Notions Of Neutralities

Notions of Neutralities examines the concept of neutrality at the international level over the last millennium. The eleven contributors approach the topic from multiple disciplinary perspectives and examine neutrality in several regions and time periods. They demonstrate that neutrality always was and still is an active and essential part of the international system.

Violations of religious freedom and violence committed in the name of religion grab our attention on a daily basis. Freedom of religion or belief is a key human right: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, numerous conventions, declarations and soft law standards include specific provisions on freedom of religion or belief. The 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief has been interpreted since 1986 by the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Special Rapporteurs (for example those on racism, freedom of expression, minority issues and cultural rights) and Treaty Bodies (for example the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Rights of the Child) have also elaborated on freedom of religion or belief in the context of their respective mandates. Freedom of Religion or Belief: An International Law Commentary is the first commentary to look comprehensively at the international provisions for the protection of freedom of religion or belief, considering how they are interpreted by various United Nations Special Procedures and Treaty Bodies. Structured around the thematic categories of the United Nations Special Rapporteur's framework for communications, the commentary analyses, for example, the limitations on the wearing of religious symbols and vulnerable situations, including those of women, detainees, refugees, children, minorities and migrants, through a combination of scholarly expertise and practical experience.

Looking at Classical warfare from the perspective of the non-belligerents, Robert A. Bauslaugh brings together the scattered evidence testifying to neutral behavior among the Greek city-states and their non-Greek neighbors. Were the Argives of 480/479 B.C. really "Medizers," as many have accused, or were they pursuing a justifiable policy of neutrality as they claimed? On what basis in international law or custom did the Corcyraeans claim non-alignment? Why were the leading belligerent states willing to accept the inclusion of a "neutrality clause" in the Common Peace of 371? These questions have not been asked by historians of international law, and the answers provide a far more complex and sophisticated picture of interstate relations than has so far been available. Despite the absence of exclusively diplomatic language, the concept of respect for neutrals appears early in Greek history and remains a nearly constant feature of Classical wars. The problems confronting uncommitted states, which have clear parallels in modern history, were balanced by widespread acceptance of the need for limitations on the chaos of warfare.

This book analyses the notion of neutrality to the politics of the state in Southeast Asia. Distinguishing among neutrality, neutralism and neutralisation, it asks what relation do the concepts bear to the independence of states, and how do they relate to other forms of inter-state relations and to participation in international organizations. The author considers concepts of neutrality and the policy of non-alignment as they were developed in South and Southeast Asia. Using case studies of a variety of Asian countries, including India, Burma, Cambodia and other countries in Southeast Asia, he discusses the novel notion of a regional form of neutralisation as a means of decolonising the region and examines the relevance neutralism has in current international politics and what might it have in the future. This new work by one of the most foremost historians on Southeast Asia is of interest to scholars in the field of Asian History, Politics, International Relations and Strategic Studies.

Editors provide a substantive introduction to the history and theories of perfectionism and neutrality, expertly contextualizing the essays and making the collection accessible.

In a tension-filled world characterized by opposing blocs of nations, the pursuit of the policy of neutrality by a few states such as Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Austria may conjure up the vista of a peaceful oasis. But what is the actual meaning of neutrality at present, and what are the rights and obligations of governments that claim to be neutral? Are there differences in the concepts of neutrality as embraced by individual states? Have the legal concepts of neutrality been changing over time and especially during the last few decades? And can and do states adopt neutral stances on selected international issues while remaining partisan on others and what consequences flow from such foreign policy behavior? These and other questions regarding neutrality are examined and discussed in this volume co-published with the Institute for Comparative Study of Public Policy at the University of New Orleans.

Tolerance is widely regarded as a virtue - of both individuals and groups - that modern democratic and multicultural societies cannot do without. The historical emergence and growth of religious toleration is often seen as an important precondition for the development of political and legal institutions that aim to respect different ideas of the good in society. But the exact nature, limits and forms of expression of toleration are not beyond contestation. The very formulation of the ideal of tolerance is said to give raise to a moral paradox: why tolerate ideas, behaviour and practices that one believes to be wrong? The first part of this collection traces the passage of toleration from a moral to a political virtue, which may contribute to avoid such a paradox. Political toleration asks not that people accept the reasons or actions of others, to whom they may strongly object, but rather that they reassess and revise their own reasons for opposition and repression in the light of public reason. Such a shift to the political perspective brings, however, new theoretical and institutional problems relating in particular to the nature of political neutrality and the working of democratic institutions. The second and third parts of the volume attempt to clarify the terms of the debate on political toleration. The book brings together a group of international scholars, many of whom have already contributed to the debate on toleration, and who are offering fresh thoughts and approaches to it. The essays of this collection are written from a variety of perspectives: historical, analytical, normative, and legal. Yet, all authors share a concern with the sharpening of our understanding of the reasons for toleration as well as with making them relevant to the way in which we live with others in our modern and diverse societies.

The topic of neutrality on the good is linked rather closely to the ideal of political liberalism as formulated by John Rawls. Here internationally renowned authors, in several cases among the most prominent names to be found in contemporary political theory, present a collection of ten essays on the idea of liberal neutrality.