Page images
PDF
EPUB

substitutes for that which has passed away are discovering themselves, and that ambitious schemes will be effectually repressed, and small States protected in the name of large principles, less timid, selfish, and provocative of War than that of the Balance of Power.

Object of Neutralisation.

SECTION VI.

OF THE NEUTRALISATION OF STATES, SEAS, AND CANALS.

THE practice of insulating certain of the smaller States, as well as territories, navigable rivers, and inland seas, and giving a guarantee of their Neutrality in time of War, has been one much resorted to during the present century. The meaning, the value, and the true use of this practice, as a means of preventing War, must here be examined, and the most convenient mode of conducting the examination will be by recurring to the leading instances of actual or suggested Neutralisation in modern times.

The main purpose of Neutralisation is the rescuing from the field of possible conflict some State or place which, from its situation or peculiar advantages, is likely either to be a perpetual object of competitive struggle on the part of covetous, strong, and military States, and, therefore, to generate Wars; or to be incidentally drawn into any War which may occur, thereby extending its area and complicating its issues.

There is no doubt that a collective guarantee of Neutrality of itself affords some novel occasions for War, as a breach, or apprehended

breach, of the Neutrality by any single party to the engagement not only is a casus belli which imparts to each of the other States the right of going to War, but also may be held to impose, in some sense, on each of them, the duty of doing so. In estimating, therefore, the pacific value of any given Treaty of Neutralisation, a balance must be struck between the probability that the subject of the Treaty would have occasioned new Wars, or widened the areas of existing Wars, had the Treaty not been made, and the probability of the Treaty itself, if made, becoming itself the occasion of War.

[blocks in formation]

Thus, everything depends on the circumstances of the particular case, and the principles which can be laid down for the successful use of Neutralisation are only of a very broad and general kind. Most of all depends on the strength of the guarantee, which will be due partly to the number, the political influence, and the territorial situation of the guaranteeing States, and, partly, to the prevailing sense of obligation, which lies on every one of those States, to combine with the rest to defend the Neutrality, when invaded or seriously menaced. The actual advantage of confining the area Benefits of Neuof War, and thereby not only rescuing an increasing quantity of territory from its calamitous effects, but, restricting the extension of those feelings of national animosity which

tralisatior.

Its efficacy in promoting

questioned.

become the most fruitful source of future Wars, ought not to be disputable, though it is, in fact, disputed. Both in respect to this question, and to the kindred topics of the strengthening of Neutral Rights in time of War, and Peace has been the mitigating of the ferocity of War, a controversy exists as to whether permanent Peace is really promoted by interposing obstacles, which may be called artificial, in the way of belligerents prosecuting the War to the utmost, and in any modes which seem to suit them at the moment. It is said that the only way to discourage War effectually, is to assist belligerents in fighting out their quarrel with as little interference as possible from without, whether by general rules of warfare, by premature efforts at mediation, or by arbitrary localisation, of the kind now being considered. This whole argument must be considered more fully when the general topic of Neutral Rights comes under treatment.

In the meantime it must be borne in mind, that interest and strong national sentiments have far more to do with the origin of Wars than a mere recollection of the general suffering they cause; that where the real or apprehended interests are equal in favour of Peace and of War, the vehemence of a personal hostility, widely diffused, is a far stronger incentive to War, than a cold calculation or reminiscence

of its miseries is a deterrent; and, therefore, it should be a general policy to reduce and narrow at every point that bitterness and international enniity, out of which Wars not only grow, but necessarily recur. Neutralisation is

one mode of effecting this.

of Seas, Rivers,

In the cases of rivers passing through the territories of several States, of inland seas Neutralisation bordering on the territory of several States, &c. and of certain artificial constructions sharing in the nature, both of rivers and of straits of the sea, as the Isthmus of Suez, and the proposed Isthmus of Panama, which are of great importance as international highways, there are other considerations present in favour of their Neutralisation, beside those of preventing War, or of merely restricting its area. In these cases, not only an actual War, but the menace of a War, and even the enduring possibility of a War, which might involve any one of the bordering States, or any part of the continuous stream, causes an aggregate amount of diffused mischief and loss, which is wholly disproportionate to the belligerent advantages which are reaped by either or both of the hostile parties to the War.

The Treaty of Vienna, of 1815, provided in the following Article (the 26th), for the Neutra- The Rhine. lisation of the Rhine. "If it should happen (which God forbid) that War should break

« PreviousContinue »