(b) Cartels are agreements made to regulate intercourse during war. Such conventions may regulate postal and telegraphic communication, the reception of flags of truce, the exchange of prisoners, the care and treatment of the same and of the sick and wounded.
A cartel ship is a vessel sailing under a safe-conduct for the purpose of carrying exchanged prisoners. When thus employed the vessel is not subject to seizure, although this exemption does not extend to a voyage from one port to another in her own state for the sake of taking on prisoners. The immunity is lost if the vessel departs from the strict line of service by engaging in ordinary commerce, transportation, or hostile acts.[369] Such a vessel may carry one gun for the purpose of salutes.
(c) Passports, safe-conducts, and safeguards are sometimes given in time of war.
A passport is a written permission given by the belligerent government or by its authorized agent to the subject of the enemy state to travel generally in belligerent territory.
A safe-conduct is a pass given to an enemy subject or to an enemy vessel, allowing passage between defined points. Safe-conducts are granted either by the government or by the officer in command of the region within which it is effective.[370]
A safeguard is a protection granted by a commanding officer either to person or property within his command. "Sometimes they are delivered to the parties whose persons or property are to be protected; at others they are posted upon the property itself, as upon a church, museum, library, public office, or private dwelling."[371] When the protection is enforced by a detail of men, this guard must use extreme measures, if necessary to fulfill their trust, and are themselves exempt from attack or capture by the enemy.
(d) A license to trade is a permission given by competent authority to the subject of that authority or to another to carry on trade even though there is a state of war. These licenses may be general or special. A general license grants to all the subjects of the enemy state or to all its own subjects the right to trade in specified places or in specified articles. A special license grants to a certain person the right to trade in the manner specified in his license. Neutrals may receive a license to trade in lines which otherwise would not be open to them.
A general license is granted by the head of the state. A special license may be granted by a subordinate, valid in the region which he commands so far as his subordinates are concerned. His superior officers are not necessarily bound by his act, however.[372]
It is held that a license must receive a reasonable construction. In general, fraud vitiates a license; it is not negotiable unless expressly made so; a fair compliance in regard to the terms as to goods is sufficient; a deviation from the prescribed course invalidates the license unless caused by stress of weather or by accident; and a delay in completing a voyage within the specified time invalidates the license unless caused by enemy or the elements.[373] When a license becomes void, the vessel is liable to the penalties which would fall upon it if it had committed the act without license.
(e) The cessation of hostilities for a time is sometimes brought about by agreement between the parties to the conflict. When this cessation is for a temporary or military end, and for a short time or within a limited area, it is usually termed a suspension of hostilities. When the cessation is quite general, for a considerable time, or for a political end, it is usually termed a truce or armistice.
Acts of hostility done in ignorance of the existence of the cessation of hostilities are not violations of the agreement unless there has been negligence in conveying the information to the subordinates. Prisoners and property captured after the cessation in a given region must be restored. During the period of the truce, the commercial and personal intercourse between the opposing parties is under the same restrictions as during the active hostilities, unless there is provision to the contrary in the agreement. The relative position of the parties is supposed to be the same at the end of the truce as at the beginning.
Hall says, "The effect of truces and like agreements is therefore not only to put a stop to all directly offensive acts, but to interdict all acts tending to strengthen a belligerent which his enemy, apart from the agreement, would have been in a position to hinder."[374] Acts which the enemy would not have been in a position to hinder, even in the absence of a truce, are not necessarily interrupted by the agreement.[375]
The provisioning of a besieged place during a truce has been the subject of some difference of opinion. If the conditions of the truce are to be fair to the besieged party, that party must be allowed to bring in a supply of provisions equal to the consumption during the continuance of the truce.[376] At the present time this matter is usually provided for in the terms of the truce.
