CHAPTER XI. NEUTRALITY.-RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS.-BELLIGERENT ACTS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN NEUTRAL TERRITORY. Neutrality. Rights and duties of neutrals.-"The right of every independent state," says Wheaton, "to remain at peace, whilst other states are engaged in war, is an incontestable attribute of sovereignty. It is, however, obviously impossible that neutral nations should be wholly unaffected. by the existence of war between those communities with whom they continue to maintain their accustomed relations of friendship and commerce. The rights of neutrality are connected with correspondent duties. Among these duties is that of impartiality between the contending parties. The neutral is the common friend of both parties, and consequently not at liberty to favor one party to the detriment of the other." Neutrality may then be defined as the position occupied by those states which in time of war do not take part therein, but continue friendly relations and proper intercourse with the belligerents. This is in its broad sense state neutrality, and is not only a right but a duty. It is also voluntary neutrality, as distinguished from conventional neutrality, the latter being the neutrality required by special compact or conventions from neutralized states, such as Switzerland and Belgium. It may be said that neutrality is in a certain sense the continuance of the previously existing state of affairs so far as the non-belligerents are concerned. But, as a result of experience, by growth and evolution, international law has assigned to the condition of neutrality certain rights and obligations which exist only with a state of war. Limitations are placed upon the use of neutral ports by belligerent cruisers, some supplies are denied to them, others are given in a sparing manner. The neutral government enforces respect for the neutrality of its waters and territory, and military or naval expeditions cannot be recruited in or based from its territory. On the other hand, commercial intercourse of the subjects of neutral states becomes subject to certain kinds of loss and punishment from the belligerent who suffers by his action. These examples show some of the changes in conditions that may be caused to neutrals by the existence of a state of war. Notwithstanding that international law, in its treatment of the rights and duties of neutrals, is occupied entirely in setting forth the changes, every restriction upon the rights of the neutral must have a clear and undoubted rule and reason. The burden of proof lies upon the restraining government. Neutrality defined by Vattel in 18th century.-Neutrality as a theory and practice has been a matter of slow growth, and it was not until the 18th century that it began to appear as a tangible and impartial rule of international law. Vattelduring this period gave the following definition of neutrality: "Neutral nations during a war are those who take no one's part, remaining friends common to both parties, and not favoring the armies of one of them to the prejudice of the other." 1 Development of neutrality in the 19th century. The rules of neutrality were, however, more rapid in their development during the 19th century for several reasons; first, on account of the attitude of the United States towards neutrality in the early part of the century; second, on account of the permanent neutralization of Switzerland and Belgium, and their faithful observance of impartiality towards all belligerents during the century; third, the adoption very generally of the Declaration 1 1 Vattel, III, Sec. 103. |