5cjxburmr

15.2.1.2 Application of Certain Duties of Neutral States Only in CertainInternational Armed Conflicts. The duties of neutral States to refrain from certain types ofsupport to belligerent States do not apply to all armed conflicts to which jus in bello rules apply;rather, such duties are only triggered in armed conflicts of a certain duration and intensity. 28However, belligerent States have fundamental duties to respect the sovereignty of neutral Statesin all international armed conflicts. 2915.2.1.3 Application of Certain Rules in the Law of Neutrality Outside the Contextof International Armed Conflict. Certain parts of the law of neutrality may be viewed asapplicable outside the context of international armed conflict because certain duties that the lawof neutrality imposes are also found in international law applicable in peacetime. For example,under the Charter of the United Nations, States must respect the sovereignty of other States. 30Thus, States have duties of non-intervention and neutrality in relation to a non-internationalarmed conflict against a friendly State. 3115.2.1.4 Proclamations of Neutrality and Other Notifications of Neutral Status. Aformal declaration by nonparticipating States of their intention to adopt a neutral status generallywould not be required for a State to retain its neutral status. 32 However, in light of theimportance of national policy in determining whether the law of neutrality is applicable, Statestraditionally issued proclamations of neutrality in order to make known their neutral status inrelation to a conflict. 33 These proclamations of neutrality would state the determination of the28 See Michael Bothe, The Law of Neutrality, in DIETER FLECK, THE HANDBOOK OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMEDCONFLICTS 490-91 (1106) (1999) (“The law of neutrality leads to considerable modifications in the relationshipsbetween the neutral and the belligerent states, for instance as to the admissibility of exports, the sojurn of warshipsof the parties to the conflict in neutral waters, and the control of neutral trade. These fundamental changes are nottriggered by every armed incident, but require an armed conflict of a certain duration and intensity. Thus, thethreshold of application of the law of neutrality is probably higher than that for the rules of the law of war relating tothe conduct of hostilities and the treatment of prisoners, which are applicable also in conflicts of less intensity.”).29 See Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. (88-89) (“The Court willnow turn to the principle of neutrality which was raised by several States. In the context of the advisory proceedingsbrought before the Court by the WHO concerning the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in ArmedConflict, the position was put as follows by one State: ‘The principle of neutrality, in its classic sense, was aimed atpreventing the incursion of belligerent forces into neutral territory, or attacks on the persons or ships of neutrals.Thus: ‘the territory of neutral powers is inviolable’; ‘belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutralpowers …’ ‘neutral states have equal interest in having their rights respected by belligerents …’. It is clear,however, that the principle of neutrality applies with equal force to transborder incursions of armed forces and to thetransborder damage caused to a neutral State by the use of a weapon in a belligerent State.’ The principle socircumscribed is presented as an established part of the customary international law. The Court finds that as in thecase of the principles of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict, international law leaves no doubt that theprinciple of neutrality, whatever its content, which is of a fundamental character similar to that of the humanitarianprinciples and rules, is applicable (subject to the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter), to allinternational armed conflict, whatever type of weapons might be used.”) (citations omitted) (amendments inoriginal).30 Refer to § 1.11.3 (Prohibition on Certain Uses of Force).31 Refer to § 17.18 (Non-Intervention and Neutral Duties in NIAC).32 Compare § 3.4.2.1 (Reasons for States to Seek to Deny the Existence of Hostilities).33 For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Proclamation: Proclaiming the Neutrality of the United States in the WarBetween Germany and France; Poland; and The United Kingdom, India, Australia and New Zealand, Sept. 5, 1939,934