Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T04:51:54.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Resurrection of Neutrality in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Hans J. Morgenthau
Hans J. Morgenthau
Affiliation:
University of Kansas City
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The collapse of the League of Nations as an instrument of collective security has called forth a series of politico-legal reactions, of which perhaps the most symptomatic of the crisis in the international order is the new neutrality policy of the small European states. This new policy was prompted by the collapse of the League of Nations sanctions against Italy. After withdrawal from the League had been seriously discussed in some of the small European states, and just before the lifting of the sanctions against Italy by the League, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland published a joint declaration, on July 1, 1936, containing in a veiled form a cancellation of the obligations under Article 16 of the Covenant of the League.

Type
International Affairs
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , June 1939 , pp. 473 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 New York Times, May 7, 25, 28, 1936.

2 Société des Nations, Journal Off., Supp. Spécial, No. 154, p. 17, 18; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, July 2, 1936.

3 Algemeen Handelsblad, March 18, 1937. Van Hamel, one of the leading Dutch experts in foreign politics, states the matter yet more clearly (“Can the Netherlands be Neutral?,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 16 (1938), p. 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar): “More and more she is coming back to the fundamental principle of neutrality which, after long experience with other policies, she took as her guiding doctrine in the 19th century…. She is coming back to this attitude deliberately, by the force of circumstances, after a brief so-journ in that quite different atmosphere of collective security which the Covenant of the League of Nations for a time engendered in Europe.”

4 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, November 14, 1937.

5 New York Times, April 7, 1938; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, March 3, April 19, 1938; Aftonbladet, April 5, 1938.

6 New York Times, February 1 and 2, 1938; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, January 27 and 28, 1938; League of Nations Doc., A7 (1938), VII. Identical statements have recently been issued by Poland, (New York Times, July 14, 1938Google Scholar, August 12 and 14, 1938; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, April 19, May 29, August 5, 1938), Esthonia (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, June 20, July 19, 1938), and Finland (New York Times, May 22, 1938); cf. also Pusta, , “Le Problème de la paix nordique,” Revue de droit international, Vol. 21 (1938, no. 2), p. 350Google Scholar, and Genet, , “La Réhabilitation de la neutralité et la déclaration commune des pays du Nord du 27 mai 1938,” Affaires étrangères (1938) p. 331Google Scholar; New York Times, December 24, 1938. Corresponding steps were taken by Belgium after the collapse of the Treaties of Locarno, which are aimed at the reestablishment of an international status at least similar to the former neutrality.

7 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, August 2, 1937.

8 Ibid., November 15, 1937.

9 New York Times, December 23 and 25, 1937; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, December 23, 1937.

10 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, March 22 and 28, 1938.

11 League of Nations, Official Journal, May–June, 1938, p. 369Google Scholar; cf., also, New York Times, January 31, May 1, 5, 15, 17, 1938; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, January 31, February 1, March 16 and 17, April 22, May 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 1938. On the problem of Switzerland's neutrality, see Rappard, , “Switzerland in a Changing Europe,” Foreign Affairs (July, 1938), p. 679Google Scholar; Schindler, , “La Neutralité Suisse de 1920 à 1938,” Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1938), p. 433Google Scholar; Dollot, , “La Crise de neutralité permanente. La Neutralité Suisse,” Affaires étrangeres (1938), p. 396Google Scholar; Morgenthau, , “The End of Switzerland's ‘Differential’ Neutrality,” Amer. Jour. of Internat. Law (1938), p. 558Google Scholar; London Times, July 3, 1938.

12 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, May 20, 1938; cf. also ibid., May 8, 1938, on the attitude of the Swedish press.

13 See Morgenthau, loc. cit., pp. 561, 562.

14 See the resolutions adopted by the Norwegian Parliament on May 31, 1938, and the Swedish Parliament on June 17, 1938 (New York Times, June 1, 1938; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, June 3, 1938). Cf. the reports in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, May 8 and 27, June 21, September 12, 1938.

