terim in Rome (Reed) to Mr. Hull, no. 1685, Dec. 28, 1939 (enclosure), ibid. 765.00/168.

"... Italy refrained from issuing a declaration of neutrality and announced an attitude of 'non-belligerency' as distinguished from neutrality. It was not claimed that that distinction had legal consequences. In so far as the attitude of non-belligerency prompted the Italian Government or its organs to express sympathy with the cause of one belligerent side, it assumed the complexion of unfriendly rather than illegal conduct in relation to the other belligerents." II Oppenheim's International Law (6th ed., by Lauterpacht, 1940) 515n.

Robert R. Wilson, writing in late 1940 of the use of the term nonbelligerency in the war in Europe, said:

"The term was apparently first used, in the period after the outbreak of the war in September, 1939, to describe the status and attitude of Italy before that country became a belligerent. In the intervening months it has found frequent employment in a somewhat confused treaty situation, wherein arrangements of alliance do not necessarily bring a state into a war that is being fought by its ally. The position of Turkey will illustrate.

..

...

"Egypt has continued its policy of 'non-belligerency' even after air bombardment and invasion of its territory. .. After the entrance of Italy in the war, Spain came to be the most conspicuous 'non-belligerent' state friendly to the Axis Powers, although in the German press there was, in November, some suggestion that the Soviet Union's attitude has become one of non-belligerency rather than benevolent neutrality ... With the rumors of Germany's plan of sending troops through Bulgaria, there has been some anticipation of Bulgaria's declaring her 'non-belligerency.' The still more anomalous situation of France has evoked at least one unofficial comment from an English source to the effect that if the Vichy Government were to announce itself as a non-belligerent, this would be so equivocal as to be more of a menace to Britain than if the Vichy Government were to go over openly to the side of Britain's enemies. As adherents to the so-called 'new order,' Hungary and Rumania might fall within the category now commonly called 'non-belligerent.'

"To other neutrals close to the theatre of war, the term has apparently not been applied. ...

"From the foregoing it will appear that 'non-belligerency' had connoted various shades of partiality toward the contending parties, but stops short of war in the full legal sense. Whether it is more than a mere journalist's contrivance, unknown to the law, or 'only a euphemism designed to cover violations of international law in the field of neutral obligation' [as stated by Herbert W. Briggs, 34 A.J.I.L. (1940) 569n.], the term would seem to emphasize the idea that legal neutrality implies, as a minimum, some kind of peace-in the sense of absence of an actual contest of armed forces-whatever commitments short of this the state at peace may have toward one or more of those at war. The notion of neutrality as merely non-involvement in direct hostilities is inconsistent with the traditional concept, and if it should come to have this meaning, the concept would have been strikingly narrowed. . . . The attempted distinction between 'perfect' and 'imperfect' neutrality has long been familiar. But, even without dependence upon a basis of reprisals for treaty violations, such definitely partial attitudes as have characterized

the states commonly called 'non-belligerent' in the present war may conceivably presage the time when differential treatment may be a matter of right as well as practice."

35 A.J.I.L. (1941) 121-123.

... Since neutrality is an attitude during a state of war only, it calls into existence special rights and duties which do

not generally obtain. They come into existence through the out- Beginning break of war having been notified, or having otherwise unmis- of status of takably become known to third States who take up an attitude neutrality of impartiality, and are not dragged into the war by the belligerents; they expire ipso facto with the termination of the war, or with the outbreak of war between neutrals and a belligerent. Rights and duties derived from neutrality do not exist before the outbreak of war, however imminent it may be.

II Oppenheim's International Law (6th ed., by Lauterpacht, 1940) 517. See also ibid. 529.

Article II of Hague Convention III of 1907 states:

The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.

2 Treaties, etc. (Malloy, 1910) 2259, 2266; 36 Stat. 2259, 2271.

When a war begins, that body of rules for the regulation of international relations which applies in time of peace becomes impaired. Under international law, the belligerent states then acquire certain rights which do not appertain to states at peace; and at the same time states which remain at peace become affected by a body of rules under which they have the rights and obligations of neutrals.

Secretary Hull to Senator Pittman and Representative Bloom, May 27, 1939, Department of State, XX Press Releases, weekly issue 505, p. 476 (May 28, 1939).

In reply to a note from the German Ambassador with respect to two submarines built by an American company for the Chilean Government, which were acquired by the Canadian Government, the Department of State said that—

it appears from information at hand that these two vessels, after being rejected by the Chilean Government in the latter part of July, were examined by a representative of the Canadian Government on August 4th [1914] at Seattle, from which port the submarines proceeded under their own steam at 10:00 P.M. on the same day to a point off the entrance to the harbor of Victoria, B.C., where they arrived on the morning of August 5th.

Civil wars

In this relation I desire to call to Your Excellency's attention that, according to the information of the Department, a state of war existed between Germany and Great Britain as from midnight at the close of August 4th (London time) and that this Government first received notice of the existence of war at 12:40 A.M., August 5th (Washington time). The proclamation of neutrality of the United States was issued by the President during the day of August 5th. It will be observed, therefore, that the departure of the submarines in question took place, not only before a state of war existed between Germany and Great Britain, but before the Government had received notice of the opening of hostilities, and had had opportunity to proclaim the neutrality of the United States.

The Counselor for the Department of State (Lansing) to the German Ambassador (Count von Bernstorff), Apr. 14, 1915, MS. Department of State, file 763.72111/1650.

