- (1) Ordinary commerce.
- (2) Contraband.
- (3) Unneutral service.
- (4) Visit and search.
- (5) Convoy.
- (6) Blockade.
- (7) Continuous voyage.
- (8) Prize and prize courts.
[CHAPTER XXIII]
RELATIONS OF NEUTRAL STATES AND BELLIGERENT STATES
- [125. General Principles of the Relations between States.]
- [126. Neutral Territorial Jurisdiction.]
- [127. Regulation of Neutral Relations.]
- (a) To belligerent troops.
- (b) Asylum for vessels.
- (c) Ordinary entry.
- (d) Sojourn of vessels.
- [128. No Direct Assistance by Neutral.]
- (a) Military.
- (b) Supplies.
- (c) Loans.
- (d) Enlistment.
- [129. Positive Obligations of a Neutral State.]
[§ 125. General Principles of the Relations be]tween States
Of the general principle Wheaton says, "The right of every independent state to remain at peace whilst other states are engaged in war is an incontestable attribute of sovereignty."[410] Equally incontestable is the right of a belligerent state to demand that a state not a party to the war shall refrain from all participation in the contest, whether it be direct or indirect.
The modern tendency is to remove from the neutral all possible inconveniences which might result from war between states with which the neutral is at peace. The normal relations between neutral and neutral are unimpaired. As the neutral is at peace with the belligerents, the relations between the neutral and the belligerents are affected only so far as the necessities of belligerent operations demand. "Every restriction, however, upon the rights of a neutral or belligerent must have a clear and undoubted rule and reason. The burden of proof lies upon the restraining government."[411]
[§ 126. Neutral Territorial Jurisdiction]
One of the earliest principles to receive the sanction of theory and practice was that of the inviolability of territorial jurisdiction of neutrals. This principle has been liberally interpreted in recent times, and the tendency has been to make increasingly severe the penalties for its violation.