A Most Useful Tool for Diplomacy and Statecraft: Neutrality and Europe in the ‘Long’ Nineteenth Century, 1815–1914
2012; Routledge; Volume: 35; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/07075332.2012.737350
ISSN1949-6540
Autores Tópico(s)World Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
ResumoAbstract Rarely do historians analyse the functions of neutrality in the history of Europe in the ‘long’ nineteenth century. Yet between 1815 and 1914, neutrality played a key part in international developments: it was central to the rise of international law, was negotiated repeatedly by the Great Powers and was used by them to isolate key regions in Europe. In all the conflicts fought in these hundred years or so, there were always more neutrals than belligerents, including most of the Great Powers. This article charts the uses made of neutrality and argues that neutrality was a vibrant and frequently utilised tool of diplomacy and statecraft by great and small European states alike. It asks readers to reconsider the flexibility of the nineteenth-century international system and to refocus their attention on the ways in which the European states - Great Britain foremost among them - avoided war to benefit their globalising political, economic, and imperial interests. Keywords: neutralitymaritime lawbelligerent rightsCongress systemGreat Britain Notes 1. As examples: M. Geyer and C. Bright, ‘Global Violence and Nationalizing Wars in Eurasia and America: The Geopolitics of War in the mid-Nineteenth Century’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, xxxviii, no. 4 (1996), 619–57; J. Black, A Military History of Britain from 1775 to the Present (Westport, CT, 2006); L.A. Rose, Power at Sea. Vol. 1. The Age of Navalism 1890–1918. (London, 2007). 2. As examples: G. Best, Humanity in Warfare. The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflict (London, 1983). M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (Cambridge, 2001); W. Mulligan, The Origins of the First World War (Cambridge, 2010) does an excellent job of synthesising the two approaches. 3. P. Lyon, ‘Neutrality and the Emergence of the Concept of Neutralism’, Review of Politics, xxii, no. 2 (1960), 260; H.J. Morgenthau, Dilemmas of Politics (Chicago, 1958), as referenced by C. Agius, The Social Construction of Swedish Neutrality. Challenges to Swedish Identity and Sovereignty (Manchester, 2006), 16; P. Lyon, ‘The Great Globe Itself: Continuity and Change’, in E. F. Penrose, P. Lyon and E. Penrose (eds), New Orientations. Essays in International Relations (New York, 1970), 15; T.C. Salmon, Unneutral Ireland. An Ambivalent and Unique Security Policy (Oxford, 1989), 9–10; S.C. Neff, The Rights and Duties of Neutrals: A General History (Manchester, 2000), 86. 4. J.L. Kunz, ‘Neutrality and the European War 1939–1940’, Michigan Law Review, xxxix (1940/41), 747, 754. 5. J. Lemnitzer, ‘The 1856 Declaration of Paris and the abolition of privateering’ (PhD, London School of Economics, 2010); J.W. Coogan, The End of Neutrality. The United States, Britain, and Maritime Rights 1899–1915 (Ithaca, 1981). 6. The other major way in which historians study neutrality is as a legal principle within the wider history of international law, for examples, see: R. Ogley (ed), The Theory and Practice of Neutrality in the Twentieth Century (London, 1970); E. Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality Revisited. Law, Theory and Case Studies (The Hague, 2002); Neff, Rights. 