The dilemma of neutrality

The neutrality dilemma emerges from the fact that the concept itself is not static. It has different implementations, varying from time to time, from country to country. Although international treaties, agreements, and pieces of legislation intend to define the meaning, slightly different opinions and approaches are inevitable. Thinking of neutral states, Switzerland or Austria are the first that come to mind. However, other countries' neutrality is far from being so clear-cut.

Changing the concept of neutrality

Talking about neutral states, the first country to come to mind is likely to be Switzerland, with its capital hosting the International Red Cross and numerous UN agencies. Switzerland's membership of the UN can illustrate the non-static nature of the concept of neutrality. Its unequivocal commitment to permanent armed neutrality dates back to the Congress of Vienna, 1815. Although the main objection around the time of the 1986 referendum on Swiss accession was the incompatibility of the UN membership with the country's neutrality; 15 years later, the country still joined the organisation and even became a candidate for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for the next period.

A different type of motivation can be observed in the case of the neutrality of Austria. Bounded by the four occupying powers after the Second World War, the Austrian State Treaty forbade the country to join any military alliances. Following the "active neutrality" policy Austria - unlike Switzerland - had no such concerns about joining the UN. Moreover, it serves as a home itself to many UN agencies.

Like Austria, other countries including Sweden, Finland and Ireland equally had no such qualms about joining the UN. In today’s troubled geopolitical situation, the central question that concerns Sweden's neutrality is the increasingly close military cooperation with NATO, reserving the possibility of becoming a member. Doing so would put a clear end to the neutrality of Sweden, because unlike in the case of the universal UN, the country this way would be committed to a military alliance.

Despite being now members of the UN and the EU, both Finland and Ireland opted for neutrality at some point in their histories. The question that arises from these memberships is: how neutral are UN sanctions against another state? The same question may be even more complex in the case of the EU, especially in the area of Common Security and Defence Policy. At the same time, having the UN General Assembly aiming to prevent hostility between states by diplomatic tools, can be considered as encouraging respect for neutrality.[1]

The changing character of the concept is illustrated by the distinction between the "old" and the "new" types of neutrality. The former refers to the pre–1945 world, based on historical experience deriving from the two world wars, typically represented by Switzerland and Sweden. The “new” model developed in the post–1945 world due to the East-West conflict, embodied in Austria's and Finland's approaches of neutrality.[2]

The examples mentioned above aimed to highlight the political dimension and the complexity of neutrality. Approaching the issue from an international law perspective is the subject of the next chapter.

International law approach

Referring to the previously mentioned four European neutrals, they provide a good starting point for identifying two different cases from the legal point of view. As Switzerland and Austria define their permanent neutrality under international law, Sweden and Finland consider it more like a foreign policy rather than law.

During the 19^th century, significant steps were made in developing the law of neutrality. The critical breakthrough in the attempts to codify neutrality from the aspect of warfare was achieved in 1907 by the Hague Conventions. Five out of the thirteen conventions deal with the duties and rights of neutral powers, by which abstention and impartiality towards the belligerents must be understood.[3] The warfare approach is relevant in armed conflict or with regards to military alliances.

Neutrality also serves as one of the critical principles of the Red Cross. The fundamental principles were proclaimed at the 20^th International Conference of the Red Cross, defining its neutrality as it “may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.”[4] Applying this principle, states can opt for ad hoc or permanent neutrality. The latter can also be based on a unilateral declaration of intent by a state or an international treaty.

According to the interpretation of the UN, neutrality is a way to pursue resolution to international disputes with peaceful means in line with Article 2 of the UN Charter. Resolution 71/275 confirms that neutral states contribute to preventive diplomacy, which is a core element of international peace.[5] It also shows the attitude of the organisation, that when it recognised the permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan in 1995, the related document clarified that it does not affect the obligations of Turkmenistan arising from the UN Statute.[6]

To prove the shaded concept of neutrality within the international community it is enough to examine how many cases divide countries in their interpretations of it. This is discussed in detail in the next chapter.

Disputed cases

When describing the neutral status, it is easiest to identify those countries that do not fall into this category. It involves the overwhelming majority of the countries since almost all are members of a military alliance. By belonging to any military or defence alliance, the contracting parties agree to mutual protection and cannot be considered neutral. But regarding which countries is the international community divided?

Japan

As for Japan, the appearance of the concept of neutrality should be examined after the Second World War, taking into consideration its relationship with the US and the newly accepted Constitution at the same time. As a consequence of the Second World War, to ensure that no similar atrocities ever happen again, the Constitution of Japan came into force in 1947.

