Neutral country

A neutral country is a state that is neutral towards belligerents in a specific war or holds itself as permanently neutral in all future conflicts (including avoiding entering into military alliances such as NATO). As a type of non-combatant status, nationals of neutral countries enjoy protection under the law of war from belligerent actions to a greater extent than other non-combatants such as enemy civilians and prisoners of war.

Not to be confused with Neutral Nation.
Neutral countries
  neutral countries
  disputed neutral countries
  former neutral countries

Different countries interpret their neutrality differently:[1] some, such as Costa Rica, have demilitarized, while Switzerland holds to "armed neutrality" to deter aggression with a sizeable military while barring itself from foreign deployment. However, not all neutral countries avoid any foreign deployment or alliances, as Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden have active UN peacekeeping forces and a political alliance within the European Union. The traditional Swedish policy is not to participate in military alliances, with the intention of staying neutral in the case of war. Immediately before World War II, the Nordic countries stated their neutrality, but Sweden changed its position to that of non-belligerent at the start of the Winter War.

There have been considerable changes to the interpretation of neutral conduct over the past centuries.[2] During the Cold War another European country, Yugoslavia, claimed military and ideological neutrality, and that is continued by its successor, Serbia.[3]

Terminology
  • A neutral country in a particular war, is a sovereign state which refrains from joining either side of the conflict and adheres to the principle of the Law of Neutrality under International Law. Although countries have historically often declared themselves as neutral at the outbreak of war, there is no obligation for them to do so.[4] The rights and duties of a neutral power are defined in Sections 5[5] and 13[6] of the Hague Convention of 1907.
  • A permanently neutral power is a sovereign state which is bound by international 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 a foreign 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 of armed neutrality.
  • A non-belligerent state is one that indirectly participates in a war, politically and/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 under International Law.

Rights and responsibilities of a neutral power

Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,[7] and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality.[8]

A neutral power must intern belligerent troops who reach its territory,[9] but not escaped prisoners of war.[10] Belligerent armies may not recruit neutral citizens,[11] but they may go abroad to enlist.[12] Belligerent armies' personnel and materiel may not be transported across neutral territory,[13] but the wounded may be.[14] A neutral power may supply communication facilities to belligerents,[15] but not war materiel,[16] although it need not prevent export of such materiel.[17]

Belligerent naval vessels may use neutral ports for a maximum of 24 hours, though neutrals may impose different restrictions.[18] Exceptions are to make repairs—only the minimum necessary to put back to sea[19]—or if an opposing belligerent's vessel is already in port, in which case it must have a 24-hour head start.[20] A prize ship captured by a belligerent in the territorial waters of a neutral power must be surrendered by the belligerent to the neutral, which must intern its crew.[21]

Recognition and codification

Neutrality has been recognised in different ways, and sometimes involves a formal guarantor. For example, Austria has its neutrality guaranteed by its four former occupying powers, Switzerland by the signatories of the Congress of Vienna and Finland by the Soviet Union during the Cold 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]

Armed neutrality
Switzerland is a key 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 in a war, but asserts that it will defend itself against resulting incursions from any party.[23] This may include:

  • Military preparedness without commitment, especially as the expressed policy of a neutral nation in wartime; readiness to counter with force an invasion of rights by any belligerent power.[24]
  • Armed neutrality is a term used in international politics, which is the attitude of a state or group of states which makes no alliance with either side in a war. It is the condition of a neutral power, during said 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 the League of Armed Neutrality that the Nordic countries and Russia under the leadership of Katherine the Great invented in the late 18th Century, but has since been used only to refer to country neutralities.[26] Sweden and Switzerland are, independent of each other, famed for their armed neutralities, which they maintained throughout both World War I and World 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. They pursue, however, active foreign policies and are frequently involved in peace-building processes around the world.[28] According to Edwin Reischauer, "To be neutral you must be ready to be highly militarized, like Switzerland or Sweden."[29]

In contrast, other neutral states may abandon military power (examples of states doing this include Costa Rica and Liechtenstein) or reduce it, but rather uses it for the express purpose of home defense and the maintenance of its neutrality. But the lack of a military does not result in neutrality as countries such as Iceland replaced a standing military with a military guarantee from a stronger power.

