Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
THE
place, Hertzog, a branch of the big firm in Berlin, has been
burned to the ground, naturally, after everything was stolen.
The women and ehz'la'ren ‘who were sent out of'German South-
west and put in camps in Pretoria and Picternzaritzburg -were ‘
sent back after peace, but each time I sit down to a heavily
laden table I say: “O mother, think of those poor women and
children. On what are they going to live?”
FATHERLAND
293
Incidents like these could be multiplied without end if it were
profitable to consume valuable space. The brutality of the English
toward women is historic, of which, we think, some proof has been
furnished in the course of the foregoing. But more still is at the
disposal of the Providence Scavenger.
Fiu-zniziuc FRANKLIN SCHRADER.
THE REAL HISTORY OF BELGIAN NEUTRALITY"‘
By E. C. Richardson,
THIS lucidly written book makes interesting reading at the pres-
ent moment. It is a clear, well-documented summary of the
whole group of international law questions concerned, introduced
by an illuminating historical survey. As such, it is an indispensable
guide-book for every student of the particular subject, but it is more
than this; it is an admirable aid to understanding the case of all
other small States threatened by major force, Holland, Switzerland,
China, Roumania, and, above all, Greece. Although written before
they happened, it forms the best commentary available on recent
Greek events, and these events are at the same time the very best
illustration of the author's main point, climax, and conclusion, i. e.,
that a small neutral nation may yield to major force without losing
its neutrality or its dignity.
The author treats fully, but with admirable brevity and restraint,
both the treaty aspect and the plain breach of neutral rights involved
in the violation of territory, treaty or no treaty.
In the first or historical part of the volume, Dr. Fuehr brings out
clearly the fact that, for centuries, Belgium had been often “saved"
or made “independent”-not, however, for Belgium's sake, but al-
ways as a “bulwark” or “barrier" between England and France,
England and ,Germany, or France and Holland. He then gives
briefly a. history of the treaties of 1831, 1839 and l870, of the Anglo-
Belgian "conventions," and of the invasion of 1914.
In thesecond or legal part he discusses the obligations of guar-
antors and guarantees under the quintuple treaty, the effect of
changed conditions and the treaty of 1870 on the guarantee, the in-
ternational law rule as to national self-preservation and military
necessity, and the legal consequences of the breach. The appendix
adds a dozen documents. '
The discussion of the treaties brings out with great clearness the
usual facts and arguments bearing on the German case. There
naturally is not much that is wholly new, but Dr. Fuehr’s legal
training, together with his knack for a cogent marshalling of his
material, results in making almost every point striking. and man)’
convincing, if not final. It is hard, for example, to see how any one
who will read this book intelligently can fail to confess to the
technical annulling of the treaty of 1839: first, by repeated breaches
of various clauses of an indivisible treaty; second, by Yelleated
breach of collective guarantee; and, third, by change of circum-
stances.
These matters, however, and their many related points are a mere
piling up on the ball after the whistle is sounded, if Dr. Fuehr:s
Point that the treaty itself does not forbid temporary oCCUD3l10“i 15
sound; and this seems to be the fact.
This point has been made before, ‘md. 35 D“ F“el“' States; has
been accepted by jurists of thehrst rank on the ground of the simple
fact that, while protocols propose to guarantee neutrality, intct-IFHY
and inviolability of territory, the treaties themselves provide. Onlll
for independence, integrity and neutrality, omitting “‘“"‘0l3l3‘1ltY 05
territory." Absolute inviolability is contemplated in the documents
of November 15, 1830, of January 20, .l3““31'Y 27: Febfuary 19- APT”
17 and June 26, 1831. When the articles next appear in the October
drafts and the November treaty, “inviolability” has disapPf‘3T9d-
After such constant use, this could hafdl)’ be 3"Y‘l1l"ggb“tfme“'
tional; and circumstances confirm the inference. In brief, it was
Purposely dropped, for the very good reason that in the meantime
France had violated Belgian territory, within the P7505“ ‘“C""““g
L.
' F li . A . .
Case lll'lldcefrii.51::3:(2dteSfin political history and international law.
Funk & VVag'nalls company. 1915. 248 pp-
Tllt.NEI(frulffy of Belgium. A stud)’ Of ‘Il‘;:wB“‘('f)i:’,::
Princeton University
of the Conference, and under very interesting circumstances, mili-
tary and diplomatic. This violation was condoned by the Confer-
ence, also for very good reasons, but “inviolability of territory” was
naturally dropped from the next draft of the articles.
The more the circumstances are examined, the more evident it
becomes that “inviolability of territory” was purposely not guar-
anteed, and the story is an interesting one in itself as well as con-
clusive against the charge of treaty violation. . Remembering that
the treaty was practically undertaken to begin with in order to make
sure that France should not annex Belgium, this story is in brief
as follows:
The first suggestion of guarantee was on November 15, 1830. It
proposed to declare that none of the five powers could, “under any
circumstances,” invade or occupy Belgium without the ‘consent of
the other four. The protocol of January 20, 1831, and the eighteen
articles of January 27th, both have the guarantee of neutrality, in-
tegrity and “inviolability of territory." The protocol of February
19th postpones recognition of independence, but provides for neu-
trality and inviolability. The protocol of April 17th makes a par-
ticular point of the admitted inviolability of territory as being se-
curity that Belgium fortresses might be razed withoiit danger. -lii
the protocol of the same date, on the adhesion of France, France
recognized neutrality and inviolability of Belgium territory, but re-
serves acknowledgment of sovereignty or independence. Up to June
26th, at least, “inviolability" remained in the documents.
Soon after this, however, events began to move quickly. Holland
resisted the treaty by force. On August 2nd Belgium applied to
France for help, and France responded at once, but was halted for
a time on the frontiers by the Conference. The protocol of August
6th reveals the strain which this put upon the Conference which was
in fact a good deal discomfited by events. This protocol explains
that France simply had not had time to fulfill her obligation of
getting the approval of the Conference as she had wished to do,
that she had undertaken not to enter Old Holland, and that under
no circumstances would France and England carry the war too near
the frontier of Prussia and Germany. France further gave assur-
ance that the Dutch, once driven out, she could retire to her own
soil. The French then entered Belgium, the Dutch left at once. The
protocol of the 18th states that the French army have already com-
menced its retirement, and that, in part, it has orders to return im-
mediately to France; provision is made for agreeing on a period at
which the occupation of Belgium by the French troops is to cease
entirely. I
It appears thus that the powers protested against the occupation
and made careful safeguard against permanent occupation, but it
condoned temporary occupation and dropped “inviolability of terri-
tory" from the protocols from this time on.
treaty were made providing for “independence and neutrality,” and
on the 15th of November the treaty of 1831 was signed, as “inde-
pendent and neutral."
This was the end of the doctrine of inviolability “under all cir-
cumstances," but not the end of the story, for Holland again de-
clined to execute the treaty, or to leave Belgium. After months of
diplomatic haggling, chiefly over boundaries and debt, Belgium tried
to get the five guarantors to execute the treaty by force, but they
declined to go beyond diplomatic financial threats, and on October
5, 1832, Belgium appealed to France to execute the guarantee, with-
out regard to the other guarantors. England, again alarmed for
fear that France, once in Belgium, would annex it, joined France
in the execution of the treaty by force. The convention of the 22nd
In October drafts of g