15 New York Times, July 23, 24, 25, 1938; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, July 25 and 29, 1938.

16 League of Nations, Journal of the 19th Session of the Assembly, 3rd, 4th, 5th Plenary Meeting; New York Times, September 11, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, October 1, 1938; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, September 9, 14, 18, 22, October 2, 1938.

17 These states form the specific group of European neutrals within the League of Nations which have here pursued on the whole an identical policy. This group has been joined from time to time by Belgium, the Baltic states, Finland, and Spain, which, however, cannot be considered as permanent members of the group, owing to their particular international positions. As to the policy of the small countries within the League of Nations, see Rappard, , “Small States in the League of Nations,” Polit. Sci. Quar. (1934), p. 544Google Scholar.

18 Jessup, , Neutrality; Its History, Economics, and Law, Vol. 4 (New York, 1936), p. 179Google Scholar.

19 de Lapradelle, Paul, in International Studies Conference: La Sécurité collective (Paris, 1936), p. 432Google Scholar.

20 Cf. Alvarez, , L'Organisation internationale (Paris, 1931), p. 156Google Scholar; Barandon, , Le Système de la Société des Nations pour la prévention de la guerre (Genève-Paris, 1933), pp. 344et seq.Google Scholar; Borchard, , “Neutrality,” Yale Law Rev., Vol. 48 (1938), p. 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borchard, and Lage, , Neutrality for the United States (New Haven, 1937), pp. 258, 261, 269Google Scholar; Coudert, , in Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Vol. 16 (1935), pp. 47, 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eagleton, , “Neutrality and the Capper Resolution,” New York Univ. Law Rev., Vol. 6 (1929), p. 346Google Scholar; Garner, , “The Outlook for the Law of War and of Neutrality,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 22 (1937), pp. 8, 9Google Scholar, and “Le Développement et les tendances récentes du droit international,” Recueil des cours de l'Académie de la Haye (1931, Vol. 1), pp. 712, 713Google Scholar; Graham, , “The Effect of the League of Nations Covenant on the Theory and Practice of Neutrality,” Calif. Law Rev., Vol. 15 (1927), p. 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graham, , “Neutralization as a Mouvement in International Law,” Amer. Jour. of Internal. Law, Vol. 21 (1927), pp. 84et seq.Google Scholar, 94; International Studies Conference, op. cit., pp. 418 et seq.; Jessup, op. cit., p. 177; Lauterpacht, , “Neutrality and Collective Security,” Politica (November, 1936), p. 133Google Scholar; Miller, , “Sovereignty and Neutrality,” International Conciliation, no. 220 (1926), pp. 284, 285Google Scholar; Politis, , La Neutralité et la paix (Paris, 1935)Google Scholar, passim; Wright, Quincy, “The Future of Neutrality,” International Conciliation, no. 242 (1928), pp. 358et seq.,Google Scholar 369; Whitton, , “La Neutrality et la Société des Nations,” Recueil des cours de l'Académie de la Haye (1927, Vol. 2), p. 533Google Scholar; Norman Wait Harris Memorial Foundation Lectures, Neutrality and Collective Security (Chicago, 1936)Google Scholar. Cf. the bibliography in Strupp, , “Neutralisation, Befriedung, Entmilitarisierung,” Handbuch des Völkerrechts, Vol. 2, (Stuttgart, 1933), pp. 349et seq.Google Scholar The problem was discussed in detail in the debates of the American Society of International Law in the years 1930, 1933, 1935 (cf. the Proceedings of the Society for those years), and in those of the International Law Association in the years 1930, 1932, 1934 (cf. the Reports of the Association for those years).

