Prisengerecht Hamburg. Der Fall "Glitra." Der Fall "Maria." Der Fall "Indian Prince." Z. für Völkerrecht, 9:399. Tribunaux (Les) de prises en Grèce. Leur constitution, leur fonctionnement et leur jurisprudence. St. P. Séfériades. R. gén. de dr. int. pub., 23:31. Rumania. Politische und unpolitische Erinnerungen aus Rumanien. Deutsche R., 41(1):90. Jan. Switzerland. Stellung (Die) der neutralen Schweiz zu Deutschland im Weltkriege. Johannes Wendland. Grenzboten, 75(1):37. Treaties. Timor. Interpretazione dei trattati. R. di diritto int., 9:211. Questiones de protocole. Maréchal de la Cour. R. Diplomatica y Consular Argentina, 1:37. Nov., 1915. Colombian (The) treaty. By Latin American. N. Amer. R., 203:55. Jan. Pending (The) treaty with Colombia. Edwin Maxey. Review of Reviews (N. Y.), 53:191. Feb. Triple Alliance. Kritik des Dreibundvertrag. Wilhelm Franknor. Deutsche R., 41 (1):13. Jan. Entstehungs (Die) Geschichte des Dreibundvertrags. Wilhelm Franknoi. Deutsche R., 40(4):241. Dec. Turkey. Capitulations (Les) Ottomanes. Kémal Hilmy. R. pol. int., 1915:252. Nov.-Dec. United States. "Bankrupt diplomacy." An address February 15, 1916, by Elihu Manifest destiny in America. H. M. Chittenden. Atlantic, 117:48. Jan. March. Vienna, Congress of. Carl Bertuch's Tagebuch vom Wiener Kongress. Hans Müller. Deutsche Runds., 42(1):86. Jan. War. Krieg und Charakterveredlung. H. von Beaulieu. Friedens Warte, 18:9. Jan. Selbstverwaltung und Kriegswirtschaft. Ernst Gunther. Deutsche Runds., 42 (1):1. Jan. KATHRYN SELLERS. THE SALE OF MUNITIONS OF WAR The rights and duties incident to neutrality is a branch of international law that is of comparatively recent growth. Still the distinction between belligerent nations and neutral nations and between enemy goods and neutral goods has been recognized from quite early times. In the wellknown collection of maritime law known as the Consolato del Mare, which made its appearance in the fourteenth century, the rule is laid down that enemy goods on neutral ships are liable to capture, but neutral goods on enemy ships must be restored to their owner. This rule evidently assumes also the existence at that time of the belligerent right to visit and search neutral vessels.1 But it seems that not until the time of Grotius was any attempt made to lay down a rule regarding the duty of neutrals toward belligerents. In his great work published in 1625 he does not, however, use the terms "neutrals" and "neutrality," but in a very brief chapter refers to those whom he calls qui in bello medii. He also was far from recognizing the modern rule of strict impartiality, and distinguished between the obligations of a neutral toward a belligerent waging a just war and one waging an unjust war.2 But a far more important distinction drawn by Grotius was that relating to the kind of goods belonging to a neutral which were susceptible of capture by a belligerent. In this he may be said to have laid the basis for the modern law of "contraband" 1 "The ancient rule of the Consolato del Mare, in recognizing the right to capture enemy's property on neutral vessels evidently recognizes the belligerent right of visitation and search for the purpose of ascertaining the proprietary interest.”— Wheaton, Hist., p. 145. 2 "It is the duty of neutrals [qui in bello medii] to do nothing which may strengthen the side which has the worst cause, or which may impede the motions of him who is carrying on a just war; and in a doubtful cause, to act alike to both sides in permitting transit, in supplying provisions, in not helping persons besieged."-De Jure Belli et Pacis, Bk. III, ch. XVII, 3 (Whewell's translation). though he does not use this term.3 It must be observed that in the first class, which we call "absolute contraband," he includes munitions of war. It must also be observed that the restriction that he places upon the furnishing to a belligerent of articles in this class, is their liability of capture by the belligerent. He thus recognizes the fact that the prevention of the furnishing of munitions of war is a belligerent right and not a neutral duty. It is to Vattel, however, that we are indebted for the clearest and most explicit statement of the law of neutrality as it existed in the eighteenth century. His book on the Law of Nations was published in 1758. The chief defect in his conception of neutrality was in the approval of a general custom of his time to the effect that a neutral might afford pecuniary or military assistance to a belligerent, provided it was in accordance with a previous treaty stipulation a rule which formerly went under the name of "imperfect neutrality," but which no longer exists. For our present purpose the most significant part of Vattel's chapter on neutrality is that which discusses the status of neutral trade in its relation to belligerent Powers. In the first place, he holds that neutrals are under no obligation to renounce their commerce, even in the matter of furnishing a belligerent with war supplies, provided they are willing to furnish similar supplies to the other belligerent.5 In the next place, he calls attention to the fact that the carriage of war supplies to one belligerent exposes the owner of the goods to the risk of having his commodities captured by the other belligerent, who has a right to make * * "But the question often arises, what is lawful [to be captured] against those who are not our enemies, or who do not allow themselves to be so called, but who provide our enemies with supplies of various kinds. In the first place, we must make a distinction as to the things supplied. For there are some articles of supply, which are useful in war only, as arms; others are of no use in war, but are only luxuries; others which are useful in war and out of war, as money, provisions, ships and their furniture."-Ibid, Bk. III, ch. 1, 5. 4 Vattel, Bk. III, ch. VII, § 105. 5 "It is certain that, as they [neutrals] have no part in my quarrel, they are under no obligation to renounce their commerce for the sake of avoiding to supply my enemy with the means of carrying on the war against me. Should they affect to refuse selling me a single article, while at the same time they take pains to convey an abundant supply to my enemy, with the evident intention to favor him-such partial conduct would exclude them from the neutrality they enjoyed."—Ibid, Bk. III, ch. VII, § 111. |