What are the duties of neutral nations?

Translation: quotations from Emer de Vattel are quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852), not his original words.

OCR: 10 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations must treat both parties at war equally with regard to the passage, unless there are substantial reasons for acting otherwise, in order to maintain strict neutrality. He also believed that granting a passage to one party without a valid reason would be a partial distinction and a departure from neutrality. [1]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations should not be treated as allies of a belligerent if they exercise their rights without unjust reasons, and that a refusal of levies without substantial reason could justify treating them as allied with the enemy. This is grounded in the principle of natural law of nations and the care for one's own safety. "I should have just cause to consider that nation as leagued with my enemy ; and, in this case, the care of my own safety would authorize me to treat her as such." [2]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations have a duty to consider whether it is in their advantage to concern themselves in a foreign quarrel, and to refrain from engaging in it unless convinced of the justice on one side and the benefit to their state. He also argued that treaties of neutrality are useful and necessary to secure peace and obviate disputes. [3]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations must show strict impartiality towards the belligerent powers in order to securely enjoy the advantages of their neutrality. This is because favoring one party to the prejudice of the other would compromise their neutrality. [4]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations have the duty to refrain from carrying contraband goods to nations at war, and that sovereigns may declare such goods as lawful prize. He also believed that neutral states should be notified of such declarations and that their subjects should be ordered to avoid contraband commerce, with the sovereign not offering protection if they are captured doing so. [5]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations have a duty to refrain from contraband commerce with warring nations, and that sovereigns should declare that such commerce will not be protected if captured. He argued that this is in line with the mutual duties of nations and modern European custom. "the letter usually give orders to their subjects to refrain from all contraband commerce with the nations at war, declaring, that if they are captured in carrying on such trade, the sovereign will not protect them." [6]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations have a duty to provide impartial assistance to both belligerent powers in matters not directly related to war, including allowing free access for the purchase of provisions, horses, and other necessities, unless restricted by a treaty of neutrality. He also believed that a neutral state may grant preferences to a belligerent power based on friendship or treaties, as long as it does not involve matters of war. [7]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel held that a neutral nation must not give assistance to either party in a war when under no obligation to do so, and must not refuse to one party what it grants to the other solely because of the war. He also stated that neutrality in war includes not providing troops, arms, or other direct war materials to either side. [8]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel believed that the impartiality of a neutral nation solely relates to war and includes two aspects: providing moderate succour due in virtue of a former defensive alliance without becoming an associate in the war, and the right of other states to remain neutral and decide for themselves whether to join a contest based on the justice of the cause. [9]
• BELIEF (undated; OCR of an old printing; quoted in the anonymous 1760 English translation (revised 1797; Chitty edition, 1852)): Emer de Vattel discusses the duties of neutral nations, stating that they must remain impartial and avoid actions that could be seen as aiding one party in a conflict. He outlines specific conduct to be pursued by neutral nations, including not affording a retreat to troops and ensuring the safety of the passage for troops through their territory. "Conduct to be pursued by a neutral nation . . . ih." [10]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [1], [2], [3].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Emer de Vattel emphasized the principle of strict impartiality for neutral nations, particularly in matters directly related to war. [4]

2. He outlined that neutral nations must not provide assistance to either party in a war when not under obligation to do so, and must not refuse to one party what is granted to the other solely because of the war. [8]

3. Emer de Vattel also stressed the importance of neutrality in trade, stating that neutral nations may trade with both belligerents unless restricted by treaties, and must not engage in contraband commerce. [5]

4. He argued that neutral nations must avoid actions that could be seen as aiding one party in a conflict, including not affording a retreat to troops and ensuring the safety of the passage for troops through their territory. [10]

5. Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations must treat both parties at war equally with regard to the passage, unless there are substantial reasons for acting otherwise, to maintain strict neutrality. [1]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

Extrapolation: Emer de Vattel believed that neutral nations have a duty to remain impartial and avoid actions that could be seen as aiding one party in a conflict. This includes not providing troops, arms, or other direct war materials to either side, and ensuring the safety of the passage for troops through their territory. Neutral nations must also avoid contraband commerce with warring nations and treat both parties equally in matters not directly related to war.

Competing readings: The record shows that Emer de Vattel believed in strict impartiality for neutral nations, but also acknowledged that there could be exceptions based on substantial reasons or the justice of the cause. The record itself states that a refusal of levies without substantial reason could justify treating a neutral nation as allied with the enemy. [2]

Confidence: High, based on the direct statements in the passages and the consistency of the principles outlined.