 Belgian borders claimed before the Treaty. | |
| Type | Multilateral Treaty |
|---|---|
| Signed | 19 April 1839 (1839-04-19) |
| Location | London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland |
| Original signatories | |
| Ratifiers |
|
TheTreaty of London of 1839,[1] was signed on 19 April 1839 between the major European powers, theUnited Kingdom of the Netherlands, and theKingdom of Belgium. It was a direct follow-up to the 1831Treaty of the XVIII Articles, which the Netherlands had refused to sign, and the result of negotiations at theLondon Conference of 1838–1839 which sought to maintain theConcert of Europe.[2]
Under the treaty, the European powers recognised and guaranteed the independence and neutrality ofBelgium and established the full independence of the German-speaking part ofLuxembourg. Article VII required Belgium to remain perpetuallyneutral.[3] Following the German invasion of 1914, Belgium abandoned its policy of neutrality (except for a brief, unsuccessful resumption from 1936 to 1940).[citation needed]
Since 1815, Belgium had been a reluctant part of theUnited Kingdom of the Netherlands.[4] In 1830, Belgians broke away and established an independentKingdom of Belgium. The overwhelmingly Catholic population could not accept the Dutch king's favouritism towardProtestantism, while French-speakers were irritated by his disdain for theFrench language, and the middle classes objected to the Dutch monopolisation of public offices.[5] Liberals regardedKing William I's rule as despotic, while there were high levels of unemployment and industrial unrest among the working classes.
Small-scale fighting – the death of some 600 volunteers is commemorated in thePlace des Martyrs, Brussels[6] – was followed by an international settlement in 1831.[7] However the settlement was not accepted by the Dutch, who invaded the country in the autumn of 1831;[8] and it took a French army recapturing Antwerp in 1832 before Belgium and the Netherlands could even agree an armistice.[9] Several years later, theNetherlands recognised that they stood to gain more territory by accepting the 1831 settlement than from a mere continuance of the armistice.[10] The Belgian government protested, with French support, against the late implementation of the settlement terms, but Britain accepted the Dutch claim; and in 1839, the Dutch accepted Belgian independence (and regained the disputed territories) by the Treaty of London. At the same time, the major powers all guaranteed Belgium's independence from the Netherlands.[11][12]
With the treaty, the southern provinces of the Netherlands, independentde facto since 1830, became internationally recognised as the Kingdom of Belgium, while theProvince of Limburg was split intoBelgian andDutch parts.
TheGrand Duchy of Luxemburg was in apersonal union with the Netherlands and simultaneously a member of theGerman Confederation. The treatypartitioned the grand duchy. It lost two-thirds of its territory to Belgium's newProvince of Luxembourg. The partitioning left a rump grand duchy, covering one-third of the original territory and inhabited by one-half of the original population,[13] inpersonal union with the Netherlands, underKing-Grand DukeWilliam I (and subsequentlyWilliam II andWilliam III). This arrangement was confirmed by the1867 Treaty of London,[14] known as the 'Second Treaty of London' in reference to the 1839 treaty, and lasted until the death of King-Grand Duke William III 23 November 1890.[15]
Belgium'sde facto independence had been established through nine years of intermittent fighting in the 1830s against The Netherlands. The co-signatories of the Treaty of London recognised the independent Kingdom of Belgium. The fivegreat powers of Europe (Austria,France,Prussia,Russia, and theUnited Kingdom) also pledged to guarantee Belgium's neutrality.[16]
The treaty was a fundamental "lawmaking" treaty that became a cornerstone of European international law; it was especially important in thecauses of World War I.[17] On 31 July 1914, the mobilisation of the Belgian Army was ordered and the Belgian king publicly called Europe's attention to the fact that Germany, Great Britain and France were legally bound to defend the neutrality of his country.[18] When theGerman Empireinvaded Belgium in August 1914 despite the treaty, after an unanswered ultimatum Britaindeclared war on 4 August.[19][20] Informed by the British ambassador that Britain would go to war with Germany over the latter's violation of Belgian neutrality, German ChancellorTheobald von Bethmann Hollweg exclaimed that he could not believe that Britain and Germany would be going to war over a mere "scrap of paper".[21]
According to the historianChristopher Clark, Britain's decision to go to war was heavily influenced by fears that if they did not help France resist a German invasion it could usher in a period of German hegemony in Western Europe. Clark points out that the British cabinet agreed in a meeting on 29 July 1914 that although Britain was a signatory to the Treaty of London, the terms of the treaty did not oblige the British to oppose a German invasion of Belgium with military force.[22] According to Isabel V. Hull,
Annika Mombauer wrote "Few historians would still maintain that the 'rape of Belgium' was the real motive for Britain's declaration of war on Germany". Instead, the role of Belgian neutrality is variously interpreted as an excuse used to mobilise public opinion, to provide embarrassed radicals in the cabinet with the justification for abandoning the principal [sic] of pacifism and thus staying in office, or – in the more conspiratorial versions – as cover for naked imperial interests".[23]
The Treaty of London also guaranteed Belgium the right of transit by rail or canal over Dutch territory as an outlet to the GermanRuhr. This right was reaffirmed in a 24 May 2005 ruling of thePermanent Court of Arbitration in a dispute between Belgium and the Netherlands on the railway track.[24]
In 2004 Belgium requested a reopening of theIron Rhine railway. This was the result of the increasing transport of goods between the port of Antwerp and the GermanRuhr Area. As part of the European policy of modal shift on the increasing traffic of goods, transport over railway lines and waterways was now preferred over road transport. The Belgian request was based on the treaty of 1839, and theIron Rhine Treaty of 1873.[25] After a series of failed negotiations, the Belgian and Dutch governments agreed to take the issue to thePermanent Court of Arbitration and respect its ruling in the case.
In a ruling of 24 May 2005, the court acknowledged both the Belgian rights under the cessation treaty of 1839 and the Dutch concerns for part of theMeinweg National Park nature reserve. The 1839 treaty still applied, the court found, giving Belgium the right to use and modernise the Iron Rhine. However, Belgium would be obliged to finance the modernisation of the line, while the Netherlands had to fund the repairs and maintenance of the route. Both countries were to share the costs of a tunnel beneath the nature reserve.[26]
Letter of the Belgian Minister of Transport to the Dutch Minister of Transport and Waterstaat, dated 23 February 1987 ... In my view, such a limitation would go against the rights accorded to Belgium by Article 12 of the Treaty of London of 19 April 1839 between Belgium and the Netherlands, which was executed through the Treaty of 13 January 1873 regulating the passage of the railway Antwerp-Gladbach through the territory of Limburg. In the above context, it is beyond doubt that Belgium will hold firm to its right of free transport through the Iron Rhine.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)