Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

that the British Government had put upon it, in clear contradiction to the express terms of the treaty.1

The British Government does not seem to have receded from this view that it was not bound to make good its guaranty to Luxemburg unless all the powers joining in

1 The London Times, in its editorial of December 3, 1914, seems to overlook this when it says:

"LUXEMBURG

- ANOTHER BROKEN TREATY

"The new attempt of the Germans to explain away their acts of aggression to neutral peoples comes as a reminder that the whole case against them has still to be stated. In particular, the brutal treatment of Belgium, the greatest international crime of modern times, has somewhat distracted attention from the perfidy of Germany toward Luxemburg. Yet there are circumstances connected with the violation of the neutrality of the latter which are scarcely to be surpassed in cynical bad faith. Let us recall the facts. The Duchy of Luxemburg was, by the Treaty of 1839, joined by a personal tie to the Sovereign of Holland. In 1866 and 1867 the political position of Luxemburg was the subject of diplomatic correspondence which threatened to precipitate war between France and Prussia, a war which Bismarck at that time desired to postpone. The former wished to purchase the rights of the King of Holland, and he at one time consented to part with them. But, Prussia strongly objecting to the transaction, he withdrew his consent. France pressed Prussia to withdraw her garrison from Luxemburg, which Bismarck met with a refusal. At the instance of Lord Stanley, then Foreign Secretary, a conference was held in London in 1867, and was attended by representatives of all the great powers. Count von Bernstorff, the representative of Prussia, announced at the outset that the invitation had been accepted by her only upon the assumption that a European guaranty of the neutrality of Luxemburg would be given. Lord Stanley at first demurred: the guaranty given by the Treaty of 1839 was, in his view, sufficient, and he was reluctant, as he explained to the House of Commons, to extend the liability of this country. But Count von Bernstorff did not agree with him, and insisted upon the insertion of the words to be found in Article II of the treaty - viz., that Luxemburg was to form henceforth a state perpetually neutral 'under the sanction of the collective guaranty of the signatories to the present treaty.' It matters not whether these words substantially differed from those in the Treaty of 1839; Bismarck thought that they did, and insisted upon their insertion as giving an ampler guaranty. What is to be said of diplomacy which deliberately breaks a promise expressed in words of its own choosing in preference to other words conceived to be less binding? The contention of Prussia in 1867 was, 'We are so anxious about the maintenance of the neutrality of the Duchy that we must have it secured by the strongest possible obligation.' Could her most diligent historians discover an example of bad faith comparable with her violation in 1914 of the promise which in 1867 she gave, and which she insisted upon the other powers also giving?"

the collective guaranty should take part in the collective action to this effect. This would have limited her obligation to one of mere respect for the treaty, not much of a burden, since it was hardly likely that she would ever contemplate the acquisition of Luxemburg territory or its violation. On the other hand, she has interpreted the Belgian guaranty as requiring her to make every reasonable sacrifice in enforcing upon other powers its respect.

Sir Edward Grey, in a conversation with the French Ambassador just prior to the outbreak of the present war, referred to the distinction between the guaranty of Luxemburg and that of Belgium as explained in the speeches of Lord Derby and Lord Clarendon in the Parliamentary debates in 1867, thus reaffirming the untenable view of Great Britain's obligation.1 (Cf. B. W. P. no. 148.) The truth of the situation would seem to be that a collective guaranty was intended to be much stronger than an ordinary guaranty, in that all the powers would be obligated to take action against the violator, whereas in the case of an ordinary guaranty like that of Belgium, the less interested powers might expect to place upon the shoulders of those more directly interested the particular charge of maintaining the inviolability of the neutrality. The English interpretation is the exact reverse of this. If my interpretation be correct, Germany's invasion of Luxemburg was as great a violation of formal international law as was her action in the case of Belgium. The maxim, de minimis non curat lex (the law does not take account of trifles), is equally applicable in international law, so that it is reasonable that a question of the violation of Luxemburg should not be considered of the same concern as would be the more serious interference with the neutralization of Belgium. Nevertheless, the views of the British Government in interpreting its obligations under the Treaty of May 11, 1867, form a curious commentary on the provisions of the protocol, 1 See above, p. 338.

which, as the result of the efforts of the British Government, was signed at London by the representatives of the powers on January 17, 1871. It reads: "The plenipotentiaries of North Germany, of Austria-Hungary, of Great Britain, of Italy, of Russia, and of Turkey, assembled today in conference, recognize that it is an essential principle of the law of nations that no power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting powers by means of an amicable arrangement." 1

