Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
.state in its international relations.
4 ISSUES AND EVENTS
fact that the neutral and belligerent countries are
contiguous, may create such changed conditions as
to overrule the application of the principle of the free-
dom of contraband trade. Contraband commerce
carried on between the ports of a neutral state and
those of a belligerent affords, as a rule, an opportu-
nity for the belligerent to capture the contraband
goods on the high seas. Where contraband‘ com-
merce by land is carried on across the boundary line
of a belligerent and a neutral state, there is no oppor-
tunity for the other belligerent to intercept such
commerce unlesshe is in actual military occupation
upon the enemy country” (page 158). Now, the
situation confronting the dealer in war material as
to this point may change during a war: in the begin-
ning the enemy of his customer may be able to in-
' terfere with the transportation of the goods, but
later he may be prevented from so doing by his los-
ing control of the routes over which the trade is
carried on, or by his being deprived of men of war.
In such a case the condition is fulfilled during one
period of the war and not fulfilled at a later time,
and, accordingly, the contraband trade has to be
discontinued as soon as it is apparent that the con-
dition it depends on can no longer be fulfilled. For
the non-fulfillment of the condition does not change
the conditional right into an unconditional one-but,
on the contrary, the right itself ceases to exist. Such
a change, it is true, may work injury to the dealer
and partly destroy his chances for further profits,
but he must be prepared for such fate in any case,
as his business may come to a sudden halt by other
causes, such as, for instance, the cessation of hos-
tilities, and he will have to bear it.
Neutrality an Attitude of the State.
The third restriction to the right of the individual
to sell arms to a belligerent results from the neu-
trality of his State. According to the doctrines of
International Law, an individual is neither neutral
nor unneutral ; neutrality is only the condition of a
state, and the status of the individual citizen can
only be considered in connection with that of the
State. So, if a State has decided to-be neutral dur-
ing a war, especially if it has proclaimed its neutral-
ity, it has to see to it .that none of its ‘citizens or
residents or corporations within its jurisdiction does
anything which would characterize it as aiding one
belligerent party to the detriment of the other. It
must be and must remain impartial and must take
care that its population-all the inhabitants consid-
ered as a unit-must act impartially. "The govern-
ment'of a neutral state, therefore, is bound to prevent
any act of any of those within its jurisdiction com-
promising the state’s neutrality. If the state in ques-
tion has no specific law empowering its executive
to suppress the unneutral action, the executive de-
rives such right from the fact that it represents the
There can be no
doubt that the executive of the United States has
such power.‘ Having formally proclaimed -its neu-
trality, the United States would place itself in con-
tradiction to itself if its executive would fail to pre-
vent acts of its citizens which impair its neutrality.
Such acts are against public policy in its very es--
sence. They, therefore, afford a clear case to apply
the so-called police power, “the inherent power of a
government to take such actions as may be deemed
necessary for its own protection, and to secure the
safety, comfort‘ and general welfare of its citizens.”
Hence, ‘having proclaimed the neutrality of the Unit-
.ed States, the President may lawfully order that an
inhabitant-of the United States exceeding the limits
f in the sale and transportation of contraband of war
to be notified of his violation of the neutrality of the
United States and be ordered to discontinue such
acts, and eventually may order the prosecution of
the offending party. He may, therefore, forbid the
exportation of contraband by proclamation in case
such exportation is found to vitiate the neutrality of
the United States. In the present case everybody
knows that only one party to the European conflict
receives war material from the United States. It
follows that the attitude of the United States is not
neutral. The fact that Germany and Austria-Hun-
gary are prevented from purchasing does not make
it neutral, and the contention that just for this rea-
son it would be unneutral to stop the trade in arms
and ammunitions can easily be shown to be unfound-
ed, illogical and contrary to law.
Impartiality Required.
“Neutrals in a war are those who take no part in
it, but remain the common friends of the belligerents,
favoring the arms of neither to the detriment of the
other.” (Halleck, International Law, edition of 1861,
p. 513.) “To furnish succors or auxiliaries, or to
extend privileges to one belligerent to the detri-
ment of the other, is undoubtedly a violation of strict
neutrality, and, as such, is a just cause of com-
plaint, if not of war.” (Page 515, ibid.), “Not only
are the neutrals obliged to maintain strict impartial-
ity toward the belligerents,” etc. (Page 516.) “Since
neutrality is an attitude of impartiality, it excludes
such assistance and succors to one of the belligerents
as is detrimental to the other, and, further, such in-
juries to the one as benefits the other.” (Oppenheim,
International Law, 1909, Vol. II, page 317.) From
all this it appears that neutrality is not an attitude of
the government, but an attitude of a State, i. e., the
entirety of its subjects. It is apparent further that
neutrality consists in being impartial and finally that
neutrality is not a mere state of mind. not a mere
matter of intention and that its obligations are not
fulfilled by a mere willingness to treat both parties
to the conflict alike.
It is, then, apparent that the people of the United
States (not the government of the United States), in
order to be neutral, must either serve both bellige-
rent parties alike or not serve them at all. Tertium
non datur. If it is not possible to serve both parties
alike, only one alternative remains: to serve neither.
The cause of the impossibility does not matter. , Just
as (‘according to Femvick, quoted above) it would
be unneutral to furnish war material by land routes
to one belligerent across the border while the enemy
is unable to intercept the transport and to seize
the contraband goods, it is unneutral to serve one
belligerent party with war materials while the other
belligerent party is unable to intercept the transport
and seize the contraband goods on account of its
being excluded from the area traversed by the trans-
port. The Central Powers, Germany and Austria.
Hungary, are now excluded from the area over which
contraband articles are shipped to their enemies from
the United States. In addition, the Central Powers
have no merchantmen either in the Atlantic or Pa-
cific Ocean. Finally, if Germany or Austria-Hun-
gary could secure neutral merchantmen to convey
war material to them, they could be certain of the
transports’ interception and that the goods would
be seized by their enemies. So they are unable to
obtain such articles from the United'States. This
makes it impossible‘ for the United States to serve
"both belligerent parties alike, and, therefore, makes
' it unneutral to sell arms and ammunitions to Eng-
land, France or Russia. I
- (Continued on page 15)