Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

are so manifest, that none of the neighboring states is likely to venture upon invasion, with the certainty before it of encountering a desperate resistance from the inhabitants and bringing about the armed intervention of some of the guaranteeing powers.

The case of Belgium must be considered next. It was united with Holland by the Congress of Vienna, and the two together were known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands. But in 1830 the Belgians rose in revolt against the House of Orange. The King of the Netherlands requested the mediation of the Great Powers; but to his disgust they insisted upon intervention. intervention. In a long series of negotiations, diversified by a French attack on the citadel of Antwerp and an English blockade of the Scheldt, the Belgian frontiers were defined and Belgium was erected into a separate kingdom, whose perpetual neutrality was guaranteed by the powers. These arrangements were embodied in a great international treaty signed in November, 1831; but Belgium and Holland did not come to terms till April, 1839. Their agreement was confirmed by the five Great Powers in another treaty of the same date, which repeated the guarantee of the independence and neutrality of the Belgian Kingdom, and bound it to refrain from interference in the armed struggles of other states. This obligation it has loyally fulfilled; and though intrigues against its independence have not been wanting, it has hitherto been preserved from attack. The successful intervention of Great Britain on its behalf in 1870 has already been chronicled; 2 and it is hardly possible to doubt that one or more of the powers would assist it, should its integrity be exposed to serious danger at any future time. The strictness with which its duty of taking no part in the quarrels of other powers has been construed was very well illustrated in the course of the negotiations

1 Wheaton, History of the Law of Nations, Pt. IV., § 26; Fyffe, Modern Europe, II., 381-390; Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, II., 859-884, 996-998. 2 See § 83.

which terminated in the neutralization of Luxemburg, the last of the three European states which have been placed in a condition of permanent and guaranteed neutrality. In the general settlement of Europe after the downfall of the first Napoleon, the Grand Duchy had been added to the dominions of the King of Holland as a separate and independent state, and made into a member of the German Confederation. As such its capital was garrisoned by Prussian troops, who remained after the disruption of the Confederation in 1866. France objected to their presence, and threatened war if they were not removed. The question was settled by a Conference, which met at London in May, 1867, and placed the Grand Duchy under the collective guarantee of the powers as a permanently neutralized territory. Prussia was to withdraw its soldiers, and the fortifications of the city were to be demolished. Belgium, as one of the states immediately concerned, took part in the Conference and assented to the conclusions arrived at by the assembled plenipotentiaries, but did not sign the treaty in which they were embodied. It contained a guarantee of the neutrality of Luxemburg; and Belgium, being itself a permanently neutralized state, was regarded as incapable of entering into an engagement which might involve her in war for other purposes than those of the strictest self-defence.1 This important indication of the nature and extent of the obligations attached to a neutralized state by the public law of Europe renders the Conference of London memorable from the point of view of the jurist. But it also possesses a further title to his regard. The five Great Powers agreed to invite Italy to join them in sending representatives to deal with the matters under consideration. Their invitation was held to raise her to the rank of a Great Power. She has acted as such on all subsequent occasions; and her elevation seems to show that among the functions of primacy performed by the Great Powers 2

1 Fyffe, Modern Europe, III., 402; Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, III., 1803.

2 See § 135.

must be reckoned the addition of fresh states to their number by a process of co-option. The political order established by the Conference of 1867 has remained in existence up to the present time. On the death of the King of Holland in 1890, and the accession of his daughter to the Dutch throne, Luxemburg passed under the rule of Duke Adolph of Nassau, since by its constitution a female was incapable of reigning. But the dissolution of what was a purely personal tie has made no difference in the neutralized condition of the little state. Its population sympathized largely with the French in the war of 1870, and were accused by Prince Bismarck of aiding them in various ways inconsistent with true neutrality. His threat to disregard the integrity of the Duchy was, however, never carried into effect. Probably it fulfilled its purpose by calling the attention of the authorities and the people to the tenure on which they held their exceptional position.1

states.

