Neutrality during the war

I think the difference was that a country with means (so mostly Britain) could have instated a naval blockade on high-seas and nobody without means or balls could have done anything about it.

 

Huh? Why? You forget the last Neutrality Act passed in November, 1939, dropped the arms embargo to belligerents, and began the policy of "Cash and Carry" - Where belligerents could buy American arms, but they had to pay upfront for them(US loans were still forbidden). Then, the belligerents had to transport the arms to their destination(US merchant shipping was forbidden from entering belligerent ports).

Thus, it is not a loophole, but the law.

 

Yeah, like I said.

 

And the law was not as stated
"US neutrality laws forbade selling goods of war to declared belligerents. That's why Japan and China never declared war on either other until Dec. 8th, 1941. "

 

Doubtt that, as it was not just Britain making the rules, nor ratifying them.

More than likely it was because there were very few strictly "naval" wars.

 

The point was "Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers" were the same during a land war and a naval war.

 

Excepting where they were not the same.

 

Errm no. The part of the Hague convention of 1907 that is relevant is titled
"Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land"
The highlighting is mine. No mention of naval.

Most of the original Naval rules about neutrality were in the Declaration of London 1909 which Britain never ratified. In 1915 Britain and France agreed to revert to the rules in place during the Napoleonic Wars. This somewhat peed off the US who had after all fought a war about this in 1812 -1814

 

Of course, you are right. There was another one "Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War."

But the relevant rules on selling weapons, sovereign rights of neutral Powers, export, transit, impartiality are the same in both conventions.
Even identical sentences are used.
And Britain ratified both of them.

So it's not true that:
If it was a land war, the selling of war material by neutrals was AOK.
If it was a naval war...No No No.

Because the convention "in case of war on land" said:
"A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet."
and, the convention "in the event of naval war":
"A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet."

and that's all there was to it.

 

Is it?

For Naval war there is :
Art. 6. The supply, in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral Power to a belligerent Power, of war-ships, ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden.

Where is the same corresponding clause for land war?

 

That's true but in the case of the land war, it was forbidden too, although it was implied from customary international law.

For example, the official US manual The Laws of Neutrality as Existing on August 1, 1914, says it was forbidden universally and then cites numerous earlier examples (including German War Book) that confirms that.
Although it was sloppy to not codify such an important rule.