Evening star., 1939-10-04

SSONClAllS G1AC ldoG AVU years Vi IlUIc
indicates that both views are wrong.
1t not only happens that changes
have often been made during war
by neutrals in their regulations as
to commerce and use of their ports
for coaling of belligerent vessels,
but it also happens that there is no
such thing as uniform interna-
tional law.
The more accurate statement by
the defenders of the repeal would be
to say that they favor a return to
! the American conception of inter-
Mational law. For history records
that Great Britain and the United
States have often differed, Just as
Germany and Great Britain have
disagreed on what are proper bel
ligerent and neutral rights in war
time.
The documents show that neu-
trails, being anxious to continue their
commerce, will protest vehemently
against assertions by belligerent
governments, and that the same
nation which took a position Wig
, orously defending neutral rights
will, when subsequently engaged in
a war, reverse itself completely. The
truth is that lf-defense and con-
sideration of national interest be-
come the governing policy of all
nations, irrespective of whether
they are belligerent- or neutral.
Because the United States has
more often been neutral than bel
ligerent in the wars of history, this
Government has customarily en-
deavored to enlarge wartime trade.
This is also true of Great Britain,
whose inconsistencies are such that
In one war she permitted her COL
onies to trade with the enemy whilst
denying similar rights to a neutral
like the United States. The Ger
mans have been on both sides of the
fence in controverted neutrality is
sues, too, so it may readily be said
that you can prove almost anything
about international law by referring
to the case books and precedents.
Neutrality Conceptions Change.
Even the conception of what is or
Is not neutrality have varied
throughout history among the So
called authorities who have written
law books on the subject for text
book use. Back as far as 1925,
Grotius defined neutrality as fol-
lows:
1T is the duty of those who have
no part in the war to do nothing
which may favor the party having
an unjust cause, or which may
hinder the action of one waging q
just war and, in case of doubt, to
treat both belligerents alike, in per-
mitting transit, in furnishing pro-
visions to the troops, in refraining
from assisting the besieged."
Gradually the idea shifted so that
one of the leading European author
? tiles, Bynkershoek, writing in 1887
said the correct principle was to de-
part from the principle of "impar-
tiality" altogether and emphasize in
stead the absence OF participation by
the neutral in hostilities.
Declaration after declaration and
treaty after treaty has been pro-
mulgated in international confer
ences, and 1t was not until the 18th
century, really, that neutrality as
1t Is now understood came to be the
so-called law of nations. Little by
little the sojourn of belligerent YES
sells in neutral ports came to be
limited to "a hours. It may not be
generally known, but a German SUBJ
marine or British warship can en-
ter a port of the United States. get
provisions and sail away without
violating neutrality. With modern
communication by wireless this is
not done, however, as it would mean
certain attack the moment a vessel
emerged.
Neutrals Make Own Rules
1t seems to have been conceded
throughout history that each neutral
nation has a right to make whatever
regulations it pleases governing the
conduct of its own citizens and its
own trade in relation to foreign
countries in wartime, and that no
belligerent government has a valid
right of protest on this point, it be-
ing well understood that the bellig-
erent's means of redress Is to cap