What does ‘neutral’ in international relations mean? If no definition jumps directly to one’s mind, this might be because, since the 19th centuries, the concept has developed, changed, and adapted, with multiple definitions emerging over time. Neutrality started being formally recognized in international relations during the 18th and 19th century, with early examples including Switzerland (1815) and Belgium (1839). Initially, neutral states were defined by their non-participation in armed conflicts and wars and in return, their sovereignty being respected by the parties involved. The principles of neutrality were formally codified in the Hague Conventions of 1907, stating that warring parties were prohibited from moving troops or establishing communication devices across neutral territories. Further, articles addressed issues regarding naval warfare, such as the inviolability of neutral ports and waters. A fundamental principle was the impartiality of neutral states, requiring that no preferential treatment was given to any of the belligerents. Over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries, with changes to international law for example through the Geneva conventions, the understanding and legal landscape of neutrality have changed. One key challenge concern how to balance neutrality and proportionality. Proportionality means that when a military attack is carried out, the harm done to civilians should not be greater than the anticipated benefit of the attack. This is important because even neutral states might be (indirectly) affected by collateral damage. Especially the use of modern warfare tactics can blur the line between military and civilian targets, raising questions about whether neutrality can protect non-combatants. In the 21st century, neutral states are increasingly under pressure because of two phenomena; economic sanctions and cyber warfare. As Switzerland, which has been indirectly involved in economic sanctions and financial transactions related to conflicts, illustrates, attention must not only be paid to physical non-participation in conflicts, but also to new forms of engagement. Especially in times of cyber warfare or rapidly evolving AI-technologies, questions are increasingly raised about the role of neutrality in a digital, rather than physical, battlefield. The solutions are often multifaceted and not straightforward. Some scholars advocate for stricter interpretations of the concept, stating that any form of involvement – economic, cyber or physical – undermines neutrality, while others propose a more flexible approach, with a redefinition that takes modern forms of conflict into account without undermining humanitarian principles. Swiss ambassador Greminger summarized this decades and century long debate in a 2023 speech: “Neutrality is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder…”.
Despite its long history and ongoing debates over its proper definition, neutrality continues to play an important role. As Greminger emphasizes, it offers a more flexible foreign policy compared to countries that are bound by rigid alliances. Neutral states can therefore often act as mediators or provide venues for negotiations. Furthermore, neutral parties such as the International Committee of the Red Cross can provide crucial humanitarian assistance to civilians in states affected by conflicts or wars. An example of this includes the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, taking place in Geneva in the 1970s, where neutral and non-aligned European states (Austria, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland) put forward proposals and forced compromises in order to mediate between opposed positions of East and West blocs. Neutrality in humanitarian operations is furthermore crucial for upholding humanitarian principles, especially in contexts that are highly politicised. Accepting and maintaining neutrality increases positive engagement with communities of warring parties and helps ensure the safety of aid workers.
So, although neutrality and its application have significantly changed over the decades, the concept remains highly relevant in the 21st century. Even if some critics view it as outdated, it is still a crucial residual framework in international law and a practical instrument for both state security and humanitarian action. However, for neutrality to remain relevant, it has to be redefined for the era of interdependence in which we live. Traditional 19th century definitions struggle to address economic interdependence, technological innovations or neutrality within digital realms. We increasingly see states adopt a strategy of active neutrality, such as Switzerland participating in economic sanctions against Russia. In this concept, neutrality is perceived as a tool for the implementation of foreign and security policy.
In conclusion, neutrality’s endurance lies not in the rigid following of its original 19th-century definition, but in its capacity to evolve into a concept through which states convincingly navigate engagement without abandoning the principles and ideas that give neutrality its meaning.
Photo by Filip Filipovic via https://pixabay.com/photos/un-new-york-manhattan-cityscape-3414137/
