TY - JOUR
T1 - La neutralité permanente de la Belgique et l’histoire du droit international : quelques jalons pour la recherche
AU - Dhondt, Frederik
N1 - Dit wordt uitgegeven in een themanummer van de Cahiers du CRHIDI, "Gens de robe, gens de guerre. Ordre public et ordre social" (VABB). Tekst momenteel onder review. Dit wordt dus een peer-reviewed artikel in een nationaal tijdschrift, geen "other". Het item wordt best terug in "in progress" gezet.
PY - 2018/12/10
Y1 - 2018/12/10
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - legal history
KW - diplomatic history
KW - 19th century history
KW - belgian history
U2 - 10.25518/1370-2262.614
DO - 10.25518/1370-2262.614
M3 - Article
VL - 41
JO - Cahiers du Centre de Recherches en Histoire du Droit et des Institutions
JF - Cahiers du Centre de Recherches en Histoire du Droit et des Institutions
SN - 1370-2262
Y2 - 6 May 2016 through 7 May 2016
ER -