A truce or other form of cessation of hostilities, if for a definite time, comes to an end by the expiration of the time limit; if for an indefinite time, by notice from one party to the other, or is terminated by the violation of the conditions by either of the parties. A violation of a truce by an individual renders him liable to such punishment as his state may prescribe.[377]
(f) A capitulation is an agreement defining the conditions of surrender of military forces, places, or districts within the command of an officer. Such agreements are purely military and can have no political force. The capitulation agreed upon between Generals Sherman and Johnston, in 1865, was not sanctioned because it involved political provisions. By the capitulation of Santiago, July, 1898, the American commander agreed to transport the Spanish troops to Spain. The conditions involved in a capitulation may vary greatly, but at the present time it is usually possible to obtain the sanction of the political authority before entering upon an agreement, owing to the improved methods of communication. It is therefore hardly probable that the terms of capitulations will be set aside, as in the celebrated case of El Arisch, in 1800.[378] Agreements made by officers not possessing proper authority or made in excess of authority, are called sponsions or sub spe rati, and require ratification or acceptance by the state to render them effective.[379]
TERMINATION OF WAR
War may come to an end, (1) by the complete submission of one of the parties to the conflict or by conquest, (2) by the cessation of hostilities between the parties to the conflict, or (3) by a treaty of peace duly concluded.[380]
The object of war in early times was often conquest, and the conflict ended only with the submission of one of the parties. This end is at present usually disavowed, and the object of war is proclaimed to be some purpose that will meet with as little disapproval as possible.[381] The conditions under which the war will be brought to an end will be in some measure determined by the object for which the war was undertaken.
Conquest in the complete sense, as in the case of the debellatio of the Romans, is not now common. This implies a submission of one of the parties without condition. There have been examples of absorption of the sovereignty of the vanquished state in recent times, as in the Prussian Decree of Sept. 20, 1866, by which conquered Hanover, Hesse, Nassau, and Frankfort were incorporated into the Prussian state. Similarly, some of the Italian states were absorbed by the kingdom of Italy after the Treaty of Villafranca, 1859, and Madagascar became a part of France in 1896.
Conquest is held to be complete when the fact is evident from actual, continued, and recognized possession. All of these evidences may not be present in a given case, but if the intention and the fact of the conquest and the submission are fully shown, it is sufficient to constitute validity.[382]
Certain wars have terminated by the simple cessation of hostilities. Cases of such termination are rare. Such a method leaves in doubt the relations of the parties to the conflict, and occasions inconvenience to all states which may have intercourse with the contestants. The war between Sweden and Poland in 1716, and also the war between France and Spain in 1720, came to an end in this way. The war between Spain and her American colonies ceased in 1825, but no diplomatic relations were established with them till 1840, and the independence of Venezuela was not recognized till 1850. After the hostilities between France and Mexico, 1862-1867, no diplomatic relations were entered into till 1881. It is only fair to neutrals that a declaration of the conclusion of hostilities should be made.
War is most often terminated by a treaty of peace, which is usually a diplomatic agreement upon the manner of cessation of hostilities and upon the conditions of the reëstablishment of friendly relations. In recent years such treaties have often been preceded by preliminary agreements. These are sometimes preceded by an armistice in order that the terms may not be changed from day to day by the current fortunes of war, as was the case in the discussions pending the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. In the war between China and Japan, in 1894-1895, an agreement for the suspension of hostilities was made on March 30, 1895, but the treaty of peace was not signed till April 17th. These preliminary agreements may sometimes be made through the friendly offices of a third power, as in the protocol of Aug. 12, 1898, in regard to the suspension of hostilities between Spain and the United States. The ambassador of France acted for Spain.[383] These preliminary agreements can be concluded only by those persons delegated for the purpose, and they are as binding as any international agreement in the matters upon which they touch.
A treaty of peace usually covers, (1) the cessation of hostilities, (2) the subjects which have led to war,[384] (3) agreements for immunity for acts done during the war without sufficient authority or in excess of authority. Such acts might otherwise become bases for civil or criminal process. Acts not consequent upon the existence of war, but such as are actionable under the ordinary laws of the state, as for violation of private contract, ordinary debts, etc., are not included unless there is a direct stipulation to that effect. This immunity is commonly called amnesty. (4) Provision for the release of the prisoners of war is often included. (5) The renewal of former treaties is provided for in many peace agreements. (6) Special provision may be made for cession of territory, indemnity, boundaries, or other contingent points.[385]
A treaty of peace is usually held to be effective from the date of signature, or from the date set in the treaty. Provisions fixing the time at which hostilities shall cease at different points are common. Acts of war committed after the conclusion of peace or after the official notice of the termination of hostilities, are void.[386] The Treaty of Frankfort, 1871, provides that maritime captures not condemned at the conclusion of the war are not good prize.
"The general effect of a treaty of peace is to replace the belligerent countries in their normal relation to each other."[387] In case of no stipulations to the contrary, the doctrine of uti possidetis applies, by which the property and territory in the actual possession of either of the belligerents at the conclusion of the war vests in the one having possession.
