Neutrality, non-belligerency, and permanent neutrality according to recent practice and doctrinal views

Abstract

Abstract The conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine has again raised the problem of neutrality in the light of the massive shipment by Western States of military assets to Ukraine and the restrictive measures (sanctions) against the Russian Federation. The resolutions by the UN General Assembly and the qualification of the Russian Federation as an aggressor have induced to consider the relationship between neutrality and the UN Charter. This article examines the problem of neutrality according to recent practice and argues that neutrality is still alive, notwithstanding its transformation from its origin. The notion of non-belligerency is also in conformity with international law. Neutrality is no longer an institution of jus in bello but belongs to jus ad bellum and the principle of equality of belligerents should not be applied, except for those rules that have purely humanitarian nature. Permanent neutrality is still a valid institution as the practice shows. Lastly, this article deals with neutrality and non-international conflicts, concluding that the recognition of belligerency, that is the mechanism allowing the application of neutrality to this category of conflict, is almost obsolete.