Page images
PDF
EPUB

by contradistinction are known as neutrality laws. These matters relate to the various troubles on the Canadian and Mexican borders, to the Civil War of 1861-5, to the various Cuban insurrections, and to the Spanish-American War of 1898. This sketch of the development of neutrality in the latter part of the eighteenth century and in the earlier part of the nineteenth century has been largely devoted to its development in the United States because the larger development in these times occurred in connection with our country and continent. Its later development, where not treated in the historical sketch of the development of international law, will be treated under the separate subjects involved. The wars in Europe since our Civil War that involved neutrality matters were principally the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War with the declaration of Paris at its end, the Franco-German War, the Chino-Japanese War, the Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War, and the recent Italo-Turkish War.

It may be well, however, to state here the last legislative order of the United States. The shipment of arms across the Mexican border has been a matter of constant and recent occurrence, and the complications arising therefrom exist to the time of the present writing. From this question arose the joint resolution of Congress of March 14, 1912. It provides that, "whenever the President shall find that in any American country conditions of domestic violence exist which are promoted by the use of arms or munitions of war procured from the United States and shall make proclamation thereof, it shall be unlawful to export, except under such limitations and exceptions as the President shall describe, any arms or munitions of war from any place in the United States to such country until otherwise ordered by the President or by Congress."

This joint resolution, the body of which has just been given, "empowers the President," says Doctor Fenwick, "to recognize the existence of conditions under which the act makes it unlawful to export any arms or munitions of war to the country

designated. It is a distinct advance over the joint resolution of 1898 (forbidding the export of coal in war time) not only in that it was framed to meet the neutral obligations of the United States but because it imposes a specific penalty upon offenders; and it thus takes its place as a permanent amendment to the neutrality act of 1818."1

In Great Britain the great advance of late in neutrality laws was the passage of what is known as "The Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870." This is a strengthening of the provisions of the previous foreign enlistment acts and is in advance of our neutrality law of 1818. It was the result of the experience of Great Britain during our Civil War and probably represents the most advanced law upon the outfit and sailing of cruisers and military expeditions in violation of neutral obligations on the part of any one nation. In the meantime, through The Hague convention and the declaration of London as well as the Geneva conventions for the sick and wounded, the international obligations of belligerent powers and the rights and duties of neutral powers in time of war have been to a great extent formulated by general treaty into conventional law, with corresponding advantages and diminution of controversy and complication. An explanation and discussion of these matters will be found in the pages that follow.

177. Neutral Rights and Duties in Land Warfare.-Many of the questions coming under this head have been treated in Convention No. V of the second Hague conference, which is entirely devoted to this heading. In addition, some subjects also pertinent to this grouping will be found in Convention No. IV on the laws of war on land of the same conference, as well as in the Geneva convention of 1906.

It was not intended by The Hague conference of 1907, in devoting their time to the formulation of a convention respecting "the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in war on land," to settle all disputed points in the law of neu

1 Fenwick, "Neutrality Laws of the United States," p. 58.

1

trality but, as Higgins says, "to make a beginning in codification by converting into a written law such of the existing usages as regarded neutral powers and persons, as were of general acceptance." This convention, which was ratified by the United States Senate on March 10, 1908, and is consequently binding upon the United States, may be said to afford not only a good basis for future action upon the subject which it treats but also to present well-accepted principles of international law. The first article of the convention reads that:

"1. The territory of neutral power is inviolable."

Concerning this fundamental principle of neutrality, Professor Holland makes the comment that "the territory of a neutral state, so long as the state fulfils its duties as a neutral, must not be entered by troops of either belligerent, except for the purpose of asking to be interned therein."2

The second article reads:

"2. Belligerents are forbidden to move across the territory of a neutral power troops or convoys either of munitions of war or of supplies."

This article is naturally a direct consequence of the first article.

The third article reads:

"3. Belligerents are also forbidden:

"(a) To install on the territory of a neutral power a radiotelegraphic station or any apparatus intended to serve as a means of communication with belligerent forces on land or at

sea.

"(b) To make use of any installation of that character, established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral power and not previously open for forwarding public communications, for a purpose exclusively military."

The first clause of this article would, of course, prohibit action like that taken by Russia during the Russo-Japanese War in

1 Higgins, "Hague Conferences," p. 290.
Holland, "Laws of War on Land,” p. 62.

the establishment of a wireless-telegraph station at Chifu, on Chinese territory, by which communication, as stated in a previous chapter, was kept up with Port Arthur during its siege. Article 4 reads that:

"4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting offices opened on the territory of a neutral power in the interest of the belligerents."

In the case of the United States v. Kuzinski it was ruled that "to constitute the offence of enlisting here, it requires the consent of the party enlisting; and so, also, the hiring or retaining a person to go abroad with intent to be enlisted requires assent and intent on the part of the person hired or retained."1

Article 5 reads that:

"5. A neutral power ought not to allow in its territory any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4."

It is not bound to punish acts in violation of neutrality unless such acts have been committed on its own territory.

A neutral state will not be expected to discharge duties beyond its power. In 1899 Luxemburg declared her inability to to perform the duties required like the above when such matters were before the first Hague conference.

Article 6 of the convention reads:

"6. A neutral power does not incur responsibility by the fact that persons cross the frontier singly in order to place themselves at the service of one of the belligerents."

Article 7 reads:

"7. A neutral power is not bound to prevent the exportation or the passage, in the interest of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions, or, generally, of everything which could be useful for an army or fleet."

This is in accordance with the traditional policy of the United States. The joint resolution of Congress of 1912 applying to cases of domestic violence, not amounting to recognized war, was due to the constant insurrections in Mexico which

1 Federal Cases, no. 15, 508.

made the frontier territory of the United States a base of essential supplies to insurgent forces.

Article 8 states that:

"8. A neutral power is not bound to forbid or restrict the employment on behalf of belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless-telegraphy apparatus whether belonging to it, or to companies, or to private individuals."

Article 9 says that:

"9. Every restrictive or prohibitive measure taken by a neutral power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be applied impartially by it to the belligerents.

"The neutral power shall see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private owners of telegraph or telephone cables or wireless-telegraphy apparatus."

Article 10 reads that:

"10. The fact of a neutral power repelling, even by force, attacks on its neutrality cannot be considered as a hostile act." The second chapter of this convention concerns the internment of belligerents and the care of the wounded in neutral territory.

Article 11 reads that:

"11. A neutral power which receives in its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.

"It can keep them in camps and even confine them in fortresses or places assigned for this purpose.

"It shall decide whether officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory without permission."

The neutral power, of course, has the right to establish the camps of internment even if they move them to more or less distant territory of the neutral from that in which they sought refuge. Professor Holland claims that if they enter neutral territory by undoubted error their immediate departure should be permitted. The most striking example of internment in

« PreviousContinue »