Leagues of Armed Neutrality
  • The First League of Armed Neutrality was an alliance of minor naval powers organized in 1780 by Catherine II of Russia to protect neutral shipping in the War of American Independence.[30] The establishment of the First League of Armed Neutrality was viewed by Americans as a mark of Russian friendship and sympathy. This league had a lasting impact of Russian-American relations and the relations of those two powers and Britain. It was also the basis for international maritime law, which is still in effect.[31] In the field of political science, this is the first historical example of armed neutrality, however, scholars like Dr. 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 and Holland joined powers to continue their maritime exploration without the commitment of being involved in wartime struggles on the sea.[32]
  • A potential Third League of Armed Neutrality was discussed during the American Civil War, but was never realized.[34]

Peacekeeping
Irish units on UN patrol in the Golan Heights, Syria.

For many states, such as Ireland and Sweden, neutrality does not mean the absence of any foreign interventionism. Peacekeeping missions for the United Nations are seen as intertwined with it.[35] 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.[36]

Points of debate

The legitimacy 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.

European Union

There are five members of the European Union that still describe themselves as a neutral country in some form: Austria, Ireland, Finland, Malta and Sweden. With the development of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, the extent to which they are, or should be, neutral is debated. For example, former Finnish Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen, on 5 July 2006, stated that Finland was no longer neutral:

"Mr Pflüger described Finland as neutral. I must correct him on that: Finland is a member of the EU. We were at one time a politically neutral country, during the time of the Iron Curtain. Now we are a member of the Union, part of this community of values, which has a common policy and, moreover, a common foreign policy."[37]

However, Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipilä on 5 December 2017 still described the country as "militarily non-aligned" and that it should remain so.[38] 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.[39]

Since the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, EU members are bound by TEU, 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.

With the launch of Permanent 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.[40]

Moldova

The neutrality of Moldova is an interesting case. According to Ion Marandici, Moldova has chosen neutrality in order to avoid Russian security schemes and Russian military presence on its territory.[41] Even if the country is constitutionally neutral, some researchers argue that de facto this former Soviet republic never was neutral, because parts of the Russian 14th army are present at Bendery, a territory de facto not controlled by Moldovan government.[41] The same author suggests that one solution in order to avoid unnecessary contradictions and deepen at the same time the relations with NATO would be "to interpret the concept of permanent neutrality in a flexible manner".[41] Neutrality is a constant topic in Moldovan domestic politics.[42]

Neutrality during World War II
Main article: Neutral powers during World War II
"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.”
— Woodrow Wilson

Many countries made neutrality declarations during World War II. However, of the European states closest to the war, only Andorra, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (with Liechtenstein), and Vatican (the Holy See) remained neutral to the end.

Their fulfillment to the letter of the rules of neutrality has been questioned: Ireland supplied important secret information to the Allies; for instance, the date of D-Day was decided on the basis of incoming Atlantic weather information, some of it supplied by Ireland but kept from Germany. Both Axis and Allied pilots who crash landed in Ireland were interned.[43]

Sweden and Switzerland, surrounded by possessions and allies of Nazi Germany similarly made concessions to Nazi requests as well as to Allied requests.[44] 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 Spanish volunteer 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 selling tungsten.

The United States was initially neutral and bound by the Neutrality Acts of 1936 not to sell war materials to belligerents. Once war broke out, US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt persuaded Congress to replace the act with the Cash and carry program that allowed the US to provide military aid to the allies, despite opposition from isolationist members.[45] The "Cash and carry" program was replaced in March 1941 by Lend-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 the 163rd German Infantry Division to be transferred from Norway to Finland by Swedish trains, to aid the Finns in the Continuation War. The decision caused a political "Midsummer Crisis" of 1941, about Sweden's neutrality.

Equally, Vatican City made various diplomatic concessions to the Axis and Allied powers alike, while still keeping to the rules of the law of neutrality. The Holy See has been criticized—but largely exonerated later—for its silence on moral issues of the war.[46]

List of neutral countries

Some countries may occasionally claim to be "neutral" but not comply with the internationally agreed upon definition of neutrality as listed above.

