tendency of modern times has been to curtail the rights of belligerents and enlarge those of neutrals, but the precise directions in which it has operated will be seen better when we come to deal separately with each of the heads we have just given.

QUESTIONS.

1. Define Neutrality. Into what kinds has it been divided? Examine the propriety of the division.

2. Explain the exact position in International Law of a Permanently Neutralized State. Give a list of such States.

3. Shew by a short historical review that the obligations of neutral States have grown enormously within the last century.

4. Give the divisions of the Law of Neutrality, and point out the principles on which they are made.

HINTS AS TO READING.

Hall's treatment of Neutrality is exceedingly full and able. Chapter IV. of Part I. should be read as a preliminary exercise. Chapters I. and II. of Part IV. deal with the subjects discussed in this Chapter. Some of them are considered in the earlier sections of Chapter III., Part IV., of Wheaton. Manning in Book V., Chapters I., III. and IV. deals historically with the growth of neutral rights. The question of the true meaning of neutralization is discussed in Part III. of the second of Lawrence's Essays.

CHAPTER II.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS BETWEEN BELLIGERENT STATES AND NEUTRAL STATES.

A. The Obligations of a Belligerent State towards Neutral States.

International Law defines with considerable clearness the obligations of a belligerent State in its relations with neutral States. The following are the chief of them:

(1) Not to carry on hostilities within neutral
territory.

(2) Not to use neutral territory for the purpose
of fitting out expeditions against the enemy,
and not to make it a base of operations.
(3) To obey all regulations made by neutrals
in such matters as the disarming and interning
of its troops driven across neutral frontiers,
the admission of its cruisers and their prizes
into neutral ports, the length of time they
may stay there, and the amount of supplies
they may take in.

(4) To make reparation to any State whose
neutrality it may have violated.

B. The Obligations of a Neutral State towards Belligerent States.

The portion of International Law which deals with the obligations of neutral States in their rela

tions with belligerent States is in a very unsettled
condition. Some of its rules are clear and definite.
With regard to others there is much doubt; for
opinion has changed greatly in modern times, and
no fixed usage has as yet grown up.
We may say
that a neutral State is bound

(1) Not to give armed assistance to either
belligerent.

Even limited aid given in accordance with a treaty made before the war would not be allowed now.

(2) Not to allow the passage of belligerent troops through its territory.

There is some doubt about this; but both practice and opinion in modern times are in favour of the prohibition.

(3) Not to sell armed ships and other instruments of warfare to a belligerent.

It is, however, doubtful whether a neutral government is bound to stop its ordinary public sales of old stores merely because belligerent agents may buy them.

(4) Not to lend money to a belligerent.

It need not, however, restrain its subjects from doing so, nor from trading with a belligerent in arms and munitions of war.

(5) To disarm and intern all belligerent troops that pass into its territory, and set at liberty all prisoners of war found therein.

Ιταια

The crews of belligerent ships of war in neutral ports, and any prisoners there may be on board such ships, are exceptions to this rule. They cannot be dealt with by the neutral.

(6) Not to allow belligerents to levy troops within its dominions, or fit out or recruit armed expeditions, naval or military, therein, or increase the armament or fighting crew of any vessel of war in its territorial waters.

In cases of breach of neutrality either in the circumstances of a capture, or in the fitting out of the capturing vessel, the neutral must restore the prizes taken, when they are found within its jurisdiction. There is, however, some doubt as to the limit of the neutral's right to try such cases. Belligerent cruisers may be allowed to take in provisions or undergo repairs in neutral ports.

(7) Not to allow its subjects to accept letters of marque from a belligerent, or leave its territory in considerable numbers for the purpose of enlisting in the service of a belligerent, or fit out within its territory armed expeditions against a belligerent, or increase therein the warlike force of any belligerent ship or expedition.

(8) To make reparation to any belligerent who may have been injured by failure on its part to perform its neutral duties.

C. A Doubtful Point.

At the present time there is great uncertainty with regard to the obligations of neutral States in the case of ships built and fitted out within their territory for the service of either belligerent. Till lately the English idea seems to have been that the neutral government was under no obligation to stop such proceedings, unless the vessel was ready to commence hostilities the moment it left neutral waters. But the events connected with the escape of the Alabama and her sister cruisers during the great American Civil War demonstrated the inadequacy of this view. No satisfactory rule has as yet been adopted. Two views demand attention.

(1) The American principle that the intent ought to prevail-the animus vendendi being innocent, the animus belligerendi being guilty.

This rule has led to endless subtleties in its practical working. There is great difficulty in distinguishing between what is permitted and what is forbidden by it.

(2) The suggestion of Hall that the character of the vessel should be the test-“ vessels built primarily for warlike use " being detained, while "vessels primarily fitted for commerce" are allowed to depart unmolested.

This rule has the advantage of clearness; but it would undoubtedly permit the departure of many vessels which might be converted into formidable engines of war.