ABSTRACT

The idea of neutrality, like the later neutrality laws, developed as an addendum, a by-product of the concept of war, and not as a conceptually and judicially separate and independent idea. Ever since human beings began to wage war upon one another, there have been individuals and groups that have sought to avoid participation in a war. It has already been noted that this phenomenon was not looked upon benevolently by the belligerents who considered it, in varying degrees, to injure their cause. Moreover, in ancient times the belligerents were not even prepared to recognise the impartiality of third parties. Thus, with the outbreak of war, heavy pressures were brought to bear upon neutrals to take sides - not necessarily as active belligerents, but rather primarily in support roles (supply, granting of free passage, etc.) vis-a-vis one of the belligerents. 1

Yet, as far back as ancient times there evolved certain dynamics of interaction between the neutral and belligerent parties based on an ad hoc convergence of interests and leading to the creation of a reciprocal understanding regarding rights and obligations towards one another. For example, during the Peloponnesian War, the Corcyroeans addressed the Athenians and asked them to remain neutral in their struggle against the Corinthians, adding the request that the Athenians not permit the Corinthians to recruit troops in their territory or, alternatively, allow the Corcyroeans to take this step. 2 At times such a mutual understanding took the form of an agreement or charter drawn up between belligerent and neutral parties; one of the early known instances was the convention signed between Judah Maccabee and Rome, which stipulated that 'to those who start the war they shall neither give nor supply grain, arms, money or ships'. 3 Nevertheless, these were exceptions to the

rule; the general attitude towards the neutral state was one of intolerance and principled reluctance to recognise neutrality as a legitimate political option.