New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-11-20
LITERARY CRITICISM
AND BOOK NEWS
The Belgium and Luxembourg Neutrality Treaties
Mary Austin's The Man Jesus"
George Washington as Farmer

only the duty TO act according to the
treaty when all the other guarGntors
were ready to act likewise; that, conse-
quently, If one of the guarantors him
self should violate the neutrality Of
Luxembourg the duty to act according
TO the treaty of collective guarantee
would not accrue" Oppenheim, in his
international Law" declares this dip
lomatic viewpoint to be incorrect.
Between diplomacy and international
law the general question of guaranteed
neutrality is a vague one. according
to the authors: "The fact that some
treaties expressly stipulate that in GER
tain events military action shall be
taken shows that it is not recognized
that a guarantee certainly imposes
such an obligation" We have, how
ever. in the case Of Luxembourg and
Belgium, these facts:
Admitting, for the sake Of argu-
rnent, that in 1889 belligerent
troops might pass through neu-
trail country. if the neutral did not
object. and that the Hague Con-
vention OF 1907 was not intended
TO alter the construction OF all
earlier treaties in which the word
neutrality occurs, yet in fact, Bel
GUM did object, Belgium was en-
titled to object, and therefore Ger
many, by using force. did break the
treaty of 1889 By 1867 It was gem
orally recognized that belligerent
troops must not pass through neu-
trail territory-the Hague Conven-
ton only confirmed the generally
received opinion. Hence Germany.
although Luxembourg did not, and
could not, actively resist. broke the
treaty of 1857
Moreover, the Belgians, while having
the right of non-resistance under the
treaty, did not violate neutrality by
offering resistance to the invasion. AS
for Sir Edward Grey. under the tradl-
tional British diplomatic Interpretation
of neutrality treaties two ways were
open to him. On July 81. 1914, he told
NJ. Cambon that "the preservation OF
the neutrality of Belgium might be,
would not say a decisive, but an i'm
portant factor in determining our atti-
tude." He chose the course which, the
authors believe, Palmerston and Glad
stone would have taken, Lord Derby's
opinion to the contrary notwithstand-
ing. at is satisfactory that ST, Edward
Grey should have adopted the tradi-
tional view of our obligations"
In conclusion the authors complain
that diplomatists do not appear TO have
the requisite training or capacity for
drawing up treaties which define with
accuracy the obligations intended to be
imposed. One suspects that it is not
lack Of training or incapacity, but de-
liberate diplomatic purpose.
DR.. Fuehr's book is based chiefly upon
the secret diplomatic and military cor
respondence found by the Germans In
Brussels. proving. according to their
argument, that Belgium broke the
treaty herself by secret military con-
ventions with England and France. Ac-
cording to one of these documents. the
plans of the general stats of Great
Britain and the little kingdom were
completed as long ago as April, 1906,
but DR.. Fuehr admits frankly that this
document contains the qualifying
phrase, ain case of a German invasion"
The mobilization plans of the French
army in 1914, the presence in Belgium
of French troops before the declaration
of war. all these points, already made
familiar TO US, form part of the cease"
The author lays most stress, however,
upon secret compact assumed TO have
been concluded between Belgium and
England in 1907, in payment for British
consent to the annexation Of the Congo.
But of this DR.. Fuehr fails to adduce
proof of any kind. The best he can do
is to say that there is hardly any
doubt" of it. The diplomatic views of
neutral treaties explained at length in
the English book are adduced by the
German jurist, but-there remains the
German Chancellor's admission in the
Reichstag that the Empire was COM
hitting wrong under stress of neces-
sity. And, finally. so far as the weigh
of public opinion in this country is
concerned, the whole question is no
longer one of international law OF
diplomacy, but Of the manner in which
Belgian neutrality was broken.