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, CSTO or the SCO). 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. 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.

Not all neutral countries avoid any foreign deployment or alliances, as Austria and Ireland have active UN peacekeeping forces and a political alliance within the European Union. Sweden's traditional policy was 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. Sweden would uphold its policy of neutrality until the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. During the Cold War, former Yugoslavia claimed military and ideological neutrality from both the Western and Eastern Bloc, becoming a co-founder of the Non-Aligned Movement.

There have been considerable changes to the interpretation of neutral conduct over the past centuries.^[2]

• 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.^[3] The rights and duties of a neutral power are defined in sections 5^[4] and 13^[5] 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 by politically 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.

Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,^[6] and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality.^[7]

A neutral power must intern belligerent troops who reach its territory,^[8] but not escaped prisoners of war.^[9] Belligerent armies may not recruit neutral citizens,^[10] but they may go abroad to enlist.^[11] Belligerent armies' personnel and materiel may not be transported across neutral territory,^[12] but the wounded may be.^[13] A neutral power may supply communication facilities to belligerents,^[14] but not war materiel,^[15] although it need not prevent export of such materiel.^[16]

Belligerent naval vessels may use neutral ports for a maximum of 24 hours, though neutrals may impose different restrictions.^[17] Exceptions are to make repairs—only the minimum necessary to put back to sea^[18]—or if an opposing belligerent's vessel is already in port, in which case it must have a 24-hour head start.^[19] 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.^[20]

Neutrality has been recognised in different ways, and sometimes involves a formal guarantor. For example, Switzerland and Belgium's neutrality was recognized by the signatories of the Congress of Vienna,^[21] Austria has its neutrality guaranteed by its four former occupying powers, 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 is the posture of a state or group of states that has no alliance with either side of a war but asserts that it will defend itself against resulting incursions from any party,^[23] making the benefit to a belligerent of entering the country by force not worth the cost.^{[citation needed]}

This may include:

• Military preparedness without commitment, especially as the expressed policy of a neutral nation in wartime, and the readiness to counter with force an invasion of rights by any belligerent power.^[24]
• Armed neutrality is a term used in international politics for the attitude of a state or group of states that makes no alliance with either side in a war. It is the condition of a neutral power during a 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 First League of Armed Neutrality of the Nordic countries and Russia under the leadership of Catherine the Great, which was invented in the late 18th century but has since been used only to refer to countries' neutralities.^[26] Sweden and Switzerland are independently 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. Switzerland continues to pursue, however, an active foreign policy and is 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] Sweden ended its policy of neutrality when it joined NATO in 2024.

In contrast, some neutral states may heavily reduce their military and use it for the express purpose of home defense and the maintenance of their neutrality, while other neutral states may abandon military power altogether (examples of states doing this include Liechtenstein). However, the lack of a military does not always result in neutrality: Countries such as Costa Rica and Iceland replaced their standing army with a military guarantee from a stronger power or participation in a mutual defense pact (under TIAR and NATO respectively).

• 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 during the American Revolutionary War.^[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 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]
• The Second League of Armed Neutrality was an effort to revive this during the French Revolutionary Wars.^[33] It was an alliance with Denmark-Norway, Prussia, Sweden and Russia. It existed between 1800 and 1801. The idea of the league was to protect neutral shipping from being stopped by the British Royal Navy. The British viewed the league as siding with the French and in 1801 attacked and defeated a Dano-Norwegian fleet in the Battle of Copenhagen. After the death of the Russian Tsar Paul I in the same year, the league collapsed.
• A potential Third League of Armed Neutrality was discussed during the American Civil War, but was never realized.^[34]

For many states, such as Ireland, 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]

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.

There are three members of the European Union that still describe themselves as a neutral country in some form: Austria, Ireland, and Malta. 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, 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.^[37]

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. Ireland's constitution prohibits participating in such a common defence.

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.^[38]

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 City (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. Ireland also secretly allowed Allied aircraft to use the Donegal Corridor, making it possible for British planes to attack German U-boats in the mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, both Axis and Allied pilots who crash landed in Ireland were interned.^[39]

Sweden and Switzerland, surrounded by possessions and allies of Nazi Germany similarly made concessions to Nazi requests as well as to Allied requests.^[40] 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 non-interventionist members.^[41] 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.^[42]

Some countries may occasionally claim to be "neutral" but not comply with the internationally agreed upon definition of neutrality as listed above.^[43]

