[610] See Vattel, III. §§ 119-132.
[611] See Dumas in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 289-316.
[612] See Wheaton, §§ 418-420.
[613] See Martens, N.R. II. p. 741.
[614] See Heilborn, Rechte, pp. 8-9.
Passage of Wounded through Neutral Territory.
However, just as in the case of furnishing troops so in the case of passage, it is a moot point whether passage of troops can be granted without thereby violating the duty of impartiality incumbent upon a neutral, in case a neutral is required to grant it in consequence of an existing State-servitude or of a treaty previous to the war. There ought to be no doubt that, since nowadays a qualified neutrality is no longer admissible, the question must be answered in the negative.[615]
[615] See above, §§ [305] and [306], and also above, [vol. I. § 207]. Clauss, Die Lehre von den Staatsdienstbarkeiten (1894), pp. 212-217, must likewise be referred to. See also Dumas in R.G. XVI. (1909), pp. 286-316.
§ 324. The passage of wounded soldiers is different from that of troops. If a neutral allows the passage of wounded soldiers, he certainly does not render direct assistance to the belligerent concerned. But it may well be that indirectly it is of assistance on account of the fact that a belligerent, thereby relieved from transport of his wounded, can now use the lines of communication for the transport of troops, war material, and provisions. Thus, when in 1870 after the battles of Sedan and Metz, Germany applied to Belgium and Luxemburg to allow her wounded to be sent through their territories, France protested on the ground that the relief thereby created to the lines of communication in the hands of the Germans would be an assistance to the military operations of the German Army. Belgium, on the advice of Great Britain, did not grant the request made by Germany, but Luxemburg granted it.[616]
[616] See Hall, § 219, and Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. p. 664.