21 Cf. against these efforts, in particular, Graham, Calif. Law Rev., loc. cit.

22 Jessup, op. cit., p. 150.

23 Lauterpacht, in International Studies Conference, op. cit., p. 441.

24 Cf. Bellquist, , “Some Aspects of the Recent Foreign Policy of Sweden,” University of California Publications on International Relations, Vol. I, no. 3 (Berkeley, 1929)Google Scholar, passim; Eagleton, , “Reform of the Covenant of the League of Nations,” in this Review (1937), pp. 459 et seq., 470et seq.Google Scholar; Rappard, loc. cit., pp. 572 et. seq.; Rappard, , The Government of Switzerland (New York, 1936), pp. 141et seq.Google Scholar, and Die Politik der Schweiz im Völkerbund, 1920–1925 (Chur-Leipzig, 1925)Google Scholar; Motta, , Preface to Rappard, L'Entrée de la Suisse dans la Société des Nations (Genève, 1924), pp. III, IVGoogle Scholar; van Vollenhoven, , “Holland's International Policy,” Polit. Sci. Quar. (1919), pp. 204, 205Google Scholar; Jones, , The Scandinavian States and the League of Nations (Princeton, 1939)Google Scholar, passim. Particularly illuminating for the policy of the small European states within the League are the contributions of prominent representatives of these states to a work published by Rask-Orstetfonden, , Les Origines et l'oeuvre de la Société des Nations (1923)Google Scholar.

25 On the theory of international “tensions,” see Morgenthau, , Die internationale Rechtspflege, ihr Wesen and ihre Grenzen (Leipzig, 1929), pp. 59et seq.Google Scholar, and La Notion du “politique” et la théorie des différends internationaux (Paris, 1933), pp. 37et. seq.Google Scholar; Ray, , Annales sociologiques, série C, no. I (1935), pp. 163et seq.Google Scholar

26 Cf. on this problem, Morgenthau, , La Notion du “politique,” p. 76Google Scholar, and Berliner Tageblatt, 1932, no. 209.

27 Cf. the quotations supra note 20, and Jessup, op. cit., pp. 113 et seq., and “American Neutrality and International Police,” World Peace Foundation Pamphlets, Vol. 11 (1928), no. 3, p. 427Google Scholar; Munch, , La Politique du Danemark dans la Société des Nations (Genève, 1931), pp. 14et seq.Google Scholar

28 Rappard, op. cit., p. 6.

29 Waultrin, , “La Neutralité Scandinavienne,” Revue générale du droit international public, Vol. 11 (1904), p. 5Google Scholar.

30 Kabisch, , Streitfragen des Weltkriegs, 1914–1918 (Stuttgart, 1924), pp. 17, 42, 56et seq.Google Scholar; von Moltke, Helmut, Erinnerungen, Briefe, Dokumente, 1877–1916 (Stuttgart, 1922), pp. 17, 429et seq.Google Scholar; van Hamel, loc. cit., p. 346; Vandenbosch, , The Neutrality of the Netherlands during the World War (1927), p. 4Google Scholar.

31 Cf. Bellquist, loc. cit., pp. 279 et seq.; van Hamel, loc. cit., pp. 339, 340; and especially the Message from the Federal Countil of Switzerland Concerning the Question of the Accession of Switzerland to the League of Nations (Cambridge, 1919)Google Scholar. This message, which came from the pen of Max Huber, is the classical presentation of the political foundations of the League of Nations, in political wisdom and realistic penetration never equalled by succeeding interpretations of the Covenant. As to the relation between the sanctions of international law and the policy of balance of power, see Morgenthau, , “Théorie des sanctions internationales,” Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (1935), pp. 825et seq.Google Scholar

32 Cf., as to the beginnings of this development, Kunz, , in Proceedings of the American Soc. of Internal. Law (1935), p. 39Google Scholar.

33 Cf. Herre, Paul, Die kleinen Staaten Europas und die Entstehung des Weltkrieges (München, 1937), pp. 282et seq.Google Scholar; Foerster, Wolfgang, “Strategische Erwägungen des italienischen Generalstabs aus der Vorkriegszeit,” Berliner Monatshefte, Vol. 11, p. 247Google Scholar; Ammann, Schweizer Monatshefte (1925), p. 465, (1933), p. 486; Feyler, , La Suisse stratégique et la guerre Européenne (Genève, 1924)Google Scholar; der Luth, Zu, Die Schweiz, ihre militärpolitische Lage vor und nach dem Weltkriege (Charlottenburg, 1925)Google Scholar. The reports of the British military attaché, Delmé-Radcliffe (see British Documents on the Origin of the War, 1898–1914, edited by G. P. Gooch and Harold Temperley) certainly exaggerate the importance and seriousness of those tendencies, which recently seem to have been revived (see the reports on planned actions against the Netherlands and Switzerland in Journal des Débats, March 8, 1939; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, March 9, 10, 12, 1939; New York Times, March 25, 1939, p. 5Google Scholar).