7. H. Bull, ‘Order vs. Justice in International Society’, Political Studies, xix, no. 3, (September 1971), 269–83. 8. I prefer to use the term ‘occasional neutrals’ over Efraim Karsh’s label ‘ad hoc neutrals’ (E. Karsh, Neutrality and Small States [London, 1988], 26). 9. As a rough guide, the available published literature in French alone on the topic of neutrality runs into the thousands for the 1815–1914 period. (Searching for the word ‘neutralité’ in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris recovers 8,606 entries, of which most are newspaper or journal articles, histories of neutral nations in wartime, political literature or legal treaties: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ (Accessed Feb. 2011, simple search: neutralité). Newspaper reporting on neutrality in the major wars in which Britain was neutral in the period is also substantial (several hundred entries per war in The Times (London) alone, including letters to the editor, feature articles, and commentary). 10. N. Ørvik, The Decline of Neutrality 1914–1941. With Special Reference to the United States and the Northern Neutrals (Oslo, 1953); P.C. Jessup, ‘The Birth, Death and Reincarnation of Neutrality’, American Journal of International Law, xxvi, no. 4 (Oct. 1932), 789–93. 11. Neff, Rights, 65; A.C. Carter, ‘The Dutch as Neutrals in the Seven Years’ War’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly, xii, no. 3 (July 1963), 818–34; L.E. Davis and S.L. Engerman, Naval Blockades in Peace and War. An Economic History since 1750 (Cambridge, 2006), 7; Agius, Swedish Neutrality, 13. 12. Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality, 6. 13. Coogan, End of Neutrality, 17–19 14. O. Feldbaek, ‘Denmark-Norway 1720–1807: Neutral Principles and Practice’, in R. Hobson and T. Kristiansen (eds), Navies in Northern Waters 1721-–2000 (Portland, 2004), 61; E. Maxey, ‘Growth of Neutral Rights and Duties’, American Lawyer, lv (1906), 57; D.M. Griffiths, ‘An American Contribution to the Armed Neutrality of 1780’, Russian Review, xxx, no. 2 (April 1971), 164-–6; Karsh, Neutrality, 16–17; O. Feldbaek, ‘The Anglo-Danish Convoy Conflict of 1800’, Scandinavian Journal of History, no. 2 (1977), 161–82. See also: I. de Madariaga, Britain, Russia and the Armed Neutrality of 1780. Sir James Harris's Mission to St. Petersburg during the American Revolution (New Haven, 1962). 15. P.C. Jessup, Neutrality. Its History, Economics and Law. Volume IV. Today and Tomorrow (New York, 1936), 6. For Prussia's pro-France neutrality: P.G. Dwyer, ‘Two Definitions of Neutrality: Prussia, the European State-System, and the French Invasion of Hanover in 1803’, International History Review, xix, no. 3, (1997), 505–756. 16. J. Sofka, ‘American Neutral Rights Reappraised: Identity of Interest in the Foreign Policy of the Early Republic?’ Review of International Studies, xxvi (2000), 605; N. Tracy (ed), Sea Power and the Control of Trade. Belligerent Rights from the Russian War to the Beira Patrol, 1854–1870 (Aldershot, 2005), xv–xvi; N.A. Graebner, ‘The Long American Struggle for Neutrality’, in Jukka Nevakivi (ed), Neutrality in History. Proceedings of the Conference on the History of Neutrality Organized in Helsinki 9–12 September 1992 under the auspices of the Commission of History of International Relations (Helsinki, 1993), 46; Best, Humanity, 100–8; O. Feldbaek, ‘Dutch Batavia Trade via Copenhagen 1795–1807: A Study of Colonial Trade and Neutrality’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, xxi, no. 1 (1973), 43. 17. Not to be confused with Efraim Karsh's definition of ad hoc neutrality (see n. 8). 18. Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality, 7; Salmon, Unneutral Ireland, 10; Ørvik, Decline of Neutrality, 27–8; Jessup, ‘Birth’, 791. For details of the United States Neutrality Acts of 1794 and 1818 see: Maxey, ‘Growth’, 57. 19. Sofka, ‘American Neutral Rights’ and M. Bukovansky, ‘American Identity and Neutral Rights from Independence to the War of 1812’, International Organization, li, no. 2 (1997), 209–44. 20. For example, M. Hübner's 1759 two-volume treatise, De la saisie debâtiments neuters, ou Du droit qu'ont les nations belligérantes d'arrêter les navires des peoples amis, stands out yet it focuses solely on neutrality at sea (in Neff, Rights, 48). 21. The Economist, 179, (30 Jan. 1847), 124. 22. G. Pirlot, Rigardo al neutrala Moresnet/Blick auf neutral-Moresnet 1816–1919 (Oostende, 1990); L. Wintgens, Neutral-Moresnet Neutre Kelmis La Calamine (Eupen, 1981); J. Pricken, De Belgisch-Nederlandse Grens (Sint-Stevens, 1961), 13–14. 23. Feldbaek, ‘Policy of 1812’, 50. 24. Neff, Rights, 101. 25. For more see J.E. Helmreich, ‘The End of Congo Neutrality’, Historian, xxviii, no. 4 (1966), 610–24. 26. A. Bruemmer Bozeman, Regional Conflicts around Geneva. An Inquiry into the Origin, Nature, and Implications of the Neutralized Zone of Savoy and the Customs-Free zones of Gex and Upper Savoy (Stanford, 1949). For a good overview of British-Swiss relations, see: A.G. Imlah, Britain and Switzerland 1845–60 (London, 1966). 27. O. Zimmer, A Contested Nation. History, Memory and Nationalism in Switzerland, 1761–1891 (Cambridge, 2003), 144. 28. For a good overview of Great Power involvement in the Belgian revolt, see: M. Rendall, ‘A Qualified Success for Collective Security: The Concert of Europe and the Belgian Crisis, 1831’, Diplomacy and Statecraft, xviii (2007), 271–95. 29. D.H. Thomas, The Guarantee of Belgian Independence and Neutrality in European Diplomacy, 1830s–1930s (Kingston, RI, 1983). 30. See: G.D. Pagratis, ‘The Ionian Islands under British Protection (1815–1864)’, in C. Vassallo and M. D’ Angelo (eds), Anglo-Saxons in the Mediterranean. Commerce, Politics and Ideas (XVII-XX Centuries) (Malta, 2007), 131–50; W.D. Wrigley, The Diplomatic Significance of Ionian Neutrality, 1821–1831 (New York, 1988), 61–85. 31. For an exhaustive overview of the maintenance of Ionian neutrality during the Greek revolts, see: Wrigley, Ionian Neutrality; W.D. Wrigley, ‘The Neutrality of Ionian Shipping and its Enforcement during the Greek Revolution (1821–1831)’, Mariner's Mirror, lxxxiii, no. 3 (1987), 245-–60; W.D. Wrigley, ‘The British Enforcement of Ionian Neutrality against Greek and Turkish Refugees, 1821–1828’, Sudost Forschungen, xlvi (1987), 95–112. 32. Treaty of London, 1863, Article 2, as cited by Q. Wright, ‘The Neutralization of Corfu’, American Journal of International Law, xviii, no. 1 (Jan. 1924), 105. 33. M. Mittler, Der Weg zum Ersten Weltkrieg. Wie neutral war die Schweiz? (Zurich, 2003), 133 (my translation). Other scholars disagree: P. Scberer, ‘The Benedetti Draft Treaty and British Neutrality in the Franco-Prussian War’, International Review of History and Political Science, ix, no. 1, (1972), 95–108. 34. C.E. Black, R.A. Falk, K. Knor and O.R. Young, Neutralization and World Politics (Princeton, NJ, 1968), v. 35. P. Luntinen, ‘Neutrality in Northern Europe before the First World War’, in Nevakivi (ed), Neutrality in History, 110; N.I. Agøy, ‘It will serve to Increase our Union Difficulties: Norway, Sweden and the Hague Peace Conference of 1899’, Historisk tidsskrift, lxxix, (2000), 181–208; M. Abbenhuis, ‘Too Good to be True: European Hopes for Neutrality before 1914’, in H. Amersfoort and W. Klinkert, (eds), Small Powers in the Age of Total War, 1900–1940 (Leiden, 2011), 50–2. 