Engaged Neutrality

The notion that neutrality is a phenomenon only relevant to the Cold War is false in many ways. The Cold War was about building blocks, neutrality about staying out of them. From 1975 until the end of the Cold War, neutral states offered mediation and good offices and fought against the stagnation of the détente policy especially in the framework of the CSCE. After the end of the Cold War, neutral states became active in peace-operations outside of military alliances. The concept of neutrality has proven time and again that it can adapt to new situations. In many ways, small neutral states have more room to maneuver than members of alliances or big powers. They have more acceptance and fewer geopolitical interests. Neutrality has been declared obsolete many times in its long and layered history., yet it has also made many comebacks in varying forms and contexts. Neutrality in the 21st century does not involve to staying out but engaging. In contrast to disengagement and staying out, engaged neutrality entails active participation in the international security policy in general and in international peace operations in particular. Engaged neutrality means involvement whenever possible and staying out only if necessary.

This collection examines the theory, practice, and application of state neutrality in international relations. With a focus on its modern-day applications, the studies in this volume analyze the global implications of permanent neutrality for Taiwan, Russia, Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States. Exploring permanent neutrality’s role as a realist security model capable of rivaling collective security, the authors argue that permanent neutrality has the potential to decrease major security dilemmas on the global stage.

Acknowledging that religion can motivate both violence and compassion, this book looks at how a variety of world religions can and do build peace.

After 1979, Switzerland became increasingly involved in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan as a provider of humanitarian aid and good offices. It delivered aid to the region, hosted Soviet prisoners of war and eventually mediated between the Afghan regime and the mujahideen. What is puzzling about this development is that initially, following the Soviet invasion, both government and parliament refused to become diplomatically involved in Afghanistan on account of Swiss neutrality. The present study investigates how and why this changed between 1979 and 1992. While the practical impact of Switzerland’s good offices was modest, the crisis revealed that Switzerland continued to struggle to balance the competing imperatives of permanent neutrality and international solidarity in an increasingly multilateral world.

Published at a time when international law was processing the challenges introduced during World War II and the Korean Conflict, and when the United Nations, the World Court and other new international bodies were exerting influence as judicial bodies, Tucker's analysis was a timely guide to a legal field in the midst of unprecedented change. Tucker is professor emeritus of American foreign policy at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and UC-Berkeley, where he earned a Ph.D. in political science, he is the author of several notable books including The Just War (1960), The Inequality of Nations (1977) and, with David C. Hendrickson, The Imperial Temptation: The New World Order and America's Purpose (1992). xiii, 448 pp.

In Neutrality and the Academic Ethic, the distinguished philosopher Robert L. Simon explores the claim that universities can and should be politically neutral. He examines conceptual questions about the meaning of neutrality, distinguishes different conceptions of what neutrality involves, and considers in what sense, if any, institutional neutrality is both possible and desirable. In Part II, a collection of original and previously published essays provides different views on these and related issues.

The law of neutrality - the corpus of legal rules regulating the relationship between belligerents and States taking no part in hostilities - assumed its modern form in a world in which the waging of war was unconstrained. The neutral State enjoyed territorial inviolability to the extent that it adhered to the obligations attaching to its neutral status and thus the law of neutrality provided spatial parameters for the conduct of hostilities. Yet the basis on which the law of neutrality developed - the extra-legal character of war - no longer exists. Does the law of neutrality continue to survive in the modern era? If so, how has it been modified by the profound changes in the law on the use of force and the law of armed conflict? This book argues that neutrality endures as a key concept of the law of armed conflict. The interaction between belligerent and nonbelligerent States continues to require legal regulation, as demonstrated by a number of recent conflicts, including the Iraq War of 2003 and the Mavi Marmara incident of 2010. By detailing the rights and duties of neutral states and demonstrating how the rules of neutrality continue to apply in modern day conflicts, this restatement of law of neutrality will be a useful guide to legal academics working on the law of armed conflict, the law on the use of force, and the history of international law, as well as for government and military lawyers seeking comprehensive guidance in this difficult area of the law.