Private rights suspended during the war revive on the conclusion of peace. Though it was once held that debts could be confiscated during war, this is now nowhere maintained.[388] In such cases the obligation revives on the conclusion of peace, and by the Statute of Limitations the period of the war is not reckoned in the time specified as the period at which debts become outlawed.[389]
INTERNATIONAL LAW OF NEUTRALITY
DEFINITION AND HISTORY
Neutrality is the relation which exists between states which take no part in the war and the belligerents. Impartial treatment of the belligerents is not necessarily neutrality. The modern idea of neutrality demands an entire absence of participation, direct or indirect, however impartial it may be.
The first form of neutrality is what was formerly known as perfect neutrality, in distinction from imperfect neutrality, which allowed a state to give to one of the belligerents such aid as it might have promised by treaty entered into before and without reference to the war. At the present time the only neutrality that is recognized is perfect, i.e. an entire absence of participation in the war. A second form of neutrality is commonly known as armed neutrality. This implies the existence of an understanding, on the part of some of the states not parties to the contest, in accordance with which they will resist by force certain acts which a belligerent may claim the right to perform. The armed neutralities of Feb. 28, 1780, and of Dec. 16, 1800, defended the principle of "free ships, free goods."[390]
Neutralization is an act by which, through a conventional agreement, the subject of the act is deprived of belligerent capacity to a specified extent. Neutralization may apply in various ways.
(1) Neutralized states are bound to refrain from offensive hostilities, and in consequence cannot make agreements which may demand such action. Thus it was recognized that Belgium itself, a neutralized state, could not guarantee the neutrality of Luxemburg in the Treaty of London, in 1867. Belgium is, however, a party to the Treaty of Berlin of 1885, agreeing to respect the neutrality of the Congo State. This agreement "to respect" does not carry with it the obligation to defend the neutrality of the Congo State.
The important instances of neutralization are those agreed upon by European powers. By the declaration signed at Vienna, March 20, 1815, the powers (Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia) "acknowledged that the general interest demands that the Helvetic States should enjoy the benefits of perpetual neutrality," and declared "that as soon as the Helvetic Diet should accede to the stipulations" prescribed, her neutrality should be guaranteed.[391] The Swiss Confederation acceded on the 27th of May, 1815, and the guaranteeing powers gave their acknowledgment on the 20th of November, 1815.[392] The powers also guaranteed the neutrality of a part of Savoy at the same time. The neutralization of Belgium is provided for by Article VII. of the Treaty of London, of Nov. 15, 1831, "Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles I., II., and IV., shall form an independent and perpetually Neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such Neutrality towards all other States."[393]
(2) A portion of a state may be the subject of an act of neutralization, as in the case of the islands of Corfu and Paxo by the Treaty of London, of March 29, 1864. By Article II., "The Courts of Great Britain, France, and Russia, in their character of Guaranteeing Powers of Greece declare, with the assent of the Courts of Austria and Prussia, that the Islands of Corfu and Paxo, as well as their Dependencies, shall, after their Union to the Hellenic Kingdom, enjoy the advantages of perpetual Neutrality. His Majesty the King of the Hellenes engages, on his part, to maintain such Neutrality."[394]
(3) The neutralization of certain routes of commerce has often been the subject of convention. The United States guaranteed the "perfect neutrality"[395] of the means of trans-isthmian transit when the State of New Granada controlled the Isthmus of Panama in 1846. By the Treaty of 1867 with Nicaragua the United States guarantees "the neutrality and innocent use" of routes of communication across the state of Nicaragua.[396] The Nine Powers by the Convention of Constantinople, of Oct. 29, 1888, Great Britain making certain reservations, agree, by a conventional act upon "a definite system destined to guarantee at all times, and for all the powers, the free use of the Suez Maritime Canal."[397] Full provisions for the maintenance of the neutrality of the canal were adopted at this time also.
(4) The Geneva Convention of 1864 neutralized persons and things employed in the amelioration of the condition of the sick and wounded in the time of war.[398] At the present time hospital ships properly certified and designated by flags and by bands of color on the outside are neutralized by general practice.[399]
Neutrality as now understood is of recent growth. In early times, and in general throughout the Middle Ages, the fear of retaliation alone deterred states from hostile action against belligerent states with which they were formally at peace. A belligerent in the prosecution of war might disregard the territorial, personal, or property rights in a neutral state without violation of the principles of public law then accepted.
