitted by any power, constitute a violation of neutrality."

This is a sound general principle based upon the right of sovereignty, which is a fundamental right of a sovereign state and "includes the complete inviolability of its territory from belligerent operations." "If a violation of neutrality," says Higgins, “occurs, it is a neutral's duty to take steps to obtain redress, especially where the other belligerent is injuriously affected; but this is not definitely stated in the convention." Article 2 goes on to say:

"Any act of hostility, including therein capture and the exercise of the right of search, committed by belligerent warships in the territorial waters of a neutral power constitutes a violation of neutrality and is strictly forbidden."

'Higgins, "Hague Conferences," p. 461.