First World War Centennial

CHAPTER XXII

CARDINAL RIGHTS

DEFERENCE has been made to the criminations that belligerents file against neutral states with the advent of war. What about counter-charges from neutrals! Unfortunately for a reason already given—viz.,—the habit of considering belligerency not only most respectable, but of such dominat­ing importance as to be controlling—little has been written or said about the sort of comity and fair treatment that neutrals may properly demand from belligerents.

Surely the time has come to turn things about and to insist that the engagements of states to each other, whether express or implied, be carefully regarded whether war distracts the attention of a party to the contract, or not.

This means that the neutral must be as insistent as vigorous in defense of its rights, and as alert as is the belligerent; instead of standing by, paralyzed by the mere sugges­tion of war—as if such a status like some necromancer's rod were capable of turning everything topsy-turvy.

Such action is nothing more than a demand for justice. Unassailable because of the right­eousness of its attitude, it is probable that a powerful neutral state can do more to bring about a proper adjustment of human affairs by firmness on a single occasion, than by repeatedly yielding its rights. The one course makes toward peace—the other and weaker way gives aid and comfort to the war-lords and encourages them to stir up further broils and aggressions.

That such insistence upon the kind of treatment which is demanded by self-respect need lead to hostilities, does not follow. If nations are like individuals, and certainly there are many points in common, it is less dangerous to require ordinary consideration from others than to submit to successive indignities until the aggressor is led to do something which will cause the most timid to turn.

Meantime a nation that values its own rights will avoid trouble by a natural regard for the rights of others. It will also be a wise enough and keen enough observer to avoid asking that which is impracticable, as will be the case when a country in which neutral property may be located is held by an in­vader, or the approach of a hostile army has paralyzed the operations of the civil government.

What are these rights which every neutral may properly assert, but which they have guarded in such a slovenly fashion heretofore:

1. The right to the integrity of its own territory, and to prevent its misuse by for­eign powers for any such operations or pur­poses, military or otherwise, as may embarrass a nation with which the neutral state is at peace;

2. The right to the integrity of its bays and harbors together with the waters, which it dominates, and which it is believed will shortly be conceded to cover a space along its coast far wider than the marine league honored in the United States since the days of Washington.

3. The right to have its merchantmen and public ships pass unintercepted over the high seas, provided they commit no such breach of enemy requirements in the matter of blockade and contraband as the neutral may have conceded that belligerents are en­titled to impose; this unequivocally includes the right to continue its trade with other neutrals;

4. The right to forbid belligerent inter­ference with neutral goods, which are not contraband, on enemy ships, or of enemy goods on neutral ships;

5. The right to require from the bellig­erent courteous treatment of neutral officials and citizens, and such protection of neutral property as the non-combatant may, all other things being equal, expect in times of peace. It is of course recognized that this is subject to exigencies of war that may make it practically impossible for the belligerent to afford such police and other protection as it would gladly supply under different condi­tions; also that the rule is subject to the understanding that certain neutral property belonging to neutral citizens resident in enemy territory, acquires enemy character, notwithstanding the fact that it is still to a degree under the protection of a neutral government;

6. The proper recognition of treaties, conventions, and agreements between the two nations;

7. The right to maintain intercourse with a belligerent government or with belligerent governments without let or interference, provided the neutral perform no unneutral act;

8. The right to insist that belligerents shall avoid doing anything in neutral territory designed to cause embarrassment if not actual injury to a friendly people. This matter will be treated separately because of its importance, and because the experiences of the United States since the fall of 1914 appear to justify a fuller treatment than it has heretofore received;

9. The right to protect its citizens in their intercourse with belligerents, provided the former do not contravene such belligerent requirements as are sanctioned by neutral acquiescence.

That there are other rights than those thus classified will readily occur to every reader, although they have as yet had scant recogni­tion by international lawyers. Prominent among these, and of particular interest to the United States, should be those which arise in connection with eleemosynary enterprises in which citizens of neutral countries have engaged for the benefit of belligerent subjects, and under such official approval as has warranted the expenditure of enormous sums of money and the sacrificing service of valu­able lives.

It is one thing for a group of citizens, whether incorporated or otherwise, belonging to a given country, to locate a business pro­position in a foreign land and under the protection of a foreign flag. It should be quite another thing for the same group to maintain institutions which are educational in character among the people of a friendly state, provided the project meets with the endorsement, if not the encouragement, of the ruling Power. In the former case a tax is rightly exacted, and the alien association must expect to share with natives the dis­comforts to which they are exposed because it has shared their advantages. In the other, the enterprise is unselfish; is maintained for the benefit of the nation within whose borders its activities occur, and frequently is bul­warked through official action with particular privileges. Nothing less than distinctive motives differentiate the two lines of effort, and one does not have to be a subtle thinker to discover reasons why the experiment which is humanitarian and helpful, should take on a more favorable aspect when sub­mitted to the war test (not accorded it to the present time) than the business venture deserves. However this may be, there is certainly ground for governments like the United States and other neutral Powers to make strong representations when the flame of war threatens to scorch and jeopardize institutions located abroad, which their sub­jects have financed, and which are designed to promote international good-will.

Such rights as these, however sentimental they may appear to the cynic, demand attention both from the standpoint of the interested nation and again from that of the society of civilized states whose ultimate welfare is dependent upon a growing comity and the reign of law. The reason is apparent, for if they, as well as the classified rights above referred to, be treated with indifference by the ministries mostly concerned, it will naturally eventuate that the extraordinary developments which are bringing the nations into a closer intercourse will produce disorder and chaos rather than amity and progress.

The suggestion comes with a glimpse into the future! Meantime the field thus cur­sorily touched should prove a fascinating one to the international lawyer and publicist, for many abuses that are interfering with inter­state confidence await correction.