Neutrality: outdated or more important than ever?
Ulrike Reisner
OPINION
Ulrike ReisnerPolitical scientist, Vienna, Austria- It may be that classical neutrality models seem outdated in view of the massive changes to a multipolar world order. It may also be that neutral states feel endangered because the threat scenarios of today are different from those of 70 years ago. However, throwing neutral status overboard simply because of an "occasion" that affects third parties, moreover, is not a good solution. Rather, it would be essential to develop new concepts of neutrality on an international stage.
Recently, Austria and Switzerland expressed their interest in joining Sky Shield, a European air defence umbrella initiated by Germany. The joint missile defence shield now involves 17 NATO countries, excluding France and Italy.
Political resistance in the two neutral states of Austria and Switzerland is hardly noticeable. Among other reasons this is due to the fact that Ukraine is a case in point. More than a year of uninterrupted propaganda is having an effect: when fear and anxiety spread in the minds of decision-makers, the constitution of a state only plays a subordinate role.
As a critical observer, one can see that neutrality is interpreted in different ways when it comes to the issue of arms deliveries to Ukraine. In June, the Swiss parliament rejected an exemption for the transfer of arms to Ukraine. The "Lex Ukraine" would have allowed other states to deliver Swiss-made war material to Ukraine. For example, the ammunition for the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, most of which is produced in Switzerland. In Austria, neutrality is not taken very seriously in this respect. M109 howitzers were transported from Italy to Poland via Austrian territory in the spring. This is very delicate, because according to Austria's War Material Act, arms transports for an armed conflict over Austrian territory must either be rejected altogether or definitely approved by the Ministry of the Interior. Neither the one nor the other was the case.
Austria's political leaders would be well advised to exercise diplomatic caution. For unlike Switzerland, Austria's neutrality status is a result of the Second World War. The initial reason for Austria's special status under international law was the Moscow Declaration of 1943, which preceded the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. On 30 October 1943, the three Allied powers, the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom, declared that Austria was the first free country to fall victim to Hitler's aggression; that Austria was therefore a country to be liberated and did not belong to the belligerents; and that Austria should be restored as a free and independent state.
Austria's political leaders would be well advised to exercise diplomatic caution. For unlike Switzerland, Austria's neutrality status is a result of the Second World War. The initial reason for Austria's special status under international law was the Moscow Declaration of 1943, which preceded the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. On 30 October 1943, the three Allied powers, the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom, declared that Austria was the first free country to fall victim to Hitler's aggression; that Austria was therefore a country to be liberated and did not belong to the belligerents; and that Austria should be restored as a free and independent state.
The Austrian federal government is now acting against the will of the majority of the population. Current surveys show that two thirds of Austrians are in favour of neutrality and against joining NATO. Nevertheless, Sky Shield is being negotiated.
Whether the "outsourcing" of airspace surveillance will also require a constitutional amendment will still have to be examined. However, by then at the latest, Austria's "special path" will be over.
Whether the "outsourcing" of airspace surveillance will also require a constitutional amendment will still have to be examined. However, by then at the latest, Austria's "special path" will be over.
"Austria's special path"
The subsequent actions of the three Allied powers under international law were thus based on the theory of occupation. The prevailing opinion of international law in Austria today states that Austria was only occupied in 1938, therefore did not cease to exist as a subject of international law and regained its capacity to act under international law after its liberation in 1945.
Under international law, Austria reaffirmed this "special path" through the subsequent declaration of perpetual neutrality. Regardless of Austria's accession to the three European Communities, later the European Union, in 1995, Austria's neutrality continued to be effective under international law.
So far, Austrians have considered their sovereignty, perpetual neutrality and membership and commitment within the United Nations as "non-negotiable". Even within the framework of European security and defence policy, the Republic insisted on its neutral role. For a long time, Austrians were aware that they owed their state sovereignty and neutrality and their membership in the United Nations to both parts of Europe, which is the East and the West.