36. Luntinen, ‘Neutrality’; Salmon, ‘Between the Sea Power and the Land Power: Scandinavia and the Coming of the First World War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th series, iii, (1993), 23–49. 37. For the crisis surrounding the neutralisation of the Black Sea (1856) see: W. E. Moss, ‘The End of the Crimean System: England, Russia and the Neutrality of the Black Sea, 1870–1’, Historical Journal, iv, no. 2, (1961), 164. 38. Notes on the interview between the Greek Deputies and the British Representative in Greece, George Canning, 29 Sept. 1825 in [National Archives, Kew, London], F[oreign]O[ffice files] 352/11, 3. 39. P.W. Schroeder, ‘The Lost Intermediaries: the Impact of 1870 on the European System’, International History Review, vi, no. 1, (Feb. 1984), 1–27. 40. R.F. Hamilton, ‘The European Wars, 1815–1914’, in R.F. Hamilton and H.H. Herwig (eds), The Origins of World War I (Cambridge, 2003), 45–91. 41. D.R. Headrick, The Tools of Empire. Technology and European Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1981), 174–5. See also: Geyer and Bright, ‘Global Violence’, 651. 42. Headrick, Tools; D.R. Headrick, The Tentacles of Progress. Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism 1850–1940 (Oxford, 1988). 43. F. Trentmann, Free Trade Nation: Commerce, Consumption, and Civil Society in Modern Britain (Oxford, 2008). See also: S.C. Neff, Friends but No Allies. Economic Liberalism and the Law of Nations (New York, 1990); R. Francis Spall, ‘Free Trade, Foreign Relations, and the Anti-Corn Law League’, International History Review, x, no. 3 (1988), 405–32. 44. J.A. Neiswander, The Cosmopolitan Interior: Liberalism and the British Home, 1870–1914 (New Haven, 2008). 45. B. Bond, War and Society in Europe 1871–1970 (Gloucestershire, 1984, reprint 1998), 31. See also Neff, Rights, 40–4. 46. O. Riste, The Neutral Ally. Norway’s Relations with Belligerent Powers in the First World War (Oslo, 1965), 18. 47. Lemnitzer, ‘1856 Declaration’, 35. 48. The full-text version of the Declaration of Paris can be found in R. Albrecht- Carrié, The Concert of Europe (London, 1968), 195–6. See also: Lemnitzer, ‘1856 Declaration’; Tracy (ed), Sea Power, xvii–xxiii. 49. Tracy (ed.), Sea Power, xxiii; E. Chadwick, ‘The “Impossibility” of Maritime Neutrality during World War I’, Netherlands International Law Review, liv, (2007), 345; J.B. Hattendorf, ‘Maritime Conflict’, in M. Howard, G.J. Andreopoulos and M.R. Shulman (eds), The Laws of War. Constraints on Warfare in the Western World (New Haven, 1994), 109. 50. In Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality, 20, fn 9. 51. For some of the complaints about the Declaration of Paris see: report by Sir Edward Hertslet, Foreign Office librarian, 9 Feb. 1893 in Tracy (ed), Sea Power, 91–6. For the discourses in Parliament about the costs to British naval supremacy see: The Times, 18 March 1856 (I am grateful to Philip Arnold, my Summer Scholar in 2010–11 for this reference). See also: Lemnitzer, ‘1856 Declaration’, 29. 52. O. Anderson, A Liberal State at War. English Politics and Economics during the Crimean War (New York, 1967). 53. On the influence of economic nationalism in the nineteenth century see: Neff, Rights, 64–6; Trentmann, Free Trade Nation, 135–7. 