ABSTRACT
A state not militarily engaged in armed conflict may be considered as a neutral. Such neutrality may arise by declaration, by constitutional provision150 or treaty Article.151 A neutral state may not engage in the conflict itself although the pattern of its trading and diplomatic links may indicate where its sympathies lie.152 Prior to 1945, the law of neutrality occupied a central position in the corpus of international law. Since that date the near universal participation in the United Nations Charter (1945) and the outlawing of the use of armed force has tended to lead to a situation that when a conflict does break out one state is adjudged the aggressor and the other a victim. The Security Council may take some form of action against the aggressor and other states do not lose their status of neutrality by aiding the victim or taking action against the aggressor in a manner consistent with their obligations under Art 2(5) or Art 25 of the United Nations Charter. In the 18th and 19th century, the rules of neutrality allowed state C to pursue its own affairs and stand aside while states A and B were engaged in conflict. Today, that is far less likely to be the case with the ‘aggressor state’ being subject to condemnation by the Security Council and other states being obliged to respect any relevant Security Council resolution. In an era of collective security the concept of absolute neutrality probably has to be modified.
