This article has been written by Shikha Jain, a 1st year student of Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai.

Abstract

To safeguard civilians and non-combatants, international humanitarian law is based on the fundamental idea of neutrality in armed conflicts. This article examines the development of neutrality throughout history, the legal framework protecting civilians and non-combatants during armed conflicts, the responsibilities and rights of neutral states, accountability and enforcement procedures, difficulties and disputes, and case studies. The article focuses on the challenges and disagreements related to the application of the neutrality principle in armed conflicts, such as determining neutrality, neutrality violations, limited enforcement options, and the dynamic nature of conflicts.

Keywords

Neutrality, Armed Conflicts, International Humanitarian Law, Legal Framework, Neutral States, Enforcement Mechanisms, Case Studies

Objectives

1. Examine the development of neutrality throughout history in armed conflicts.
2. Analyse the legal framework that governs the protection of civilians and non-combatants during armed conflicts.
3. Talk about the responsibilities and rights of impartial states.
4. Examine the systems of accountability and enforcement.
5. Draw attention to the difficulties and disagreements that arise when the neutrality principle is applied to armed conflicts.
6. Provide case studies to illustrate the controversies and challenges related to the application of the neutrality principle in armed conflicts.

Introduction

The Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which recognised some states’ rights to maintain neutrality in times of conflict, helped popularise the idea of permanent neutrality during the 17th century. The origins of the principle of neutrality can be traced back to ancient customs that states followed. Neutrality, or the constant refraining from taking sides in disputes and hostilities, is one of the Core Red Cross and Red Crescent Principles. The law of neutrality serves to limit, contain, and lessen the impact of war on international trade by limiting its conduct both on land and at sea. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols set the legal foundation for civilian and non-combatant protection during armed conflicts. The legal rights and obligations of neutral states and their citizens are outlined in the following fundamental clauses: non-intervention, protection of civilians and non-combatants, humanitarian aid, and preservation of historical sites and works of art. However, there are many challenges and disagreements in applying the principle of neutrality in armed conflicts. These include determining neutrality, breaking neutrality, having limited means of enforcement, and the dynamic nature of conflicts.

Historical Evolution of Neutrality

The concept of permanent neutrality gained prominence during the 17th century when the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) recognised certain states’ rights to remain neutral during conflicts. The principle of neutrality originates in customary practices observed by states throughout ancient times. One of the Core Red Cross and Red Crescent Principles is neutrality, which is the refraining from taking sides in conflicts and hostilities at all times. Respecting neutrality is a way to guarantee the Movement’s unity and universality while also fostering and preserving confidence. The purpose of the law of neutrality is to restrict the conduct of war on land and at sea, to keep it within certain bounds, and to mitigate its effects on global trade. A set of laws known as the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s forbade transferring weapons, ammo, and other war implements from the United States to parties engaged in hostilities to keep the country out of another conflict.

The Legal Framework: Rights of Neutral States

An essential idea in international humanitarian law, which seeks to defend civilians and non-combatants in times of war, is the principle of neutrality in armed conflicts. The legal framework for non-combatants’ and civilians’ protection during armed conflicts is established by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. A body of international laws that specify what can and cannot be done during an armed conflict is known as international humanitarian law, sometimes referred to as the laws of war or the law of armed conflict. The four 1949 Geneva Conventions, which have been ratified by 196 nations, contain the most well-known regulations. As a standard of customary international law that applies to international and non-international armed conflicts, the idea of differentiating between civilians and combatants is established. There is a distinction between protecting combatants and protecting civilians, and international humanitarian law highlights this distinction.

States classified as neutrals keep diplomatic ties with all parties involved in the conflict but abstain from taking part in it. The following fundamental clauses delineate the legal rights and obligations of neutral states and their citizens:

1. Non-intervention: Neutral states must refrain from directly or indirectly interfering in the conflict and from allowing hostile activities to take place on their territory.
2. Protection of civilians and non-combatants: It is the responsibility of neutral states to guarantee the safety of civilians and non-combatants, such as refugees, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war.
3. Humanitarian aid: States in a neutral position must permit and assist in the distribution of humanitarian aid to the impacted populace.
4. Respect for historical monuments and artwork: Neutral states are required to honour and safeguard historical monuments and artwork, as well as cultural and religious sites.

Numerous international agreements, most notably the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions guarantee the legal rights of neutral states in armed conflicts. These documents outline the rights and defences available to impartial parties during hostilities. The principle of neutrality maintains the sovereign equality of states, highlighting each country’s right to be free from outside intervention in its internal affairs when there is a conflict. This idea is furthered by the United Nations Charter, which upholds the sovereign equality of each one of its members. The freedom of trade and navigation are among the rights granted to neutral states. They are also immune to attacks by belligerent parties. According to international law, during armed conflicts, belligerents must respect neutral vessels’ right of passage and permit them to conduct lawful trade. These ideas are reaffirmed in the Declaration of Paris (1856) and other relevant agreements.

Obligations of Neutral States

Neutral states have certain rights, but they also have responsibilities to maintain the delicate balance between opposing parties. These duties are intended to further the general objective of preserving peace and stability by preventing neutral parties from acting as conduits for the support of belligerents.

1. Impartiality and Non-Assistance: States are required by neutrality to act impartially and abstain from aiding or endorsing any party engaged in hostilities. This entails refusing to provide arms or military intelligence, blocking access to their resources, and forbidding the use of their territories for military operations.
2. Blockades and Contraband: Blockades imposed by belligerents must be respected and upheld by neutral states to stop the flow of illegal goods and guarantee adherence to international law. Beyond material goods, the definition of contraband includes any form of support that may contribute to the war effort.