54. Lord John Russell, House of Lords debate on the Luxembourg guarantee, 20 June 1867, in Hansard (also available in K. Bourne, The Foreign Policy of Victorian England [Oxford, 1970], 91). 55. Q. Wright, ‘The Present Status of Neutrality’, American Journal of International Law, xxxiv, no. 3 (1940), 411–13. 56. G.A. Craig, War, Politics and Diplomacy. Selected Essays (London, 1966), 146. 57. J.B. Hattendorf, ‘The US Navy and the “Freedom of the Seas” 1775–1917’, in Hobson and Kristiansen (eds), Navies in Northern Waters, 164–5; Tracy (ed), Sea Power, xx, 4. 58. Coogan, End of Neutrality, 20–1. 59. Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality, 39–42. 60. See: H. Jones, The Union in Peril. The Crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War (Chapel Hill, 1992); B.J. Steele, ‘Ontological Security and the Power of Self-Identity: British Neutrality and the American Civil War’, Review of International Studies, xxxi (2005), 519–40; P. Thompson, ‘The Case of the Missing Hegemon: British Non-Intervention in the American Civil War’, Security Studies, xvi, no. 1 (2007), 96–132. 61. F. Owsley, King Cotton Diplomacy (1959) in Steele, ‘Ontological’, 522. 62. Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality, 34. 63. J. Baxter, ‘Papers Relating to Belligerent and Neutral Rights, 1861–1865’, American Historical Review, xxxv, no. 1 (1928), 87; J. Baxter, ‘The British Government and Neutral Rights, 1861–1865’, American Historical Review, xxxiv, no. 1 (1928), 9, 12, 29. 64. Legal advice to the Foreign Office and Home Office regarding the Alexandra, 29 April 1863, in [National Archives, Kew, London], H[ome]O[ffice files] 45/7261. 65. Jones, Union in Peril, 229; Chadwick, ‘Impossibility’, 348. For the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, 8 May 1871, see: Tracy (ed), Sea Power, 82–3. 66. The Times, 19 Sept. 1872 (with thanks to Philip Arnold). 67. R.R. Probst, ‘ Good Offices’ in the Light of Swiss International Practice and Experiences (Dordrecht, 1989), 59. 68. Baxter, ‘British Government’, 29. 69. Report of the Neutrality Laws Commission, 10 June 1868, in FO881/1629. 70. Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality, 45, 55, 69. 71. Clarendon to Palmerston, 26 Sept. 1855, in K. Bourne, ‘Lord Palmerston's ‘Ginger-Beer’ triumph, 1 July 1856’, in K. Bourne and D.C. Watt (eds), Studies in International History (London, 1967), 157. 72. Maxey, ‘Growth’, 57. 73. Craig, War, Politics, 159–78. 74. P. Scberer, ‘The Benedetti Draft Treaty and British Neutrality in the Franco-Prussian War’, International Review of History and Political Science, ix, no. 1 (1972), 95–108. 75. A. Doedens, ‘Nederland en de Frans-Duitse oorlog. Enige aspecten van de buitenlandse politiek en de binnenlandse verhoudingen van ons land omstreeks het jaar 1870’ (PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1973), 1–38; Scberer, ‘Benedetti’, 103; Schroeder, ‘The Lost Intermediaries’. 76. For correspondence from British Foreign Office on the issue from July–Sept. 1870, see: FO425/95; [National Archives, Kew, London], CAB[inet Office files] 41/2, files 34–9. 77. For accounts see: FO 123/141, 142; FO10/308, 309, 310; FO100/178, 181. 78. See: Sir C. L. Wykes, British legation in Copenhagen, to Lord Granville, 28 Sept. 1870 in FO22/365; Mr Lumley, British Consul in Brussels, to Lord Granville, 8 Dec. 1870 in FO10/310; Dutch Consul General in London, Landsberge, to Minister of Foreign Affairs, The Hague, Herwijnen, 10 April 1871 in ‘Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: Geheime Rapporten en Kabinetsrapporten, 1868-1940’ 2.05.19, inventory number 16, Nationaal Archief, The Hague. 