List of neutral states of the world. What is neutrality? Everyone should know this

Permanent neutrality is the international legal status of a state that has undertaken not to participate in any wars that are occurring or may occur in the future, and to refrain from actions that could involve such a state in war. In this regard, permanently neutral states do not take part in military-political alliances, refuse to host foreign military bases on their territory, oppose weapons of mass destruction, and actively support the efforts of the world community in the field of disarmament, building trust and cooperation between states. Thus, permanent neutrality is exercised not only in times of war, but also in times of peace. The status of permanent neutrality does not deprive a state of the right to self-defense in the event of an attack.

The legal confirmation of this status is the conclusion by the interested states of an appropriate international treaty with the participation in it of a state endowed with the status of permanent neutrality. The validity of such an agreement is not determined by any period - it is concluded for the entire future. According to its obligations, a permanently neutral state must comply with the rules of neutrality in the event of a military conflict between any states, i.e. follow the rules international law, relating to neutrality in time of war, in particular the 1907 Hague Conventions on neutrality in land war (Fifth Convention) and naval war (Thirteenth Convention). Equally, a permanently neutral state cannot allow its territory, including airspace, to be used for interference in the internal affairs of other states and hostile actions against them. Such actions are unacceptable on the part of the permanently neutral state itself. However, the latter has the right to participate in activities international organizations, have

its army and military fortifications necessary for self-defense.

Often the status of permanent neutrality is secured both by an international treaty and by a national legal act of the state. Each state has the sovereign right to independently determine its foreign policy, taking into account the principles and norms of international law. A reflection of this right is the state’s choice of ways to establish the status of its permanent neutrality. This assumes that this status can be determined by the state on the basis of its adoption only of relevant internal acts. It is only important that in this case this status is recognized by other states.

In the historical past, the status of permanent neutrality belonged to Belgium (from 1831 to 1919) and Luxembourg (from 1867 to 1944).

In the modern period, Switzerland, Austria, Laos, Cambodia, Malta, and Turkmenistan have this status.

The agreement on the permanent neutrality of Switzerland was signed by Austria, Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia and Portugal on November 8 (20), 1815 and was confirmed by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The powers that signed the Agreement recognized the “perpetual” neutrality of Switzerland. They guaranteed both the status of neutrality and the inviolability of Swiss territory, which implies the obligation of these powers to defend the status of Switzerland in the event of its violation.

According to the Soviet-Austrian memorandum adopted in April 1955, Austria undertook to issue a declaration that it would accept a status similar to that of Switzerland. On May 15, 1955, the State Treaty on the restoration of independent and democratic Austria was signed, in which the great powers allied during the Second World War - the USSR, USA, England, France - declared that they would respect the independence and territorial integrity of Austria in the form this is established by the said Treaty. On December 26, 1955, the Austrian Parliament adopted the Federal Constitutional Law on the Neutrality of Austria. In Art. 1 of the Law, it was determined that in order to long-term and permanently assert its external independence and the inviolability of its territory, Austria voluntarily declares its

constant neutrality. To ensure these goals, the Law enshrines a provision according to which Austria will not enter into any military alliances and will not allow the creation of military strongholds of foreign states on its territory. Austria's status was recognized by the Allied Powers and many other states, but unlike Switzerland's, it was not guaranteed.

At an international meeting in Geneva of 14 countries to resolve the Laotian issue on July 23, 1962, the Declaration of Neutrality of Laos was signed, in which the meeting participants took note of the declaration of the Laotian government on neutrality dated July 9, 1962 and stated that they recognize and will respect and respect the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Laos.

The status of Cambodia was determined by the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Cambodia on October 23, 1991. An integral part of this document is the Agreement Relating to the Sovereignty, Independence, Territorial Integrity and Integrity, Neutrality and National Unity of Cambodia, which sets out its commitment to enshrine permanent neutrality in its Constitution . Other parties to the Agreement pledged to recognize and respect this status of Cambodia. The obligation of permanent neutrality was reflected in the Cambodian Neutrality Law, which came into force on November 6, 1957.

