of Belgium (iii) Neutralisation Proposed; Policy of Bülow, Talley rand, and Palmerston (iv) Neutralisation Accepted (v) Neutrality and Territorial Integrity; Neutrality of 12 1 2 12 ... ... ... ... ... 19 ... [2005] of Belgium NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM THE LONDON CONFERENCE, 1830-39, AND THE GUARANTEE OF BELGIAN NEUTRALITY (i) Introductory GERMAN historians and lawyers have tried to excuse or even to justify the violation of Belgian neutrality by publishing the theory that, in its origin and in its character, Belgian neutrality differs from that of Switzerland. With this object, they refer to the text of the diplomatic documents and to the authority of a distinguished Belgian lawyer, E. Nys, the author of interesting works on the history of International Law. The Germans appear to have adopted his views without criticism and without any independent investigation of the meaning of the texts on which those views are based. They have, moreover, interpreted the statements of fact of this learned Belgian lawyer so as to support a theory of neutrality which he would probably be the first to repudiate. In 1901 Nys drew the attention of statesmen in his country to the circumstance that the treaty of November 15, 1831, determining the international status of Belgium, did not contain the words "integrity and inviolability of territory," which occurred in the peace preliminaries agreed on some months previously. The one conclusion which he drew from this was that the guarantee given by the Powers was weakened, and that the scope of this guarantee was reduced "—so, at 1 A. Schulte, Von der Neutralität Belgiens; Bonn, 1915; p. 66. J. Kohler, Not kennt kein Gebot; Berlin and Leipzig, 1915; p. 37. H. Wittmaack, Die Neutralität Belgiens, in Deutsche Revue, February 1915. A. J. Rosenberg, Der deutsche Krieg und der Katholizismus; Berlin, 1915; p. 37. F. Norden, La Belgique neutre et l'Allemagne d'après les hommes d'Etat et les juristes belges; Bruxelles, 1915. Wt. 32666/1000 2/20 F.O.P. [2005] least, we translate the words used by him in his treatise on International Law.1 66 66 2 German writers read this as meaning that Belgian neutrality might, therefore, be violated; for Nys declares in the same passage: Belgium obtained the guarantee of its neutrality, but the Five Powers did "not allow her the guarantee of the integrity and "inviolability of her territory." This interpretation of neutrality, founded on a mere comparison of diplomatic texts, seems hardly compatible with the application of the principle of neutrality; we shall try, however, from the purely historical point of view, to examine whether it harmonises with the circumstances in which those texts were drafted, and with the principles and aims pursued by the members of the London Conference; whether, in short, by the treaty of November 15, 1831, the Powers did actually restrict the scope of Belgian neutrality, and protect it by guarantees less valid than those by which Swiss neutrality had already been secured. We shall, at the same time, try to throw light on the texts from the context, and from other contemporaneous documents. (ii) Aims of the London Conference At first sight, the work of the London Conference, which led to the recognition by the Powers of Belgian independence, appears to be a breach in the work of the Congress of Vienna. It did, indeed, split up the Kingdom of the Netherlands, one of the essential creations of the Congress; but we should not therefore ignore the principal aim of the Conference-the wish 1E. Nys, La Belgique et la garantie des cing Puissances (in Revue de Droit international et de Législation comparée, 1901; p. 44). E. Nys, Le Droit international, I, pp. 389-392. 2 A. Schulte, Von der Neutralität Belgiens; p. 68. P. Ehlers, England, Antwerpen und die Belgische Barriere; Hamburg, 2nd edition, 1916; p. 27. The fifth Convention at The Hague in 1907 expressly declares neutral territory inviolable. This was done on the motion of Belgium, presumably to meet Nys' point. to preserve the balance of Europe as settled in 1815. Far from attempting to recast the map, the Conference was extremely conservative, and strove to maintain the foundations of the international system established by the Congress of Vienna. At the very time when the principle of Belgian independence was settled (protocol of December 20, 1830), the Conference was careful to declare that its foremost task would be "to combine the future independence of Belgium with the stipulations of the treaties, with the interests and safety of other Powers, and with the maintenance of the balance of Europe." And, in order to give still better evidence of its respect for the treaties of 1815, it added: These arrangements must in no way affect the rights of the King of the Netherlands and of the German Confederacy over the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg."'1 The principle of the independence of Belgium, which was settled even before the frontiers of the new State had been fixed, had been advocated chiefly by Palmerston. Talleyrand, who worked loyally with Palmerston throughout, hastened to agree; but the representatives of the autocratic Courts only yielded under the pressure of circumstances, and from a belief that this independence would henceforth prevent any extension of France towards the north. Lieven, the principal Russian representative, only consented to affix his signature to the protocol of December 20 in the conviction that Belgium would continue under the House of Nassau in the person of the Prince of Orange; such were the express orders of his master, Nicholas I.2 1 Martens, Nouveau Recueil de Traités, X, pp. 125-6. 2 Princess Lieven wrote to her brother Alexander, December 22, 1830 :"" This is what he has been brought to by force of circumstances; it was imperative to move with them, or to see Belgium lost to Europe. He has moved-but he was the last to do so; the union of the five [Powers] subsists, and the union of four is assured, and now, unless we do not care to have her on our side (which is not likely), we have England with us." |