State	Period(s) of neutrality	Notes
Andorra	1914–present	Occupied by France during the Andorran Revolution. Neutral during World War I and World War II.[44][45][46][47] While serving as a smuggling route between Vichy France and Spain, Andorra made concessions to both sides to maintain its sovereignty.[48][49] A United Nations member since 1993.
Austria	1955–present	Main article: Declaration of Neutrality Bound by Constitution of Austria and the 1955 Austrian State Treaty (demanded by Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War and guaranteed by the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and France).[22] The constitution prohibits military alliances and foreign military bases in Austria.[22] An EU Member since 1995: military non-aligned, see points of debate § European Union.
Costa Rica	1949–present	Neutral since its military was dissolved in 1949.[50][51] Ratified by law in 2014.[52]
Ghana	2012–present	Attempted neutrality during the Cold War, officially neutral since 2012.[53][54]
Haiti	2017–present	Neutral since 2017.[55]
Ireland	1939–present[56]	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.[57][58] 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 intervene in Ireland with the collaboration of the Irish Government to push Germany back out, known as Plan W.[59] Ireland was invited to join NATO but did not wish to be in an alliance that included the United Kingdom.[22] Attached the condition of Irish reunification to membership.[22] Was clear that NATO would defend Ireland in the event of war, in part because Northern Ireland belonged to the United Kingdom.[22] An EU Member since 1973: military non-aligned, see points of debate § European Union. Was granted a special acknowledgement in the Seville Declarations on the Treaty of Nice due to its views on the use of force in international politics. Has provided military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War.[60][61][62]
Liechtenstein	1868–present	Military was dissolved in 1868.[63][64]
Malta	1980–present	Policy of neutrality since 1980, guaranteed in a treaty with Italy.[65] An EU Member since 2004: military non-aligned, see points of debate § European Union.
Mexico	1930–present	Main article: Estrada Doctrine Policy of neutrality since 1930, formulated by foreign secretary Genaro Estrada. Opened its borders in the 20th century to political refugees fleeing Francoist Spain and the military dictatorships of Central and South America. During the presidency of Vicente Fox in the early 2000s, Mexico ignored the previous neutrality policy under foreign secretaries Jorge G. Castañeda and Luis Ernesto Derbez. Whether historical neutrality is to be kept is now internally debated.[66]
Moldova	1994–present	Main article: Moldovan neutrality Article 11 of the 1994 Constitution proclaims "permanent neutrality".[67] In 2024 Moldova voted to amend its constitution to include the aim of becoming a European Union member state.[68]
Monaco	1945–present	A United Nations member since 1993.
Mongolia	2015–present	Mongolia was neutral during World War I, but became a belligerent country in World War II. In September 2015, Mongolian President Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj announced at the United Nations General Assembly that Mongolia would implement a "policy of permanent neutrality," and called on the international community to recognise this policy.[69] Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Panama	1990–present	The neutrality of the Panama Canal is enshrined by specific treaty.[70] Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Rwanda	2009–present	After the 1994 genocide, Rwanda announced permanent neutrality in 2009 after joining the Commonwealth of Nations.[71][72] Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
San Marino	1945–present	Main article: Battle of San Marino Neutral during World War I. Declared its neutrality again in 1939, but following its occupation by Nazi Germany in 1944, the Sammarinese government declared war on the Axis, and joined with British forces in Italy to drive them out.[73] A United Nations member since 1992.
Serbia	2007–present	The National Assembly declared military neutrality of the country in 2007.[74] Serbia is the only state in the Southeastern Europe that is not seeking NATO membership, having been the target of a 1999 NATO bombing, but also due to the ensuing secession of and territorial dispute with Kosovo,[75] as well as a close relationship with Russia.[76]
Switzerland	1815–present	Main articles: Swiss neutrality and Switzerland during the World Wars Further information: Aerial incidents in Switzerland in World War II and Operation Tannenbaum Self-imposed, permanent, and armed, designed to ensure external security. Because of that, it is the most globally known example of a neutral country. 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 even to join the United Nations until 2002.[77] However, the Swiss Armed Forces participated in the U.S.-led War in Afghanistan; in what the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation described as the nation's "first military deployment since 1815."[78] During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States was given permission to use Swiss airspace for surveillance missions over Iraq.[79] The Swiss adopted sanctions imposed by the EU against Russia in 2022 in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.[80] Switzerland has previously only put in place sanctions created by the United Nations Security Council.[81] Switzerland has no law that allows it to impose sanctions by itself, it can only adopt sanctions from the UN Security Council, the OECD or the EU.[82]
Turkmenistan	1995–present	Declared its complete neutrality and had it formally recognized by the United Nations on 12 December 1995.[83] This date is designated as a national holiday in Turkmenistan.[84] Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
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.[85] Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Vatican City	1929–present	Main article: Vatican City during World War II 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. Is an observer of the Non-Aligned Movement.

• Buffer state
• Dual loyalty
• European Union–NATO relations
• International humanitarian law
• Neutral powers during World War II
• Non-belligerent
• Non-interventionism
• Policy of deliberate ambiguity
• Strategic autonomy
• Third World
• Neutral and Non-Aligned European States
• Neutralized Zone of Savoy

• 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
• Corse, Edward and García Cabrera, Marta (eds), Propaganda and Neutrality: global case studies in the twentieth century. London and New York. Bloomsbury, 2023. ISBN 978-1-3503-2553-1. Open Access https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781350325562Fenwick, 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
• Marabello, Thomas Quinn (2023). "Challenges to Swiss Democracy: Neutrality, Napoleon, & Nationalism," Swiss American Historical Society Review, Vol. 59: No. 2. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sahs_review/vol59/iss2/5
• 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
• 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 28 April 2014..

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Neutrality.

• Declaration for the Purpose of establishing Similar Rules of Neutrality, with Annexes
• The British Government's note affirming its neutrlality in the French-Prussian War of 1871, and answering Prussian allegations of a hidden pro-French bias
• "About.com". Netplaces.com. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• "Armed Neutralities". Americanforeignrelations.com. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• "NationStates • View topic – The League of Armed Neutrality (FT alliance)". Forum.nationstates.net. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• "The First League of Armed Neutrality". Citelighter.com. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• "League of Armed Neutrality". Everything2.com. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• "Armed Neutrality Law & Legal Definition". Definitions.uslegal.com. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• "The Neutrality Act of 1937. FDR. WGBH American Experience". PBS.org. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• "Wilson's First Warning to the Germans – World War I Document Archive". Lib.byu.edu. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• Barclay, Thomas (1911). "Neutrality" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). pp. 441–450.