State which is neutral towards belligerents in a given conflict
"Neutral nation" redirects here. For the North American indigenous group, seeNeutral Nation.
Aneutral country is asovereign state that is neutral towardsbelligerents in a specificwar or holds itself as permanently neutral in all future conflicts (including avoiding entering intomilitary alliances such asNATO,CSTO or theSCO). As a type ofnon-combatant status, nationals of neutral countries enjoy protection under thelaw of war from belligerent actions to a greater extent than other non-combatants such as enemycivilians andprisoners of war. Different countries interpret their neutrality differently:[1] some, such asCosta Rica havedemilitarized, whileSwitzerland holds to "armed neutrality", to deter aggression with a sizeable military, while barring itself from foreign deployment.
Aneutral country in a particularwar, is asovereign state which refrains from joining either side of the conflict and adheres to the principle of the Law of Neutrality underinternational law. Although countries have historically often declared themselves as neutral at the outbreak of war, there is no obligation for them to do so.[3] The rights and duties of a neutral power are defined in sections 5[4] and 13[5] of theHague Convention of 1907.
Apermanently neutral power is a sovereign state which is bound byinternational treaty, or by its own declaration, to be neutral towards the belligerents of all future wars. An example of a permanently neutral power is Switzerland. The concept of neutrality in war is narrowly defined and puts specific constraints on the neutral party in return for the internationally recognized right to remain neutral.
Neutralism or a "neutralist policy" is aforeign policy position wherein a state intends to remain neutral in future wars. A sovereign state that reserves the right to become a belligerent if attacked by a party to the war is in a condition ofarmed neutrality.
Anon-belligerent state is one that indirectly participates in a war by politically or materially helping one side of the conflict and thus not participating militarily. For example, it may allow its territory to be used for the war effort. Contrary to neutrality, this term is not defined underinternational law.
Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,[6] and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality.[7]
A neutral power mustintern belligerent troops who reach its territory,[8] but not escapedprisoners of war.[9] Belligerent armies may not recruit neutral citizens,[10] but they may go abroad to enlist.[11] Belligerent armies' personnel andmateriel may not be transported across neutral territory,[12] but the wounded may be.[13] A neutral power may supply communication facilities to belligerents,[14] but not war material,[15] although it need not prevent export of such material.[16]
Belligerentnaval vessels may use neutral ports for a maximum of 24 hours, though neutrals may impose different restrictions.[17] Exceptions are to make repairs—only the minimum necessary to put back to sea[18]—or if an opposing belligerent's vessel is already in port, in which case it must have a 24-hour head start.[19] Aprize ship captured by a belligerent in theterritorial waters of a neutral power must be surrendered by the belligerent to the neutral, which must intern its crew.[20]
Neutrality has been recognised in different ways, and sometimes involves a formal guarantor. For example, Switzerland and Belgium's neutrality was recognized by the signatories of theCongress of Vienna,[21] Austria has its neutrality guaranteed by its four former occupying powers, and Finland by the Soviet Union during theCold War. The form of recognition varies, often by bilateral treaty (Finland), multilateral treaty (Austria) or a UN declaration (Turkmenistan). These treaties can in some ways be forced on a country (Austria's neutrality was insisted upon by the Soviet Union) but in other cases it is an active policy of the country concerned to respond to a geopolitical situation (Ireland in the Second World War).[22]
For the country concerned, the policy is usually codified beyond the treaty itself. Austria and Japan codify their neutrality in their constitutions, but they do so with different levels of detail. Some details of neutrality are left to be interpreted by the government while others are explicitly stated; for example, Austria may not host any foreign bases, and Japan cannot participate in foreign wars. Yet Sweden, lacking formal codification, was more flexible during the Second World War in allowing troops to pass through its territory.[22]
Switzerland is a prominent example of a country outside of any military alliance, but maintaining a strong deterrent force.
