5cjxburmr

State’s neutral status. Rather, whether violations of neutrality result in the end of the neutralstatus of a State may depend on the national policies of that State and the belligerent States. 79Acts that are incompatible with the relationship between the neutral State and abelligerent State under the law of neutrality need not end the neutral State’s neutrality and bringthat State into the conflict as a belligerent. For example, despite Vichy France’s violations of itsneutral duties during World War II and despite the Allied invasion of French North Africa,diplomatic relations persisted between the United States and France during World War II. 8015.4.2 Belligerent Use of Self-Help When Neutral States Are Unable or Unwilling toPrevent Violations of Neutrality. Should the neutral State be unable, or fail for any reason, toprevent violations of its neutrality by the forces of one belligerent entering or passing through itsterritory (including its lands, waters, and airspace), the other belligerent State may be justified inattacking the enemy forces on the neutral State’s territory. 81 This view has been reflected in themilitary manuals of other States. 82 For example, consistent with the jus ad bellum requirements79 Refer to § 15.2.1.1 (Application of the Law of Neutrality and the National Policies of States Towards an ArmedConflict).80 DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, CRUSADE IN EUROPE 86-88 (1997) (“Vichy France was a neutral country and during theentire period of the war the United States had maintained diplomatic connection with the French Government.Never, in all its history, had the United States been a party to an unprovoked attack upon a neutral country and eventhough Vichy was avowedly collaborating with Hitler, there is no doubt that American political leaders regarded theprojected operation, from this viewpoint, with considerable distaste. … The Allied invasion of Africa was a mostpeculiar venture of armed forces in the field of international politics; we were invading a neutral country to create afriend.”).81 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 520 (“Should the neutral State be unable, or fail for any reason, to preventviolations of its neutrality by the troops of one belligerent entering or passing through its territory, the otherbelligerent State may be justified in attacking the enemy forces on this territory.”).82 2004 UK MANUAL 1.43a (“Neutral states must refrain from allowing their territory to be used by belligerentstates for the purposes of military operations. If a neutral state is unable or unwilling to prevent the use of itsterritory for the purposes of such military operations, a belligerent state may become entitled to use force in selfdefenceagainst enemy forces operating from the territory of that neutral state. Whether or not they are so entitledwill depend on the ordinary rules of the jus ad bellum.”); 2006 AUSTRALIAN MANUAL 11.8 (“As a general rule ofinternational law, all acts of hostility in neutral territory, including neutral land, neutral waters and neutral airspaceare prohibited. A neutral state has a duty to prevent the use of its territory as a sanctuary or a base of operations bythe belligerent forces of any side. If the neutral state is unable or unwilling to enforce effectively its right ofinviolability, an aggrieved belligerent may resort to acts of hostility in neutral territory against enemy forces,including warships and military aircraft, making unlawful use of that territory. Belligerents are also authorised toact in self-defence when attacked or threatened with attack while in neutral territory or when attacked or threatenedfrom neutral territory”); 2001 CANADIAN MANUAL 1304(3) (“A neutral state is permitted to resist any attemptedviolation of its borders by force and such resistance does not make the neutral a party to the conflict. If enemyforces enter neutral such territory and the neutral state is unwilling or unable to intern or expel them, the opposingparty is entitled to attack them there, or to demand compensation from the neutral for this breach of neutrality.”);2002 GERMAN COMMANDER’S HANDBOOK: LEGAL BASES FOR THE OPERATIONS OF NAVAL FORCES 232 (“On theone hand, the parties to the conflict are obliged to respect the inviolability of neural [sic] territory, neutralinternal waters, neutral territorial seas and the neutral airspace above these areas. Within and above these areasall hostilities, that is the use of armed force and of other measures of maritime war (including measures based on thelaw of prize) are prohibited. There is one exception to this principle which applies to measures of self-defence,that is the event that one of the parties to the conflict is attacked or endangered to be attacked in these areas. On theother hand, a neutral state is obliged to prevent the parties to the conflict from misusing these areas as sanctuary or944