The Austrian federal government is now acting against the will of the majority of the population. Current surveys show that two thirds of Austrians are in favour of neutrality and against joining NATO. Nevertheless, Sky Shield is being negotiated.
One will therefore have to wait for the final agreement to be drawn up. This agreement must be submitted to the National Council for approval as a state treaty. Whether the "outsourcing" of airspace surveillance will also require a constitutional amendment will still have to be examined. However, by then at the latest, Austria's "special path" will be over.
Pressure from NATO and the EU
Europe's neutral states are struggling to understand themselves. From 2014 onwards, experts and politicians have repeatedly brought up the "Finnish model" as a possible solution for Ukraine. But the political rapprochement of traditionally neutral states like Sweden and Finland with NATO has shown that military neutrality or non-alignment is no longer perceived by the states concerned as a mechanism for conflict resolution to the same extent as it was 10 or 20 years ago.
Today, the law of neutrality primarily obliges countries like Austria or Switzerland not to participate in wars, either directly or indirectly. As neutral states, they should treat belligerents equally, i.e. they should not unilaterally allow overflights or supply weapons - not even via third parties. These issues have divided minds since February 2022. For the pressure on these countries to move away from this strict stance is clearly increasing. The EU Commission in particular is doing everything it can to accelerate this development.
The EU is not a state, but tries to act like one. The lack of state authority of an EU security and defence policy, specifically the lack of an EU army body, leads to justified mistrust of third states through the entanglement of security and defence policy with NATO. Every single action taken by political representatives of the EU or its member states in this context contributes to an intensification of the conflict. Neutral member states, such as Austria or Ireland, are equally affected by this.
The subsequent actions of the three Allied powers under international law were thus based on the theory of occupation. The prevailing opinion of international law in Austria today states that Austria was only occupied in 1938, therefore did not cease to exist as a subject of international law and regained its capacity to act under international law after its liberation in 1945.
Under international law, Austria reaffirmed this "special path" through the subsequent declaration of perpetual neutrality. Regardless of Austria's accession to the three European Communities, later the European Union, in 1995, Austria's neutrality continued to be effective under international law.
So far, Austrians have considered their sovereignty, perpetual neutrality and membership and commitment within the United Nations as "non-negotiable". Even within the framework of European security and defence policy, the Republic insisted on its neutral role. For a long time, Austrians were aware that they owed their state sovereignty and neutrality and their membership in the United Nations to both parts of Europe, which is the East and the West.
The Austrian federal government is now acting against the will of the majority of the population. Current surveys show that two thirds of Austrians are in favour of neutrality and against joining NATO. Nevertheless, Sky Shield is being negotiated.
One will therefore have to wait for the final agreement to be drawn up. This agreement must be submitted to the National Council for approval as a state treaty. Whether the "outsourcing" of airspace surveillance will also require a constitutional amendment will still have to be examined. However, by then at the latest, Austria's "special path" will be over.
Pressure from NATO and the EU
Europe's neutral states are struggling to understand themselves. From 2014 onwards, experts and politicians have repeatedly brought up the "Finnish model" as a possible solution for Ukraine. But the political rapprochement of traditionally neutral states like Sweden and Finland with NATO has shown that military neutrality or non-alignment is no longer perceived by the states concerned as a mechanism for conflict resolution to the same extent as it was 10 or 20 years ago.
Today, the law of neutrality primarily obliges countries like Austria or Switzerland not to participate in wars, either directly or indirectly. As neutral states, they should treat belligerents equally, i.e. they should not unilaterally allow overflights or supply weapons - not even via third parties. These issues have divided minds since February 2022. For the pressure on these countries to move away from this strict stance is clearly increasing. The EU Commission in particular is doing everything it can to accelerate this development.
The EU is not a state, but tries to act like one. The lack of state authority of an EU security and defence policy, specifically the lack of an EU army body, leads to justified mistrust of third states through the entanglement of security and defence policy with NATO. Every single action taken by political representatives of the EU or its member states in this context contributes to an intensification of the conflict. Neutral member states, such as Austria or Ireland, are equally affected by this.
