450 



NEUTRAL SALTS 



NEUTRALITY 



Mrnfrnl Sails. See SALTS. 



Neutrality. Neiin.il- are state- which in 

 tinir f war take no |irt in I In- control, liat con- 

 tinue pacific intercourse with both lielligerentii. 

 Tlii aim of the doctrine of neutrality is to recon- 

 rili- tin- right of belligerent* to cany on their war- 

 like o|>ciatioiis with tin- no less undeniable right 

 oi nthcr nation- to pursue |>eaoefnlly their ordinary 

 business. For nianv years after the ri-e of niiKlerii 

 international law tlie conduct of warfare was dis- 

 cussed only with reference to belligerents, and no 

 intermediate relation between an ally and an 

 enemy was recognised. Not. indeed, till the 

 middle of the Isth century did the terms 'neutral' 

 and 'neutrality' come into general use; for not 

 till then wan a systematic effort made to reflate 

 the relations of belligerents to nations standing 

 aloof from the war, or to define their reciprocal 

 rights anil dmi'-. 



A- U'tween l>elligerent states and neutral states, 

 the principles whence spring the comiilicated rules 

 of miMlern neutrality are in themselves extremely 

 simple. On the one hand, the neutral, being 

 neither judge nor party, must show absolute im- 

 partiality in his dealings with l>t h lielligerente ; 

 on the other hand, the belligerent must pay 

 scrupulous respect to the sovereignty of his 

 neutral neighliours. Accordingly, throughout a 

 war. neutrals continue diplomatic intercourse with 

 lM)th belligerent*. A neutral state is not per- 

 mitted to give armed a i-tance to either ncl- 

 ILerent, even though such aid may have l>een 

 promised before the war ; nor to lend money to 

 either side or guarantee such loan; nor to allow 

 the passage of lielligerent troops through its 

 territory. A neutral is bound to prevent and 

 cancel all acts of hostility, either in the neutral 

 territory itself or in the adjacent waters, and to 

 prohibit the exercise of any belligerent jurisdiction 

 therein. So, if an attempt lie made by troops of 

 cither l>elligerent country to traverse neutral terri- 

 tory, the neutral state is bound to disarm and intern 

 such troops, and to set at liltertv all prisoners of 

 war found within it.s Itorders. Should a neutral 

 state deviate from iUt duty in any of these par- 

 ticulars, the state injured is entitled to treat such 

 deviation as a just cause of war. On the other 

 hand, a belligerent is not permitted to carry on 

 hostilities within neutral territory ; nor to use 

 neutral harbours for the purpose "of fitting out 

 expeditions against his enemy. He must scrupu- 

 lously observe all the regulations of neutral states 

 regarding the admission of cruisers or prizes into 

 their porte. 



The relations of Iwlligerent states to the private 

 citi/.eus of neutral states involve greater difficulties. 

 On land tin: pro|>crty of neutral individuals is, of 

 course, protected from belligerent attack ; to this 

 rule an exception is furnished by the Hight of 

 Angary (Low U-it. <(//</;(, 'forced service'), 

 under which a MliflBvnt may seize the property 

 nf a neutral found in the territory of the other 

 l-l!igcrcni, niiil make use of it for the pur- 

 IMI-C of warlike MMtmtfoM, subject to his paying 

 compensation. At sea, however, the commercial 

 intercuts ,,( iM-lligerent anil neutral merchants are 

 so interwoven that it is difficult to separate them 

 and strike at an enemy without injuring a friend ; 