Armed neutrality is the posture of a state or group of states that has no alliance with either side of a war but asserts that it will defend itself against resulting incursions from any party,[23] making the benefit to a belligerent of entering the country by force not worth the cost.[citation needed]
This may include:
Military preparedness without commitment, especially as the expressed policy of a neutral nation in wartime, and the readiness to counter with force an invasion of rights by anybelligerent power.[24]
Armed neutrality is a term used in international politics for the attitude of a state or group of states that makes no alliance with either side in a war. It is the condition of aneutral power during a war to hold itself ready to resist by force, any aggression of either belligerent.[25]
Armed neutrality makes a seemingly-neutral state take up arms for protection to maintain its neutrality.
The term derives from the historic maritime neutrality of theFirst League of Armed Neutrality of theNordic countries and Russia under the leadership ofCatherine the Great, which was invented in the late 18th century but has since been used only to refer to countries' neutralities.[26] Sweden and Switzerland are independently of each other famed for their armed neutralities, which they maintained throughout bothWorld War I andWorld War II.[27] The Swiss and the Swedes each have a long history of neutrality: they have not been in a state of war internationally since 1815 and 1814, respectively.[28] Switzerland continues to pursue, however, an active foreign policy and is frequently involved in peace-building processes around the world.[29] According toEdwin Reischauer, "To be neutral you must be ready to be highly militarized, like Switzerland or Sweden."[30] Sweden ended its policy of neutrality when it joined NATO in 2024.
In contrast, some neutral states may heavily reduce their military and use it for the express purpose of home defense and the maintenance of their neutrality, while other neutral states mayabandon military power altogether (examples of states doing this includeLiechtenstein). However, the lack of a military does not always result in neutrality: Countries such asCosta Rica andIceland replaced their standing army with a military guarantee from a stronger power or participation in amutual defense pact (underTIAR andNATO respectively).
TheFirst League of Armed Neutrality was an alliance of minornaval powers organized in 1780 byCatherine II of Russia to prevent neutral shipping from being inspected by theRoyal Navy during theAmerican Revolutionary War.[31] The establishment of the league was viewed by Americans as a mark of Russian friendship and sympathy.[32][citation needed] In the field of political science, this is the first historical example of armed neutrality, however, scholars like Carl Kulsrud argue that the concept of armed neutrality was introduced even earlier. Within 90 years before the First League of Armed Neutrality was established, neutral powers had joined forces no less than three times. As early as 1613,Lubeck andHolland joined powers to continue their maritime exploration without the commitment of being involved in wartime struggles on the sea.[33]
TheSecond League of Armed Neutrality was an effort to revive this during theFrench Revolutionary Wars.[34] It consisted ofDenmark–Norway,Prussia, Sweden and theRussian Empire. It existed between 1800 and 1801. The idea of the league was to prevent neutral shipping from being inspected by the Royal Navy. As the league made no mention of French interference with neutral shipping, the British viewed the league as pro-French and in 1801 attacked and defeated a Danish fleet in theBattle of Copenhagen. After the death of the Russian Tsar Paul I in the same year, the league collapsed.
A potential Third League of Armed Neutrality was discussed during theAmerican Civil War, but was never realized.[35]
For many states, such as Ireland, neutrality does not mean the absence of any foreign interventionism.Peacekeeping missions for the United Nations are seen as intertwined with it.[36] The Swiss electorate rejected a 1994 proposal to join UN peacekeeping operations. Despite this, 23 Swiss observers and police have been deployed around the world in UN projects.[37]
Thelegitimacy of whether some states are as neutral as they claim has been questioned in some circles, although this depends largely on a state's interpretation of its form of neutrality.
