When you're unaware of just what those responsibilities were how can you suggest ways to avoid the same responsibilities?
The duty to "uphold" Belgian neutrality did not specify a duty to make war upon the violator. It was up to the Power to decide what it meant. It could be diplomatic support. It certainly meant not assisting a violator of Belgium.
That makes little sense at all. The treaties had involved all the major powers so if one power violated the pledge the other powers would combine against it. The fact that one of the signatories violated their pledge doesn't invalidate the pledge of the others.
That was Crowe's interpretation in 1908; the treaty had no meaning if it was void upon the defection of a Great Power, because that would mean the Treaty would poof out of existence when the only feasible reason for the treaty became active - a Great Power invasion of Beligum.
Misquoting Salisbury here; "Britain has no permanent alliances, only permanent interests." The interest was no hegemony in Europe and the UK would make any alliance with any power to further that interest.
Right. The problem for Britain arises when the hegemon could theoretically use the treaty on Belgium to its advantage to achieve hegemony. Then, Britain's two core policies would be in conflict with one another.
Suggesting that the UK would stop doing what it had been doing for centuries will require one hell of a POD.
You mean like generally supporting Austria as the weakest of the Great Powers against Russia, and signing a treaty with Germany that if France invaded Belgium it would be war, like it did with Prussia in 1870?