When the situation became tense, after the presentation of the Austrian note to Servia, M. Eyschen, Minister of State of Luxemburg, asked the French Minister on July 31, 'for an official declaration to the effect that France, in case of war, would respect the neutrality of Luxemburg. When the French Minister asked him if he had received a similar declaration from the German Government, M. Eyschen answered that he was going to the German Minister to ask for it. Upon his return, M. Eyschen informed the French Minister that the German Minister had replied, "That is a matter of course, but the French Government must make the same promise." (Modified quotation, July 31, F. Y. B. no. 111.)

The next day M. Eyschen asked both Governments to give Luxemburg an assurance of neutrality. (Cf. F. Y. B. no. 128.) To this, M. Viviani, responsible head of the French Government, replied:

"Be good enough to state to the President of the Council that in conformity with the Treaty of London, 1867, the Government of the Republic intends to respect the neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, as they have shown by their attitude.

"The violation of this attitude by Germany would, however, compel France from that time to be guided in her ac

1 Translation as laid before Parliament. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. III, p. 1904. London, 1875.

tion by the necessity of caring for her defense and her interests." (August 1, F. Y. B. no. 129.)

The next day, August 2, M. Eyschen telegraphed the French Government of the German invasion of Luxemburg as follows: "I have the honor to bring to Your Excellency's notice the following facts: On Sunday, the 2d August, very early, German troops, according to the information which has up to now reached the Grand Ducal Government, penetrated into Luxemburg territory especially toward the south and in the direction of Luxemburg, the capital of the Grand Duchy. A certain number of armored trains with troops and ammunition have been sent along the railway line from Wasserbillig to Luxemburg, where their arrival is immediately expected. These occurrences constitute acts which are manifestly contrary to the neutrality of the Grand Duchy as guaranteed by the Treaty of London of 1867. The Luxemburg Government have not failed to address an energetic protest against this aggression to the representatives of His Majesty the German Emperor at Luxemburg. An identical protest will be sent by telegraph to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berlin." (August 2, F. Y. B. no. 131.)

Likewise, on August 2, Baron von Schoen, German Ambassador at Paris, delivered the following note from his Government: "The German Ambassador has just been instructed, and hastens to inform the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the military measures taken by Germany in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg do not constitute an act of hostility. They must be considered as purely preventive measures taken for the protection of the railways, which, under the treaties between Germany and the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, are under German administration." (August 2, F. Y. B. no. 133.)

That same day, August 2, the French Ambassador at London informed his Government that 'Sir Edward Grey, in speaking of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg,

had reminded him that the Convention of 1867, relative to the Grand Duchy [Luxemburg], differed from the treaty concerning Belgium, in that England was bound to require the observance of this latter convention without necessarily having the concurrence [concours] of the other guaranteeing powers, whereas in the case of Luxemburg all the guaranteeing powers were to act in concert.' (Modified quotation, August 2, F. Y. B. no. 137; cf. B. W. P. no. 148.)

9. Some considerations concerning Belgium's right to resist According to the Treaties of April 19, 1839, between Belgium and the six other powers, Belgium is obligated to preserve a strictly neutral attitude toward all the powers, and to take no action contrary to the spirit of this neutrality. She was not expressly required to defend her own neutrality. Belgium's own interests would, however, impel her to take as active a part as possible in resisting any attempt to violate her territory.1

Belgium is thus in the situation in which the great Cardinal Richelieu desired to see her, when he thought that a friendly medial state between France and Holland would be ever ready to resist any encroachment upon her independence by either neighbor, and to throw her support wherever it would best help her to maintain her independent position. Besides, this buffer state would exert all its influence to keep the countries which it separated on good terms, since at the outbreak of any conflict between them its own territory would be in great danger of invasion. The great powers, on the other hand, by guaranteeing Belgium's

1 The treaty signed at London December 14, 1831, by Belgium and the great powers excepting France, placed upon Belgium the obligation to maintain constantly in good order the fortresses which were not demolished. (Article IV; Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. 1, p. 883.) Belgium was furthermore recognized as an independent state, except for the obligation to respect her neutralization. (Treaty of November 15, 1831, Article VII; Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. II, p. 863.)

« AnteriorContinuar »