For example, Ireland, which sought guarantees for its neutrality in EU treaties, argues that its neutrality does not mean that Ireland should avoid engagement in international affairs such as peacekeeping operations.[38]
Since the enactment of theLisbon Treaty, EU members are bound byTEU, Article 42.7, which obliges states to assist a fellow member that is the victim of armed aggression. It accords"an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in [other member states'] power" but would "not prejudice the specific character of the security and defense policy of certain Member States" (neutral policies), allowing members to respond with non-military aid. Ireland'sconstitution prohibits participating in such a common defence.
With the launch ofPermanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in defense at the end of 2017, the EU's activity on military matters has increased. The policy was designed to be inclusive and allows states to opt in or out of specific forms of military cooperation. That has allowed most of the neutral states to participate, but opinions still vary. Some members of the Irish Parliament considered Ireland's joining PESCO as an abandonment of neutrality. It was passed with the government arguing that its opt-in nature allowed Ireland to "join elements of PESCO that were beneficial such as counter-terrorism, cybersecurity and peacekeeping... what we are not going to be doing is buying aircraft carriers and fighter jets". Malta, as of December 2017, is the only neutral state not to participate in PESCO. The Maltese government argued that it was going to wait and see how PESCO develops to see whether it would compromise Maltese neutrality.[39]
"Neutrality is a negative word. It does not express what America ought to feel. We are not trying to keep out of trouble; we are trying to preserve the foundations on which peace may be rebuilt.”
Their fulfillment to the letter of the rules of neutrality has been questioned: Ireland supplied important secret information to theAllies; for instance, the date ofD-Day was decided on the basis of incoming Atlanticweather information, some of it supplied by Ireland but kept from Germany. Ireland also secretly allowed Allied aircraft to use theDonegal Corridor, making it possible for British planes to attack German U-boats in the mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, both Axis and Allied pilots who crash landed in Ireland were interned.[40]
Sweden and Switzerland, surrounded by possessions and allies ofNazi Germany similarly made concessions to Nazi requests as well as to Allied requests.[41] Sweden was also involved in intelligence operations with the Allies, including listening stations in Sweden and espionage in Germany. Spain offered to join the war on the side of Nazi Germany in 1940, allowed Axis ships and submarines to use its ports, imported war materials for Germany, and sent a Spanishvolunteer combat division to aid the Nazi war effort. Portugal officially stayed neutral, but actively supported both the Allies by providing overseas naval bases, and Germany by sellingtungsten.
The United States was initially neutral and bound by theNeutrality Acts of 1936 not to sell war materials to belligerents. Once war broke out,US PresidentFranklin Delano Roosevelt persuaded Congress to replace the act with theCash and carry program that allowed the US to provide military aid to the allies, despite opposition from non-interventionist members.[42] The "Cash and carry" program was replaced in March 1941 byLend-Lease, effectively ending the US pretense of neutrality.
Sweden also made concessions to the German Reich during the war to maintain its neutrality, the biggest concession was to let the163rd German Infantry Division to be transferred from Norway to Finland by Swedish trains, to aid the Finns in theContinuation War. The decision caused a political "Midsummer Crisis" of 1941, aboutSweden's neutrality.
Equally, Vatican City made various diplomatic concessions to the Axis and Allied powers alike, while still keeping to the rules of theLaw of Neutrality. The Holy See has been criticized—but largely exonerated later—for its silence on moral issues of the war.[43]
Some countries may occasionally claim to be "neutral" but not comply with the internationally agreed upon definition of neutrality as listed above.[47]
Neutral during World War I and World War II.[48][49][50][51] While serving as a smuggling route betweenVichy France and Spain, Andorra made concessions to both sides to maintain its sovereignty.[52][53]
Despite this policy, Ireland made concessions to theAllied Powers by secretly sharing intelligence and weather reports as well as by repatriating downedRoyal Air Force airmen.[60][61]
It was believed that Ireland would take the German side if theUnited Kingdom attempted to invade Ireland, but would take the British side if invaded byNazi Germany.
After the war, it was discovered that Germany had drawn up plans to invade Ireland in order to use the country for launching attacks into the United Kingdom, known asOperation Green.
