26
Assuming that there is no state of war, I think the
question whether the head offices of Chinese government banks
could properly be located in Hongkong and the main business of
the banks be carried on from there depends entirely on the local
From the neutrality point of view, there could, on the
basis of the existence of no war, be no objection to such a
course. The question whether it is in conformity with local
law does not seem to be a matter for the Foreign Office.
law.
2
Assuming the existence of a state of war, we should
have to consider whether permitting such an operation would be
consistent with our duties as neutrals. There is of course
nothing to prevent a belligerent in time of war from carrying
on banking operations in a neutral country and there is nothing
to prevent neutral countries from allowing such operations to
be carried out. Nor would there I think be any objection to
belligerent private banks (in the sense of non-government banks)
having their head offices located in a neutral country, though
this would be, to say the least of it, unusual. It might even
not be a technical infringement of neutrality if the central bank
of a belligerent had its head office thus located, assuming that
the central bank was not actually a government organisation or
department. Actually in most countries, though not in England,
I believe it is.
If, however, the bank can be shown to be an actual organ
of the government, I think it does become a question whether it
would be consistent with neutral obligations to allow the head office
of the bank and its direction to be located in a neutral country.
It is a fundamental law of neutrality that a neutral government
as such must not give direct aid to either belligerent and this
duty is not overruled by being prepared to give direct aid to
both