Abstract

Neutrality is generally considered as an outdated feature of international law and international relations. Most often seen as an anachronism, which is not in accordance with contemporary public international law, it is believed to be condemned. Still, some small states currently continue to consider themselves as neutral states in the international arena. Moreover, since the end of the Cold War, we have witnessed new countries embracing neutrality. The explanation of such an endurance of the concept, along with practice of neutrality, resides in the fact that the perception of neutrality as a foremost legal tool is essentially erroneous. More than being a legal instrument, neutrality is above all a political category which is in total accordance with the international anarchy that still forms the reality of international relations and that gave neutrality its birth. In such a context, neutrality can constitute a powerful tool in the international arena but its existence, its effectiveness, its disappearance all depends upon politics, not to say power politics. The legal guarantees it bears can fundamentally only be assured in the case of a favorable geopolitical environment and balance of power as well as sufficient deterrence provide by the neutral state. This is the reason why neutrality is considered to be effective only in the case of armed neutrality as it is shown by the Swiss example.

Highlights

  • Me­đu­tim, ovaj „prav­ni“ in­sti­tut, po­red či­nje­ni­ce da mo­že da po­sto­ji, kao što smo vi­de­li, is­klju­či­vo u od­su­stvu me­đu­na­rod­nog pra­va ko­je bi re­gu­li­sa­lo pra­vo na rat, kra­si još je­dan pa­ra­doks (ko­ji, isti­na, pro­iz­la­zi iz ovog pr­vog): efek­tiv­nost ne­u­tral­no­sti od­no­sno po­što­va­nje nje­nih usta­lje­nih i do­ne­kle ko­di­fi­ko­va­nih pra­vi­ la, za­vi­si is­klju­či­vo, ne od pra­va već od od­no­sa sna­ga tj.

  • Bla­go­na­klo­na ne­u­tral­nost pred­sta­vlja kon­cep­ci­ju ne­u­tral­no­sti ko­ja se odr­ža­la do kra­ja XIX ve­ka i pre­ma ko­joj ne­u­tral­ na dr­ža­va mo­že jed­noj od za­ra­će­nih stra­na da pru­ži od­re­đe­ne pred­no­sti shod­no me­đu­na­rod­nom ugo­vo­ru ko­ji je za­klju­čen pre su­ko­ba; 4.

  • Ta­ko na pri­mer Ar­či Sim­son (Simp­son) de­li, po­red ne­svr­sta­no­sti, ne­u­tral­nost na Ad hoc ne­u­tral­nost – reč je o pri­vre­me­noj ne­u­tral­no­sti ko­je po­je­di­ne dr­ža­ve pro­ gla­ša­va­ju u kon­tek­stu od­re­đe­nog kon­flik­ta; de ju­re ne­u­tral­nost – ra­di se, ka­ko ka­že au­tor, o ne­u­tral­no­sti „me­đu­na­rod­nog pra­va“ ko­ja se i sa­ma de­li na dva pod­ ti­pa (ne­u­tra­li­za­ci­ja sa pri­me­ri­ma Au­stri­je i Fin­ske i stal­na ne­u­tral­nost sa pri­me­rom Švaj­car­ske) i de fac­to ne­u­tral­nost, od­no­sno ne­u­tral­nost ko­ja je, pre­ma au­to­ru, usvo­je­na bez pri­be­ga­va­nja me­đu­na­rod­nom pra­vu ali ko­ja je ipak na­ši­ro­ko pri­hva­ će­na od stra­ne me­đu­na­rod­ne za­jed­ni­ce kao što po­ka­zu­ju slu­ča­je­vi Ir­ske i Šved­ ske.[36] Igor No­va­ko­vić sa svo­je stra­ne, pra­ti po­de­lu Bo­le­sla­va Bo­če­ka (Boc­zek) ko­ji je de­fi­ni­sao tri osnov­na mo­de­la (stal­na ne­u­tral­nost, ne­u­tra­li­zam i ne­svr­sta­nost) od ko­jih sva­ki po­se­du­je od­re­đe­ne va­ri­ja­ci­je.[37]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Me­đu­tim, ovaj „prav­ni“ in­sti­tut, po­red či­nje­ni­ce da mo­že da po­sto­ji, kao što smo vi­de­li, is­klju­či­vo u od­su­stvu me­đu­na­rod­nog pra­va ko­je bi re­gu­li­sa­lo pra­vo na rat, kra­si još je­dan pa­ra­doks (ko­ji, isti­na, pro­iz­la­zi iz ovog pr­vog): efek­tiv­nost ne­u­tral­no­sti od­no­sno po­što­va­nje nje­nih usta­lje­nih i do­ne­kle ko­di­fi­ko­va­nih pra­vi­ la, za­vi­si is­klju­či­vo, ne od pra­va već od od­no­sa sna­ga tj.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call