Neutral country
{{Short description|State which is neutral towards belligerents in a given conflict}}
{{redirect|Neutral nation|the North American indigenous group|Neutral Nation}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2024}}
A neutral country is a 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:{{cite book |last1=Lottaz |first1=Pascal |last2=Reginbogin|first2=Herbert|title=Notions of Neutralities |date=2019 |publisher=Lexington |location=Lanham |isbn=978-1-4985-8226-1 |url=https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498582261/Notions-of-Neutralities}} 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
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.{{cite book |last1=Neff |first1=Stephen |title=The Rights and Duties of Neutrals: A General History |date=2000 |publisher=Manchester University Press |location=Manchester}} The rights and duties of a neutral power are defined in sections 5{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp|title=The Avalon Project – Laws of War: Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907|website=avalon.law.yale.edu}} and 13{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague13.asp|title=The Avalon Project – Laws of War: Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII); October 18, 1907|website=avalon.law.yale.edu}} 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 materiel,Hague Convention, §13 Art. 6 although it need not prevent export of such materiel.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,{{Cite book |last=Gärtner |first=Heinz |url= |title=China and Eurasian powers in a Multipolar World Order 2.0: Security, Diplomacy, Economy and Cyberspace |date=2023 |publisher=Routledge |others=Mher Sahakyan |isbn=978-1-003-35258-7 |edition= |location=New York |page=xxv |chapter=Great Power Conflict |oclc=1353290533}} 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
File:Schweizer Armee Füs Gr.jpg
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,{{cite book|last=Oppenheim|first=L.|year=1906|title=International Law|volume=11 (War and Neutrality)|publisher=Longmans, Green|location=London. New York and Bombay|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.24440/page/n361/mode/1up?view=theater|access-date=12 June 2023}}, p. 325. making the benefit to a belligerent of entering the country by force not worth the cost.{{cn|date=December 2023}}
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.{{cite web|title=Armed Neutrality|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/armed%20neutrality|publisher=Dictionary.com|access-date=27 April 2014}}
- 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.{{cite web|title=Armed Neutrality Law & Legal Definition|url=http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/armed-neutrality/#|publisher=USLegal|access-date=27 April 2014}}
- 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. Switzerland continues to pursue, however, an active foreign policy and is frequently involved in peace-building processes around the world.{{cite web|title=Switzerland – Knowledge Encyclopedia|url=http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/knowledge/Switzerland.html#ixzz2zljr1fa9
|publisher=Knowledge Encyclopedia|access-date=27 April 2014}} According to Edwin Reischauer, "To be neutral you must be ready to be highly militarized, like Switzerland or Sweden."Chapin, Emerson. [https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC163AF931A3575AC0A966958260&scp=1&sq=edwin+o+reischauer&st=nyt "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 protect neutral shipping 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 First League of Armed Neutrality was viewed by Americans as a mark of Russian friendship and sympathy. This league had a lasting impact of Russian-American relations and the relations of those two powers and Britain. It was also the basis for international maritime law, which is still in effect.{{cite web|last=Vinarov|first=Mikhail|title=The First League of Armed Neutrality|url=http://www.citelighter.com/history/history/knowledge cards/the-first-league-of-armed-neutrality|website=Citelighter.com|access-date=21 April 2016}} 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.{{cite journal|last=Kulsrud|first=Carl J.|title=Armed Neutrality to 1780|journal=American Journal of International Law}}
- 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 was an alliance with Denmark-Norway, Prussia, Sweden and Russia. It existed between 1800 and 1801. The idea of the league was to protect neutral shipping from being stopped by the British Royal Navy. The British viewed the league as siding with the French and in 1801 attacked and defeated a Dano-Norwegian 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
File:Best 15 (11419866795).jpg]]
For many states, such as Ireland, neutrality does not mean the absence of any foreign interventionism. Peacekeeping missions for the United Nations are seen as intertwined with it.{{Cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/protecting-neutrality-in-a-militarised-eu-1.915577|title=Protecting neutrality in a militarised EU|newspaper=The Irish Times|access-date=2 March 2022}} The Swiss electorate rejected a 1994 proposal to join UN peacekeeping operations. Despite this, 23 Swiss observers and police have been deployed around the world in UN projects.