A gradual formulation of principles which gave the basis of a more equable practice came through the custom of making treaty provisions in regard to the conduct of one of the parties when the other was at war with a third state. Thus it was usually provided that no aid should be given to the third state. By the end of the seventeenth century that which had formerly been a matter of treaty stipulation became quite generally accepted as a rule of action. Grotius, in 1625, gives only about a fourth of a short chapter to the consideration of the duties of the neutral toward the belligerents and the balance of the same chapter to the duties of belligerents toward those not parties to the war. Grotius maintains that "it is the duty of those who have no part in the war to do nothing which may favor the party having an unjust cause, or which may hinder the action of the one waging a just war, ... and in a case of doubt to treat both belligerents alike, in permitting transit, in furnishing provisions to the troops, in refraining from assisting the besieged."[400] In Barbeyrac's note to Pufendorf, 1706, the discussion shows that the idea of neutrality is clearer, but still confused by the attempt to admit a variety of qualified forms by which a state may be neutral in some respects and not in others.[401] Bynkershoek in 1737 said, "I call those non hostes who are of neither party."[402] This statement of Bynkershoek furnishes a convenient starting-point for his successors. Vattel, in 1758, accepting this definition, also says that a state may give such aid as has been promised in a treaty of alliance previously made with one of the states, and still preserve exact neutrality toward the other state.[403]
By Article XVII. of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and France, in 1778, "It shall be lawful for the ships of war of either party, and privateers, freely to carry whithersoever they please the ships and goods taken from their enemies; ... on the contrary, no shelter or refuge shall be given in their ports to such as shall have made prize of the subjects, people or property of either of the parties," except when driven in by stress of weather. By Article XXII. of the same treaty, foreign privateers were not allowed to be fitted out or to sell their prizes in the ports of either party. In 1793 M. Genêt, the French minister, began to fit out privateers, to give commissions to citizens of the United States to cruise in the service of France against the British, and to set up prize courts in the French consulates. He justified himself under the provisions of the Treaty of 1778. His action threatened to bring the United States into war with Great Britain and led to the enunciation of the principles by the United States authorities, of which Canning in 1823 said, "If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, I should take that laid down by America in the days of the presidency of Washington and the secretaryship of Jefferson."[404] The President's Proclamation of Dec. 3, 1793, declares that, in the war of France and the European powers, "the duty and interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers."[405] While the Proclamation does not mention "neutrality," the orders and instructions issued in accordance with it use the word. By the Act of Congress of June 5, 1794, and by subsequent acts codified in 1818,[406] the United States assumed a position which marks an epoch in the history of neutrality. The principles then enunciated are the generally accepted rules of the present day. Great Britain passed similar enactments in 1819, and made these more definite and stringent by the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870.[407]
In recent years it has become customary to issue proclamations of neutrality, or to make known the attitude of the state by some public announcement. This method publishes to other states and to the subjects of the state issuing the announcement the position which the state will take during the hostilities. Ordinarily some specifications as to what may be done during the war accompany the proclamation.
In the war between the United States and Spain in 1898, practically all the leading states of the world made known their neutrality. Germany, according to the custom in that state for twenty years preceding, made no public proclamation, but the neutrality of the Empire was announced less formally by the Emperor in a speech before the Reichstag. The British proclamation of April 23, 1898, is, however, a very full statement of the principles which are to be observed during the hostilities.[408]
A clause from the Russian Declaration of April 18, 1898, is an example of the announcement of the general fact of neutrality: "It is with keen regret that the Imperial Government witnesses an armed conflict between two states to which it is united by old friendship and deep sympathy. It is firmly resolved to observe with regard to these two belligerents a perfect and impartial neutrality."[409]
The relations between neutrals and belligerents naturally fall into two divisions:—
1. The relations between neutral states and belligerent states as states. These relations are determined by the respect for sovereignty, by international usage, and by treaties.
2. Relations between the states and individuals. These relations involve:—
RELATIONS OF NEUTRAL STATES AND BELLIGERENT STATES
Of the general principle Wheaton says, "The right of every independent state to remain at peace whilst other states are engaged in war is an incontestable attribute of sovereignty."[410] Equally incontestable is the right of a belligerent state to demand that a state not a party to the war shall refrain from all participation in the contest, whether it be direct or indirect.