State Period(s) of neutrality Notes
 Austria 1920–1938 (after World War I to annexation by Germany)
1955–present (Declaration of Neutrality)
Main article: Declaration of Neutrality
 Costa Rica 1949–present
 Finland 1935–1939 (to Winter War)
1956–present (from return of Porkkala rental area)
Main article: Foreign relations of Finland
 Ireland 1939–present[50]
Main article: Irish neutrality
  • Established a policy of neutrality during World War II, known as the Emergency in Ireland.[22]
    • Despite this policy, Ireland made concessions to the Allied Powers by secretly sharing intelligence and weather reports as well as by repatriating downed Royal Air Force airmen.[51][52]
    • It was believed that Ireland would take the German side if the United Kingdom attempted to invade Ireland, but would take the British side if invaded by Nazi 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 as Operation Green.
    • Conversely, had Ireland been invaded, the United Kingdom had drawn up secret plans to invade Ireland in collaboration with the Irish Government to push Germany back out, known as Plan W.[53]
  • Ireland was invited to join NATO but did not wish to be in an alliance that included the United Kingdom.[22]
  • An EU Member since 1973: military non-aligned, see points of debate § European Union.
 Japan 1947–present
Main article: Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
 Liechtenstein 1868–present
  • Neutral because the military was dissolved in 1868.[54][55]
 Malta 1980–present
 Mexico 1930–present
 Mongolia 1914–1918
2015–present
  • During World War I Mongolia was neutral, but became a belligerent country of World War II. In September 2015, Mongolian President Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj in the 70th UN General Assembly speech suddenly announced that Mongolia will implement the "policy of permanent neutrality," and called on the international community to recognise Mongolian neutrality.[58]
  • Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
 Moldova 1994–present
 Panama 1989–present
 Rwanda 2009–present
 Serbia 2007–present
 Singapore 1965–present
 Sweden 1814–1918 (to Finnish Civil War)
1919–present
Main article: Swedish neutrality
  Switzerland 1815–present
Main article: Swiss neutrality
  • Self-imposed, permanent, and armed, designed to ensure external security.
  • The 1815 Congress 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 to even join the United Nations until 2002.[65]
 Turkmenistan 1995–present
 Uzbekistan 2012–present
  • In 2012, the law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On approval of the Concept of foreign policy of the Republic of Uzbekistan" was adopted[67]
  • Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
  Vatican City 1929–present
  • The Lateran Treaty signed in 1929 with Italy imposed that "The Pope 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.

List of formerly neutral countries
State Period(s) of neutrality Notes
Afghanistan 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I)
1939–1945 (neutral during World War II)
 Albania 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I)
1968 (attempted neutrality during the Prague Spring)
  • A NATO member since 2009.
 Argentina 1939–1945 (attempted neutrality during World War II)
Main article: Argentina during World War II
 Belgium 1839–1914 (to World War I)
1936–1940 (to World War II)
 Bhutan 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I)
1939–1945 (neutral during World War II)
  • In accordance with the Treaty of Punakha in 1910, Bhutan during World War II to deal with foreign relations powers to the United Kingdom, Bhutan became the de facto wartime neutral country.
  • Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
 Cambodia 1955–1970 (to Vietnam War)
 Denmark 1864–1940 (after Second Schleswig War to World War II)
 Estonia 1938–1939 (to World War II)
Ethiopia 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I)
Hungary 1956 (attempted neutrality during the Hungarian Revolution)
 Persia, now Iran 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I)
1939–1945 (neutral during World War II)
Italy 1914–1915 (to World War I)
Laos 1955–1975 (ostensibly neutral throughout the Vietnam War)
 Latvia 1938–1939 (to World War II)
 Lithuania 1939 (to World War II)
 Luxembourg 1839–1914 (to World War I)
1920–1940 (to World War II)
  • Neutral stance since 1839, abolished through its constitution in 1948.
  • A NATO member since 1949
  • EU member since 1957
 Netherlands 1839–1940 (to World War II)
 Norway 1814–1940 (to World War II)
See also: The Neutral Ally
  • A NATO member since 1949.
 Portugal 1932–1945 (neutral during World War II)
Main article: Portugal during World War II
  • A NATO member since 1949.
  • EU member since 1986
 Spain 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I)
1940–1945 (neutral during World War II)
Main articles: Spain during World War II and Spain during World War I
  • While neutral throughout World War I and World War II, Spain did lean towards the Axis, as evidenced by the Blue Division.
  • A NATO member since 1982.
  • EU member since 1986
 Turkey 1940–1945 (neutral during World War II)
  • A NATO member since 1952.
 United States 1914–1917 (to World War I)
1939–1941 (to World War II)
Main article: United States non-interventionism
 Ukraine 1990–2014 (to Ukrainian crisis)
  • Ukraine's parliament voted to drop non-aligned status on December 23, 2014.[68]
    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 August 24, 1991, contained the basic principles of non-coalition and future neutrality.[69] Such policy of state non-alignment was re-confirmed by law in 2010.[70]
 Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1940–1941 (to World War II)
  • Although founding member of the Little Entente committed to it until its dissolution in 1938, after much German pressure Yugoslavia was forced to declare its neutrality between the Axis and Western powers.[71]
 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1949–1992