Enforcement Mechanisms and Accountability

Robust enforcement mechanisms and channels for accountability are imperative for guaranteeing adherence to the principle of neutrality. States can seek compensation and redress for any violations of neutrality by bringing cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is a crucial forum for resolving disputes about such violations.

1. International Court of Justice: The United Nations Charter established the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which offers a court system for resolving disputes between nations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) may hear cases involving violations of neutrality, providing for unbiased decision-making and the application of penalties or compensation to the offending party.
2. United Nations Security Council: An essential part of preserving world peace and security is the United Nations Security Council. It has the power to respond to violations with enforcement actions, such as the application of penalties or the use of force, in response to breaches of neutrality that threaten global stability.

Challenges and Controversies

The application of the principle of neutrality in armed conflicts is fraught with difficulties and disputes, even with the legal framework in place. Among the most important ones are the following:

1. Finding neutrality: It can be difficult to evaluate a state’s commitment to neutrality and its level of engagement in the conflict.
2. Violations of neutrality: Attacks on civilians, forced relocation, and looting of places of worship are a few examples of how neutral states and their citizens may have their rights and obligations violated.
3. Restricted means of enforcement: Since there are no particular procedures in place to hold infringers accountable, the application of the neutrality principles is frequently restricted.
4. Evolving nature of conflicts: Modern conflicts, like cyber warfare and terrorism, pose challenges to the conventional understanding of neutrality and require the development of new legal frameworks.

The terrain of armed conflicts has changed in the modern era, posing new difficulties and requiring modifications to the neutrality principle. There are unprecedented challenges to the traditional understanding of neutrality from cyber warfare, hybrid threats, and the blurring of the lines between state and non-state actors.

1. Neutrality in Cyberspace: The emergence of cyber warfare has given the idea of neutrality a new meaning. Cyberspace presents a challenge to traditional concepts of territorial integrity since attacks can cross national boundaries without causing physical harm. The intricate task of defining and upholding cyber neutrality necessitates the modification of current legal frameworks to meet the particular difficulties presented by cyber conflicts.
2. Non-State Entities and Objectivity: The application of neutrality principles is further complicated by the involvement of non-state actors in armed conflicts. The conventional framework intended for state-to-state relations needs to be reevaluated in light of the growing significance of non-state actors in conflicts. This is necessary to address the issues these actors present.

Case Studies: Neutrality in Practice

The difficulties and disagreements surrounding the application of the principle of neutrality in armed conflicts are demonstrated by several case studies. As an illustration:

1. Switzerland during World War II: Switzerland’s decision to remain neutral during World War II offers an exemplary case of a state negotiating the perilous terrain of international conflict. Switzerland was able to remain neutral in the face of warring nations, acting as a centre for humanitarian relief and diplomatic endeavours. Switzerland’s steadfast observance of neutrality laws and refusal to join military alliances served as further testaments to its dedication to impartiality. During one of the most turbulent times in history, the country’s function as a host and mediator for humanitarian organisations, like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), demonstrated how neutrality principles could be put into practice.
2. The Falklands War and Neutrality in the South Atlantic: For neutral states in the South Atlantic, the Falklands War (1982) between Argentina and the United Kingdom presented particular difficulties. Many countries proclaimed their neutrality, but their proximity to the conflict zone and strategic interests created dilemmas. Chile, for instance, declared itself neutral, but its historical disputes with Argentina presented difficulties. The intricacy of the circumstance brought to light the necessity of being transparent about intentions and exercising caution when navigating diplomatic waters to uphold the neutrality principles.
3. The Spanish Civil War: To maintain civilian and non-combatant protection, neutral states had to decide how to remain neutral during the conflict.
4. The Kosovo War: Concerns regarding the neutrality principle and the place of international organisations in armed conflicts were brought up by NATO’s intervention in the war to support the Kosovo Liberation Army.
5. The Syrian Civil War: The Syrian Civil War has brought to light the difficulties in defending non-combatants and civilians, as well as the inadequate means by which the neutrality principles are enforced.

Conclusion

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols set the legal foundation for civilian and non-combatant protection during armed conflicts. While neutral states have certain rights, they also have obligations to preserve the delicate equilibrium between the opposing sides. Ensuring adherence to the principle of neutrality requires robust enforcement mechanisms and channels for accountability. There are many challenges and disagreements when it comes to applying the principle of neutrality in armed conflicts, such as determining neutrality, neutrality violations, limited enforcement options, and the dynamic nature of conflicts. Case studies from the Falklands War, the Spanish Civil War, the Kosovo War, the Syrian Civil War, Switzerland during World War II, and other conflicts highlight the challenges and disagreements surrounding the application of the principle of neutrality in armed conflicts.

References

1. Williams Jr., Walter L. (1980). Neutrality in Modern Armed Conflicts: A Survey of the Developing Law. Retrieved from Williams Jr..
2. Deák, Francis (1972). Neutrality Revisited. In TRANSNATIONAL LAW IN A CHANGING SOCIETY: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF PHILIP C. JESSUP (Wolfgang Friedmann, Louis Henkin & Oliver Lissitzyn eds.).
3. Bothe, Michael (2013). The Law of Neutrality. In THE HANDBOOK OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICTS (Dieter Fleck ed., 3d ed.).
4. Castrén, Erik (1954). The Present Law of War and Neutrality.
5. Oppenheim, L. (1957). International Law.
6. United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.
7. Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
8. Geneva Conventions of 1949.
9. Declaration of Paris (1856).
10. International Court of Justice. (Statute of the International Court of Justice).