GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF NEUTRALITY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 201, 23 August 1904, Page 2

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF NEUTRALITY.

(By F. G. Ewington.) The war in the Far East is giving r'se to some very interesting questions of neutrality. Some of them are pregnant with serious issues. A mistake, or the wilfully rash act of an over-zealous official, may possibly plunge Britain and other Powers into the struggle now rag'ng between Russia and Japan. Russia has heretofore, again and pgfun, as is proved oy history, tried to kmijably square matters with Great Britain; and now she says she will recognise the validity of Britain's and America's view, and "d fferentiate between conditional and absolute contraband." What does she mean? Merchandise, such as, for instance, food, clothing and fuel, carried in British ships and destined for Japan or Russia, is "conditional contraband." If it be for the people generally of those countr : es it is perfectly legitimate trade, but if it be for the use of the army or navy of either belligerent, then, like the carrying of articles primarily for military purposes in time of war, it is "absolute contraband." That is the point in d : spute between Britain and Russia. The latter has been harassing British vessels and arresting merchandise "without any regard to ulterior military operations," and, apparently, "with the real design of carrying on a war against trade, and from its nature against the trade of peaceful and friendly Powers, instead of a war against aimed men. . . ." So glaring is it that there is an evident design to play into the hands of Germany to the prejudice of Great Britain, because British shippers have practically lad up their vessels, keeping back mllions of pounds' wort!) of merchandise, while Germans are doubling their shipments to Japan with the avowed object of trying to capture the whole trade of that rp?ion. Russia now says she "will differentiate."

The Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association called upon the Brtish Government to protect the commercial flag, and more clearly define contraband. London papers are urgiig merchants to pursue their trade with the Far East, so that if there be further in terference a straight-out issue may arise. That neutrals had "a right to trade with the exception of blockades and contrabands, between all ports of the enemy," was laid down by the United States in 1805, and the latter Power will prove to be very insistent on that right. Even an amateur can see that great commercial Powers like Britain and the United States could not possibly tolerate Russia's arbitrary design to carry on war against their commerce, to injure them and befriend Germany. Russia and Germany are most likely in secret treaty with a yew to dividing China when the inevitable break-up comes. It is not likely that Russian men-o'-war would have wilfully sunk a British ship, or Turkey have allowed Russian armed vessels through the Dardanelles except for reliance on Germany's fr : endship in an emergency. Russia has sent a Note to the Powers respecting the seizure by the Japanese of the Russian destroyer in Chifu Harbour; and now the Japanese Consul-Gen'ral at Shanghai has notified the Tiaotai that the Japanese fleet will seize the Askold and the Grosovoi unless they be at once disarmed or expelled. If the Japanese do attempt to seize the Russian ships, the latter probably will not offer any resistance, because "a attacked : n neutral territory forfeits his redress against the neutral if he attempts to defend himself; this doctrine was laid down by the President of the French Republic, acting as arbitrator in the General Armstrong dispute between Britain and the United State. ... "A belligerent who has suffered from a v'olation of neutral territory by his enemy is entitled to demand that the neutral shall taka such step* to procure an indemnity as he might reasonably be expected to adopt, having regard to the circumstances, in a case in which his own interests were i involved."

Probably Japan will not carry out her threat. It would give Russia a good pull on China, whom she accuses of treachery. It might even lead to war with China, a game that would exactly suit Germany and Russia. It would not suit Japan at present to embroil China. A belligerent has a restricted right of asylum in the port or country of a neutral, provided he only seeks shelter, as the French army did in Switzerland in 1871. Once in the neutral port or country, all prisoners captured in the war regain their liberty. The German Governor at Kiao-chau, it i? said, obliges the Russian officers and men to remain in that port on parole throughout the present war. In this case Germany seems disposed to rigidly interpret international law. Mr F. E. Pmith. M.A., D.C.1., author of "International Law," says, in regard to the French troops in Switzerland in 1871: "Such a reception is properly conditioned, in the case of land forces, upon an agreement by the fugitives to undergo disarmament in crossing the frontier, and internment within the neutral territory, as long as hostilities last. In the case of maritime warfare, the requirements of neutral hospitality are less exacting. Thus a neutral may freely supply repairs, pacific stores, and sufficient coal to carry the belligerent vessel to the nea.rest port of her own country."

Russia is reported to have claimed I that after fitting out with the deliberate intention of quitting the neutral port, her vessels might legally remain in shelter for 24 hours longer. That is probably a misinterpretation of a rule that was made in the 18th century. " The practice sprang up of detaining a privateeer vessel for 24 hours after the departure of its enemy—that is, when two hostile vessels at the same time seek shelter in a neutral port. The rule has now become almost as universal in the case of public vessels of war as it formerly was of privateers." Judging from Mr Balfour's public and very guarded statements, there is great danger that a partial or ill natured interpretation of international neutrality laws may lead to very serious consequences. It is emphatically laid down as a maxim of neutrality: "Should a neutral State deviate from its duty the injured State is entitled to treat such deviation as a just cause of war." China has sailed close to the wind, and Russia has appealed to the Powers. What will the issue be? POSTSCRIPT. Since the above was written news has come that the Japanese did try to seize the Russian vessels, and tSat they did not resist. It also says that the Russians refused to disarm or to leave Shanghai. According to writers on neutrality, both Japanese and Russians have in this case infringed international law, and the United States navy, as representing the Powers, has championed

international rights. It is noticeable that permission has been refused to repair the Askold's boilers, the presumption being that her commander has abus ed the recognised right of asylum. It is provided that the use of the neutral's I 'hospitality will be unnggressive in its > direct and indirect results."