Neutrality (political relations)

Neutrality is the political stance of declining to ally with any of the parties to a conflict. A nation may be neutral with regard to a particular dispute, or it may adopt a permanent policy of neutrality that requires it to avoid taking sides in any wars that might occur in the future. The fact that a nation chooses not to involve itself in a given conflict is not the same as a declaration of neutrality. In other words, neutrality is more than an informal stance easily adopted or discarded; it is a status that, once assumed, brings with it both duties and privileges.

Another variation of neutrality is armed neutrality. A country that has adopted a stance of armed neutrality is sending the message that while it does not intend to become involved in any future military conflicts, if it is attacked it will still have the option of becoming belligerent—that is, aggressively fighting back, rather than just fending off the assault.

Background

Neutrality allows a country to make the affirmative decision to remove itself from participation in a conflict, often a military conflict, between two or more parties. At the same time, adopting a neutral stance prevents a country from providing certain types of assistance to any of the parties to the conflict.

The primary document that defines the duties and privileges that go along with neutral status is the 1907 Hague Convention, under which parties to a conflict, known as “belligerents,” are not permitted to invade a neutral country. In the event that they do, the neutral country is permitted to resist that invasion without giving up its status as neutral. Another restriction is that belligerent parties may not transport military troops or equipment through neutral territory; only the sick and wounded may be moved through the neutral region, and only under guard by neutrals. If troops from a belligerent party enter a neutral country, the neutral country must intern them, unless they are escaped prisoners of war. Belligerents may not recruit troops from or construct communication installations in a neutral country. However, the neutral country is not responsible for inhibiting belligerents’ communications conducted through belligerent-, company-, or privately owned equipment in its territory. Similarly, neutrals may not arm belligerents themselves, but they are not required to prevent others’ armaments trade with belligerents and may even provide supplies, loans, and civil services to belligerents themselves.

Neutrality is sometimes subjected to sharp criticism by those who see it as having more to do with a failure of courage than a rejection of violence. According to this view, countries are morally obligated to pick a side in certain types of conflicts and to defend their position by force of arms if need be. Advocates of neutrality respond with the argument that if all conflicts are resolved by force, then only the strong will triumph, and for this reason, neutral nations are needed to act as places of refuge and occasionally as mediators.

Overview

The state most famous for its neutrality is Switzerland, located in Europe. Switzerland’s neutrality dates back to the early nineteenth century, when the European powers of the day agreed to recognize the country as neutral on a permanent basis after Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821) was defeated at Waterloo in 1815. Prior to this date, Napoleon’s foes still needed to be able to move troops through Swiss territory, so the powers declined to grant the country neutrality until after Napoleon’s threat had been defused. Switzerland has not been engaged in a foreign war since 1815, when the Congress of Vienna concluded.

Neutrality was an issue of major concern during World War II, because many nations presented themselves as neutral in an effort to avoid being attacked by either the Axis powers (Germany, Japan, and Italy) or the Allied forces that opposed them (England, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States, among others). Neutral countries included Ireland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, the Low Countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), Denmark, Hungary, Romania, and the Balkan states. Some of these attempts at neutrality were more authentic than others, with varying degrees of success. Switzerland, Sweden, and Portugal actually helped the Axis powers, despite their claims of neutrality, by providing raw materials and places to deposit looted valuables. On the other hand, they also sometimes facilitated Allied actions such as intelligence gathering. Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium were invaded by Germany in 1940 despite their efforts to absent themselves from the war. These differences in outcomes for neutral states have led some to observe that if a nation wishes to remain neutral, it must be prepared to defend its neutrality by having sufficient forces of arms to dissuade other nations from simply ignoring its claim to neutrality and conquering it. Supporters of this position point to the example of Switzerland during World War II. Germany had formulated plans to attack Switzerland, but Switzerland’s large number of trained, armed citizens and impressive system of mountain fortifications caused them to reconsider, and they opted for an assault on Great Britain instead.

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, an interesting question regarding neutrality has arisen. Some nations with longstanding policies of neutrality, such as Finland, joined the European Union (EU) in the mid-1990s. Part of EU membership involves adherence to a mutual defense pact, in which member nations agree not to attack one another and to help defend one another from attacks by nonmember nations. The question thus becomes whether a neutral member of a mutual defense union such as the EU can still truly be a neutral state. Finland is not alone in this quandary, as Ireland and Austria face similar situations. Some scholars have argued that by joining the EU, those countries have effectively surrendered their neutral status.

Bibliography

Agius, Christine, and Karen Devine, eds. Neutrality and Military Non-Alignment: Exploring Norms, Discourses and Practices. Spec. issue of Cooperation and Conflict 46.3 (2011): 265–415.

Cross, Mai’a. “In the New Europe ‘Neutrality is No Longer An Option.’” Northwestern University, 19 May 2022, cssh.northeastern.edu/in-the-new-europe-neutrality-is-no-longer-an-option/. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

Ferreira-Pereira, Laura C. Inside the Fence but Outside the Walls: The Militarily Non-Allied States in the Security Architecture of Post–Cold War Europe. Bern: Lang, 2007.

Lettevall, Rebecka, Geert Somsen, and Sven Widmalm, eds. Neutrality in Twentieth-Century Europe: Intersections of Science, Culture, and Politics after the First World War. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Rainio-Niemi, Johanna. The Ideological Cold War: The Politics of Neutrality in Austria and Finland. London: Routledge, 2014.

Reginbogin, Herbert R. Faces of Neutrality: A Comparative Analysis of the Neutrality of Switzerland and Other Neutral Nations during WWII. Berlin: LIT, 2009.

Roche, Barry. “Ireland Should Change Position on Military Neutrality, Says Academic.” Irish Times, 30 Aug. 2014, www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-should-change-position-on-military-neutrality-says-academic-1.1912307. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

Sloan, Stanley R. “NATO’s ‘Neutral’ European Partners: Valuable Contributors or Free Riders?” NATO Review, 23 Apr. 2013, www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2013/04/23/natos-neutral-european-partners-valuable-contributors-or-free-riders/index.html. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.

Wyss, Marco. “Neutrality in the Early Cold War: Swiss Arms Imports and Neutrality.” Cold War History 12.1 (2012): 25–49.