[http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/peasec/peac/intpo.html International peace-keeping operations.] Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. Federal Administration admin.ch. Retrieved 22 December 2013.
Points of debate
The legitimacy of whether some states are as neutral as they claim has been questioned in some circles, although this depends largely on a state's interpretation of its form of neutrality.
===European Union===
{{See also|Neutral member states in the European Union}}
There are three members of the European Union that still describe themselves as a neutral country in some form: Austria, Ireland, and Malta. With the development of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy, the extent to which they are, or should be neutral is debated.
For example, Ireland, which sought guarantees for its neutrality in EU treaties, argues that its neutrality does not mean that Ireland should avoid engagement in international affairs such as peacekeeping operations.{{cite web|url=https://www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/international-priorities/peace-and-security/neutrality/|title=Neutrality – Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade|first=Department of Foreign|last=Affairs|website=Dfa.ie}}
Since the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, EU members are bound by TEU, Article 42.7, which obliges states to assist a fellow member that is the victim of armed aggression. It accords
"an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in [other member states'] power" but would "not prejudice the specific character of the security and defense policy of certain Member States" (neutral policies), allowing members to respond with non-military aid. Ireland's constitution prohibits participating in such a common defence.
With the launch of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in defense at the end of 2017, the EU's activity on military matters has increased. The policy was designed to be inclusive and allows states to opt in or out of specific forms of military cooperation. That has allowed most of the neutral states to participate, but opinions still vary. Some members of the Irish Parliament considered Ireland's joining PESCO as an abandonment of neutrality. It was passed with the government arguing that its opt-in nature allowed Ireland to "join elements of PESCO that were beneficial such as counter-terrorism, cybersecurity and peacekeeping... what we are not going to be doing is buying aircraft carriers and fighter jets". Malta, as of December 2017, is the only neutral state not to participate in PESCO. The Maltese government argued that it was going to wait and see how PESCO develops to see whether it would compromise Maltese neutrality.{{Cite web|url=http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/europe/83085/malta_to_wait_and_see_before_deciding_on_pesco_defence_pact_muscat_says|title=Malta to 'wait and see' before deciding on PESCO defence pact, Muscat says|website=Maltatoday.com.mt|access-date=2 March 2022}}
= Neutrality during World War II =
{{Main|Neutral powers during World War II}}
class="toccolours" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:34em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
|style="text-align: left;"|"Neutrality is a negative word. It does not express what America ought to feel. We are not trying to keep out of trouble; we are trying to preserve the foundations on which peace may be rebuilt.” |
style="text-align: left;"|— Woodrow Wilson |
Many countries made neutrality declarations during World War II. However, of the European states closest to the war, only Andorra, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (with Liechtenstein), and Vatican City (the Holy See) remained neutral to the end.
Their fulfillment to the letter of the rules of neutrality has been questioned: Ireland supplied important secret information to the Allies; for instance, the date of D-Day was decided on the basis of incoming Atlantic weather information, some of it supplied by Ireland but kept from Germany. Ireland also secretly allowed Allied aircraft to use the Donegal Corridor, making it possible for British planes to attack German U-boats in the mid-Atlantic. On the other hand, both Axis and Allied pilots who crash landed in Ireland were interned.{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13924720|title=The WWII camp where Allies and Germans mixed|date=28 June 2011|work=BBC News}}
Sweden and Switzerland, surrounded by possessions and allies of Nazi Germany similarly made concessions to Nazi requests as well as to Allied requests.{{cite web|url=http://ww2db.com/country/sweden|title=Sweden in World War II|first=C. Peter|last=Chen|website=2db.com}} Sweden was also involved in intelligence operations with the Allies, including listening stations in Sweden and espionage in Germany. Spain offered to join the war on the side of Nazi Germany in 1940, allowed Axis ships and submarines to use its ports, imported war materials for Germany, and sent a Spanish volunteer combat division to aid the Nazi war effort. Portugal officially stayed neutral, but actively supported both the Allies by providing overseas naval bases, and Germany by selling tungsten.
