Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:09:43.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Popular Misconceptions of Neutrality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Amos S. Hershey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1916 , pp. 118 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1916

References

1 Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. III, cap. 17.

2 Int. Law, II, pp. 160–61. Westlake cites with apparent approval the views of Lorimer as set forth in his Institute of the Law of Nations, II, Bk. IV, ch. 19. Lorimer considers neutrality or non-participation in belligerency justifiable only in the following cases:

(1) involuntary ignorance of the merits of the quarrel; and (2) impotence or physical inability to participate in the war.

3 Von Billow, Imperial Germany, p. 81. Von Billow claims that without “failing in strictly proper neutrality,” the neutrality of Germany with respect to Russia was “even a shade more kindly than that of France.”