Conversely, had Ireland been invaded, the United Kingdom had drawn up secret plans to intervene in Ireland with the collaboration of the Irish Government to push Germany back out, known asPlan W.[62]
Ireland was invited to joinNATO but did not wish to be in an alliance that included the United Kingdom.[22]
Mongolia was neutral during World War I, but became a belligerent country in World War II.
In September 2015, Mongolian PresidentTsakhiagiin Elbegdorj announced at the United Nations General Assembly that Mongolia would implement a "policy of permanent neutrality," and called on the international community to recognise this policy.[72]
Declared its neutrality again in 1939, but following its occupation byNazi Germany in 1944, the Sammarinese government declared war on the Axis, and joined with British forces in Italy to drive them out.[75]
Self-imposed, permanent, and armed, designed to ensure external security. Because of that, it is the most globally known example of a neutral country.
The 1815Congress of Vienna re-established Switzerland and its permanent neutrality was guaranteed by France, Prussia, Russia, the United Kingdom and others.[22]
Swiss neutrality was so rigorously defended that the country refused even to join the United Nations until 2002.[79]
However, the Swiss Armed Forces participated in the U.S.-ledWar in Afghanistan; in what the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation described as the nation's "first military deployment since 1815."[80] During the2003 invasion of Iraq, theUnited States was given permission to use Swiss airspace for surveillance missions overIraq.[81]
Declared its complete neutrality and had it formally recognized by theUnited Nations on 12 December 1995.[85] This date is designated as anational holiday in Turkmenistan.[86]
TheLateran Treaty signed in 1929 with Italy imposed that "ThePope was pledged to perpetual neutrality in international relations and to abstention from mediation in a controversy unless specifically requested by all parties" thus making Vatican City neutral since then.
Declared neutrality at the start of theSecond World War, even though it was disrupted by the threat of economic sanctions, expulsion of theLeague of Nations and a very likely invasion out of suspicion of alliance withNazi Germany by theUnited States to persuade Argentina to declare war on theAxis Powers, which they did in 1945.
In accordance with theTreaty of Punakha in 1910, which delegated its foreign relations to the United Kingdom, Bhutan became ade facto neutral wartime country.[89]
Declared its neutrality 1938, but was thereafter forced to allow troops of theSoviet Union to enter in 1939 and wasoccupied by it 1940 in accordance with theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
TheYYA Treaty (Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance) was signed in 1948: the Soviets sought to deter Western or Allied Powers from attacking the Soviet Union through Finnish territory, and the Finns sought to increase Finland's political independence from the Soviet Union. The treaty came to an end in 1992.
Greenland exercised its sovereignty after the fall of Denmark in 1940, and declared its neutrality. The United States became a protecting power over the island to ward off Axis invasion, and Greenland later joined the war alongside the U.S. in 1941.
The confederation never made peace with Germany following the end of World War I.[100] They subsequently issued a second war declaration in 1942 following the attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States joining the war.[101]
TheKingdom of Iceland declared its neutrality in 1940 after the fall of Denmark, but was thereafter invaded and occupied by British troops. The government later requested the United States assume the role of its defense for the duration of the war.
Declared its neutrality 1938, but was thereafter forced to allow troops of theSoviet Union to enter in 1939 and wasoccupied by it 1940 in accordance with theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Liberia declared its neutrality in 1914, later joining after pressure from the United States in 1917.
Declared its neutrality again in 1939 at the start of the Second World War, but granted Allied forces early access to its territory. Liberia served as one of the Allies' only sources ofrubber during the war when the plantations of Southeast Asia had been taken over by the Japanese.
Declared its neutrality 1939, but was thereafter forced to allow troops of theSoviet Union to enter in 1939 and wasoccupied by it 1940 in accordance with theMolotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
TheFive Tribes which governed Oklahoma remained neutral towards external affairs, before siding with theConfederacy during the Civil War. The U.S. government required the tribes to abolish slavery in exchange for a renewed recognition of their independence.
