Supposing the convention to have become operative, and supposing the territorial Power to be neutral in a war between States which we may call A and B, the convention would certainly entitle A to claim unmolested passage for its ships of war on their way to attack the forces of B in the Eastern seas.
Holland speculates on the implications of a convention for neutral powers during a conflict between two states.
Share
More from Thomas Erskine Holland
I am of opinion that in war, where everything must be individual, the only articles which will prove efficacious are those which are addressed specifically to commanders.
They testify to, and may promote, a very widely spread entente cordiale, they enhance the prestige of the tribunal of The Hague, and they assure the reference to that tribunal of certain classes of questions which might otherwise give rise…
If in our own day a law recognised by the civilised world forbids, in a general way, the soldier to make booty in warfare on land, we have here a great advance in civilisation, and the jurists have had their share in bringing it about.
States differ so widely in offensive power and vulnerability that it would be hardly advisable thus to fetter the liberty of action of a State which considers itself to have been injured.
Other voices in this conversation