The Government of the Republic of Malta approved on 14 May 1981 the Declaration of Neutrality of Malta, in which it stated that the Republic of Malta is a neutral state and refuses to participate in any military alliances. No installation in Malta may be used in such a way as to result in the concentration of foreign military forces in Malta.

The permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan was proclaimed by the Law “On Amendments and Additions to the Constitution of Turkmenistan” and the Constitutional Law “On the Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan”, adopted in 1995. It was also recognized and supported by the UN General Assembly resolution “Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan”, adopted on December 12 1995

In Art. 1 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan summarizes the content of these documents and establishes the position, according to

which “the neutrality of Turkmenistan recognized by the community is the basis of its domestic and foreign policy.”

Thus, only a full-fledged subject of international law - a state - can have the status of permanent neutrality. The obligations arising from the status of a permanently neutral state cannot serve as a limitation on its sovereignty. A number of lawyers in the past believed that a permanently neutral state cannot be sovereign, since due to its status (the obligation of non-participation in military conflicts) it is deprived of the “right to war” and has limited freedom of action.

Modern international law, which has eliminated the “right to war” and established the principle of faithful compliance with international obligations, thereby creates additional guarantees for states that have the status of permanent neutrality.

Neutral states of Europe, who were such in the foreseeable past, increasingly began to take steps that are completely inconsistent with their status. We are talking about Cold War neutrals: Austria, Finland , Sweden and Switzerland. It should be noted that the first two countries have not been involved in military conflicts relatively recently, since the Second World War. As for Sweden, it has not joined military blocs for more than two hundred years, and Switzerland has remained neutral since the 17th century. However, over the past 10 years, many countries have reconsidered their foreign policy priorities. politicians.

How was the neutrality of these countries manifested in the past?

1. Finland and Austria were on the side of Germany during World War II, Austria was completely controlled by it.

2. The main role in their abstinence from subsequent participation in military blocs was played by the USSR, which brought Finland out of the war, defeating it. And also captured Austria. These countries paid for their freedom by accepting neutrality.

3. Sweden at one time allowed German troops into its territory, and Switzerland kept the goods looted by the Germans in European countries in its reliable banks. At the same time, these countries are considered neutral.

4. In Austria, neutrality is prescribed by law, in Finland and Sweden it is not.

5. These three states do not use such a term as neutrality, they always talk about non-alignment. That is, non-participation in military alliances, and the possibility of participation in military conflicts.

6. This vague and ambiguous formulation ceased to have meaning in 1995, after all three states became members of the European Union. According to the laws of the Union, all countries are obliged to help other EU members in the event of any military conflicts and operations.

7. These countries, members of the EU, but wishing to distinguish themselves from other members, have become “special”. They are part of the Alliance, but remain neutral.

8. Finland, Sweden and Austria are in constant cooperation with NATO and conduct joint exercises and programs. However, countries are in no hurry to join this organization, since they take into account the opinion of the population, which is overwhelmingly against it.

9. So it turns out that countries seem to be equal to all others, but “with a twist.”

What makes Switzerland stand out?

Switzerland has never rejected the term "neutral", unlike its neighbors, who insist on a different status.

Until recently, this country avoided participation even in international organizations and unions. Consider the fact that Switzerland joined the UN only in 2002, and they don’t even want to hear about the European Union and NATO.

Thanks to its truly neutral policy, this country always hosts various forums on its territory where complex diplomatic issues and disputes are raised (Davos).

How do non-aligned states behave?

1. In 2006, the authorities of Sweden and Finland decided to join the NATO Rapid Reaction Force. This fact became known to the population of the countries only after the elections, since before the elections the authorities were afraid of a predictable negative reaction from the people.

2. The desire to join NATO was subsequently justified by the proximity of the borders of the Russian Federation.

3. Experts believe that in fact the authorities of these countries were concerned about the construction of Nord Stream, the completion of which would lead to a reshuffle of forces in the region.

4. After the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict in Sweden and Finland, there were more supporters of these states joining NATO.

5. All non-aligned states are included in the Partnership for Peace program.

6. More recently, Sweden decided to help the coalition forces and sent 8 of its warships into the skies over Libya. About half a thousand Swedish soldiers are currently in Afghanistan. At the same time, military vessels over Libya have a special status: they have the right to open fire only if there is a danger of attack on them and cannot attack ground targets.

