A neutral country is a sovereign 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: 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.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 In a purely structural view, neutrality can function as a mechanism which counteracts the division of the international system into two opposing blocs (such as Christian versus non-Christian polities, the Capitalist–Communist divide of the Cold War, or possibly an emerging distinction between liberal versus illiberal international order). In this view, neutrality helps in maintaining an environment of segmentation, or of multiple sovereign equals, rather than a stratified structure of a polarization into two mutually hostile sides. Marking a major turning point following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden shelved their policies of neutrality and applied to join NATO on 18 May 2022, Finland became the 31st member on 4 April 2023, and Sweden the 32nd member on 7 March 2024.
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. The rights and duties of a neutral power are defined in sections 5 and 13 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.
Rights and responsibilities of a neutral power Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,Hague Convention, §5 Art. 1 and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality.Hague Convention, §5 Art. 10
A neutral power must intern belligerent troops who reach its territory,Hague Convention, §5 Art. 11 but not escaped prisoners of war.Hague Convention, §5 Art. 13 Belligerent armies may not recruit neutral citizens,Hague Convention, §5 Art. 4, 5 but they may go abroad to enlist.Hague Convention, §5 Art. 6 Belligerent armies' personnel and materiel may not be transported across neutral territory,Hague Convention, §5 Art. 2 but the wounded may be.Hague Convention, §5 Art. 14 A neutral power may supply communication facilities to belligerents,Hague Convention, §5 Art. 8 but not war material,Hague Convention, §13 Art. 6 although it need not prevent export of such material.Hague Convention, §13 Art. 7
Belligerent naval vessels may use neutral ports for a maximum of 24 hours, though neutrals may impose different restrictions.Hague Convention, §13 Art. 12 Exceptions are to make repairs—only the minimum necessary to put back to seaHague Convention, §13 Art. 14—or if an opposing belligerent's vessel is already in port, in which case it must have a 24-hour head start.Hague Convention, §13 Art. 16 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.Hague Convention, §13 Art. 3
Recognition and codification 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, 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).
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.
Armed neutrality
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,, p. 325. making the benefit to a belligerent of entering the country by force not worth the cost.
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. 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. 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.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 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.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, pp. 148–149. 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.The last civil war on Swiss soil was the Sonderbund War of 1847. Switzerland continues to pursue, however, an active foreign policy and is frequently involved in peace-building processes around the world. According to Edwin Reischauer, "To be neutral you must be ready to be highly militarized, like Switzerland or Sweden."Chapin, Emerson. "Edwin Reischauer, Diplomat and Scholar, Dies at 79," New York Times. 2 September 1990. 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).
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 prevent neutral shipping from being inspected by the Royal Navy during the American Revolutionary War.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, pp. 16–17; Jones, Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations to 1913, 2009, pp. 15–17. The establishment of the league was viewed by Americans as a mark of Russian friendship and sympathy. 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. The Second League of Armed Neutrality was an effort to revive this during the French Revolutionary Wars.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. It consisted of Denmark–Norway, Prussia, Sweden and the Russian Empire. It existed between 1800 and 1801. The idea of the league was to prevent neutral shipping from being inspected by the Royal Navy. As the league made no mention of French interference with neutral shipping, the British viewed the league as pro-French and in 1801 attacked and defeated a Danish 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.Bienstock, The Struggle for the Pacific, 2007, p. 150.
Peacekeeping