Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis
Authors
1 PhD. Student, Department of International Relations-Faculty of Theology-Laws and Political Sciences-Branch of Research and Sciences-Islamic Azad University
2 Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Theology, Law and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran, Tehran and, Associate Member, Center for Iranian Studies, SOAS,
3 Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Theology, Laws and Political Sciences, Branch of Research and Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Theology, Laws and Political Sciences, Branch of Research and Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Highlights
Introduction
According to international law, a state can take a neutral position in international conflicts. It is evident that accepting and observing neutrality in conflicts require obligations stemming from international law. States involved in a war are required to respect the rights of a neutral state based on the principles of neutrality. States that take a neutral position are entitled to some rights on the one hand, and obligated to some duties on the other. Neutrality requires the neutral state to show similar treatment to the conflicting sides, avoiding any help to the belligerents. Traditional definition of neutrality, acknowledged by researchers, is not only a challenging topic for discussion today, but can also find a new form in the current international conditions and developments in international law including human rights. The Ukraine crisis and the confrontational policies taken by west against Russia such as imposing widespread sanctions and the full participation of Switzerland as a neutral state in sanctions challenge the principle of neutrality. This makes the relationship between neutrality and sanctions ambiguous. The main question of this study was how neutrality can be explained in relation with sanctions against a belligerent side in a conflict. The purpose was to determine whether a neutral state is legally allowed to impose sanctions against a conflicting side. Testing the hypothesis revealed that in the new international system, the concept and position of neutrality is defined based on political, security, and economic interests of the neutral state. Moreover, the legal aspects of neutrality are reduced to a lower status, opening up a more extensive domain of definition. This study aimed to explain dimensions of neutrality in relation with sanctions in the new international paradigm.
Method
This was a descriptive-analytical case study of Switzerland as a state with permanent neutrality.
Findings
The first goal of a state that takes a neutral position in a conflict is protecting its territorial integrity and population from any form of transgression. This is granted by neutral rights. The dual goal of neutral rights supports territorial sovereignty and people of neutral states against harmful consequences of conflicts and also belligerents against any intervention of neutral states in the interest of one side, thereby precluding expansion of the conflict. Accordingly, the philosophy of neutrality is congruent with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. Declaring neutrality has implications for both sides: a neutral state has rights and duties in relation with the belligerent sides. A neutral state has the duty to remain impartial, avoid lending assistance to belligerents, reject request from a belligerent party to use its territory, and permit international trade at the level allowed by international law. On the other hand, belligerents are committed to abstain from any transgressions directed towards the neutral state.
Today, the concept of neutrality has substantially changed. States with permanent neutrality find themselves obligated to be involved in peacemaking and peacekeeping activities by the means of United Nations and other important regional organizations. Not only do they not see such participation contrary to the policy of neutrality, but a necessity to actively help international peace and security. Based on good offices, neutral states like Switzerland and Austria consider the presence of international institutions under the UN in their territory, participation in humanitarian actions, and even deploying their military forces under the tile of peacekeeping forces with the paradigm of neutrality. The presence of neutral states in organization established for peace and security such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is often in line with their policy of neutrality. However, joining alliances and unions with military nature and purposes is in contrast with neutrality, which is based on military neutrality. Thus, a state that joins collective military structures cannot be regarded as neutral.
Neutral states do not deem non-permanent members of the UN Security Council in contrast with their neutrality. In addition of Finland and Sweden, Switzerland was officially elected a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the years 2023-24, stating it an opportunity in favor of global peace and security based on its independent foreign policy. Some believe Switzerland’s joining the UN in 2002 when membership required participation in military operations to protect international peace and security, non-permanent membership in the Security Council, and stance in the Russo-Ukrainian War in agreement with the west have reduced the neutrality of the state. In the Ukraine crisis, with Switzerland’s support of the European Union (EU) sanctions against Russia and the challenge to its neutrality, the then president propounded the draft of “Swiss neutrality in the 21st century” highlighting the importance of reducing the concept of neutrality in the new conditions under “participatory neutrality” in Davos 2022. At the same time, the Swiss Federal Council adopted additional measures against Russia. Accordingly, Switzerland’s sanctions package is completely in agreement with the EU sanctions. This conformity can be traced in the Swiss agricultural dependence on other European countries. Therefore, Swiss neutrality can be seen in accordance with its domestic trait and justificatory discourse rather than a foreign policy. If Switzerland refrains from following the EU, it will face further pressure on its current complex relations with the EU and future talks.
Conclusion
The history of international relations posits the fact that absolute neutrality is impossible and can be achieved only by very small states like Liechtenstein and San Marino, which are incapable of defending themselves. The historically famous Swiss neutrality can be regarded as relative. Switzerland is a country with European values and liberal democratic norms. Consequently, it is explicitly assessed on the western side politically and defines itself with the west and NATO’s security approach. This was also true during the Cold War when it was often tending towards NATO in the confrontation with the Warsaw Pact. In the current Ukraine crisis, Switzerland cannot remain a completely impartial state. Swiss neutrality does include abstaining from providing military force and aid to one side (Ukraine); however, its political approach is in agreement with the west. Swiss government and people, despite the diverse cultures, languages, and political orientations, enjoy a consensus on the neutrality of Switzerland, regarding it a major part of their identity and integrity. Financial, economic, and commercial sanctions to pressure the Russian economy or with the aim of the fall or destabilization of Putin’s rule result from Swiss political, security, and economic interests rather than a legal approach.
Considering this trend, it can be expected that neutrality will face new challenges in the future, arriving at a more flexible and extensive domain of definition. Furthermore, participating in sanctions will be included in the paradigm of neutrality by neutral states. Nonetheless, interests of neutral countries play a crucial role in determining the framework of neutrality and sanctions.
Keywords
Main Subjects
', './data/isjq/coversheet/921690301698.jpg'))