Sweden has not been part of a war since 1814. This makes Sweden the nation which has had the longest period of peace.
Has adapted policy to protect its interests. During the Finnish Civil War, Sweden intervened onÅland. In World War II it allowed the NaziWehrmacht passage through its territory toFinland for theinvasion of the Soviet Union, while also protecting refugees from the Nazis.[22]
Following the end of theFranco-Thai War, Thailand officially adopted a neutral position during World War II.
Neutrality lasted until theJapanese invasion of Thailand on 8 December 1941, which led to an armistice and military alliance treaty with theEmpire of Japan in mid-December 1941.
Following liberation by Allied forces, Thailand would remain in the camp of the anti-communist Western military bloc, sending troops to fight in theKorean andVietnam wars.
Tonga retained its sovereignty while a protectorate of the United Kingdom. It declared war on the Axis in 1939 and 1941, respectively. Since the end of the war, Tongan forces have participated minimally in foreign conflicts.
In its Declaration of Sovereignty (1990), Ukraine declared it had the "intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles" (art. 9). The 1996 Ukrainian Constitution, based upon the Declaration of Independence of 24 August 1991, contained the basic principles of non-coalition and future neutrality.[107] Such policy of state non-alignment was re-confirmed by law in 2010.[108][failed verification]
However, the Ukrainian army participated in the U.S.-ledIraq War. Ukraine provided the third-largest number of forces inIraq.[109]
However, it declared war on Germany during World War I in 1917 following the series of GermanU-boat attacks on American merchant ships supplying war material to theAlliesin the Atlantic Ocean and declared war on Japan in World War II in 1941 following the Japanese surpriseattack on Pearl Harbor,Honolulu,Hawaii.
Under the rule of theMutawakkilite Kingdom,Yemen followed an isolationist foreign policy. It had previously formed an alliance with Italy in 1936, yet it remained neutral for the duration of the war.
Although founding member of theLittle Entente committed to it until its dissolution in 1938, after much German pressure theKingdom of Yugoslavia was forced to declare its neutrality between the Axis and Western powers.[113] However, following ananti-Axis coup, Yugoslavia wasinvaded and subsequently carved up by the Axis.
While maintaining its neutrality, Yugoslavia did diplomatically support South Korea and theanti-communist alliance in theKorean War, accusing the Soviet Union of starting the conflict.[115]
^Stephen Neff: "Three-Fold Struggle over Neutrality: The American Experience in the 1930s" In: Pascal Lottaz/Herbert R. Reginbogin (eds.):Notions of Neutralities, Lanham (MD): Lexington Books 2019, pp. 3–28
^Neff, Stephen (2000).The Rights and Duties of Neutrals: A General History. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
^Gärtner, Heinz (2023). "Great Power Conflict".China and Eurasian powers in a Multipolar World Order 2.0: Security, Diplomacy, Economy and Cyberspace. Mher Sahakyan. New York:Routledge. p. xxv.ISBN978-1-003-35258-7.OCLC1353290533.
^Leos Müller: "The Forgotten History of Maritime Neutrality, 1500–1800". In: Pascal Lottaz/Herbert R. Reginbogin (eds.):Notions of Neutralities, Lanham (MD): Lexington Books 2019, pp. 67–86
^Bissell and Gasteyger,The Missing link: West European Neutrals and Regional Security, 1990, p. 117; Murdoch and Sandler, "Swedish Military Expenditures and Armed Neutrality," inThe Economics of Defence Spending, 1990, pp. 148–149.
^The last civil war on Swiss soil was theSonderbund War of 1847.
^See, generally, Scott,The Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800: A Collection of Official Documents Preceded by the Views of Representative Publicists, 1918; Karsh,Neutrality and Small States, 1988, pp. 16–17; Jones,Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations to 1913, 2009, pp. 15–17.