EU peace project - failed down the line?
With funds from the European Peace Facility, the European Union now plans to procure munition for Ukraine. In doing so, the EU is once again contradicting itself as a "peace project". If it still wants to take itself seriously, it would be high time to invest the billions from the European Peace Facility in diplomatic negotiations and the strengthening and renewal of international organisations.
Neutrality in times of upheaval
This pressure leads to decisions being made on an ad hoc basis against the background of a supposed threat scenario. These decisions are already insufficient because they ignore essential aspects. For today's threat scenarios have changed considerably - especially from the perspective of neutral states:
a) Actors not controlled by international law, such as technology corporations, are today enabled by new technologies to wage wars and also destabilise large states without being easily held accountable.
b) It also follows, however, that belligerent non-state actors who establish themselves in a state with weak or non-existent sovereignty can pose an effective threat to neighbouring states without this having to be obvious.
c) Closely linked to the global actions of non-state actors is the hybrid development in warfare. The spectrum ranges from economic sanctions to cyberattacks. Currently, there are no suitable political international governance systems that subject these developments to rules.
d) International organisations are increasingly behaving in a partisan manner, even if this contradicts the interests of their members: The European Union is an international organisation to which neutral states also belong.
e) In addition to common will, the trust of partners in stability and effectiveness is another important prerequisite for the functioning of international organisations. This trust has been shaken time and again, on the one hand because international organisations have been abused by major political (also non-state) actors for their power interests. On the other hand, the confidence of state actors in the effectiveness of international treaties has been waning for some time. More and more often, international treaties are not respected. Moreover, non-state actors (such as corporations or financial companies) are evading these international treaties.
It may be that classical neutrality models seem outdated in view of the massive changes to a multipolar world order. It may also be that neutral states feel endangered because the threat scenarios of today are different from those of 70 years ago.
However, throwing neutral status overboard simply because of an "occasion" that affects third parties, moreover, is not a good solution. Rather, it would be more important today than ever to develop new concepts of neutrality on an international stage. The points mentioned above can provide a basis for discussion.
This pressure leads to decisions being made on an ad hoc basis against the background of a supposed threat scenario. These decisions are already insufficient because they ignore essential aspects. For today's threat scenarios have changed considerably - especially from the perspective of neutral states:
a) Actors not controlled by international law, such as technology corporations, are today enabled by new technologies to wage wars and also destabilise large states without being easily held accountable.
b) It also follows, however, that belligerent non-state actors who establish themselves in a state with weak or non-existent sovereignty can pose an effective threat to neighbouring states without this having to be obvious.
c) Closely linked to the global actions of non-state actors is the hybrid development in warfare. The spectrum ranges from economic sanctions to cyberattacks. Currently, there are no suitable political international governance systems that subject these developments to rules.
d) International organisations are increasingly behaving in a partisan manner, even if this contradicts the interests of their members: The European Union is an international organisation to which neutral states also belong.
e) In addition to common will, the trust of partners in stability and effectiveness is another important prerequisite for the functioning of international organisations. This trust has been shaken time and again, on the one hand because international organisations have been abused by major political (also non-state) actors for their power interests. On the other hand, the confidence of state actors in the effectiveness of international treaties has been waning for some time. More and more often, international treaties are not respected. Moreover, non-state actors (such as corporations or financial companies) are evading these international treaties.
It may be that classical neutrality models seem outdated in view of the massive changes to a multipolar world order. It may also be that neutral states feel endangered because the threat scenarios of today are different from those of 70 years ago.
However, throwing neutral status overboard simply because of an "occasion" that affects third parties, moreover, is not a good solution. Rather, it would be more important today than ever to develop new concepts of neutrality on an international stage. The points mentioned above can provide a basis for discussion.
Cover photo: Reuters
Contact us
If you have any recommendations, questions or any projects of your own as well as suggestions concerning international youth cooperation, russian "soft power" and public diplomacy development, feel free to contact us. We also accept expert analytics of good quality for publications.
Creative diplomacy is always open for creative people and ideas!