How long can neutral Switzerland remain so?

Switzerland has rightfully held the title of the most neutral country in the world for hundreds of years. However, experts also predict a quick change in the vector of foreign policy.

Switzerland “cost” entry into the UN by sending two hundred of its peacekeepers to Kosovo.

In 2009, Switzerland disclosed secret information about its bank accounts held by United States citizens. At home they were suspected of tax evasion. Washington put pressure on the Swiss for a very long time.

Then there was the scandal with the arrest of Polanski, after which many Europeans and Americans began to accuse Switzerland of groveling before the States.

A real slap in the face for Switzerland was the scandal with Libya in 2008, after the detention of Gaddafi’s son in Geneva. In retaliation, Gaddafi arrested Swiss businessmen in his country. As a result, Gaddafi's son was released, and the Swiss president went to Tripoli to apologize to the Libyan dictator personally. The Swiss were outraged and began to think that their position in the international arena could not be worse, and the prospect of being left without allies did not inspire optimism.

What factors caused the change in trend in the country's foreign policy?

Experts note the following factors:

1. There are no serious or major wars on European territory.

2. Recently, Europe has ceased to be strictly divided into Eastern and Western, which means that the need to balance has disappeared.

3. Opponents of the North African region and Asia will not delve into the details of the country’s foreign policy features, as well as terrorist organizations that do not single out any European states and do not pay attention to statuses.

4. A bipolar system is emerging in the world, and neutrals are not at all happy about this, especially considering that the second pole is China.

Neutral states understand that the time has come to make a civilized choice.

Neutrality, in international law, means non-participation in war, and in peacetime, refusal to participate in military blocs. International law of neutrality contains three restrictions on the actions of a neutral country during a war between other states: not to provide its own armed forces to the warring parties;

do not provide your territory for use by the warring parties (basing, transit, flight, etc.); not to discriminate against any of the parties in the supply of weapons and military goods (that is, the restrictions are either the same or absent at all).

The basic principle of neutrality is absolute non-participation in hostilities, which does not exclude the possible benevolence of one or another belligerent); from here:

1) a neutral state is obliged not to allow any hostile actions or continuation of them on the part of the belligerents on its territory and not to interfere with their operations outside neutral territory; 2) a neutral state should not allow its subjects to interfere in the war; 3) a neutral state, as far as military operations allow, has the right to continue peaceful relations with the warring parties and trade with them, but without violating the regulations on military smuggling and legally declared blockade.

The institution of neutrality developed over several centuries, but received its greatest development in the 18th century, and especially in late XIX- early 20th century During the war, a state's declaration of neutrality created for that state the international legal status of a neutral party. This corresponded to the special rights and obligations of a neutral state, as well as the rights and obligations of the warring parties that recognized this status. The rules of international law that determined the rules of state neutrality during war were regulated by the 5th and 13th Hague Conventions of 1907 on the rights and duties of neutral powers during land and sea war. Main responsibility a neutral state was non-participation in the war with its own armed forces and non-provision of military assistance to the belligerents. The main right of a neutral state was the inviolability of its territory, as well as its right to continue its trade with other neutral countries and even peaceful trade with belligerents. A neutral state had the right to defend its neutrality by armed force. Warships of the warring parties could pass through the territorial waters of a neutral state and use their ports for a limited time, but not for military purposes. A neutral state was obliged to prevent the establishment of military bases on its territory by the warring parties and to prevent the arming or equipping of any ship in its waters intended for participation in hostilities. However, a neutral state could not prevent its volunteer citizens from serving in the troops of the warring countries, although in doing so they lost their neutral status. To reinforce its status, a neutral state could enter into neutrality agreements or pacts with the warring parties.

According to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War of 1949, a neutral country can act as a protector, that is, it can, with the consent of the warring parties, send sanitary units to provide assistance to persons taken under protection in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. After the Second World War and the adoption of the UN Charter as a priority international law, the rules of neutrality are entirely dependent on the provisions of the Charter (chapter of the UP), providing for the obligation of states to act in the fight against a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or acts of aggression in accordance with the decisions of the UN Security Council . Neutral status does not deprive a state of the right to repel foreign aggression, either independently or with the help of other states on the basis of the UN Charter.