The modern tendency is to remove from the neutral all possible inconveniences which might result from war between states with which the neutral is at peace. The normal relations between neutral and neutral are unimpaired. As the neutral is at peace with the belligerents, the relations between the neutral and the belligerents are affected only so far as the necessities of belligerent operations demand. "Every restriction, however, upon the rights of a neutral or belligerent must have a clear and undoubted rule and reason. The burden of proof lies upon the restraining government."[411]
One of the earliest principles to receive the sanction of theory and practice was that of the inviolability of territorial jurisdiction of neutrals. This principle has been liberally interpreted in recent times, and the tendency has been to make increasingly severe the penalties for its violation.
(a) The troops of a belligerent may not engage in hostilities in the land of a neutral.
(b) Belligerent persons who enter neutral land for warlike purposes, whether actually committing hostilities or merely organized for such purpose, should be interned "at points as far removed as possible from the theater of war." Those entering for asylum to escape death or captivity should be similarly treated.
Formerly it was held that the right of passage might be granted by a neutral to both belligerents on the same terms, or to one of the belligerents if in accord with an agreement entered into before the war. There are many examples of this practice before the nineteenth century, but at the present time it is the rule that a belligerent body of troops may not pass through neutral territory. In the Franco-German War of 1870 the application of Germany to transport its wounded by railway across Belgium was denied. It was claimed that the grant of this privilege would enable Germany to use its own lines of railway for strictly hostile purposes in the way of the transportation of troops, war supplies, etc., thus relieving Germany of a part of the burdens of war.
(c) The rules applicable to the maritime jurisdiction of a neutral are somewhat different from those of the land. The neutral does not control with the same absolute authority the waters washing its shores and the land within its boundaries. That portion of the sea which is within the three-mile limit is for the purposes of peaceful navigation a part of the open sea. The simple passage of ships of war through these waters is permitted. All belligerent acts within the maritime jurisdiction of a neutral are forbidden.[412]
The waters which appertain more strictly to the exclusive jurisdiction of the neutral, such as harbors, ports, enclosed bays, and the like, are subject to the municipal laws of the neutral.[413] Asylum in case of imminent danger is, however, not to be denied; otherwise these waters are open to belligerent ships of war only on condition that they observe the regulations prescribed by the neutral. Such regulations must of course be impartial. These regulations are now often announced in the proclamations of neutrality, as was the case in the war of the United States and Spain in 1898.
(d) Neutral territory may not be used as the base of military operations or for the organization or fitting out of warlike expeditions.
Sir W. Scott said in the case of the Twee Gebroeders that, "no proximate acts of war are in any manner to be allowed to originate on neutral grounds."[414] This would without doubt apply to filibustering expeditions. Many acts are of such nature as to make it impossible to determine whether this principle is violated until the actor is beyond the jurisdiction of the neutral. In such cases the neutral sovereignty is "violated constructively."[415] A second act of this kind might constitute the neutral territory a base of military operations.
It is difficult to distinguish in some cases between those expeditions which have a warlike character and those which cannot at the time of departure be so classed.
In 1828, during the revolution in Portugal, certain troops took refuge in England. In 1829 these men, unarmed but under military command, set out from Plymouth in unarmed vessels, ostensibly for Brazil. Arms for their use had been shipped elsewhere as merchandise. Off the island of Terceira, belonging to Portugal, they were stopped by English vessels within Portuguese waters, and taken back to a point a few hundred miles from the English Channel. The Portuguese then put into a French port. Most authorities are agreed that the expedition was warlike, but that the British ministers should have prevented the departure of the expedition from British waters where they had jurisdiction, instead of coercing it in Portuguese waters.[416]
During the Franco-German War of 1870 a large body of Frenchmen left New York in French vessels bound for France. These vessels also carried large quantities of rifles and cartridges. The Frenchmen were not organized, the arms were proper articles of commerce, and the two were not so related as to render them immediately effective for war. The American Secretary held that this was not a warlike expedition. In discussing this case Hall says, "The uncombined elements of an expedition may leave a neutral state in company with one another, provided they are incapable of proximate combination into an organized whole."[417]
In order, therefore, that an expedition may be warlike there must be an organized body of men, under military or naval direction, and intending to engage in war in the near future.
The relations between the belligerent and the neutral may in some respects be regulated by the neutral. Such regulations find expression in neutrality laws, in proclamations of neutrality, and in special regulations issued under exceptional circumstances or by joint agreement of several states.
