"have the right to repair breaches or to erect new works "of defence within the place during an armistice, this "point should be determined by express agreement be"tween the parties1."

town be

ed in time

Bismarck in 1870 refused to allow during a twenty-five May a besieged days armistice the introduction into Paris of even limited food supplies. M. de Chaudordy denounced this conduct revictuallas a violation of the spirit of the armistice, contending of truce? that the principle of such a convention must necessarily imply in the case of a besieged place the condition of revictualling, it being essential that each belligerent should on the resumption of hostilities find himself in that position in which he was at the commencement of the truce. Bismarck's action, however, harsh as it was, was in no way a breach of strict legal right, although milder mannered belligerents have commonly permitted in such cases the introduction under close supervision of definitely limited supplies3.

approved

of a truce

A clear infraction of an armistice by one belligerent An augives to his opponent the right of denouncing the thorised or convention, if not of recommencing hostilities with- infraction out denunciation: the unauthorised and unapproved gives the violation of the truce by private individuals calls for right of punishment and compensation, but, in general, for no more ciation. drastic measures3.

denun

be termin

The state of War may be finally terminated by a mere War may cessation of hostilities, or by the complete conquest of the ated by one by the other belligerent state: it commonly ceases, complete however, with the signature of a formal treaty of peace.

It becomes the contracting parties to a treaty of peace

1 Instructions for the Government of U. S. Armies in the Field, Art. 143, Cf. Hall, Int. Law, Part I. Chap. v. § 192, note.

2 Rolin-Jacquemyns, La Guerre Actuelle, p. 57. Hall, International Law, Part. III. Chap. VIII. § 192. Cf. Thuc. v. 49 ante.

3 Project of an International Declaration, Arts. 51 and 52. Instructions for the Government of U. S. Armies in the Field, Arts. 136, 145, and 146. Vattel, II. 16, § 241-2.

+ Vattel, Iv. 2. Heffter, Le Droit International, Liv. 11. Chap. IV. Hall, International Law, Part. III. Chap. IX.

conquest or by a

mere cessation

ities;

but is

of hostil to set out in their agreement the conditions upon which amity is restored, and the date of the return to the peacecommonly footing. In default of special stipulation to the contrary, brought to an end by the state of war ceases with the signature of the definitive treaty, while the rights of the contractors and their subPeace. jects are determined by the broad principle of Uti Uti Possi- Possidetis. The condition of peace may by particular

a formal

Treaty of

detis

and

In Statu

Quo.

agreement be restored at different times within various limits, and the relations of the contracting Powers may be determined at will. Even should, however, the rule of In Statu Quo be accepted by the parties, no claim is thereby created against either Power in respect of property lawfully appropriated during, or of property necessarily damaged or destroyed by, the operations of War1. A native government may, on the return of peace, see fit for special reason to grant compensation to subjects who have suffered loss in the course of the struggle, but such conduct is founded in charity not in strict right. The Government of the United States after the great American Civil struggle refused indemnity for the destruction of property by General Sherman in Alabama. The Germans in 1872, while reimbursing in the parts of Alsace and Lorraine acquired by them the losses sustained by individuals by bombardments, declined to compensate Swiss subjects who suffered by the shelling of Strasburg. The more generous French indemnified without distinction of nationality the necessitous victims of the war, but carefully guarded against the recognition in the assisted of any absolute right2.

In common the signature of a treaty of Peace involves the definite cessation of all hostilities, and with it, in default of special agreements, the cessation of the further

1 Vattel, Iv. 2, §§ 21, 22; 3, § 31.

2 Bluntschli, Le Droit International Codifié, § 662.

3 Compare the 'Definitive Treaty of Peace between France and Germany,' May 10, 1871. Art. 8. "German troops shall continue to abstain "from levying contributions either in kind or money in the occupied "Territories; that obligation on their part being correlative to the obliga"tions contracted for their maintenance by the French Government, in

levy, or the exaction of the arrears, of contributions or requisitions by either belligerent upon the subjects of the other: it implies the release under proper supervision of all remaining prisoners, the restoration of all rights and engagements which were suspended by the war, and a complete amnesty in respect of all warlike acts of either party during the course of their belligerency1.

