5cjxburmr

impartiality to which neutrals have traditionally been required to adhere. 10the traditional duties of impartiality has, at times, been controversial. 11Such departure from15.1.3 Purpose of the Law of Neutrality. The law of neutrality seeks to preserve friendlyrelations between belligerent and neutral States by permitting States to avoid taking sides in anarmed conflict. 12 The law of neutrality also seeks to prevent additional States from being drawninto an armed conflict by establishing a clear distinction between belligerent and neutral States. 13In particular, the law of neutrality seeks to minimize the effects of armed conflict on States thatare not party to the conflict, including by lessening the effect of war on neutral commerce.15.1.4 Application of Treaties on Neutrality and Customary International Law. Thetreaties that address neutrality may be limited in their application as a matter of treaty law, butprovisions of these treaties may reflect customary international law.For example, many of the treaties that address the law of neutrality were concludedbefore World War II, and have not been universally ratified by States. 14 Moreover, certaintreaties only apply between the Parties to the treaty and, in some cases, only if all the belligerentStates are also Parties to the treaty. 15 The principles reflected in those treaties, however, maystill be applicable insofar as they reflect customary international law, even if they do not apply asa matter of treaty law. 16 However, if the factual circumstances of the current context are quitedifferent from those underlying the formulation of the original treaty rule, it may be incorrect to10 TUCKER, THE LAW OF WAR AND NEUTRALITY AT SEA 192 (“Thus one of the marked developments of the secondWorld War was the emergence of so-called ‘nonbelligerency,’ a term used to indicate the position of states thatrefrained from active participation in hostilities while at the same time abandoning the duties heretofore imposedupon non-participants.”); id. at 198 (“It has already been observed that to the extent that this term has not been usedmerely as a synonym for the usual position occupied by non-participants it has served to indicate varying degrees ofdeparture from the duties traditionally consequent upon a status of non-participation in war.”).11 Refer to § 15.2.2 (Qualified Neutrality).12 Carl Salans, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State, comment to R.R. Baxter, The Legal Consequences of theUnlawful Use of Force under the Charter, 62 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ATITS ANNUAL MEETING 68, 76 (1968) (“When armed conflict occurs, the purpose of international law ought to be tolimit the scope of the conflict. This is also a purpose of the Charter. The law of neutrality serves that purpose.Small states, like Cambodia, would find themselves quickly engulfed in conflict if they had to act on a determinationthat one side or the other in hostilities was acting unlawfully. And nuclear states run another kind of risk if theyhave to take sides in every conflict.”).13 Michael Bothe, The Law of Neutrality, in DIETER FLECK, THE HANDBOOK OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMEDCONFLICTS 486 (1101) (1999) (“By establishing a clear distinction between neutral states and states parties to theconflict, international law prevents more states from being drawn into the conflict.”).14 See, e.g., 1928 PAN AMERICAN NEUTRALITY CONVENTION; HAGUE V; HAGUE XIII.15 See, e.g., HAGUE V art. 20 (“The provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between ContractingPowers and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.”); HAGUE XIII art. 28 (“The provisions ofthe present Convention do not apply except to the contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are partiesto the Convention.”). Consider Declaration respecting maritime law signed by the Plenipotentiaries of GreatBritain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, assembled in Congress at Paris, Apr. 16, 1856,reprinted in 1 AJIL SUPPLEMENT: OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 89, 90 (1907) (“The present Declaration is not and shallnot be binding, except between those Powers who have acceded, or shall accede to it.”).16 Refer to § 1.8.1 (Relationship Between Treaties and Customary International Law).931