(a) While it is admitted that the belligerent troops may not use the land of a neutral, yet the neutral is under obligation to offer asylum to those seeking refuge to escape death or captivity. It is the duty of a neutral state, within whose territory commands, or individuals, have taken refuge, to intern them at points as far removed as possible from the theater of war. Interned troops may be guarded in camps, or fortified places. The expenses occasioned by the internment are reimbursed to the neutral state by the belligerent state to whom the interned troops belong.[418]
(b) In general a belligerent vessel has the right of asylum in a neutral port. It may enter to escape the perils of the sea or to purchase provisions, and to make repairs indispensable to the continuance of the voyage. A vessel entering a neutral port after defeat by the enemy is not disarmed, as would be the case with land forces under similar conditions, though the neutral may prescribe the conditions of its sojourn and departure.[419]
(c) Ordinary entry depends upon the will of the neutral, and is subject to conditions imposed upon all belligerents alike.[420] These conditions usually allow a vessel to take on necessary provisions and supplies to enable her to reach the nearest home port. A regulation of the Netherlands as to the vessels of the Spanish-American War of 1898 prescribes that "Coal shall not be supplied them so long as they are in possession of prizes," otherwise a supply sufficient to bring the vessel to a home port or to the port of an ally was allowed.
(d) The time of sojourn is usually limited to twenty-four hours, unless a longer time is necessary for taking on supplies, completing necessary repairs, or from stress of weather. Regulations as to the time of departure of hostile vessels from a neutral port were quite fully outlined in President Grant's proclamations of Aug. 22 and of Oct. 8, 1870, during the Franco-Prussian War.[421] He declared that no vessel of war of either belligerent should leave the
"waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from which a vessel of the other belligerent ... shall have previously departed, until after the expiration of at least twenty-four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned vessel beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. If any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall, after the time this notification takes effect, enter any ... waters of the United States, such vessel shall be required ... to put to sea within twenty-four hours after her entrance into such ... waters, except in case of stress of weather or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or for repairs; in either of which cases the authorities ... shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel ... shall continue within such ... waters ... for a longer period than twenty-four hours after her necessary repairs shall have been completed, unless within such twenty-four hours a vessel ... of the other belligerent, shall have departed therefrom, in which case the time limited for the departure ... shall be extended so far as may be necessary to secure an interval not less than twenty-four hours between such departure and that of any ... ship of the other belligerent which may have previously quit the same ... waters. No ship of war ... of either belligerent shall be detained in any ... waters of the United States more than twenty-four hours, by reason of the successive departures from such ... waters of more than one vessel of the other belligerent. But if there be several vessels of each or either of the two belligerents in the same ... waters, the order of their departure therefrom shall be so arranged as to afford the opportunity of leaving alternately to the vessels of the respective belligerents, and to cause the least detention consistent with the objects of this proclamation. No ship of war ... of either belligerent shall be permitted, while in any ... waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, to take in any supplies except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if without sail power, to the nearest European port of her own country; or in case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propelled by steam power, then with half the quantity of coal which she would be entitled to receive if dependent upon steam alone; and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war ... in the same or in any other ... waters of the United States, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within the waters of the United States, unless such ship of war ... shall, since last supplied, have entered a European port of the government to which she belongs."[422]
The tendency at the present time is to make regulations which shall guard most effectively against any possible use of neutral maritime jurisdiction for hostile purposes. In the Spanish-American War of 1898, Brazil provided that in case of two belligerent vessels:—"If the vessel leaving, as well as that left behind, be a steamer, or both be sailing vessels, there shall remain the interval of twenty-four hours between the sailing of one and the other. If the one leaving be a sailing vessel and that remaining a steamer, the latter may only leave seventy-two hours thereafter."[423] Many states have adopted the practice of absolutely refusing entrance within their waters to belligerent vessels with prizes, except in case of distress. Some states prescribe that, in such cases, the prizes should be liberated. There are examples of this refusal in the neutrality proclamations of 1898. All forms of sale or disposal of prize in neutral jurisdiction is of course generally forbidden.
The neutral state may not furnish to a belligerent any assistance in military forces, supplies of war, loans of money, or in any similar manner.
(a) Formerly military assistance was often furnished to one of the belligerents by a state claiming to be neutral on the ground that such action was justified by a treaty obligation entered into before the war could be foreseen. This position was supported by some of the ablest of the authorities of the nineteenth century,[424] but is denied by the latest writers.
