ARTICLE: “La neutralité permanente de la Belgique et l’histoire du droit international : quelques jalons pour la recherche” [Actes des journées internationales de la société d’histoire du droit et des institutions des pays flamands, picards et wallons 2016: gens de robe, gens de guerre] Cahiers du CRHIDI 41 (2018) [OPEN ACCESS]

(Image source: Cahiers du CHRiDI)

Abstract:

The mandatory status of Belgium’s “permanent” neutrality (1830-1919) is an object of legal as well as historical research. Narratives in both disciplines often link an attitude of abstention in armed conflict and a certain impetus for the advancement of the cause of international law and institutions. However, any analysis should start from the conceptual pedigree of permanent neutrality. The instauration of a “permanent” neutrality cannot be seen but as a derogation, or at best a transformation of the concept of “voluntary” neutrality, established in early modern state practice. Neutrality cannot be conceived without an ongoing conflict between two third states. Rendering the restrictions of voluntary neutrality permanent, even when no conflict between third parties is around, equals restraining the sovereign freedom of an actor in the international system. Abstention, impartiality and military credibility were imposed on Belgium.  As a counterparty, the Great Powers undertook a collective guarantee. In reality, only the United Kingdom displayed its determination to intervene in case of a violation of Belgium’s (European) territory. The vague and uncertain legal aspects (joint or individual guarantee, limited to civilised nations ?) and the movements of a political chessboard in constant flux fragilized what should have been a protection or a certainty, rather than a source of worries. Diplomatic practice should be reinterpreted using this legal, conceptual and historical explanatory grid, close to the actors’ preoccupations.

Read the full article here. DOI 10.25518/1370-2262.614.