The Theory And Practice Of Neutrality In The Twentieth Century

Originally published in 1970 The Theory and Practice of Neutrality in the Twentieth Century documents the various shapes and forms that neutrality has taken. The most important are neutralization, traditional neutrality, ad hoc neutrality and non-alignment. Each of these terms is carefully defined and illustrated by documents running from the beginning of this century to the late 1960s. This enables students to judge for themselves whether neutrality can again become, as it was in the past, an honourable convenience, or whether, except in so far as it contributes to mediation and peacekeeping, it is an anachronism.

Whether in science or in international politics, neutrality has sometimes been promoted, not only as a viable political alternative but as a lofty ideal – in politics by nations proclaiming their peacefulness, in science as an underpinning of epistemology, in journalism and other intellectual pursuits as a foundation of a professional ethos. Time and again scientists and other intellectuals have claimed their endeavors to be neutral, elevated above the world of partisan conflict and power politics. This volume studies the resonances between neutrality in science and culture and neutrality in politics. By analyzing the activities of scientists, intellectuals, and politicians (sometimes overlapping categories) of mostly neutral nations in the First World War and after, it traces how an ideology of neutralism was developed that soon was embraced by international organizations. This book explores how the notion of neutrality has been used and how a neutralist discourse developed in history. None of the contributions take claims of neutrality at face value – some even show how they were made to advance partisan interests. The concept was typically clustered with notions, such as peace, internationalism, objectivity, rationality, and civilization. But its meaning was changeable – varying with professional, ideological, or national context. As such, Neutrality in Twentieth-Century Europe presents a different perspective on the century than the story of the great belligerent powers, and one in which science, culture, and politics are inextricably mixed.

This book describes the major changes in state relations which have occurred this century and the sources from which they emerged. An invaluable introduction to the structures of modern international relations.

This book explores the factors that account for military neutrality as a security strategy for small states. Through comparing the cases of Serbia and Sweden, who have both come to define their security policies in identicial terms of military neutrality/non-alignment, the book introduces a novel conceptual framework that is built against existing knowledge found in the small states and military neutrality literature. Drawing on different theoretical frameworks, the model explains why certain small states choose to stay outside of military alliances in the twenty-first century. The author then applies the new model to the two selected case studies.

Traditionally isolated from mainstream European affairs, in 1914 the Dutch had no major allegiances that bound them to any one side of the conflict. Geographically and economically caught between two of the major belligerents, Great Britain and Germany, the Netherlands was constantly vulnerable to attack from either side. In adopting a position of neutrality at the beginning of the war, the Dutch took a huge gamble. The internment of approximately 50,000 foreign troops in the Netherlands, some for almost the entire four years of the war, provided an important showcase for the Dutch Government to demonstrate its adherence to international law and its impartiality towards the all of the belligerents.

In the period 1900-1940 the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Switzerland reacted in divergent ways to the same foreign military threats. This volume argues that their internal politics and politico-military strategic culture are vital keys to understanding those differences.

The South China enclave of Macau was the first and last European colonial settlement in East Asia and a territory at the crossroads of different empires. In this highly original study, Helena F. S. Lopes analyses the layers of collaboration that developed from neutrality in Macau during the Second World War. Exploring the intersections of local, regional and global dynamics, she unpacks the connections between a plurality of actors with competing and collaborative interests, including Chinese Nationalists, Communists and collaborators with Japan, Portuguese colonial authorities and British and Japanese representatives. Lopes argues that neutrality eased the movement of refugees of different nationalities who sought shelter in Macau during the war and that it helped to guarantee the maintenance of two remnants of European colonialism – Macau and Hong Kong. Drawing on extensive research from multilingual archival material from Asia, Europe, Australasia and America, this book brings to light the multiple global connections framing the experiences of neutrality and collaboration in the Portuguese-administered enclave of Macau.