Seas and straits could be neutralized as well as territory, if all the maritime powers, or even the leading ones among them and those specially interested in the area in question, agreed to refrain from naval hostilities within it and enforce the observance of this regulation upon recalcitrant But no such neutralization has been effected except in the case of the Suez Canal, the present position of which was described when we were dealing with the Law of Peace.2 It should be noted that the Convention of October, 1888, which imposed upon the canal and its approaches a permanently neutral character, was signed by the six Great Powers, and Turkey, Spain and the Netherlands. Moreover, its sixteenth article contained a stipulation that other powers should be invited to accede to it. It bore, therefore, from the first the character of a great international act, and is likely to have that quality more deeply impressed upon it as ime goes on. There can be no doubt that it has given. 1 Amos, Political and Legal Remedies for War, pp. 222, 223. 2 See § 110.

to the canal a definite status and settled its position in International Law. In 1856 the Kedive Said, in a concession to M. de Lesseps, declared that the canal and its ports should always be open as neutral passages to all ships of commerce. This unilateral statement was invoked by the great French engineer in 1882, in support of his contention that the British, in seizing the canal and making it the base of their operations in Egypt, were guilty of unlawful interference with a neutralized waterway. But he stood almost alone in the view he took of their proceedings. His protests were disregarded by statesmen, who began soon after they were made the long and intricate series of negotiations which led to the Convention of 1888. It is obvious that, had the canal been already neutralized, it would not have been necessary to spend five or six years on the discussion of plans for imposing a neutral character upon it.

The best example of the neutralization of persons and things is to be found in the Geneva Convention of 1864. That great international document protected from intentional attack, by either belligerent, surgeons, nurses, chaplains and others engaged in the care of the sick and wounded, and also extended the same immunity to ambulances and military hospitals, on condition that they were used exclusively for their proper purpose, and showed side by side with the national flag another flag bearing a red cross on a white ground. A similar badge is to be worn on the arm by all persons entitled to exemption from attack or capture under the Convention.2 The humanitarian feelings which prompted the negotiation of this instrument have secured its observance in subsequent wars. Each armed struggle produces

recriminations; 3 but it seems clear that few intentional violations of the Convention have taken place, though the brutal and debased persons who are to be found here and there in

1 British State Papers, Egypt, No. 23 (1883), p. 6.

2 Treaties of the United States, pp. 1151–1153. The recent Boer war affords a strong example. The Boers frequently misused the white flag, and sometimes abused the Geneva Cross; but their treatment of the wounded was most humane.

the ranks of the most civilized armies have undoubtedly taken advantage of opportunities to ignore its beneficent rules, and states have not yet seen their way to make a breach of them punishable under their military codes. It is obvious that in the hurry and turmoil of an engagement incidental damage must frequently be done to the persons and things connected with the hospital service on either side. Stray bullets and wandering shells have no respect for the Geneva cross. War is in itself so terrible and so destructive that the best regulations can do no more than mitigate its horrors; and in the opinion of many ambulance surgeons and other experts the increased efficiency of modern rifles and artillery will result in such a multiplication of the wounded in future conflicts that the present means of dealing with them will be found miserably inadequate. The Geneva Convention has been accepted by the United States of America, all the Great Powers of Europe, and a host of smaller states so numerous as practically to cover the whole field. regarded as part of the public law of the civilized world.

It may be

The instances we have just given support the doctrine that no true neutralization can be accomplished without the consent of powers sufficient by their weight and numbers to perform a legislative act, if not for and on behalf of the whole family of nations, at least for and on behalf of all nations likely to be interested. The Great Powers speak for the whole of Europe in many matters, and therefore their assent to the political arrangements involved in the neutralization of a state may be regarded as the assent of Europe, unless any of the smaller states openly signify their disagreement. The United States were not asked to accede to the neutralization of Switzerland, Belgium or Luxemburg, partly because it was felt that they had no interest in the questions at stake, and partly because they had declared from the outset of their career as an independent nation that they would have nothing to do with the political system of the Old World. But when a great change for the better in the

« PredošláPokračovať »