According to article 14 of Convention V. a neutral Power may grant the passage of wounded or sick to a belligerent. If he does grant it, the trains bringing them must carry neither combatants nor war material, and those of the wounded and sick who belong to the army of the other belligerent must remain on the neutral territory concerned, must there be guarded by the neutral Government, and must, after having recovered, be prevented from returning to their home State and rejoining their corps. By the stipulation of article 14 it is left to the consideration of a neutral whether or no he will allow the passage of wounded and sick to a belligerent; he will, therefore, have to investigate every case and come to a conclusion according to its merits. It should be stated that, according to article 15 of Convention V., the "Geneva Convention applies to the sick and wounded interned in neutral territory."
Passage of Men-of-War.
§ 325. In contradistinction to passage of troops through his territory, the duty of impartiality incumbent upon a neutral does not require him to forbid the passage of belligerent men-of-war through the maritime belt forming part of his territorial waters. Article 10 of Convention XIII. categorically enacts that "the neutrality of a Power is not violated (n'est pas compromise) by the mere passage of belligerent men-of-war and their prizes." Since, as stated above in [Vol. I. § 188], every littoral State may even in time of peace prohibit the passage of foreign men-of-war through its maritime belt provided such belt does not form a part of the highways for international traffic, it may certainly prohibit the passage of belligerent men-of-war in time of war. However, no duty exists for a neutral to prohibit such passage in time of war, and he need not exclude belligerent men-of-war from his ports either, although he may do this likewise. The reason is that such passage and such admittance into ports contain very little assistance indeed, and are justified by the character of the sea as an international high road. But it is, on the other hand, obvious that belligerent men-of-war must not commit any hostilities against enemy vessels during their passage, and must not use the neutral maritime belt and neutral ports as a basis for their operations against the enemy.[617]
Occupation of Neutral Territory by Belligerents.
§ 326. In contradistinction to the practice of the eighteenth century,[618] the duty of impartiality must nowadays prevent a neutral from permitting belligerents to occupy a neutral fortress or any other part of neutral territory. If a treaty previously entered into stipulates such occupation, it cannot be granted without violation of neutrality.[619] On the contrary, the neutral must even use force to prevent belligerents from occupying any part of his neutral territory. The question as to whether such occupation on the part of a belligerent would be excusable in case of extreme necessity on account of the neutral's inability to prevent the other belligerent from making use of the neutral territory as a base for his military operations must, I think, be answered in the affirmative, since an extreme case of necessity in the interest of self-preservation must be considered as an excuse.[620]
[618] See Kleen, I. § 116.
[619] See Klüber, § 281, who asserts the contrary.
[620] See Vattel, III. § 122; Bluntschli, § 782; Calvo, IV. § 2642. Kleen, I. § 116, seems not to recognise an extreme necessity of the kind mentioned above as an excuse.—There is a difference between this case and the case which arose at the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, when both belligerents invaded Korea, for, as was explained above in § [320], Korea and Manchuria fell within the region and the theatre of war.
Prize Courts on Neutral Territory.