Article IX of the Constitution declares that Japan is "aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as another war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."[7]  However, the Constitution permits Japan to maintain a military for self-defence purposes, thus being able to protect its territorial sovereignty. The Japan-US security alliance began after the Second World War. The US pledged to defend Japan in exchange for the pacifist constitution and the contribution to a large US military presence.

During the Cold War, the country followed a “positive neutrality” in its foreign policy, meaning that its military was actively used, but mainly for disaster relief purposes. During the 1990-91 Gulf War, Japan contributed funds but did not send troops to the US-led coalition. Since 1992 the Japanese military has been allowed to participate in UN peacekeeping missions, and in 1993 the first unit was sent to Cambodia. It was deployed in a war zone first in 2004 in Iraq for a humanitarian mission.

However, since Shinzo Abe took the presidency in 2006, he attempted to amend the Constitution. Since that would require a two-thirds majority, he could only succeed in achieving the reinterpretation of the document, with the result that the Japanese military can no longer only be deployed in self-defence but also in case of armed aggression against a country with close ties to Japan.[8]

Japan is leaving behind its isolationism and strict pacifism defined in the Constitution. Recent tendencies have shown that increasing Japan's armed forces is on the agenda, the country aims to reach the threshold of the 2% of GDP regarding its defence budget. Presumably, the militaristic and nationalistic line initiated by Shinzo Abe appeals to younger generations, for whom the world wars and the inglorious role played by Japan have already faded.[9]

This study mentions Japan because of its constitutional neutrality, which, however, has got a different interpretation in the 21^st century. Today, it is far from being neutral in the sense that it once was, evidenced by its ever-closer security alliance with the United States, the participation in the Quad security cooperation and its increasingly close cooperation with NATO.

Mongolia

This small country, stuck between two giants, Russia and China, is often referred to as the “Geneva of the East”. Given its geopolitical location, it has to manoeuvre between its neighbours and represent its interests worldwide smartly. Its foreign and security policy is defined by balancing between the influences of Russia and China, described as “third neighbour policy”. It has contributed to arranging high-level talks between North Korea and the international community since the 2000s. It serves as a neutral venue in normalising the relationship of the counties in the Korean peninsula both with each other and with third parties, such as Japan, Russia, China or the US.[10]

The way Mongolia uses its military to gain influence through diplomacy is often referred to as “military diplomacy”. Although it participates in UN peace and security programmes, international anti-terrorism measures and humanitarian actions and is also a partner of NATO, it is prudent in preserving its independence and sovereignty. As declared in its National Security and Foreign Policy Concepts, international troops cannot use its territory. Being a landlocked nation, it has interests in broadening economic relations with its neighbours. For instance, it participates in the New Silk Road Initiative and pipeline constructions from Russia to China. However, it also has several laws to reduce foreign economic influence and reliance.[11]

Although the country has never declared its neutrality before, it acts like that and follows a path leading towards achieving that status. Former Mongolian President Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorf described neutrality as “an opportunity for Mongolia” by which a solid platform would be proven to play a significant role in world politics. He also suggested that the implementation of neutrality is only a matter of time.[12] 

Moldova

Located between Ukraine and Romania, this small country lies on a geopolitical fault line, in the “grey-zone” between the US and the East. Not long after declaring its independence in 1991, it faced the Transnistria region conflict and the deployment of Russian armed forces to its territory. Hoping to ease the tensions, the country declared permanent neutrality as national strategy in its Constitution in 1994. According to Article XI, "the Republic of Moldova proclaims its permanent neutrality" and "the Republic of Moldova shall not allow the dispersal of foreign military troops on its territory.”[13]

Adopting permanent neutrality as a strategy is especially delicate because the country does not even fulfil the requirements of neutrality. Russian troops are stationed in Moldova's separatist province, Transnistria, while a NATO office operates in the capital, Chisinau. Declaring itself to be a neutral state did not result in significant changes in its national security. Moreover, it puts obstacles to its strategic goal, namely to join the EU and minimises the small country’s possibilities to seek “external sources of security”. It is now a paradox since neutrality became an element of the country's national strategy; however, no external power has either guaranteed or recognised it.[14]

 Evaluating the declared permanent neutrality of Moldova, it seems to be clear that it was a decision made within the confusion of the new geopolitical situation after the Cold War. Not only has it failed to move the security situation forward, but it has also put obstacles in the way of the small country’s development and makes the prospect of NATO and EU membership more complicated.

Serbia

As declared in a parliamentary resolution in 2007, and then in its latest national security and defence strategy in 2021, Serbia is a “military neutral” country. The national security strategy defines military neutrality by not being a member of any military alliance but allows being a partner of NATO and having an observer status in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO, its members are mainly former Soviet countries).[15] Being militarily neutral gives room for manoeuvre, which is especially important for a small state like Serbia. Through the abovementioned organisations, it holds the opportunity of "opting for everyone a bit."

