1. To guard assiduously against any vessel being armed or equipped
in its ports, which there is reason to believe would be employed for
warlike purposes against a peaceful power, and with equal assiduity to
prevent any vessel designed for privateering, or other hostility, from
leaving the domain of the neutral State:
2. Not to allow any belligerent power to make use of its ports or
harbours as the basis of its operations, or for strengthening or
repairing its military strength, or for enlisting:
3. To use every care within its ports and harbours and over all persons
within its domain, to prevent any violation of the obligations named.
The contracting parties to this treaty agreed to hold themselves
responsible for the future, and to bring them before the notice of
other Maritime powers, with the recommendation that they also should
enter into them.
The historical facts here produced show that the mutual interest
nations have in the inviolability of the seas has effectually
contributed to the development of an accepted international law.
When the necessity of making the principles of neutrality binding at
sea was once understood, it was not long before the value of adopting
them on land became apparent.
In the documents, for instance, by which Belgium, Switzerland and
Luxemburg are neutralized, it is distinctly stated that the permanent
neutrality of these States is in full accord with the true interests of
European policy.
According to the actual modern law of nations, there is a permanent
neutrality guaranteed by international deeds of law and treaties, and
one occasionally resting upon free decisions.[14]
As instances of permanent and guaranteed neutrality, we have: The
NEUTRALIZATION OF SWITZERLAND. Ever since the unhappy Italian war in
the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Swiss Confederation has
endeavoured to assure to the country the security which neutrality
gives.
This neutrality was recognised and guaranteed by the great European
powers at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 (art. 84 and 92), and later
was further solemnly confirmed by a special act of the powers at Paris,
Nov. 20th of the same year, in which it was stated:
"The powers declare ... by a permanent act that the permanent
neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland, as well as its
independence of foreign influence, accords with the true interests of
European policy."[15]
THE NEUTRALIZATION OF BELGIUM. In virtue of the Treaty of London, Nov.
15th, 1831 (art. vii.), further confirmed by the powers April 19th,
1839, a permanent neutrality was awarded to Belgium.
This country, which for centuries had served as a battle-ground for
foreign powers, especially for France and Germany, was hereby secured
against such dangers, and at the same time the field for European
warfare was materially narrowed.
Article vii. of the London protocol runs thus: "Belgium shall, within
the boundaries established in art. i. and iv., form an independent
State. The kingdom is bound to observe the same neutrality towards all
States."[16]
During the Franco-German war 1870-1, the neutralization of Belgium was
threatened with violation by France, and further guarantees were given
in new protocols arranged by England.
THE NEUTRALIZATION OF THE ARCHDUCHY OF LUXEMBURG resulted from the
London protocol of May 11th, 1867.
As an evidence of the power and importance in our day of entering into
agreements of neutrality, the following may be adduced:--
During the Franco-German war, 1870-1, the Prussian Government
complained to the guaranteeing powers of conduct at variance with
neutrality on the part of Luxemburg, and threatened no longer to
respect the neutrality of the Archduchy. (Despatch of Prince Bismarck,
Dec. 3rd, 1870.)
In consequence of this, Count Beust, the Austrian chancellor, in an
opinion given Dec. 22nd of the same year, remarked, that upon the
ground of the principle of European guarantee, it belonged to the
powers who had signed the document of neutralization, to inquire into
and to settle whether a violation had taken place on the part of the
neutral State, and not to one of the belligerent powers.[17]
Besides the States named, a permanent neutrality has been secured to
the IONIAN ISLANDS according to the treaties of London, 1863-64; and
also to the SAMOAN ISLANDS, in virtue of the agreement between England,
Germany, and the United States of North America, whereby, amongst
other things, it was settled that in case of any difference of opinion
arising; an appeal should be made to arbitration; and that a supreme
tribunal should be created with a supreme judge, whom the King of
Sweden and Norway has been empowered to name.
* * * * *
One general advantage which neutralization affords is the
simplification with respect to foreign policy thereby obtained.
The attitude of a neutralized State can be reckoned on beforehand by
all parties.
In proportion to its military importance and position, a neutral
country constitutes in many ways a security to all the powers.
It is in close connection with neutralization that in these days an
ever-growing need is becoming apparent to localize wars as much as
possible; that is, to confine them to those who begin them.
As a result of the extraordinarily rapid development of world-wide
trade and intercourse, and the consequent community of interests, a war
between two States necessarily occasions more or less derangement to
the rest.
In this increasing solidarity lies the surest guarantee that neutrality
will be respected.
We may already be justified in drawing the conclusion that the security
of neutral States will continually increase.
* * * * *
Supported upon these foundations of history and of international
law, a discussion was raised on the neutralization of Sweden, in the
First Chamber by Major C.A. Adelsköld, and by myself in the Second,
in the hope thereby not only to oppose the King's bill for the
extension of the war department, but also especially to open the way
for a profitable solution of the tough, old, threadbare question of
Defence.[18]
Before this resolution was brought into the Riksdag, I had read it to
seventy members of the Riksdag, who unanimously accepted it, as did
also, later on, in the main, a majority of the [Norwegian] Storting.
[19]And as soon as the purport of the resolution became generally known
through the press, there came in from popular meetings all over Sweden
numerous congratulatory addresses to Major Adelsköld and myself.
But from its very commencement the proposition met with an
unconquerable opposition from those in power.
With great unanimity efforts were made in this quarter to depreciate
the value and the historical importance of the principle of neutrality.
All possible means were used with this object, to touch the tenderest
fibres of the national feelings. It would be a disgrace to us, it was
said, to employ any other than military power in asserting our primeval
freedom. We should thereby break off from our glorious history, and
draw a black line over its brilliant warlike reminiscences. There were
certainly neutral countries to be found, but their neutrality was not
the result of their own desire, but proceeded from the great powers
themselves. Should we then, they say further, be the first people to
take such a step? Would it not be equivalent to begging peace of our
neighbour, and declaring ourselves incapable before the whole world?
The sensible thing would be to further develop and strengthen our army.
The resolution was called a political demonstration of indigence; a
disgusting nihilist plot, and so on. One member of the Riksdag proposed
that it should be consigned to a committee charged with arranging for
sending beasts abroad. Scoffs came thick as hail; and when it became
known that the mover in the _Second Chamber_ was its author, the really
guilty one, he was branded as a universal traitor,--just as the year
before, when he raised a peaceable question about extended liberty of
conscience.
In my defence of the resolution in the Riksdag, I sought to anticipate
all objections to it which were worthy of notice.[20]