(1) On February 8, 1904, a Japanese squadron under Admiral Uriu entered the Korean harbour of Chemulpo and disembarked Japanese troops. The next morning Admiral Uriu requested the commanders of two Russian ships in the harbour of Chemulpo, the Variag and the Korietz, to leave the harbour and engage him in battle outside, threatening attack inside the harbour in case they would not comply with his request. But the Russian ships did comply, and the battle took place outside the harbour, but within Korean territorial waters.[602] The complaint made by Russia, that in this case the Japanese violated Korean neutrality, would seem to be unjustified, since Korea fell within the region and the theatre of war.
(2) The Russian destroyer Reshitelni, one of the vessels that escaped from Port Arthur on August 10, 1904, took refuge in the Chinese harbour of Chifu. On August 12, two Japanese destroyers entered the harbour, captured the Reshitelni, and towed her away.[603] There ought to be no doubt that this act of the Japanese comprises a violation of neutrality,[604] since Chifu does not belong to the part of China which fell within the region of war.
[601] See above, § [71], p. 87; Lawrence, War, pp. 268-294; Ariga, §§ 16-22.
[602] See Lawrence, War, pp. 279-289, and Takahashi, pp. 462-466.
[603] See Lawrence, War, pp. 291-294, and Takahashi, pp. 437-444.
[604] See below, § [361], where the case of the General Armstrong is discussed.
Furnishing Troops and Men-of-War to Belligerents.
§ 321. If a State remains neutral, it violates its impartiality by furnishing a belligerent with troops or men-of-war. And it matters not whether a neutral renders such assistance to one of the belligerents or to both alike. Whereas Convention V. does not mention the furnishing of troops to belligerents on the part of neutrals, article 6 of Convention XIII. enacts that "the supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, of warships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden."
However, the question is controversial as to whether a neutral State, which in time of peace concluded a treaty with one of the belligerents to furnish him in case of war with a limited number of troops, would violate its neutrality by fulfilling its treaty obligation. Several writers[605] have answered the question in the negative, and there is no doubt that during the eighteenth century such cases happened. But no case happened during the nineteenth century, and there ought to be no doubt that nowadays the answer must be in the affirmative, since a qualified neutrality[606] is no longer admissible.
[605] See, for instance, Bluntschli, § 759, and Heffter, § 144. See above, § [306] (2), where the case is quoted of Denmark furnishing troops to Russia in 1788 during a Russo-Swedish war.