The United States was initially neutral and bound by the Neutrality Acts of 1936 not to sell war materials to belligerents. Once war broke out, US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt persuaded Congress to replace the act with the Cash and carry program that allowed the US to provide military aid to the allies, despite opposition from non-interventionist members.{{cite book| last1=Brinkley | first1= Douglas| last2= Rubel | first2=David
| title= World War II: The Axis Assault, 1939–1940
| year= 2003 | publisher= Macmillan | location= US | pages= 99–106}} The "Cash and carry" program was replaced in March 1941 by Lend-Lease, effectively ending the US pretense of neutrality.
Sweden also made concessions to the German Reich during the war to maintain its neutrality, the biggest concession was to let the 163rd German Infantry Division to be transferred from Norway to Finland by Swedish trains, to aid the Finns in the Continuation War. The decision caused a political "Midsummer Crisis" of 1941, about Sweden's neutrality.
Equally, Vatican City made various diplomatic concessions to the Axis and Allied powers alike, while still keeping to the rules of the Law of Neutrality. The Holy See has been criticized—but largely exonerated later—for its silence on moral issues of the war.Pascal Lottaz and Florentino Rodao: "The Vatican, World War II, and Asia: Lessons of Neutral Diplomacy", In: Pascal Lottaz/Herbert R. Reginbogin (eds.): Notions of Neutralities, Lanham (MD): Lexington Books 2019, pp. 215–238.
= Imperialism and anti-imperialism =
Neutrality and neutral countries have been an important but also challenging element in the history of imperialist power-play, as a space for the formation of internationalism and various anti-imperialisms.{{cite web | title=Neutrality: the hope of living in peace amid war | website=Encyclopédie d’histoire numérique de l’Europe | url=https://ehne.fr/en/encyclopedia/themes/international-relations/europe-and-legal-regulation-international-relations/neutrality-hope-living-in-peace-amid-war | access-date=2025-01-21}}{{cite book | title=Propaganda and Neutrality: Global Case Studies in the 20th Century | chapter=Neutrality and (anti-)Imperialism. Multinational propaganda competition in neutral Macau
|author=Helena F. S. Lopes | publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing Plc | date=2023 | isbn=978-1-350-32556-2 | doi=10.5040/9781350325562 | doi-access=free | page=181-194}}{{cite web | title=A question of neutrality: Switzerland’s role in 19th-century imperialism | website=Penn Today | date=2023-08-15 | url=https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/question-neutrality-switzerlands-role-19th-century-imperialism | access-date=2025-01-21}}
List of countries proclaiming to be neutral
Some countries may occasionally claim to be "neutral" but not comply with the internationally agreed upon definition of neutrality as listed above.{{Cite web |title=Neutral Countries 2022 |url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/neutral-countries |access-date=26 November 2022 |website=worldpopulationreview.com}}
List of formerly neutral countries
class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" |
scope="col" | State
! scope="col" | Period(s) of neutrality ! Notes |
---|
scope="row" | Afghanistan
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |
|
scope="row" | Albania
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |
|
scope="row" | Argentina
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |{{Main|Argentina during World War II}}
|
scope="row" | Belgium
| 1839–1914 (to World War I) |
|
scope="row" | Bhutan
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |
|
scope="row" | Cambodia
| 1955–1970 (to Vietnam War) |
|
scope="row" | Chile
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |{{see also|List of wars involving Chile}}
|
scope="row" | Colombia
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |{{main|Colombia during World War II}} {{see also|List of wars involving Colombia}}
|
scope="row" | Denmark
| 1864–1940 (after Second Schleswig War to World War II) |
|
scope="row" | El Salvador
| 1906–1941 (to World War II) |{{see also|Military dictatorship in El Salvador}}
|
scope="row" | Estonia
| 1938–1939 (to World War II) |
|
scope="row" | Ethiopia
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |
|
scope="row" | Finland
| 1935–1939 (to Winter War) | {{main|Foreign relations of Finland|Finland-Russia relations#Finnish NATO membership question}}
|
scope="row" | Greenland
| 1940–1941 (from Fall of Denmark to World War II) |{{main|Greenland in World War II}} |
scope="row" | Haudenosaunee
| 1783–1917 (to World War I) |
|
scope="row" | Hawaii
| 1854–1898 (to annexation) |{{main|Hawaiian rebellions (1887–1895)}}
|
scope="row" | Hungary
| 1956 (attempted neutrality during the Hungarian Revolution) |
|
scope="row" | Iceland