See also

References
  1. Lottaz, Pascal; Reginbogin, Herbert (2019). Notions of Neutralities. Lanham: Lexington. ISBN 978-1-4985-8226-1.
  2. 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
  3. O Vojsci at vs.rs
  4. Neff, Stephen (2000). The Rights and Duties of Neutrals: A General History. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  5. "The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907". avalon.law.yale.edu.
  6. "The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII); October 18, 1907". avalon.law.yale.edu.
  7. Hague Convention, §5 Art.1
  8. Hague Convention, §5 Art.10
  9. Hague Convention, §5 Art.11
  10. Hague Convention, §5 Art.13
  11. Hague Convention, §5 Art.4,5
  12. Hague Convention, §5 Art.6
  13. Hague Convention, §5 Art.2
  14. Hague Convention, §5 Art.14
  15. Hague Convention, §5 Art.8
  16. Hague Convention, §13 Art.6
  17. Hague Convention, §13 Art.7
  18. Hague Convention, §13 Art.12
  19. Hague Convention, §13 Art.14
  20. Hague Convention, §13 Art.16
  21. Hague Convention, §13 Art.3
  22. "Neutral European countries". nato.gov.si.
  23. Oppenheim, International Law: War and Neutrality, 1906, p. 325.
  24. "Armed Neutrality". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
  25. "Armed Neutrality Law & Legal Definition". USLegal. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
  26. 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
  27. Bissell and Gasteyger, The Missing link: West European Neutrals and Regional Security, 1990, p. 117; Murdoch and Sandler, "Swedish Military Expenditures and Armed Neutrality," in The Economics of Defence Spending, 1990, p. 148-149.
  28. "Switzerland - Knowledge Encyclopedia". Knowledge Encyclopedia. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
  29. Chapin, Emerson. "Edwin Reischauer, Diplomat and Scholar, Dies at 79," New York Times. September 2, 1990.
  30. 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. 16-17; Jones, Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations to 1913, 2009, p. 15-17.
  31. Vinarov, Mikhail. cards/the-first-league-of-armed-neutrality "The First League of Armed Neutrality" Check |url= value (help). CiteLighter. Retrieved 2016-04-21.
  32. Kulsrud, Carl J. "Armed Neutrality to 1780". American Journal of International Law.
  33. 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.
  34. Bienstock, The Struggle for the Pacific, 2007, p. 150.
  35. "Protecting neutrality in a militarised EU".
  36. International peace-keeping operations. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. Federal Administration admin.ch. Retrieved 22 December 2013.
  37. Presentation of the programme of the Finnish presidency (debate) 5 July 2006, European Parliament Strasbourg
  38. "Finland should stay militarily non-aligned: prime minister". Reuters. 4 December 2017.
  39. Affairs, Department of Foreign. "Neutrality - Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade". www.dfa.ie.
  40. "Malta to 'wait and see' before deciding on PESCO defense pact, Muscat says".
  41. Marandici, Ion (2006). "Moldova's neutrality: what is at stake?". Lviv: IDIS-Viitorul and the Center for European Studies. Archived from the original (MS Word) on 2008-10-30.
  42. David X. Noack: Politics of Neutrality in the Post-Soviet Space: A Comparison of Concepts, Practices, and Outcomes of Neutrality in Moldova, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine 1990–2015. In: Pascal Lottaz/Herbert R. Reginbogin (eds.): Notions of Neutralities, Lanham (MD): Lexington Books 2019, pp. 267–288.
  43. "The WWII camp where Allies and Germans mixed". BBC News. 28 June 2011.
  44. Chen, C. Peter. "Sweden in World War II".
  45. Brinkley, Douglas; Rubel, David (2003). World War II: The Axis Assault, 1939-1940. USA: MacMillan. pp. 99–106.
  46. Pascal Lottaz and Florentino 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.
  47. "Costa Rica". World Desk Reference. Archived from the original on February 11, 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-27.
  48. El Espíritu del 48. "Abolición del Ejército" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2008-03-09.
  49. Álvaro Murillo. "Costa Rica prohíbe por ley participar en cualquier guerra". El País (in Spanish). Retrieved 2008-03-09.
  50. Neutrality in the 21st century - Lessons for Serbia. ISAC Fond. 2013.
  51. Burke, Dan. "Benevolent Neutrality". The War Room. Archived from the original on 20 June 2013. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
  52. Joe McCabe (1944-06-03). "How Blacksod lighthouse changed the course of the Second World War". Independent.ie. Retrieved 2016-04-21.
  53. John P. Duggan, Neutral Ireland and the Third Reich Lilliput Press; Rev. ed edition, 1989. p. 223
  54. "Background Note: Liechtenstein". United States Department of State. Retrieved 2008-02-27.
  55. "Imagebroschuere_LP_e.indd" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-16. Retrieved 2014-11-19.
  56. Woodliffe, John (1992). The Peacetime Use of Foreign Military Installations Under Modern International Law. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. pp. 99–100. ISBN 0-7923-1879-X. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
  57. La Jornada (27 April 2007). "Adiós a la neutralidad - La Jornada". Jornada.unam.mx. Retrieved 2013-09-19.
  58. "Why Mongolia wants to "permanently neutral" can be authorized for an observation". Tencent News. 22 October 2015.
  59. "Constitution of the Republic of Moldova" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-05. Retrieved 2017-04-18.
  60. "TREATY CONCERNING THE PERMANENT NEUTRALITY AND OPERATION OF THE PANAMA CANAL" (PDF).
  61. "Rwanda becomes a member of the Commonwealth". BBC News. 29 November 2009.
  62. Enclosed by NATO, Serbia ponders next move Archived 2009-04-07 at the Wayback Machine AFP, 6 April 2009
  63. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/128138.pdf
  64. Ejdus, Filip (2014). "Serbia's Military Neutrality: origins, effects and challenges" (PDF). Croatian International Relations Review: 43–69. doi:10.2478/cirr2014-0008 (inactive 2021-01-14).CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2021 (link)
  65. Carroll, Rory (4 March 2002). "Switzerland decides to join UN". the Guardian.
  66. "A/RES/50/80; U.N. General Assembly". Retrieved 29 December 2009.
  67. lex.uz — ОБ ОСНОВНЫХ ПРИНЦИПАХ ВНЕШНЕПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ РЕСПУБЛИКИ УЗБЕКИСТАН
  68. "Ukraine votes to drop neutral status". BBC News. 23 December 2014.
  69. "Ukraine's Neutrality: A Myth or Reality?". Retrieved 8 September 2014.
  70. "Ukraine Parliament Ok's neutrality bill". Kyiv Post. Kyiv, Ukraine. AP. 4 June 2010.
  71. Contemporary Yugoslavia: Twenty Years of Socialist Experiment by Wayne S. Vucinich and Jozo Tomasevich, Stanford University, page 64
  72. Neutrality and Neutralism in the Global Cold War: Between or Within the Blocs? by Sandra Bott, Jussi M. Hanhimaki, Janick Schaufelbuehl and Marco Wyss, page 74

