5cjxburmr

addition, a State may have an obligation to notify other States of its domestic neutralitystatutes. 2315.2 APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF NEUTRALITYThe application of the law of neutrality may depend on a State’s national policy towardsan armed conflict. A State’s obligations under jus ad bellum, including its obligations under theCharter of the United Nations, may alter significantly its rights and duties under the law ofneutrality.15.2.1 Armed Conflict and the Application of the Law of Neutrality.15.2.1.1 Application of the Law of Neutrality and the National Policies of StatesTowards an Armed Conflict. Whether the law of neutrality governs a State’s relations withbelligerents in an armed conflict may depend on that State’s national policy towards that armedconflict. 24 For example, if an armed conflict occurs, a State may choose to join the armedconflict, in which case it would no longer be neutral and the law of war rather than the law ofneutrality would govern its relations with opposing belligerents. 25 Similarly, if two Statesconduct hostilities against one another, but refuse to recognize a state of armed conflict, thirdStates may reject this position and invoke the law of neutrality to protect their rights in relationto the armed conflict. 26 In addition, outside States that recognize the belligerency of a rebelfaction in a civil war may choose to apply the law of neutrality in their relations with the rebelfaction and with the government. 2722 HAGUE XIII preamble (“Seeing that it is desirable that the Powers should issue detailed enactments to regulate theresults of the attitude of neutrality when adopted by them; Seeing that it is, for neutral Powers, an admitted duty toapply these rules impartially to the several belligerents;”).23 HAGUE XIII art. 27 (“The Contracting Powers shall communicate to each other in due course all Laws,Proclamations, and other enactments regulating in their respective countries the status of belligerent warships intheir ports and waters, by means of a communication addressed to the Government of the Netherlands, andforwarded immediately by that Government to the other Contracting Powers.”).24 Compare § 3.4.1 (Intent-Based Test for Applying Jus in Bello Rules).25 Michael Bothe, The Law of Neutrality, in DIETER FLECK, THE HANDBOOK OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMEDCONFLICTS 489 (1104) (1999) (“Traditional international law left to each state the sovereign decision of whether, atthe outbreak of a conflict between other states, it would participate or remain neutral. … The distinction betweenparticipation and neutrality is a political, not military, decision. Where the law of neutrality requires decisions to betaken by military command, the government concerned must give political guidance and clarify the position which ittakes in relation to a particular conflict.”).26 TUCKER, THE LAW OF WAR AND NEUTRALITY AT SEA 199-200 (“Unlike the law governing the mutual behavior ofcombatants, a large part of which may be considered operative in any international armed conflict, the rulesregulating the behavior of neutrals and belligerents remain strictly dependent for their operation upon the existenceof a state of war. It may be, however, that states engaged in armed conflict are unwilling to issue a declaration ofwar or even to acknowledge the existence of a state of war. In such situations it would appear that the decision as towhether or not to recognize the existence of a state of war, and thereby to bring into force the law of neutrality, mustrest principally with third states. The attitude of the parties engaged in armed conflict need not prove decisive forthird states, the latter being at liberty either to accept the position of the contestants (i.e., the position that war doesnot exist) or to reject this position and to invoke the law of neutrality.”).27 Refer to § 3.3.3.1 (Recognition by Outside States of a Rebel Faction as a Belligerent in a Civil War).933