Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Part II - Armed forces

  • Edited by Jay Winter, Yale University, Connecticut
  • Book:
    The Cambridge History of the First World War
    Published online:
    05 December 2013
    Print publication:
    09 January 2014, pp 145-290

  • Summary

    This chapter explores whether neutrality, in a legal or moral sense, declined or transformed during the Great War. It focuses on neutrality as a guideline foreign policy, and explains why some countries could and did remain neutral, while others could or did not. The chapter also explains the reasons why neutrality as a foreign policy option failed some countries at one point or another during the war. Perhaps the fates of Belgium, Luxembourg and Albania helped to inspire Daniel Frey, a Swiss scholar, to posit a novel, three-level analysis of neutrality. The first level concerns the external conditions necessary for a successful neutrality policy. The second level concerns the external credibility of neutrality. The third level deals with the compatibility of neutrality with the other policies of a neutral state. Finally, the chapter shows that the way in which the modus vivendi was negotiated between neutrals and belligerents varied considerably.

  • The Fjeld.

  • Egypt. 4 November 1950
  • Journal:
    International Law Reports / Volume 17 / 1956
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    01 January 2021, pp. 345-349
    Print publication:
    1956

  • Recognition of States — Effect of Non — Recognition — Belligerent Parties — Non — Recognition of Israel by Egypt.

    Belligerent Parties — Effect of Non-Recognition of One Belligerent as a State — Non-Recognition of Israel by Egypt.

    Existence of State of War — Municipal Ruling thereon — Whether Conclusively Binding on Prize Court — Non-Recognition of Opposing Belligerent as a State — Effect of Non-Recognition on Belligerency — Recognition by Other States — Non-Recognition of Israel by Egypt.