66

66

"case the French Government, notwithstanding the reiterated demands of the German Government, was behindhand in the execution of the said obligations, the German troops will have the right to procure what "is necessary to their wants by levying Taxes and Contributions in the occupied Departments, and even outside of them, should their resources "not be sufficient." Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, III. p. 1959. Vattel, Iv. §§ 19, 20; 4, § 29.

66

1 Bluntschi, Le Droit International Codifié, §§ 710-723. Heffter, Le Droit International, Liv. 11. § 180.

Neutrality as entire

from inter-❝

CHAPTER VII.

THE SCIENCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

[B.] ABNORMAL INTERNATIONAL LAW.

(B) Neutrality.

A. Neutrality does not consist in the mere impartial

treatment of opposing belligerents, but in the entire abstinence from any assistance of either party in his warfare.

"La neutralité consiste à ne point participer à la guerre abstinence "engagée entre des tiers, et à maintenir la paix sur son propre territoire. Les états neutres sont ceux qui ne sont a modern "pas parties belligérantes et qui ne prennent part aux opérations militaires, ni en faveur de l'un des belligé"rants, ni au détriment de l'autre1."

ference is

concep

tiou.

The

Growth of Neutrality. (1) An

tiquity and

So writes an eminent jurist of the day. But Neutrality thus defined is a conception of very recent times. In the age before Grotius there was alike in fact and the Middle in language simply no "Neutrality." The very name of Ages knew. Neutrality" was unknown. The subjects of states not "Neu- directly engaged in any existing war were "medii3” or "non-hostes," but never "neutrals."

nothing of

trality."

1 Bluntschli, Le Droit International Codifié, § 742.

2 Gessner, Le Droit des Neutres, p. 22. Heffter, Le Droit International, Liv. II. § 144, 1883 Ed., Geffcken's note. Calvo, Examen des Trois Règles de Droit International Proposées dans le Traité de Washington, Revue de Droit International, 1874, p. 489.

3 Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Book III. c. 17, De his qui in bello medii sunt.

4 Bynkershoek, Quaest. Jur. Publ. 1. cap. 9, De belli statu inter non hostes. Wheaton, Elements of International Law, Part IV. Chap. III. § 412.

The explanation lies not far afield. It may be sought in the influence of the theory of the decaying WorldEmpire and in the still active sway of the World-Church.

of Neu

Empire;

theory of the World

Each constituent of the great Imperial system, each The notion subject of one mighty Central Power, was necessarily trality was interested in the contest of any two members of the same opposed to (i) the association; each member of the World-Church in the theory of quarrels of the brethren. The religious spirit of the age, the Worldmoreover, forbade the notion of Neutrality. The Church (ii) the of the Middle Ages was a Church Militant: her life was a battle of right against wrong, of God against Satan, Church; a battle against the Saracen without and the within, a battle in which all the worthy, rulers and ruled, were perforce alike enlisted. The simple faith of the Ages, with Middle Ages adopted in all its literal force the word of Scripture, "He that is not with us is against us." No Christian might, it was thought, be neuter in the cause of orthodoxy against the heresiarch; the Crusader might for special reason make a truce with the Saracen, but there might be no peace with the Infidel.

heretic reli

(iii) the religious ideas of the Middle

Knight

The religious Orders of Knighthood, which were the their religious offspring of the Crusades, Knights Templars, Knights of Orders of St John, Teutonic Knights, and Knights of the Sword', fostered and kept alive the warlike spirit. Chivalry was enlisted in the cause of the Cross, and rushed into the fray with all the enthusiasm of fanaticism.

hood,

The Churchman himself, in spite of Canon and Council, fighting was at times hardly distinguishable from the soldier. clerics, It was not merely in defence of the monastery that the monkish sword "did wonders"." An Odo armed cap à pie

1 For the territorial acquisitions of the Teutonic Knights, and Knights of the Sword, see Freeman, Historical Geography, pp. 512 et seqq. Schmauss, Corpus Juris Gent. Academ. 1. p. 2162. The two orders united in 1237, but were again separated in 1515. In 1525 the dominions of the Teutonic Order were secularised by Albert of Brandenburg and became a Polish fief; the Livonian order lost its independence in 1561, when the Grand Master, Gotthard Kettler, became a feudatory of Sigismund Augustus of Poland. Schmauss, Corpus Juris Gent. Academ. 1. pp. 212, 313.

2 Sir Froissart the Monk "did wonders" in the defence of the monas