Neutrality revisited

To understand the operation of laws of armed conflict one should first comprehend the context of, and crucial role played by, rules of armed neutrality.¹ Prior to 1945, when inter-state force was prohibited in UN Charter Article 2(4),² policies of armed neutrality permitted a state which had no particular interest in a war occurring elsewhere to abstain from the hostilities and remain ‘neutral’.³ Not only that, but largely for strategic reasons, states were positively encouraged to confine themselves to neutral attitudes and avoid intervention in the conflicts of others. Neutral states remained at peace with each other, while their neutrality as regards the belligerents’ conflict could be protected by complying with three essential rules: neutral states did not (1) favour either belligerent,⁴ (2) engage in any warlike acts themselves and (3) allow neutral territory to be used by the belligerents.⁵ Not surprisingly, as neutral states remained sources of trade and 456supplies despite the outbreak of war, a strategic part of belligerent war planning revolved around assessments as to which states were likely to remain neutral during the next military campaign. Both neutral and belligerent states benefited from this arrangement, while respect for neutral rules benefited the wider peace by helping to confine the spread and devastation of war.