Serbia seeks to pursue military neutrality through fulfilling the following goals: "not joining politico-military alliances"; "integral engagement of defence system actors and defence potentials”; “creating conditions for defence based on its strengths and potentials." [16]

Given Serbia’s intention to become a member of the EU (it started accession negotiations in 2014), it will have to re-consider the importance of the creation of an independent defence policy due to the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. However, EU accession is no obstacle since the integration already involves countries with "armed neutrality", such as Austria. Another concerning factor is Serbia's arms trade with Russia, clearly incompatible with the EU’s export and import bans imposed on Russia.[17]

The issue at stake for Serbia is, in fact, the conflict with Kosovo. After the 1999 intervention of NATO in the civil war between Serbian forces and Albanian guerrilla fighters, the administration of Kosovo was taken over by NATO, the UN and the EU. The bombing of Serbia carried out by NATO had long-lasting memories and was even referred to in 2007 when the national assembly voted on military neutrality. Despite stating that it has no intention of joining NATO, Serbia has close ties with the alliance through various tasks implemented within the Partnership for Peace framework. Besides the active NATO partnership, Serbia is also involved in several EU Common Security and Defence Policy missions.[18]

The kind of military neutrality pursued by Serbia, in practice means the will to be engaged actively in Western alliances such as the NATO or the EU, and at the same time having good relations with Russia. This approach might have to come to a turning point in the event of the country's EU accession.

Conclusions

Being a changing concept itself, neutrality is not easy to be examined. It has different criteria which have to be fulfilled, and several types such as military or historical, to mention but some. Consequently, there are particular cases when the neutrality of a state is not evident. It depends on the international community whether to accept self-declared neutrality. If some of them are resistant to do so, the neutral policy of a state is already questionable.

Today, when almost all states are members of some military or political alliance, at least with some sort of defence and security commitments, it cannot be easy to stay neutral. With regards to the future, as the security environment is constantly changing and new types of threats are emerging, the accession to alliances, especially military ones, is becoming even more essential.

Bibliography

A/RES/71/275. International Day of Neutrality. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N17/029/65/PDF/N1702965.pdf?OpenElement (2022. 02. 10.)

CAPRARA, David L. – MOON, K. H. S. – PARK, P.: Mongolia: Potential Mediator between the Koreas and Proponent of Peace in Northeast Asia. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/mongolia-potential-mediator-between-the-koreas-and-proponent-of-peace-in-northeast-asia/  (2022. 02. 11.)

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. https://www.presedinte.md/eng/constitution (2022. 02. 12.)

Constitutional law of Turkmenistan on permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan. http://www.vertic.org/media/National%20Legislation/Turkmenistan/TM_Law_on_Neutrality.pdf (2022. 02. 11.)

Defence Strategy of the Republic of Serbia. Belgrade, 2021. https://www.mod.gov.rs/multimedia/file/staticki_sadrzaj/dokumenta/strategije/2021/Prilog4-StrategijaOdbraneRS-ENG.pdf (2022. 02. 14.)

EJDUS, Filip: Serbia’s Military Neutrality: Origins, effects and challenges. In: Croatian International Relations Review. 2014, pp. 43-69.

European Council: EU restrictive measures in response to the crisis in Ukraine. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/ukraine-crisis/ (2022. 02. 14.)

GAVOUNELI, Maria: Neutrality – A Survivor? In: European Journal of International Law, Volume 23, Issue 1, February 2012, pp. 267–273, https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/23/1/267/525518 (2022. 02. 10.)

International Committee of the Red Cross: The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross: commentary. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/fundamental-principles-commentary-010179.htm (2022. 02. 10.)

KIRVELYTE, Laura: Moldova’s Security Strategy: the Problem of Permanent Neutrality. In: Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, 2010, pp. 157-183. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346348728_Moldova's_Security_Strategy_the_Problem_of_Permanent_Neutrality (2022. 02. 12.)

KISS, Csaba: Akkora a fenyegetés, hogy a világháborúban tönkrevert ország is katonai nagyhatalommá válna. https://www.portfolio.hu/global/20211105/akkora-a-fenyegetes-hogy-a-vilaghaboruban-tonkrevert-orszag-is-ujra-katonai-nagyhatalomma-valna-508924 (2022. 02. 11.)

KOVÁCS, Péter: Nemzetközi közjog. Osiris, Budapest, 2011, pp. 341.