Bibliography
  • 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. ISBN 1-4067-7218-6
  • Bissell, Richard E. and Gasteyger, Curt Walter. The Missing link: West European Neutrals and Regional Security. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990. ISBN 0-8223-0953-X
  • 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. ISBN 0-7425-6534-3
  • Karsh, Efraim. Neutrality and Small States. Florence, Ky.: Routledge, 1988. ISBN 0-415-00507-8
  • Kulsrud, Carl J. "Armed Neutrality to 1870." The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 29, No. 3 (July, 1935), pp. 423–447 JSTOR i311972
  • Lottaz, Pascal/Reginbogin, Herbert R. (eds.) Notions of Neutralities. Lanham (MD): Lexington Books, 2019. ISBN 978-1498582261
  • Murdoch, James C. and Sandler, Todd. "Swedish Military Expenditures and Armed Neutrality." In The Economics of Defence Spending: An International Survey. Keith Hartley and Todd Sandler, eds. Florence, Ky.: Routledge, 1990. ISBN 0-415-00161-7
  • O'Sullivan, Michael Joseph. Ireland and the Global Question. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2006. ISBN 0-8156-3106-5
  • 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</ref>
  • 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. ISBN 0-674-02682-9
  • "Woodrow Wilson asks U.S. Congress for declaration of war". The History Channel website. 2014. Event occurs at 10:51. Retrieved April 28, 2014..
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.