 lieneo ever and again have arisen bitter contro- 

 versies regarding the extent of a belligerent's 

 power over the )iro|Tty nf neutral citizens at 

 Two distinct principles for regulating the maritime 

 capture of neutral pro|x-rty have at .lillerent times 

 prevailed. By the om- principle, the nationality 

 of the ship determined liability to ,-ajitiire, so tluit 

 neutral goods on hostile ships were liable to con 

 liseation, while hostile p>ods on neutral ships went 

 free. By the other principle, the nationality of the 



pio|M-rty determined its liability, so that neutral 

 giMuls went free even though found on hostile 

 hhijis, and hostile goods were liable to sei/ure 

 > even though found on neutral ships. In ls..,i; the 

 Itcclaralion of Paris finally settled the one-lion 

 by providing ( 1 ) that the neutral Hag should cover 

 an enemy's goods, except contraband of a> 

 that neutral goods, except contraband of war, 

 should not be liable to capture even under the 

 enemy'.- Hag. The law, a- thus settled, is the old 

 rule, ' Fret- ship, free goods,' without the corol- 

 lary, 'Hostile ship, hostile goods.' Attempts hail 

 frequently Keen made at an earlier period, particu- 

 larly by Prussia in the Silesian Loan contro\ci-\ 

 and by the Armed Neutralities of 17s<i and ISIHI. 

 to incorporate the rule into international law ; it 

 w;is, indeed, mainly through the op|isition of 

 tii eat Britain that its final acceptance was iMiet- 

 |M>ned till Is.Mi. 



To the general rule of maritime capture, as thus 

 determined, several important exceptions must In- 

 noted. Belligerents continue to have the right 

 of intercepting, even on Uiard of neutral vessel*, 

 such articles as are deemed contraband of war. 

 The test to be kiken in deciding what goods 

 are contraband has been much discussed ami is 

 now quite unsettled (see CoNTKAliAMi). The 

 vessel, too, carrying the goods may be condemned 

 along with its contraband cargo, where both belong 

 tn the same owner, or where false pajwis are found, 

 or any other fraudulent device is resorted to. 

 Another instance in which a liclligerent is entitled 

 to interfere with the ships and property of neutral 

 individuals is furnished by the law of blockade 

 (see BLOCKADE). Again, "if dining a war ships 

 belonging to neutral citi/ens perform certain classes 

 of services on behalf of one of the lielligerents, the 

 other belligerent is entitled to confiscate these 

 ships. Among such hostile services, against which 

 a belligerent is entitled to protect himself, are 

 reckoned the transmission of naval signals or 

 messages, the carriage of military and naval 

 despatches, and the transportation of belligerent 

 officers or troops. Where a citizen of a neutral 

 state engages in any forbidden Venturis whether 

 it be carrying contraband goods, running a blockade, 

 or doing other un-neutral service-- the aggrieved 

 belligerent does not complain to the neutral slate, 

 but strikes at the neutral rili/cn directly by cap- 

 turing bis property and condemning it in his ov. rr 

 pti/e court. The neutral state does not appear in 

 the matter at all, unless the penalty impo-ed by 

 the pri/.e court be such as is not warranted by 

 international law ; in this case the neutral state 

 claims reparation for its injured subject from the 

 offending liclligcrent. 



The most unsettled part of the modern law of 

 neutrality is that dealing with the obligations, 

 imposed on a neutral state, of restraining the 

 conduct of its own citizens and of enforcing the 

 due observance of neutrality on all pcisons within 

 its jurisdiction. In recent times the tendency has 

 been towards a large extension of the duties of 

 neutral states in this respect. The movement was 

 commenced by the Neutrality Act of the I riited 

 States, passed in 1794, and re-enacted, with addi- 

 tions, in 1818. The principles of these American 

 statutes have lieen closely followed in the series of 

 British Foreign Enlistment Acts, passed with a 

 view of arming the British government with sufli- 

 eicnt power to enable it to fulfil the extended obli- 

 gations of neutrality. Among the nioie important 

 offences against neutrality which are now struck at 

 by the municipal law of most states are such acte 

 as the following : To leave the neutral territory in 

 considerable numbers for the purpose of enlisting 

 in the service of a lielligerent ; to accept letters of 

 nnu ijue from a belligerent ; to lit out within its 