States that do not participate in wars and do not provide assistance to the warring parties have a special legal status. Such states are divided into permanently neutral and neutral in a particular war.

Permanent Neutrality- is the international legal status of a state that has undertaken the obligation not to participate in any wars that are occurring or may occur in the future, and to refrain from actions that could involve such a state in war.

In this regard, permanently neutral states do not take part in military-political alliances and refuse to host foreign military bases on their territory. They oppose weapons of mass destruction and actively support the efforts of the world community in the field of disarmament, strengthening trust and cooperation between states. Thus, permanent neutrality is exercised not only in times of war, but also in times of peace.

The status of permanent neutrality does not deprive a state of the right to self-defense in the event of an attack.

Legal confirmation of this status is carried out in several ways:

1)The status of permanent neutrality is secured by the national legal act of the state. Each state has the sovereign right to independently determine its foreign policy taking into account the principles and norms of international law. A reflection of this right is the state’s choice of ways to establish the status of its permanent neutrality. This assumes that this status can be determined by the state on the basis of its adoption only of relevant internal acts. It is only important that in this case this status is recognized by other states (recognized neutrality). In Art. 18 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus states that the Republic of Belarus aims to make its territory a nuclear-free zone, and the state neutral.

2) Conclusion by the interested states of a corresponding international treaty with the participation in it of a state endowed with the status of permanent neutrality. The validity of such an agreement is not determined by any period - it is concluded for the entire future. According to its obligations, a permanently neutral state must comply with the rules of neutrality in the event of a military conflict between any states, that is, follow the rules of international law regarding neutrality during war, in particular. Equally, a permanently neutral state cannot allow its territory, including airspace, to be used for interference in the internal affairs of other states and hostile actions against them. Such actions are unacceptable on the part of the permanently neutral state itself. At the same time, the latter has the right to participate in the activities of international organizations, to have its own army and military fortifications necessary for self-defense.

In the historical past, the status of permanent neutrality belonged to Belgium (from 1831 to 1919) and Luxembourg (from 1867 to 1944).

In the modern period, Switzerland, Austria, Laos, Cambodia, Malta, and Turkmenistan have this status. The agreement on permanent neutrality of Switzerland was signed by Austria and Great Britain. France, Russia, Prussia and Portugal on November 8 (20), 1815 and was confirmed by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The powers that signed the agreement recognized the “always” neutrality of Switzerland. They guaranteed both the status of neutrality and the inviolability of Swiss territory, which implies the duty of these powers to defend the status of Switzerland in the event of its violation.

At an international meeting in Geneva of 14 countries to resolve the Laotian issue on July 23, 1962, the Declaration of Neutrality of Laos was signed, in which the meeting participants took note of the declaration of the Laotian government on neutrality dated July 9, 1962 and stated that they recognize and will respect and respect sovereignty. independence, unity and territorial integrity of Laos.

Cambodia's status was determined by the Final Act Paris Conference on Cambodia of October 23, 1991. An integral part of this document is the Agreement relating to the sovereignty of independence, territorial integrity and inviolability, neutrality and national unity of Cambodia, which sets out its obligation to enshrine permanent neutrality in its Constitution. Other parties to the Agreement pledged to recognize and respect this status of Cambodia. The obligation of permanent neutrality was reflected in the Cambodian Neutrality Law, which came into force on November 6, 1957.

3) Adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Resolution on State Neutrality. The permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan was proclaimed by the Law “On Amendments and Additions to the Constitution of Turkmenistan” and the Constitutional Law “On the Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan” dated December 12, 1995. It was recognized and supported by the UN General Assembly resolution “Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan”, adopted on December 12, 1995 g. In Art. 1 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan summarizes the content of these documents and establishes the position according to which the neutrality of Turkmenistan recognized by the community is the basis of its domestic and foreign policy.

Neutrality of the state in war - This is the international legal status of a state that has undertaken an obligation not to participate in the ongoing war and not to provide assistance and assistance to the warring parties.