The German Legation inquired of the Chilean Foreign Office on Feb. 18, 1919 why the British cruiser Berwick was allowed to remain longer than twenty-four hours in the port of Valparaiso. In reply the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed out that the rules of Hague Convention XIII were intended to prevent direct or indirect aid to either belligerent during a war; that by the Armistice maritime hostilities had ended and the German fleet had been relinquished to the Allies; and that, therefore, Chilean neutrality could not be regarded as compromised by the stay of a British war vessel for more than twenty-four hours. Chile, Memoria del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Culto y Colonizacion, Diciembre de 1915-Noviembre de 1919 (1920) 230–231.

With respect to neutral duties after the Armistice of Nov. 11, 1918, see also post, pp. 605–608.

The existence of war between two States suffices in itself to cause a third State not participating in the conflict to be deemed a neutral, and to be burdened as such with special and equal obligations towards both belligerents. A domestic uprising of whatsoever kind or magnitude is not, however, necessarily productive of such an effect. Until the foreign State recognizes the insurgents as belligerents, it does not technically become a neutral. It is not under the same obligations to both parties to the conflict.

When, however, a third State recognizes insurgents as belligerents, it attains at once, as is elsewhere noted, the status of a neutral, and assumes all of the burdens incidental thereto in relation to both parties. This is doubtless true irrespective of the failure or unwillingness of the parent State or established government to accord recognition.

It is possible for the government of a country in which a civil war is being waged to recognize insurgents as belligerents who have not been accorded such recognition by a third power. That circumstance, although not obliging the latter to take such a

step, may in fact impel it to do so. In the interval prior to the according of recognition, the outside State is not believed to owe a duty to the insurgents to accept the normal obligations of a neutral in dealing with the established government. That government, after its own act of according recognition, might, however, be deprived of just cause of complaint if its privileges within the territory of the third State were restricted to those commonly yielded by a neutral to a belligerent.

II Hyde, International Law, etc. (1922) 781, 784–785.

With respect to recognition of belligerency, see vol. I, pp. 318 et seq., of this Digest.

On August 14, 1911 the Mexican Ambassador addressed a note to the Secretary of State in which he declared that a Mexican revolutionary agitator had purchased from the Winchester Company 1,000 rifles, intended for use against the established government in Mexico. He requested that the Government .of the United States interpose its good offices to prevent the shipment of those arms to Mexico. The Secretary of State replied that—

in view of the general conditions of peace which it is understood now exist within the borders of the territory of Mexico it is difficult to see in what way the mere commercial purchasing of arms and ammunition in New York City could, internationally speaking, be regarded as any violation of the neutrality of the United States toward the Mexican Republic; and, further, it seems quite clear that such purchase of arms and ammunition as a mere commercial transaction unconnected with any military expedition would not constitute a violation of the neutrality statutes of the United States, even if a state of war now existed in Mexico, and certainly would not fall within the purview of such statutes under the present conditions of peace, which it appears reign in your country.

Secretary Knox to Ambassador Crespo y Martínez, no. 15, Aug. 17, 1911, MS. Department of State, file 812.00/2279; 1911 For. Rel. 512.

66

... Inasmuch as this Government does not recognize the belligerency of the insurrectionists [in the State of Sonora] the question of neutrality does not arise and consequently this Government can only recognize the duly constituted authorities of Mexico with which it maintains official relations. You may so inform those parties who have expressed their wish that this Government adopt 'a strictly neutral stand'." Secretary Stimson to the American Consul at Agua Prieta, telegram of Apr. 10, 1929, MS. Department of State, file 812.00 Sonora/638.

Inviolability of territory

NEUTRAL RIGHTS AND BELLIGERENT DUTIES

8657

Hague Convention V of 1907 provides in article I that "The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable."

2 Treaties, etc. (Malloy, 1910) 2290, 2297; 36 Stat. 2310, 2322.

The United States, when a belligerent, has rarely occupied neutral territory. American troops did, however, enter the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg in the advance to the Rhine of the 3rd Army (of occupation) November 20, 1918. In February, 1919, approximately 50,000 American troops were established in occupation of the Grand Duchy. The reason for this measure was said to be the necessity for American troops to pass through Luxemburg and to establish the lines of communication of the 3rd Army through that territory. Luxemburg was not, however, regarded as a belligerent but as a neutral. The American troops exercised no influence on the revolution which occurred in November, 1918; and they assumed generally an attitude of non-interference beyond the strictly military needs of keeping open the lines of communication. It will be noted that the American occupation was subsequent to the Armistice and was the normal incident of following up the retiring forces of an enemy which had itself lawlessly invaded Luxemburg in its offensive operations; and that it was unopposed by the territorial sovereign.

II Hyde, International Law, etc. (1922) 790-791.

On Dec. 3, 1917 the American Chargé d'Affaires in Bern informed the Swiss Government that the United States would not fail "to observe the principle of neutrality applicable to Switzerland and the inviolability of its territory, so long as the neutrality of Switzerland is maintained by the Confederation and respected by the enemy". The Chargé d'Affaires ad interim in Bern (Wilson) to the Secretary of State (Lansing), no. 1927, Dec. 12, 1917 (enclosure), MS. Department of State, file 763.72111N39/137.

When the outbreak of war in Europe threatened at the end of July 1914 the British Government inquired, on July 31, whether the German and French Governments would respect the neutrality of Belgium. The French Government replied that it would do so, while the German Government replied that it was unable to answer. On August 1 the Belgian Government announced that it would scrupulously observe its duties as a neutral. On August 2 the German Minister in Brussels, in a note alleging that "reliable information" had been received that French forces intended to march across Belgium against Germany, presented an ultimatum demanding permission for German troops to march across Belgian territory. It was stated in the note that this was essential for the self-defense of Germany, that Germany had no hostile act in view against Belgium, and that Germany would feel the deepest regret if Belgium should