¹ The Times December 9, 1958.

² Mr. Nehru's latest biographer reports that “the term to describe Indian foreign policy has undergone frequent change. It began with ‘neutrality’ or ‘dynamic neutrality,’ later became ‘neutralism’ and then ‘non-alignment.’ Nehru prefers the phrase ‘positive policy for peace,’ he told the author in New Delhi on 13 June 1956.” Brecher, Michael, Nehru. A Political Biography (London, 1959), p. 563, footnote 2Google Scholar. Mr. Nehru's testimonies on other occasions have been somewhat different: “I do not like the word neutralism which is commonly used in wartime. In peacetime it indicates a sort of war mentality. India's neutralism meant simply that they had an independent policy and judged questions on their merits.” MrNehru, reported in The Times, 07 7, 1956Google Scholar. Cf. MrNehru's, speech in Lok Sabha Debates, 03 29, 1956, cols. 3729–3730Google Scholar.

³ “Yes; and words, if they are not watched will do deadly work sometimes. There are masked words droning and skulking about us … there are masked words abroad, I say, which nobody understands, but which everybody uses … for such words wear chameleon cloaks.” Ruskin, John (1893) in Sesame and Lilies (London, 1899), pp. 22–23Google Scholar.

⁴ Cf. Menon, Krishna: “Neutralism is an inept word used during a war. You are not belligerent in peacetime. The word has no meaning.” New York Times, 07 16, 1956Google Scholar. But an editorial in The Hindu (Madras), December 20, 1955, spoke otherwise: “What the Western Powers have to realize is that neutralism is a force that is worthy of the greatest respect even in these days of nuclear warfare.”

⁵ Economist, March 10, 1956, p. 574.

⁶ Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. VII (Oxford, 1908), p. 110Google Scholar. “Neutralism —maintenance of neutrality.” Funk, and Wagnalls, , New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, (New York, 1949), p. 1670Google Scholar. “Neutralism—the spirit and practice of neutrality.” The two words are used coterminously in Kundra, J. C., Neutrality in the Past and Present (New Delhi, 1957), p. 2Google Scholar; in Morgenthau, Hans J., “Neutrality and Neutralism” in Dilemmas of Politics (Chicago 1958), pp. 185–209Google Scholar; and in Modjoryan, L. “Neutrality,” New Times (Moscow), 02 16, 1956, p. 12Google Scholar.

⁷ Kotzch, Lothar, The Concept of War in Contemporary History and International Law (Geneva, 1956), pp. 128–146Google Scholar.

⁸ Neutrality. In 1480 Caxton, wrote: “The threefold governance in the chirche that is to quotes of Eugenye, of the Counseyll and of the neutralyte” in the Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford, 1908). VIGoogle Scholar, pt. 2, 110, “neutralism—the maintenance of neutrality.”

⁹ Neutralism 1579. W. Wilkinson. Confut. Familye of Love. “Our owne Neutralisme and lukewarmnes shall utterly condemnes us.”

¹⁰ Definitions of legal neutrality are legion. Some representative references are cited in Komarnicki, T., “The Place of Neutrality in the Modern System of International Law.” Recueil des Cours, Academie de droit international de la Haye (1952), IGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Diplomatic or political neutrality connotes a state of fact, two parties in conflict and a third adopting a policy or attitude of being on neither side.

¹² Fenwick, G. G., “The legal aspects of neutralism,” American Journal of International Law (hereafter AJIL), 01 1957, p. 71–74Google Scholar.

¹³ For detailed treatment see Jessup, Philip S. (ed.), Neutrality: its History, Economics and Law, 4 vols. (New York, 1935–1936)Google Scholar; Politis, N., Neutrality and Peace, (Washington, 1935)Google Scholar; and Orvik, Nils, The Decline of Neutrality, 1914–41 (Oslo, 1953)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Sastry, K. K. R., “A Note on Udasina: Neutrality in Ancient India,” Indian Yearbook of International Affairs (1954), pp. 131–134Google Scholar.

¹⁵ “If you prefer to be neutral… receive both sides in peace, but neither for the purpose of war.” Jowett, , Thucydides (Oxford, 1881), I, 142Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Livy, XXXII, 21.

¹⁷ Phillipson, C., International Law and Customs of Ancient Greece and Rome (London, 1911), II, 301–312Google Scholar.

¹⁸ SirButler, Geofffrey & Maccoby, S., The Development of International Law (London, 1928), p. 231Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Fisher, H. A. L., Napoleon (London, 1950), pp. 135–137Google Scholar.

²⁰ Butler, & Maccoby, , op. cit., p. 239Google Scholar.

²¹ Hyneman, Charles S., The First American Neutrality (Urbana 1934)Google Scholar and Thomas, Charles M., American Neutrality in 1793 (New York, 1931)Google Scholar.