The rights and obligations of a neutral state are enshrined in the two Hague Conventions of 1907 on neutrality in land war (the fifth convention) and on neutrality in naval war (the thirteenth convention).

The territory of a neutral state cannot be used for the passage of troops and transport by warring countries; military operations cannot be carried out from this territory; It is forbidden to place radio transmitting devices from warring countries. A neutral state is obliged not to provide its territory for the formation of military units and the creation of military bases of the warring parties, not to transfer to them ammunition, military equipment and any types of weapons; detain and intern ships and military aircraft of the belligerents if they have not left their port after the expiration of the grace period; prevent and not allow belligerents to detain ships of third states in their territorial sea; prevent the wounded from taking part in hostilities again after recovery, etc. Neutral state has the right repulse with military force any attempts by the warring parties to violate this status; provide its territory for the transportation and maintenance of war victims; mediate in negotiations between the warring parties; provide shelter to troops, ships and aircraft of the belligerents with their subsequent internment, etc.

The deadliest war, 65 million killed and wounded, 62 participating states - any article about World War II will begin with these facts. But they are unlikely to talk about countries that were able to maintain neutrality during the years of this conflict.

Spain

General Franco won the civil war largely thanks to the support of the Axis: from 1936 to 1939, tens of thousands of Italian and German soldiers fought side by side with the Phalangists, and they were covered from the air by the Luftwaffe Condor Legion, which “distinguished itself” by bombing Guernica. It is not surprising that before the new all-European massacre, the Fuhrer asked the caudillo to repay his debts, especially since the English army was located on the Iberian Peninsula military base Gibraltar, which controlled the strait of the same name, and therefore the entire Mediterranean.

However, in the global confrontation, the one with the stronger economy wins. And Francisco Franco, who soberly assessed the strength of his opponents (for almost half of the world’s population lived in the USA, the British Empire and the USSR alone at that time), made the right decision to focus on restoring Spain, torn by the civil war.

The Frankists limited themselves to only sending the volunteer “Blue Division” to the Eastern Front, which was successfully multiplied by zero by Soviet troops on the Leningrad and Volkhov fronts, simultaneously solving another problem of the caudillo - saving him from his own rabid Nazis, in comparison with which even the right-wing Phalangists were a model of moderation .

Portugal

Portugal remained one of the last European countries to retain extensive colonial possessions - Angola and Mozambique - until the 1970s. African soil gave untold riches, for example, strategically important tungsten, which the Pyreneans sold at a high price to both sides (at least at the initial stage of the war).

In the event of joining any of the opposing alliances, the consequences are easy to calculate: yesterday you were counting trade profits, and today your opponents are enthusiastically starting to sink your transport ships that provide communication between the metropolis and the colonies (or even completely occupy the latter), despite the fact that there is no large army Unfortunately, the noble dons do not have a fleet to protect the sea communications on which the life of the country depends.

In addition, the Portuguese dictator António de Salazar remembered the lessons of history, when in 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars, Lisbon was captured and ravaged first by the French, and two years later by the British troops, so that the small nation did not have to turn into an arena for a clash of great powers again no desire.

Of course, during World War II, life on the Iberian Peninsula, the agricultural periphery of Europe, was not at all easy. However, the hero-narrator of the already mentioned “Nights in Lisbon” was struck by the pre-war carelessness of this city, with the bright lights of working restaurants and casinos.

Switzerland

The Swiss Guard is the oldest (surviving) military unit in the world, guarding the Pope himself since 1506. Highlanders, even from the European Alps, have always been considered natural-born warriors, and the system of army training for Helvetian citizens ensured excellent possession of weapons by almost every adult resident of the canton. Victory over such a neighbor, where every mountain valley became a natural fortress, according to the calculations of the German headquarters, could only be achieved with an unacceptable level of Wehrmacht losses.

Actually, the forty-year conquest of the Caucasus by Russia, as well as three bloody Anglo-Afghan wars, showed that complete control over mountainous territories requires years, if not decades, of armed presence in conditions of constant guerrilla warfare - which the strategists of the OKW (German General Staff) could not ignore.