| 1918–1940 (to World War II) |{{main|Allied occupation of Iceland|British invasion of Iceland|Iceland in World War II|Greenland in World War II}}
|
scope="row" | Iran
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |{{main|Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran}}
|
scope="row" | Italy
| 1914–1915 (to World War I) |
|
scope="row" | Laos
| 1955–1975 (ostensibly neutral throughout the Vietnam War) |
|
scope="row" | Latvia
| 1938–1939 (to World War II) |
|
scope="row" | Liberia
| 1914–1917 (to World War I) |{{main|Liberia in World War I|Liberia in World War II}}
|
scope="row" | Lithuania
| 1939 (to World War II) |
|
scope="row" | Luxembourg
| 1839–1914 (to World War I) |
|
scope="row" | Nepal
| 1858–1914 (to World War I) | {{see also|Nepal in World War II}}
|
scope="row" | Netherlands
| 1839–1940 (to World War II) |
|
scope="row" | Norway
| 1814–1940 (to World War II) | {{see also|The Neutral Ally}}
|
scope="row" | Oklahoma
| 1834–1861 (to U.S. Civil War) |
|
scope="row" | Orange Free State
| 1854–1899 (to Second Boer War) | {{see also|Boer Republics}}
|
scope="row" | Portugal
| 1932–1945 (neutral during World War II) | {{main|Portugal during World War II}}
|
scope="row" | Spain
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |{{Main|Spain during World War I|Spain during World War II}}{{Further|Meeting at Hendaye|Operation Felix|Wolfram Crisis}}
|
scope="row" | Sweden
| 1814–2022 | {{main|Swedish neutrality|Sweden during World War II}}
|
scope="row" | Texas
| 1836–1846 (to annexation) |{{Main|Texas in the American Civil War}}
|
scope="row" | Thailand
| 1940–1941 (to World War II) |{{Main|Thailand in World War II}}
|
scope="row" | Tibet
| 1939–1945 (neutral during World War II) |{{Main|Tibet (1912–1951)}}
|
scope="row" | Tonga
| 1845–1939 (to World War II) |{{Main|Sālote Tupou III|Solomon Islands campaign|Guadalcanal campaign}}
|
scope="row" | Turkey
| 1940–1945 (neutral during World War II) |{{Main|German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship}}
|
scope="row" | Ukraine
| 1991–2014 (to Russo-Ukrainian War) |
|
scope="row" | United States
| 1914–1917 (to World War I) | {{main|United States non-interventionism}}
|
scope="row" | Uruguay
| 1870–1945 (to World War II) |{{Main|Uruguay during World War II}}
|
scope="row" | Venezuela
| 1914–1918 (neutral during World War I) |{{main|Venezuela during World War II}} |
scope="row" | Yemen
| 1939–1945 (neutral during World War II) |
|
scope="row" | Yugoslavia
| 1940–1941 (to World War II) |{{Main|World War II in Yugoslavia}}
|
See also
References
{{reflist}}
Bibliography
- Bemis, Samuel. "The United States and the Abortive Armed Neutrality of 1794. In "The American Historical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (October 1918), pp. 26–47
- Bienstock, Gregory. The Struggle for the Pacific. Alcester, Warwickshire, U.K.: Read Books, 2007. {{ISBN|1-4067-7218-6}}
- Bissell, Richard E. and Gasteyger, Curt Walter. The Missing link: West European Neutrals and Regional Security. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990. {{ISBN|0-8223-0953-X}}
- Corse, Edward and García Cabrera, Marta (eds), Propaganda and Neutrality: global case studies in the twentieth century. London and New York. Bloomsbury, 2023. {{ISBN|978-1-3503-2553-1}}. Open Access https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781350325562
Fenwick, Charles. "The Status of Armed Neutrality." The American Political Science Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (May 1917), pp. 388–389 - Hayes, Carlton. "Armed Neutrality with a Purpose." In "The Advocate of Peace." Vol. 79, No. 3 (March 1917), pp. 74–77
- Jones, Howard. Crucible of Power: A History of American Foreign Relations to 1913. 2d ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. {{ISBN|0-7425-6534-3}}
- Karsh, Efraim. Neutrality and Small States. Florence, Ky.: Routledge, 1988. {{ISBN|0-415-00507-8}}
- Kulsrud, Carl J. "Armed Neutrality to 1870." The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 29, No. 3 (July 1935), pp. 423–447 {{JSTOR|i311972}}
- Lottaz, Pascal/Reginbogin, Herbert R. (eds.) Notions of Neutralities. Lanham (MD): Lexington Books, 2019. {{ISBN|978-1498582261}}
- Marabello, Thomas Quinn (2023). "Challenges to Swiss Democracy: Neutrality, Napoleon, & Nationalism," Swiss American Historical Society Review, Vol. 59: No. 2. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sahs_review/vol59/iss2/5
- Murdoch, James C. and Sandler, Todd. "Swedish Military Expenditures and Armed Neutrality." In The Economics of Defence Spending: An International Survey. Keith Hartley and Todd Sandler, eds. Florence, Ky.: Routledge, 1990. {{ISBN|0-415-00161-7}}
- O'Sullivan, Michael Joseph. Ireland and the Global Question. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2006. {{ISBN|0-8156-3106-5}}
- Oppenheim, Lassa. International Law: War and Neutrality. London: Longmans, Green, 1906.
