Full text of the paper:
Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law, University of Novi Sad
2019, vol. LIII, No. 4, pp. 1207–1232
Language of the paper: Serbian
Original scientific paper
udk: 341.357”20”
doi: 10.5937/zrpfns53-24811
Author:
Miloš Jovanović, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Law Belgrade
milosjovanovic@ius.bg.ac.rs
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Neutrality is generally considered as an outdated feature of international law and international relations.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.
Keywords:
Neutrality, International Anarchy, Just War Theory, Classic International Law, Collective Security.