National Security Strategy of the Republic of Serbia. Belgrade, 2021. https://www.mod.gov.rs/multimedia/file/staticki_sadrzaj/dokumenta/strategije/2021/Prilog2-StrategijaNacionalneBezbednostiRS-ENG.pdf (2022. 02. 14.)

PELINKA, Anton: The Politics of Neutrality. In: German Politics & Society, No. 21, Berghahn Books, 1990, pp. 19–32, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23734902 (2022. 02. 10.)

Permanent Mission of Mongolia to the United Nations: Mongolia – Neutrality. https://www.un.int/mongolia/news/mongolia-neutrality (2022. 02. 11.)

PROWSE, Sinclaire: Mongolia – Neutrality and Anxiety. https://asiasociety.org/australia/mongolia-neutrality-and-anxiety (2022. 02. 11.)

SOBLE, Alex: "Normality" over "Neutrality”? https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magazine/theme/normality-over-neutrality/ (2022. 02. 11.)

STOPFORD, Michael: Neutrality: a changing concept? https://untoday.org/neutrality-a-changing-concept/ (2022. 02. 10.)

The Constitution of Japan. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html (2022. 02. 11.)

Endnotes

[1] STOPFORD, Michael: Neutrality: a changing concept? https://untoday.org/neutrality-a-changing-concept/ (2022. 02. 10.)

[2] PELINKA, Anton: The Politics of Neutrality. In: German Politics & Society, No. 21, Berghahn Books, 1990, pp. 19–32, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23734902 (2022. 02. 10.)

[3] GAVOUNELI, Maria: Neutrality – A Survivor? In: European Journal of International Law, Volume 23, Issue 1, February 2012, pp. 267–273, https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/23/1/267/525518 (2022. 02. 10.)

[4] International Committee of the Red Cross: The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross: commentary. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/fundamental-principles-commentary-010179.htm (2022. 02. 10.)

[5] A/RES/71/275. International Day of Neutrality. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N17/029/65/PDF/N1702965.pdf?OpenElement (2022. 02. 10.)

[6] Constitutional law of Turkmenistan on permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan. http://www.vertic.org/media/National%20Legislation/Turkmenistan/TM_Law_on_Neutrality.pdf (2022. 02. 11.)

[7] The Constitution of Japan. https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html (2022. 02. 11.)

[8] KISS, Csaba: Akkora a fenyegetés, hogy a világháborúban tönkrevert ország is katonai nagyhatalommá válna. https://www.portfolio.hu/global/20211105/akkora-a-fenyegetes-hogy-a-vilaghaboruban-tonkrevert-orszag-is-ujra-katonai-nagyhatalomma-valna-508924 (2022. 02. 11.)

[9] SOBLE, Alex: "Normality" over "Neutrality”? https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magazine/theme/normality-over-neutrality/ (2022. 02. 11.)

[10] CAPRARA, David L. – MOON, K. H. S. – PARK, P.: Mongolia: Potential Mediator between the Koreas and Proponent of Peace in Northeast Asia. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/mongolia-potential-mediator-between-the-koreas-and-proponent-of-peace-in-northeast-asia/  (2022. 02. 11.)

[11] PROWSE, Sinclaire: Mongolia – Neutrality and Anxiety. https://asiasociety.org/australia/mongolia-neutrality-and-anxiety (2022. 02. 11.)

[12] Permanent Mission of Mongolia to the United Nations: Mongolia – Neutrality. https://www.un.int/mongolia/news/mongolia-neutrality (2022. 02. 11.)

[13] Constitution of the Republic of Moldova. https://www.presedinte.md/eng/constitution (2022. 02. 12.)

[14] KIRVELYTE, Laura: Moldova’s Security Strategy: the Problem of Permanent Neutrality. In: Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, 2010, pp. 157-183. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346348728_Moldova's_Security_Strategy_the_Problem_of_Permanent_Neutrality (2022. 02. 12.)

[15] National Security Strategy of the Republic of Serbia. Belgrade, 2021. https://www.mod.gov.rs/multimedia/file/staticki_sadrzaj/dokumenta/strategije/2021/Prilog2-StrategijaNacionalneBezbednostiRS-ENG.pdf (2022. 02. 14.)

[16] Defence Strategy of the Republic of Serbia. Belgrade, 2021. https://www.mod.gov.rs/multimedia/file/staticki_sadrzaj/dokumenta/strategije/2021/Prilog4-StrategijaOdbraneRS-ENG.pdf (2022. 02. 14.)

[17] European Council: EU restrictive measures in response to the crisis in Ukraine. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/ukraine-crisis/ (2022. 02. 14.)

[18] EJDUS, Filip: Serbia’s Military Neutrality: Origins, effects and challenges. In: Croatian International Relations Review. 2014, pp. 43-69.