{"id":7985,"date":"2020-12-01T02:04:24","date_gmt":"2013-11-05T13:51:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lawin.org\/?p=7985"},"modified":"2020-12-01T02:04:24","modified_gmt":"2013-11-05T13:51:02","slug":"neutrality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawin.org\/neutrality\/","title":{"rendered":"Neutrality"},"content":{"rendered":"

Neutrality<\/h1>\n

Neutrality Definition<\/h2>\n

Neutrality may be defined, in international law, as a legal status of a state that adheres to a policy of nonengagement during war. See more about the definition of neutrality here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The rules covering wartime relations between a neutral and a belligerent were formulated largely in response to situations that developed during the limited conflicts of the 18th and 19th centuries. One of the first clear formulations of a doctrine of neutrality was embodied in two early U.S. documents: the proclamation of neutrality issued by George Washington in 1793 and the American Neutrality Code of 1794.<\/p>\n

A landmark document relating to the maritime relations of neutrals and belligerents was the Declaration of Paris, issued in 1856. The rights and duties of neutrals were codified in the 5th and 13th Hague conventions of 1907 and in the Declaration of London of 1908, which, however, was not ratified.<\/p>\n

Neutrality Rules<\/h2>\n

The complicated rules of neutrality are based, for the most part, on two deceptively simple assumptions, namely, that a neutral state, being neither judge nor party in the conflict, must show impartiality in its dealings with belligerents on both sides, and that belligerents must respect the sovereignty of neutral states. Accordingly, throughout a war, neutral states continue diplomatic intercourse with all belligerent states.<\/p>\n

A neutral state may not give armed assistance to any belligerent, or lend money, or guarantee a loan to either side, or permit its territory to become a base for hostile operations. Although it may permit the innocent passage of belligerent vessels through its territorial waters, it is expected to intern belligerent troops and aircraft that enter its jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Neutrality Rules applied to Belligerents and Neutrals<\/h3>\n

These rules apply to the relations of belligerents and neutral governments. The relations of belligerents to private citizens of neutral states involve greater difficulties. Neutral governments are expected to prevent their citizens from fitting out military expeditions in neutral territory, and they may not protect their citizens from penalties incurred from committing unneutral acts. Neutral governments are not obliged to restrain their citizens from selling war supplies or lending money to belligerents if the citizens have the same legal right to trade with both sides. A belligerent, moreover, is not prohibited from attempting to intercept such commerce between neutrals and its enemy. On the high seas, belligerents have the right to stop and search neutral vessels and to capture them if there is evidence that they are carrying contraband to the enemy, breaking a blockade, or engaging in unneutral service. On a neutral vessel only contraband is liable to confiscation although other goods on board may be owned by a belligerent citizen. If more than half the cargo on a neutral vessel (as measured by value or freight, volume or weight) consists of contraband, the neutral vessel itself may be condemned. Condemnation of a neutral vessel or cargo, however, must always be settled by adjudication in a prize court, which may award damages to the owner if the evidence is insufficient to show “probable cause”for capture. A belligerent may also proclaim a blockade of enemy ports. If such a blockade is effective, the belligerent may capture, and the prize court may condemn, neutral ships that are seeking to leave or enter blockaded ports.<\/p>\n

War: Belligerents and Neutral Governments<\/h3>\n

Neutrals and belligerents often disagree regarding the interpretation of these rules. Neutral countries have usually advocated a very limited definition of contraband and the least possible interference with their shipping by insisting that their vessels may not be taken into port for search, that “probable cause”for capture must be found by search at sea, and above all, that their vessels must not be sunk.<\/p>\n

Belligerents have tended to favor a broad definition of contraband and to interpret their rights to intercept neutral commerce as including not only ships bound for enemy ports but also, under the doctrine of “continuous voyage,”ships bound for neutral ports and carrying goods that may ultimately be received by an enemy. They have also held that if it is impossible to take a vessel liable to capture to one of their ports, they may take it to a neutral port for internment, or sink it, providing passengers and crew are put in a place of safety.<\/p>\n