^Kulsrud, Carl J. "Armed Neutrality to 1780".American Journal of International Law.
^See, generally, Scott,The Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800: A Collection of Official Documents Preceded by the Views of Representative Publicists, 1918; Karsh,Neutrality and Small States, 1988, p. 17.
^Bienstock,The Struggle for the Pacific, 2007, p. 150.
^Brinkley, Douglas; Rubel, David (2003).World War II: The Axis Assault, 1939–1940. US: Macmillan. pp. 99–106.
^Pascal Lottaz andFlorentino Rodao: "The Vatican, World War II, and Asia: Lessons of Neutral Diplomacy", In: Pascal Lottaz/Herbert R. Reginbogin (eds.):Notions of Neutralities, Lanham (MD): Lexington Books 2019, pp. 215–238.
^Helena F. S. Lopes (2023). "Neutrality and (anti-)Imperialism. Multinational propaganda competition in neutral Macau". In Corse, Edward; Cabrera, Marta García (eds.).Propaganda and Neutrality: Global Case Studies in the 20th Century. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. p. 181-194.doi:10.5040/9781350325562.ISBN978-1-350-32556-2.
Bemis, Samuel. "The United States and the Abortive Armed Neutrality of 1794. In "The American Historical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (October 1918), pp. 26–47
Bienstock, Gregory.The Struggle for the Pacific. Alcester, Warwickshire, U.K.: Read Books, 2007.ISBN1-4067-7218-6
Bissell, Richard E. and Gasteyger, Curt Walter.The Missing link: West European Neutrals and Regional Security. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990.ISBN0-8223-0953-X
Corse, Edward and García Cabrera, Marta (eds),Propaganda and Neutrality: global case studies in the twentieth century. London and New York. Bloomsbury, 2023.ISBN978-1-3503-2553-1. Open Accesshttps://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781350325562 Fenwick, Charles. "The Status of Armed Neutrality." The American Political Science Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (May 1917), pp. 388–389
Hayes, Carlton. "Armed Neutrality with a Purpose." In "The Advocate of Peace." Vol. 79, No. 3 (March 1917), pp. 74–77
Jones, Howard.Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations to 1913. 2d ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.ISBN0-7425-6534-3
Karsh, Efraim.Neutrality and Small States. Florence, Ky.: Routledge, 1988.ISBN0-415-00507-8
Kulsrud, Carl J. "Armed Neutrality to 1870." The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 29, No. 3 (July 1935), pp. 423–447JSTORi311972
Lottaz, Pascal/Reginbogin, Herbert R. (eds.)Notions of Neutralities. Lanham (MD): Lexington Books, 2019.ISBN978-1498582261
Marabello, Thomas Quinn (2023). "Challenges to Swiss Democracy: Neutrality, Napoleon, & Nationalism,"Swiss American Historical Society Review, Vol. 59: No. 2. Available at:https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sahs_review/vol59/iss2/5
Murdoch, James C. and Sandler, Todd. "Swedish Military Expenditures and Armed Neutrality." InThe Economics of Defence Spending: An International Survey. Keith Hartley and Todd Sandler, eds. Florence, Ky.: Routledge, 1990.ISBN0-415-00161-7
O'Sullivan, Michael Joseph.Ireland and the Global Question. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2006.ISBN0-8156-3106-5
Oppenheim, Lassa.International Law: War and Neutrality. London: Longmans, Green, 1906.
Petropoulos, Jonathan, "Co-Opting Nazi Germany: Neutrality in Europe During World War II."Dimensions 14.1 (2000): 13+.excerpt
Scott, James Brown.The Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800: A Collection of Official Documents Preceded by the Views of Representative Publicists. New York: Oxford University Press, 1918.
Wills, Clair.That Neutral Island: A Cultural History of Ireland During the Second World War. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007.ISBN0-674-02682-9
.jpg)