(b) It is generally held that a neutral state may not furnish to one or both of the belligerents supplies of war. As Hall says, "The general principle that a mercantile act is not a violation of a state of neutrality, is pressed too far when it is made to cover the sale of munitions or vessels of war by a state."[425]
A case that aroused discussion was occasioned by the action of the authorities of the United States conformably to a joint resolution of Congress of July 20, 1868, by which the Secretary of War was to cause "to be sold, after offer at public sale on thirty days' notice, ... the old cannon, arms, and other ordnance stores ... damaged or otherwise unsuitable for the United States military service, etc."[426] Complaint was made that sales made under this act during the time of the Franco-German War were in violation of neutrality. A committee appointed by the United States Senate to investigate these charges reported that sales "were not made under such circumstances as to violate the obligations of our government as a neutral power; and this, to recapitulate, for three reasons: (1) The Remingtons [the alleged purchasing agents of the French government] were not, in fact, agents of France during the time when sales were made to them; (2) if they were such agents, such fact was neither known nor suspected by our government at the time the sales were made; and (3) if they had been such agents, and that fact had been known to our government, or if, instead of sending agents, Louis Napoleon or Frederick William had personally appeared at the War Department to purchase arms, it would have been lawful for us to sell to either of them, in pursuance of a national policy adopted by us prior to the commencement of hostilities."[427] This last statement does not accord with the best opinion and doubtless would not be maintained at the present time. The first and second claims might justify the sale, though it would be in better accord with a strict neutrality for a state to refrain from all sale of supplies of war during the period of war between two states, toward which states it professes to maintain a neutral attitude. This, of course, does not affect the rights of commerce in arms on the part of the citizens of a neutral state.
(c) The authorities are practically agreed that loans of money to a belligerent state may not be made or guaranteed by a neutral state. This does not, however, affect the commerce in money which may be carried on by the citizens of a neutral state.
(d) A neutral may not permit the enlistment of troops for belligerent service within its jurisdiction. This applies to such action as might assume the proportions of recruiting. The citizens or subjects of a neutral state may enter the service of one of the belligerents in a private manner.
Not only must a neutral state refrain from direct assistance of either belligerent, but it must also put forth positive efforts to prevent acts which would assist a belligerent. If a state has neutrality laws, it is under obligations to enforce these laws, and is also under obligation to see that the principles generally recognized by international law are observed. Most states make provision for the enforcement of neutrality. In the United States the President is authorized to employ the land and naval forces or militia to execute the law.[428] Jefferson said that, "If the United States have a right to refuse the permission to arm vessels and raise men within their ports and territories, they are bound by the laws of neutrality to exercise that right, and to prohibit such armaments and enlistments."[429] There can be no difference of opinion upon the proposition that a neutral state is bound to restrain within its jurisdiction all overt acts of a character hostile to either belligerent.
There are, however, many acts which in themselves have no necessarily warlike character. Whether such acts are in violation of neutrality must be determined by inference as to their purpose. By such acts, as Hall says, "the neutral sovereignty is only violated constructively."[430] These acts vary so much in character and are of so wide a range that the determination of their true nature often imposes severe burdens upon the neutral attempting to prevent them. The destination of a vessel that is in the course of construction may determine its character so far as the laws of neutrality are concerned. If it is for a friendly state which is at peace with all the world, no objection to its construction and sale can be raised. If a subject of a neutral state builds a vessel for one of the belligerents, such an act has sometimes been regarded as a legitimate business transaction, at other times as an act in violation of neutrality. As a business transaction, the vessel after leaving neutral territory is liable to the risk of seizure as contraband. As an act in violation of neutrality, the neutral state is bound to prevent the departure of the vessel by a reasonable amount of care. The line of demarcation which determines what acts a neutral state is under obligation to prevent, and what acts it may allow its subjects to perform at their own risk, is not yet clearly drawn. It is certain that a state is bound to use "due diligence" to prevent the violation of its neutrality. In the case of the Alabama,[431] this phrase was given different meanings by the representatives of the United States and Great Britain. The arbitrators declared that "due diligence" should be "in exact proportion to the risks to which either of the belligerents may be exposed from a failure to fulfill the obligations of neutrality on their part."[432] This definition is not satisfactory, and the measure of care required still depends upon the circumstances of each individual case, and is therefore a matter of doubt.
NEUTRAL RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES AND INDIVIDUALS