79. Mittler, Wie neutral? 135. 80. For British documentation on these agreements see: FO22/365. 81. Moss, ‘End of the Crimean System’, 165–81. 82. Lemnitzer, ‘1856 Declaration’. 83. C.A. Tamse, ‘The Role of Small Countries in the International Politics of the 1860s: The Netherlands and Belgium in Europe’, Acta Historiae Neerlandicae, ix, (1976), 143–69; Sir Charles L. Wykes (British envoy in Copenhagen) to Lord Granville, 22 Dec. 1870, in FO22/365. 84. See: correspondence between the British government and its legations in Brussels, the Hague, Copenhagen, and Berne in 1870–1, FO37/479, 480; FO22/363, 364, 365, 370. 85. Admiral E. A. J. Harris, British Consul in the Hague, to Lord Granville, 15 July 1870, in FO37/479; Sir C. W. L. Wykes, British Consul in Copenhagen, to Lord Granville, 28 Sept. 1870, in FO22/365. 86. Emile Cammaerts, Albert of Belgium (1935) in Ogley, Theory, 50–1. 87. V. Freeman Alwyn, ‘Non-Belligerent's Right to Compensation for Internment of Foreign Military Personnel’, American Journal of International Law, liii, no. 3 (1959), 640. 88. E. Davall, Les Troupes Françaises internées en Suisse à la fin de la guerre Franco-Allemande en 1871 (Berne, 1873); A.G.G. Bonar, British Consul in Berne, to Lord Granville, 1 Feb. 1871, in FO100/181. 89. P. Annet, ‘L’internement de soldats français en Belgique pendant la guerre de 1870’, Revue belge d'histoire militaire, xxviii, no. 5 (1990), 337––49. 90. Freeman, ‘Non-belligerent's’, 640; R.-J. Wilhelm, ‘Quelques considerations generals sur l'evolution du droit international humanitaire’, in A.J.M. Delissen and G.J. Tanja (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict Challenges Ahead. Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven (Dordrecht, 1991), 42; S. Wolf, ‘Guarded Neutrality. The Internment of Foreign Military Personnel in the Netherlands during the First World War’ (PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 2008), 28–31. For the text of the Brussels Declaration, 1874, see: International Committee of the Red Cross, International Treaties and Documents, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/135?OpenDocument (Accessed Feb. 2011). 91. Wolf, ‘Guarded Neutrality’; Maartje Abbenhuis, The Art of Staying Neutral. The Netherlands in the First World War (Amsterdam, 2006), ch. 5. 92. A.J. Nicholls, ‘Der dritte Wege im Zeitalter des Kaltes Krieges - enführende Überlegungen’, in D. Geppert and U. Wengst (eds), Neutralität - Chance öder Chimäre? Konzepte des dritten Weges für Deutschland und die Welt 1945 - 1900 (Munich, 2005); Mittler, Wie neutral? 235–6. 93. K. Nabulsi, Traditions of War. Occupation, Resistance and the Law (Oxford, 1999), 6. 94. M. Glenny, The Balkans 1904–1999. Nationalism, War and the Great Powers (London, 2000), 136, 229. See also: Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality, 67. 95. Count von Bülow, speech to Reichstag, 19 Jan. 1900, as reported and translated in [National Archives, Kew, London], ADM[iralty Record Office] 116/1073. 96. P. Wrange, Impartial or Uninvolved? The Anatomy of the 20th Century Doctrine on the Law of Neutrality (Vållingby, 2007), 245. 97. In Chadwick, Traditional Neutrality, 217. 98. Best, Humanity, 130. 99. See: Bond, War and Society, 26. G.R. Wilkinson, Depictions and Images of War in Edwardian Newspapers, 1899–1914 (Houndsmills, 2003), for example, argues that there was not a lot of engagement with the idea or value of peace in popular Edwardian newspapers in Britain in the pre-war years (p. 67). 