- Petropoulos, Jonathan, "Co-Opting Nazi Germany: Neutrality in Europe During World War II." Dimensions 14.1 (2000): 13+. [https://www.proquest.com/openview/2b510eeccef654a7650bb3c795470e30/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=43165 excerpt]
- Scott, James Brown. The Armed Neutralities of 1780 and 1800: A Collection of Official Documents Preceded by the Views of Representative Publicists. New York: Oxford University Press, 1918.
- Wills, Clair. That Neutral Island: A Cultural History of Ireland During the Second World War. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007. {{ISBN|0-674-02682-9}}
- {{cite web|title=Woodrow Wilson asks U.S. Congress for declaration of war |year=2014|publisher= The History Channel website|time=10:51|access-date= 28 April 2014|url=http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/woodrow-wilson-asks-us-congress-for-declaration-of-war}}.
External links
{{Commons category|Neutrality}}
- [http://historicalresources.org/2008/10/03/declaration-for-the-purpose-of-establishing-similar-rules-of-neutrality-with-annexes-signed-at-stockholm-may-27th-1938-between-denmark-finland-iceland-norway-and-sweden/ Declaration for the Purpose of establishing Similar Rules of Neutrality, with Annexes]
- [https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1870/08/29/90439001.pdf The British Government's note affirming its neutrlality in the French-Prussian War of 1871, and answering Prussian allegations of a hidden pro-French bias]
- {{cite web|url=http://www.netplaces.com/american-revolution/an-international-war/the-league-of-armed-neutrality.htm |title=About.com |website=Netplaces.com |access-date=21 April 2016}}
- {{cite web|url=http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Armed-Neutralities.html |title=Armed Neutralities |website=Americanforeignrelations.com |access-date=21 April 2016}}
- {{cite web|url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7766 |title=NationStates • View topic – The League of Armed Neutrality (FT alliance) |website=Forum.nationstates.net |access-date=21 April 2016}}
- {{cite web|url=http://www.citelighter.com/history/history/knowledgecards/the-first-league-of-armed-neutrality |title=The First League of Armed Neutrality |website=Citelighter.com |access-date=21 April 2016}}
- {{cite web|url=http://www.everything2.com/title/League+of+Armed+Neutrality |title=League of Armed Neutrality |website=Everything2.com |access-date=21 April 2016}}
- {{cite web|url=http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/armed-neutrality/ |title=Armed Neutrality Law & Legal Definition |website=Definitions.uslegal.com |access-date=21 April 2016}}
- {{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/fdr-neutrality/ |title=The Neutrality Act of 1937. FDR. WGBH American Experience |website=PBS.org |access-date=21 April 2016}}
- {{cite web|url=http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Wilson's_First_Warning_to_the_Germans |title=Wilson's First Warning to the Germans – World War I Document Archive |website=Lib.byu.edu |access-date=21 April 2016}}
- {{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Neutrality |volume=19 |pages=441–450 |first=Thomas |last=Barclay |short=1}}
{{authority control}}