5cjxburmr

for self-defense, belligerent forces may act in self-defense when attacked or threatened withattack from enemy forces unlawfully present in neutral territory, 83 including by takingappropriate action to counter the use of neutral territory as a base of enemy operations when theneutral State is unwilling or unable to prevent such violations. 8415.4.3 Neutral State’s Use of Force to Defend Its Neutrality. A neutral State may alsoengage in self-help to prevent violations of neutrality on its territory. Such self-help is also anobligation of the neutral State. 85The fact that a neutral State resists, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannotbe regarded as a hostile act. 86 For example, a State whose territory is adjacent to a theater of warnormally mobilizes a portion of its forces to prevent the forces of either belligerent from enteringits territory, to intern such persons as may be permitted to enter, and generally to carry out itsbase of operations. If it is unwilling or unable to do so, the other party to the conflict is entitled to take allmeasures necessary to terminate the misuse of neutral territory or neutral waters.”).83 2007 NWP 1-14M 7.3 (“If the neutral nation is unable or unwilling to enforce effectively its right ofinviolability, an aggrieved belligerent may take such acts as are necessary in neutral territory to counter the activitiesof enemy forces, including warships and military aircraft, making unlawful use of that territory. Belligerents arealso authorized to act in self-defense when attacked or threatened with attack while in neutral territory or whenattacked or threatened from neutral territory.”).84 For example, Richard Nixon, Address to the Nation on the Situation in Southeast Asia, Apr. 30, 1970, 1970PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 405, 406-08 (“American policy since then has been to scrupulously respect theneutrality of the Cambodian people. … North Vietnam, however, has not respected that neutrality. For the past 5years—as indicated on this map that you see here—North Vietnam has occupied military sanctuaries all along theCambodian frontier with South Vietnam. Some of these extend up to 20 miles into Cambodia. The sanctuaries arein red and, as you note, they are on both sides of the border. They are used for hit and run attacks on American andSouth Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. These Communist occupied territories contain major base camps,training sites, logistics facilities, weapons and ammunition factories, airstrips, and prisoner-of-war compounds. …[T]his is the decision I have made. In cooperation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are beinglaunched this week to clean out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border. … This is not aninvasion of Cambodia. The areas in which these attacks will be launched are completely occupied and controlled byNorth Vietnamese forces. Our purpose is not to occupy the areas. Once enemy forces are driven out of thesesanctuaries and once their military supplies are destroyed, we will withdraw.”); SPAIGHT, AIR POWER AND WARRIGHTS 434 (“Justifiable entry of neutral jurisdiction.—The international law of neutrality is based on theprinciple that neutral States exclude both belligerent parties from entry into or passage through their territory. If thatcondition is not fulfilled, to advantage of one party and the detriment of the other, the latter is entitled, after protest,to take the action necessary to protect his interests. He is entitled to follow his enemy into neutral jurisdiction and toattack him there. It was for this reasons that Japan was able to justify her action in 1904 in cutting out the Russiancruiser Reshitelni from the Chinese harbor of Chifu when it became apparent that China was unable or unwilling todisarm the vessel in accordance with the requirements of international law. It was on the same principle that theBritish intervention in Syria in 1941 was justifiable. The Vichy authorities there were allowing German aircraft touse the Syrian airfields, and such use was particularly damaging to British interests at that time, in view of the revoltin Iraq.”).85 Refer to § 15.3.2.2 (Duty to Prevent Violations of Neutrality Within Its Jurisdiction).86 HAGUE V art. 10 (“The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot beregarded as a hostile act.”).945