However, there is also a conspiracy theory about the refusal to seize Switzerland (after all, for example, Hitler trampled on the neutrality of the Benelux countries without hesitation): as you know, Zurich is not only chocolate, but also banks where gold was allegedly stored by both the Nazis and the British who financed them. Saxon elites who are not at all interested in undermining the global financial system due to an attack on one of its centers.

Sweden

In 1938, Life magazine ranked Sweden among the countries with the most high level life. Stockholm, having abandoned all-European expansion after numerous defeats from Russia in the 18th century, was not in the mood to trade oil for guns even now. True, in 1941-44, a company and a battalion of King Gustav’s subjects fought on the side of Finland against the USSR in different sectors of the front - but precisely as volunteers, whom His Majesty could not (or did not want?) interfere with - with a total number of about a thousand fighters. There were also small groups of Swedish Nazis in some SS units.

There is an opinion that Hitler did not attack Sweden supposedly for sentimental reasons, considering its inhabitants to be purebred Aryans. The real reasons for maintaining the neutrality of the Yellow Cross, of course, lay in the plane of economics and geopolitics. On all sides, the heart of Scandinavia was surrounded by territories controlled by the Reich: allied Finland, as well as occupied Norway and Denmark. At the same time, until the defeat in the Battle of Kursk, Stockholm preferred not to quarrel with Berlin (for example, officially accepting Danish Jews who fled the Holocaust was allowed only in October 1943). So even at the end of the war, when Sweden stopped supplying Germany with scarce iron ore, in a strategic sense, the occupation of a neutral would not have changed anything, forcing it only to stretch the Wehrmacht’s communications.

Not knowing carpet bombing and property reparations, Stockholm met and spent the Second World War with the revival of many areas of the economy; for example, the future world famous company Ikea was founded in 1943.

Argentina

The German diaspora in the country of Pampa, as well as the size of the Abwehr station, were among the largest on the continent. The army, trained according to Prussian patterns, supported the Nazis; politicians and oligarchs, on the contrary, focused more on foreign trade partners - England and the USA (for example, in the late thirties, 3/4 of the famous Argentine beef was supplied to Britain).

Relations with Germany were also uneven. German spies operated almost openly in the country; During the Battle of the Atlantic, the Kriegsmarine sank several Argentine merchant ships. In the end, in 1944, as if hinting, the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition recalled their ambassadors from Buenos Aires (having previously introduced a ban on the supply of weapons to Argentina); in neighboring Brazil, the general headquarters, with the help of American advisers, hatched plans to bomb their Spanish-speaking neighbors.

But even despite all this, the country declared war on Germany only on March 27, 1945, and then, of course, nominally. The honor of Argentina was saved only by a few hundred volunteers who fought in the ranks of the Anglo-Canadian Air Force.

Türkiye

One of the many reasons for the Second World War was the territorial claims that all (!) countries of the fascist bloc had against their neighbors. Turkey, despite its traditional orientation towards Germany, however, stood apart here due to the course taken by Ataturk to abandon imperial ambitions in favor of building a national state.

The Founding Father's comrade and second president of the country, İsmet İnönü, who headed the Republic after the death of Atatürk, could not help but take into account the obvious geopolitical alignments. Firstly, in August 1941, after the slightest threat of Iranian action on the side of the Axis, Soviet and British troops simultaneously entered the country from the north and south, taking control of the entire Iranian Plateau in three weeks. And although the Turkish army is incomparably stronger than the Persian one, there is no doubt that the anti-Hitler coalition, remembering the successful experience of the Russian-Ottoman wars, will not stop at a preemptive strike, and the Wehrmacht, 90% of which is already deployed on the Eastern Front, is unlikely to come to the rescue.

And secondly and most importantly, what is the point of fighting (see Ataturk’s quote) if you can make a lot of money by supplying scarce Erzurum chrome (without which tank armor cannot be made) to both warring parties?

In the end, when it became completely indecent to prevaricate, on February 23, 1945, under pressure from the allies, war on Germany was nevertheless declared, although without actual participation in hostilities. Over the previous 6 years, Turkey's population has increased from 17.5 to almost 19 million: along with neutral Spain, this is the best result among European countries.