Page:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu/25

Rh time for the exclusion of war is neutralization. We have been dealing hitherto with the elimination of the causes of war; neutralization is a curtailment of the areas of war and of the factors in warfare, of territory on the one hand and states on the other. The neutralization of territory belonging to states which are not otherwise neutralized includes the neutralization of waterways such as the Suez and Panama canals.

Under the General Act of Berlin of the 26th of February 1885, &ldquo;in case a power exercising rights of sovereignty or protectorate&rdquo; in any of the regions forming the basin of the Congo and its affluents, including Lake Tanganyika, and extending away to the Indian Ocean, should be involved in a war, the parties to the General Act bound themselves to lend their good offices in order that the territories belonging to this power be placed during the war &ldquo;under the rule of neutrality and considered as belonging to a neutral state, the belligerents thenceforth abstaining from extending hostilities to the territories thus neutralized, and from using them as a basis for warlike operations&rdquo; (art. 2).

Neutralization is not necessarily of general application. Thus two states can agree to neutralize specific territory as between them. For example between Costa Rica and Nicaragua by a treaty of the 15th of April 1858 the parties agreed that &ldquo;on no account whatever, not even in case of war,&rdquo; should &ldquo;any act of hostility be allowed between them in the port of San Juan del Norte nor on the river of that name nor on Lake Nicaragua&rdquo; (art. 2).

Again, the Straits of Magellan are neutralized as between Argentina and Chile under a treaty of the 23rd of July 1881. Article 5 provides that they are &ldquo;neutralized for ever and their free navigation is guaranteed to the flags of all nations. To ensure this neutrality and freedom it is agreed that no fortifications or military defences which might interfere therewith shall be erected.&rdquo;

Luxemburg was declared by the Treaty of London of the 11th of May 1867 (art. 1) to be a perpetually neutral state under the guarantee of Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia. Switzerland, by a declaration confirmed by the Treaty of Vienna, of 1815 (art. 84), likewise enjoys perpetual neutrality. And now Norway has placed herself under a neutral régime of a similar character.

A neutralized state does not mean a state which is forbidden to have fortifications or an army; in this it differs from neutralized territory of a state not otherwise neutralized. Thus Belgium, which is a neutralized state, not only has an army but has fortifications, although by the treaties of 1831 and 1839 she was recognized as a &ldquo;perpetually neutral state, bound to observe the same neutrality with reference to other states.&rdquo;

Of waterways, international rivers have been the chief subject of neutralization. It has long been an established principle in the intercourse of nations, that where the navigable parts of a river pass through different countries their navigation is free to all. The rivers Scheldt and Meuse were opened up in this way to riparian states by a decree of the French Convention of the 16th of November 1792. By the treaty of Vienna of the 9th of June 1815, the powers whose territories were separated or traversed by the same navigable river, undertook to regulate by common consent all that regarded its navigation, and for this purpose to name commissioners who should adopt as the bases of their proceedings the principle that the navigation of such rivers along their whole course &ldquo;from the point where each of them becomes navigable to its mouth, shall be entirely free, and shall not in respect of commerce be prohibited to anyone.&rdquo; The only case in Europe in which this internationalization of rivers has been maintained is that of the Danube. On the other hand neutralization has made progress in respect of waterways,

natural as well as artificial. Thus the Bosporus and Dardanelles under the Treaty of Paris of 1856 and by the Treaty of London 1871 were and remain closed to the passage of foreign armed vessels in time of war, though the Porte may permit their passage in time of peace in certain cases. The Suez and the Panama canals have been permanently neutralized, the former by a convention among the great powers, and the latter by a treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

Alongside this neutralization has grown up a collateral institution, the purpose of which is in some respects similar. We refer to &ldquo;buffer&rdquo; zones. &ldquo;Buffer&rdquo; zones are of quite recent origin as a political creation, i.e. where their object is to establish upon the territory of two contiguous states a strip or zone on either side of the frontier which the respective states agree to regard as neutral, on which the parties undertake to erect no fortifications, and maintain no armed forces but those necessary to enforce the ordinary respect of government. The word &ldquo;neutral&rdquo; does not correctly describe the character of the zone. It is not neutral in the sense of being recognized as such by any third state, and it necessarily ceases to be neutral in case of war between the states concerned. The word &ldquo;buffer&rdquo; comes nearest to the object, but even this term implies more than is meant. Between Spain and Morocco a treaty of the 5th of March 1894 established between the Camp of Melilla and Moroccan territory a zone within which no new roads were to be made, no herds to be allowed to graze, no land to be cultivated, no troops of either party, or even private persons carrying arms, to set foot, no inhabitants to dwell, and all habitations to be razed. The zone between Burma and Siam, established by an agreement between Great Britain and France dated the 15th of January 1896, declared &ldquo;the portion of Siam which is comprised within the drainage basin of the Menam, and of the coast streams of a corresponding longitude,&rdquo; neutral as between them. Within this area the two powers undertook not to &ldquo;operate by their military or naval forces, except in so far as they might do so in concert for any purpose requisite for maintaining the independence of Siam.&rdquo; They also undertook not to acquire within that area any privileges or commercial facilities not extended to both of them.

&ldquo;Buffer&rdquo; zones might fulfil a useful purpose even in Europe. They would obviously react against the feeling known as &ldquo;esprit de frontière,&rdquo; and diminish the danger of incidents arising out of this feeling, and might attenuate the rivalry of neighbouring counter-armaments.

These considerations no doubt led the Swedish and Norwegian governments, in their settlement of September 1905, to establish a &ldquo;buffer&rdquo; zone of 15 kilometres on either side of the frontier between the two states in question. Within these 30 kilometres all existing fortresses are dismantled, no new ones are to be erected, and no armed troops to be maintained; any question between the two states relative to the provisions respecting the &ldquo;buffer&rdquo; zone to be decided by arbitration.

A rather special case of neutralization of a territorial area