FORCIBLE ANTICIPATION OF A BREACH OF NEUTRALITY
IN Grotius the following rule is stated:
Hence we may collect how he who carries on a righteous war may lawfully seize a place situate in a land which is not at war; namely, if there be a danger, not imaginary, but certain, that the enemy will seize that place, and, thence do irreparable damage: and next, on condition that nothing be taken which is not necessary for this purpose of caution, for example, the mere custody of the place, leaving to the true owner the jurisdiction and revenues: finally, if it be done with the intention of restoring the custody to the true owner as soon as the necessity is over.1
Hall treats this situation as an aspect of self-preservation:
The right of self-preservation in some cases justifies the commission of acts of violence against a friendly or neutral state, when from its position and resources it is capable of being made use of to dangerous effect by an enemy, when there is a known intention on his part so to make use of it, and when, if he is not forestalled, it is almost certain that lie will succeed, either through the helplessness of the country or by means of intrigues with a party within it.2
Very similar statements of the law can be found in most of the authoritative works of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The right is sometimes considered as an aspect of the right of self-preservation,3 or of self-defence,4 or as an instance of necessity.51 This right of preventive intervention is still accepted by modern writers and is stated to exist in official manuals.6____________________
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: International Law and the Use of Force by States. Contributors: Ian Brownlie - Author. Publisher: Clarendon Press. Place of publication: Oxford. Publication year: 1963. Page number: 309.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.