During the two world wars, for example, Great Britain defined almost every conceivable type of commodity as contraband and asserted the right to intercept neutral ships going from one neutral port to another if statistical or other evidence indicated that cargo carried by the ship might be destined for its enemy. In view of the difficulties of searching large ships at sea and the danger of enemy submarines, neutral ships were often taken into port for search.<\/p>\n

Germany, being unable to rival the success of the British navy in intercepting ships and enforcing a blockade of enemy ports, and being unable to bring captured vessels to port because all its ports were blockaded, responded to the British policy with submarine warfare, even sinking enemy and suspected neutral vessels at sight. As a neutral during the early stages of both world wars, the U.S. objected to such practices of Germany and Great Britain, and German violation of neutral rights, especially the sinking of enemy vessels carrying American passengers, was a major cause of U.S. entry into World War I.<\/p>\n

Embargo<\/h3>\n

In reaction to the Italo-Ethiopian war as well as the impending threat of World War II, U.S. Congress passed a series of neutrality acts between 1935 and 1937. Among other provisions, these laws placed an embargo on exports of war materiel to belligerents, warned American citizens that they could not expect protection if they traveled on belligerent ships or in war zones, prohibited loans to belligerents, and instituted the so-called cash-and-carry policy that specified that a belligerent could only obtain raw materials from the U.S. if it paid for them on delivery and carried them on its own vessels.<\/p>\n

Soon after the outbreak of World War II Congress repealed the arms embargo, and in 1940 the other provisions of the neutrality acts were repealed or bypassed so that aid might be provided to Great Britain in the form of arms shipments, and under Lend-Lease, justified on the ground that German aggressions violated the Kellogg-Briand Pact and relieved the U.S. of the normal neutral duty of impartiality.<\/p>\n

Alternatives to Neutrality<\/h2>\n

The virtually complete breakdown of neutrality that marked the two world wars reflected changes in the nature of warfare and the growing economic interdependence of nations throughout the world. See more about Alternatives to Neutrality here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Source: “Neutrality” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia<\/p>\n

See Also<\/h2>\n

Convention (XIII) Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
\nConvention (X) for the Adaption to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention
\nMPEPIL: Use of force, war, peace and neutrality
\nConvention (XI) Relative to Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War
\nConvention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land
\nConvention (XIII) Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
\nAbout the Declaration of Paris, Historical
\nConvention (VI) Relating to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities
\nGeneva Convention (II)<\/p>\n

Introduction to Neutrality<\/h2>\n

Neutrality, in international law, legal status of a state that adheres to a policy of nonengagement during war. The rules covering wartime relations between a neutral and a belligerent were formulated largely in response to situations that developed during the limited conflicts of the 18th and 19th centuries. One of the first clear formulations of a doctrine of neutrality was embodied in two early U.S. documents: the proclamation of neutrality issued by George Washington in 1793 and the American Neutrality Code of 1794. A landmark document relating to the maritime relations of neutrals and belligerents was the Declaration of Paris, issued in 1856. The rights and duties of neutrals were codified in the 5th and 13th Hague conventions of 1907 and in the Declaration of London of 1908, which, however, was not ratified.” (1)<\/p>\n

Neutrality<\/h2>\n

In relation to the neutrality and constitutional law, Ioannis A Tassopoulos[1] made the following observation: Neutrality is about being ‘a third’ vis-à-vis a conflict between others. The claim of neutrality is a claim addressed to the belligerent parties to show respect for the choice of the neutral not to become involved in their conflict, under the condition, however, of strict impartiality of the neutral toward them. Neutrality has both self-regarding and other-regarding aspects. The former involve the abstention and the disengagement of a third from the conflict between others; and, as such, it is voluntaristic in nature (Walzer 234)—a vindication of autonomy (…)<\/p>\n

Neutrality<\/h2>\n

Embracing mainstream international law, this section on neutrality explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here.<\/p>\n

Neutrality and Europe<\/h2>\n

There is an entry on neutrality in the European legal encyclopedia<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Resources<\/h2>\n

See Also<\/h3>\n

Further Reading<\/h3>\n