34 For the general aspect of the problem, see Kolnai, , The War Against the West (New York, 1938)Google Scholar, especially Chaps. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9; Rauschnigg, , The Revolution of Nihilism (New York, 1939)Google Scholar. Cf. Gott, Virginia L., “The National Socialist Theory of International Law,” Amer. Jour. of Internal. Law (1938), p. 704CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Preuss, Lawrence, “National Socialist Conceptions of International Law,” in this Review (1935), p. 594Google Scholar. For practical consequences of this problem, it is illuminating that the German press has advanced a new concept of “intellectual neutrality” according to which true neutrality on the part of the “traditional European neutrals” requires abstention from any public or private criticism of totalitarian institutions and policies. These publications by the German press have induced the Swiss government to take diplomatic steps against this “falsification of the concept of neutrality”; see New York Times, January 13, 1939; Neue Zürcher Zeitung, December 18, 19, 1938, January 20, 24, 29, 1939; Schindler, Dietrich, “Neutralität und Presse,” Neue Schweizer Rundschau (January, 1939)Google Scholar. Cf., also, Giornale d'Italia, February 19, 1939, supporting the German thesis, and the speech of the Swedish foreign minister Sandier (New York Times and Neue Zürcher Zeitung, December 9, 1938) opposing it.

35 Sell, , “Norwegen, Seestaat and Neutralität,” Marinerundschau (1933), pp. 200, 201Google Scholar; Leguèbe, , “L'Allemagne, la Baltique, et les pays Scandinaves,” Revue politique et parlamentaire (April, 1938), p. 35Google Scholar; Leistikow, , “Denmark's Precarious Neutrality,” Foreign Affairs (1939), p. 611Google Scholar; New York Times, April 2, 1939, p. E 5Google Scholar. At the beginning of April, 1938, the Swedish Foreign Minister Sandier made a speech addressed to all Scandinavian countries (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, April 6, 1938), in which he pointed out that these countries must keep aloof from the conflicts of the European powers, and that the North must be crossed off the calculations of the General Staffs.

36 “Augur” in New York Times, August 6, 1938Google Scholar.

37 Ibid., July 6, 14, August 14, 15, 1938; L'Europe nouvelle, July 9, 1938, pp. 768et seq.Google Scholar; New Republic, March 22, 1939, pp. 188, 189Google Scholar.

38 For the text, see Amer. Jour. of Internal. Law (1938), Supplement, p. 141Google Scholar; for interpretation, see Padelford, ibid., p. 789.

39 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, November 24, 1938.

40 On the military and political side of the problem, see Seton-Watson, , Britain and the Dictators (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 304et seq.Google Scholar; Schuman, , International Politics (New York, 1937), pp. 496, 497Google Scholar; Hambro, , New York Times, October 23, 1938Google Scholar; van Hamel, loc. cit., pp. 342, 343; Hyde, , “Belgium and Neutrality,” Amer. Jour. of Internat. Law (1937), p. 84Google Scholar; Kleen, , Lois et usages de la neutralité, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1898), pp. 89et seq.Google Scholar; Kunz, , Kriegsrecht und Neutralitätsrecht (Vienna, 1935), pp. 212et seq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duke of Northumberland, “The League of Nations and Denmark,” National Rev., Vol. 73, p. 44Google Scholar; Politis, op. cit., p. 167; Schindler, , “Die Londoner Erklärung und die schweizerischen Rüstungen,” La Société des Nations, Bulletin de l'Association Suisse pour la Société des Nations (1930), pp. 64, 84Google Scholar; Wilson, George Grafton, “Neutralization,” Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 11 (New York 1935), p. 366Google Scholar. Cf. the declarations of Danish, Dutch, Swedish, and Norwegian statesmen, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, November 1, 1938, January 1, March 21, 26, April 24, 1939; New York Times, February 7, p. 8, March 21, p. 7, April 16, 1939, p. E 5.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.