²² Even if we grant Professor Northrop's firm contention that the policies of the Founding Fathers are the true analogues for present-day neutralism (Northrop, F. S. C., “Neutralism and United States Foreign Policy,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences [07 1957, 42–68])Google Scholar, it is as well to remember that United States neutrality — more usually described as isolationism — invariably tended to be more a question of unilateral decision and of domestic enactment than of conforming with the prevailing international law and practice of neutrality. The spate of U. S. neutrality legislation in the 1930's was but the continuation of a practice begun in 1794. The U. S. was one of the three signatory states that did not ratify the Hague Conventions of 1907 and to date it has not ratified the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

²³ “It is not unreasonable to ask of those ‘Religions of the Future’ which the present day so prodigally announces that they will equip themselves with a substantial shape, with a worship, a ministry and a flock before we legislate for popular education in accordance with their exigencies. But when we have done this, this neutralism will be at an end, denominationalism will have made them prisoners; the denominationalism of Groningen or Tubingen, instead of that of Utrecht or Geneva.” Arnold, Matthew, Popular Education on the Continent (London 1861), pp. 221–222Google Scholar. A year earlier Walter Bagehot had used the word “indifferentism” in a roughly equivalent sense. See Bagehot's, essay on Gladstone in Biographical Studies (London, 1895), p. 95Google Scholar.

²⁴ Taylor, A. J. P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 (Oxford, 1954), pp. 544–548Google Scholar.

²⁵ A convenient source is the British General Staff publication, Daily Review of the Foreign Press, Allied Press Supplement (London 1916–1919) in 6 volsGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Garosci, Aldo, “Neutralism” in European Integration, ed. by Haines, C. Grove (Baltimore, 1951), p. 198Google Scholar.

²⁷ After All: The Autobiography of Norman Angell (London 1951), pp. 181–183Google Scholar.

²⁸ See Morley's, LordMemorandum on Resignation (London 1915)Google Scholar, an eloquent statement of the Cobdenite viewpoint; see also the editorials of the Economist, a faithful mouthpiece of Cobdenism, prior to August 4, 1914. Cf. The Political Writings of Richard Cobden (London 1903), I, 33–34Google Scholar, and II, 462–536, especially 533.

²⁹ Reported by Sir E. Goschen (British Ambassador in Berlin) to SirGrey, Edward, British Diplomatic Correspondence (London 1915), No. 160Google Scholar.

³⁰ Some representative examples may be found in: The Times, March 1, 1915, and March 3, 1916; Morning Post, February 1, 1915; Glasgow Herald, May 26, 1920.

³¹ Butler, & Maccoby, , op. cit., p. 240Google Scholar.

³² Mansergh, N., Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs 1931–1939 (London 1952)Google Scholar.

³³ See the account and severe criticism of National Socialist doctrines of neutrality by Hambro, Edvard, “Ideological Neutrality” in Nordisk Tidsskrift for international ret. Ada Scandinavica juris gentium, 1939 (X, n. 2–3), 109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ Notter, Harley, The Origins of the Foreign Policy of Woodrow Wilson (Baltimore, 1937), pp. 317–319Google Scholar; & F. S. C. Northrop, loc. cit.

³⁵ Quoted in Orvik, , op. cit., p. 87Google Scholar.

³⁶ Ibid., p. 114.

³⁷ Bundy, McGeorge, “Isolationists & Neutralists: A sketch in Similarities,” Confluence (06, 1952), p. 70–78Google Scholar.

³⁸ The Memoirs of Cordell Hull. 2 (London, 1948). I, 23–25, and II, 99Google Scholar.

³⁹ Lauterpacht, H., “Neutrality and Collective Security,” Politica (1936), 149Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Miller, David Hunter, The Drafting of the Covenant (New York, 1928), II, pp. 437–438Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Orvik, , op. cit., pp. 183–187Google Scholar.

⁴² Wilson, Robert R. — “Non-belligerency in relation to the terminology of neutrality,” A.J.I.L. (01 1941), 121Google Scholar.

⁴³ Hull, Cordell, op. cit. II, 671–916Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (San Francisco, 1945) VI, 459; VII, 327Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Hans Kelsen has argued that neutrality was possible even if the Charter worked as was intended by its makers. Kelsen, H., The Law of the United Nations (London, 1950), pp. 94 and 108Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Kunz, Josef L., “Austria's Permanent Neutrality,” A.J.I.L. (04, 1956), 418Google Scholar; and Verdross, Alfred, “Austria's Permanent Neutrality and the United Nations,” A.J.I.L. (01, 1956), 61–68Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Stone, Julius, Legal Controls of International Conflict (London, 1954), p. 382Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Modjoryan, L., “Neutrality,” New Times (Moscow), 02 16, 1956, p. 17Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Healey, Denis, Neutralism (London, 1955), p. 11Google Scholar; Bell, Coral in Survey of International Affairs, 1954. Royal Institute of International Affairs (London, 1957), p. 283Google Scholar; and Roberts, Harry L., Russia and America: Dangers and Prospects (London, 1956), p. 127Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Werth, Alexander, Prance 1940–1955 (London, 1956), p. 361Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Pickles, Dorothy, French Politics (London, 1953), pp. 186–191Google Scholar.

⁵² Marcus, John, “Neutralism in France,” Review of Politics (07, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁵³ Gilson, Étienne, “Querelles de Mots,” Le Monde, 08 31, 1950Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Le Figaro Litteraire, February 17, 1951.

⁵⁵ Ibid.

⁵⁶ Bourdet, Claude, “The Way to European Independence” The New Reasoner (Summer, 1958), 12–13Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Ibid.