100. P. Joenniemi, ‘The Peace Potential of Neutrality: a Discursive Approach’, Bulletin of Peace Proposals, xx, no. 2 (1989), 177. 101. Wrange, Impartial, 243; Lyon, ‘Neutrality’, 262; S.E. Cooper, Patriotic Pacifism. Waging War on War in Europe 1815–1914 (Oxford, 1991), 56. For the connection between the free-trade movement and popular peace activism in Britain see: Trentmann, Free Trade Nation, 175–7. 102. N.J. Brailey, ‘Sir Ernest Satow and the 1907 Second Hague Peace Conference’, Diplomacy and Statecraft, xiii, no. 2 (June 2002), 201. 103. See: A. Eyffinger, ‘A Highly Critical Moment: Role and Record of the 1907 Hague Peace Conference’, Netherlands International Law Review, liv (2007), 197–228; F. Kalshoven, ‘De eerste Haagse Vredesconferentie van 1899’, Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift, xcii (Sept. 1999), 257–65; T.E. Holland, ‘The Hague Conference of 1907’, Law Quarterly Review, lxxvi (1908), 76–9; A.S. de Bustamante, ‘The Hague Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Land Warfare’, American Journal of International Law, xcv (1908), 95–120; Brailey, ‘Sir Ernest’. 104. For examples of breaches in neutrality during these wars see: Neff, Rights, 114; Davis and Engerman, Naval Blockades, 10; FO72/2093; R. Granville Campbell, Neutral Rights and Obligations in the Anglo-Boer War (Baltimore, 1908); Maxey, ‘Growth’, 58. 105. In Wrange, Impartial, 244 n. 309. 106. Wrange, Impartial, 244. 107. Craig, War, Politics, 151. 108. Sir F. Lascelles to Sir Edward Grey, 16 Aug. 1906, in FO 371/78; Sir J. Walton to Sir Edward Grey, 12 Feb. 1907 in FO 372/65. 109. Moskovskiye Vedomosti. 4 March 1898, as quoted by L.N. Popkova, ‘Russian Press Coverage of American Intervention in the Spanish-Cuban War’, in S.L. Hilton and S.J.S. Ickringill (eds), European Perceptions of the Spanish-American War of 1898 (Bern, 1999), 112. See also, in the same volume, the articles on the Netherlands by N.A. Bootsma, Germany by M.M. Hugo, Austria by N. Slupetzky, Britain by J. Smith and France by S. Ricard. 110. Coogan, End of Neutrality, 72. 111. Coogan, End of Neutrality, 70–1. See also: Neff, Rights, 88. 112. M. Watson Graham, ‘The Effect of the League of Nations Covenant on the Theory and Practice of Neutrality’, California Law Review, xv, no. 5 (1927), 357. 113. W. Henitschel von Heinegg, ‘Naval Blockade and International Law’, in B.A. Elleman and S.C.M. Paine (eds), Naval Blockades and Seapower. Strategies and Counterstrategies 1805–2005 (New York, 2006), 14. 114. B. Ranft, ‘Restraints on War at Sea before 1945’, in M. Howard (ed), Restraints on War (Oxford, 1979), 45–6. 115. Graham, ‘Effect’, 358. 116. See: C.A. Tamse, ‘The Role of Small Countries in International Politics of the 1860s: The Netherlands and Belgium in Europe’, Acta Historiae Neerlandicae, ix (1976), 143–69; Schroeder, ‘The Lost Intermediaries’. 117. Abbenhuis, The Art of Staying Neutral, 31, 34; S. Schmidt, Frankreichs Außenpolitik in der Julikrise 1914: Ein beitrag zur geschichte des Ausbruchs des Ersten Weltkrieges (Oldenbourg: Wissenshaft Verlag, 2009); British Foreign Office meeting, minutes, 15 Nov. 1908, in Ogley, Theory, 56; Neff, Rights, 125; J. Steinberg, ‘A German Plan for the Invasion of Holland and Belgium, 1897’, The Historical Journal, vi, 1 (1963), 107–19. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMaartje Maria Abbenhuis With grateful thanks to Assoc. Prof. Gordon Morrell and the three (anonymous) reviewers of this article for all their helpful comments and editing
Referência(s)