Session 11 Flashcards
Q: What is traditional legal neutrality and where is it codified?
A: Traditional neutrality refers to the legal obligations of states not participating in armed conflict, as codified in the 1907 Hague Conventions. It includes rules like prohibiting military passage, avoiding direct or unequal support to belligerents, and abstaining from hostilities.
Q: How did the UN Charter affect the relevance of neutrality law?
A: The UN Charter’s system of collective security, especially under Chapter VII, challenged neutrality by potentially obliging states to act against aggressors. This reduced the legal space for neutrality, although it didn’t fully eliminate it—especially when the UNSC fails to act.
Q: What’s the difference between realpolitik wars and crusade wars in relation to neutrality?
A: In realpolitik wars, states accept neutrality (e.g., Iran-Iraq war). In crusade wars (e.g., WWII or humanitarian interventions), neutrality is often viewed as morally wrong or complicit due to the ideological or moral stakes involved.
Q: When can neutrality law apply to civil wars or internal conflicts?
A: Neutrality law applies only if the rebel group is recognized as a belligerent. Before that point, international law favors the existing government, and third states may legally assist it while aiding rebels can be unlawful.
Q: What are the legal and ethical dilemmas around humanitarian intervention?
A: Legally, unilateral interventions may violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Ethically, however, they may be justified to stop mass atrocities or genocide. These interventions walk a fine line between violating sovereignty and fulfilling moral obligations (e.g., India in Bangladesh, Vietnam in Cambodia).
Q: What is the future of neutrality according to Vagts?
A: Legal neutrality still matters in limited conflicts without UN involvement. Moral neutrality, especially in the face of genocide, poses a growing ethical challenge. Future responses depend on political will, media influence, strategic costs, and the evolution of international criminal law.
Q: What did the 1907 Hague Convention define as neutrality?
A: The Hague Convention defined military neutrality, allowing neutral states to avoid involvement in warfare while permitting private arms trade, as long as such trade was evenhanded toward belligerents (Articles VII & IX).
Q: Why does Guttman criticize the Convention’s view on economic activity?
A: Guttman argues the Convention ignores the overlap between governments and industry in arms production, meaning economic aid from neutral countries can still indirectly support warfare, undermining true neutrality.
Q: How does Guttman view the moral limitations of the 1907 Convention?
A: The Convention does not require neutrals to consider the morality of their commercial or financial conduct—e.g., it does not prohibit banks from holding or profiting from looted assets or supporting genocidal regimes.
Q: What role did neutrality play during WWII according to Guttman?
A: Several neutral states (e.g., Switzerland, Sweden, Spain) profited from trade with Nazi Germany and denied asylum to victims, revealing how neutrality enabled complicity in atrocities like the Holocaust.
Q: What changes does Guttman propose to the concept of neutrality?
A: He advocates redefining neutrality to include a moral duty not to support belligerents engaged in genocide or serious human rights abuses—even if support is economic or indirect.
Q: How does Guttman connect morality to international law?
A: Guttman views international law as based on shared moral norms (jus cogens), not just treaties or sovereign will. Neutrality, therefore, must evolve to reflect the post-Holocaust imperative to confront—not ignore—evil.
Q: What does classical neutrality law prohibit during armed conflicts?
A: Neutral states must not provide arms, ammunition, or war material to belligerents, as outlined in the 1907 Hague Conventions. Supplying such support typically constitutes a breach of neutrality.
Q: What is “qualified neutrality per se” and is it accepted in international law?
A: It’s the idea that neutrals can legally support victims of aggression without breaching neutrality. Though discussed since WWI, it lacks sufficient state practice and is not recognized under current international law.
Q: Can arms transfers to Ukraine be justified under self-defence?
A: Not likely. No state has formally invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter or claimed self-defence. Also, arms transfers alone don’t meet the ICJ’s threshold for “use of force”.
Q: What are collective countermeasures, and how might they justify arms transfers?
A: They are proportionate legal responses to serious international law violations (e.g., aggression). While controversial, increasing state practice and EU/NATO actions suggest these may be emerging as lawful.
Q: What is the “duty to cooperate” in cases of serious breaches (jus cogens)?
A: Article 41 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility says states must cooperate to end serious breaches like aggression. This duty exists in principle but does not specifically require sending arms.
Q: Which legal justification for arms transfers to Ukraine is strongest today?
A: Collective countermeasures are the most credible legal basis, offering a path for neutral states to lawfully support Ukraine without abandoning international legal norms.
Q: What is the basic legal principle of neutrality in international law?
A: Neutrality is binary—a state is either neutral or a belligerent. Neutrals must not participate in hostilities, must remain impartial, and may not allow their territory to be used for military purposes.
Q: What is “qualified neutrality”?
A: Qualified neutrality permits a neutral state to support the victim of aggression (e.g., Ukraine) without becoming a belligerent. It draws from just war theory and modern concepts of collective self-defense and moral responsibility.
Q: How does the UN Charter affect neutrality?
A: Under Article 2(5) and Article 51, UN members must support enforcement action and may assist victims of aggression. This weakens strict neutrality, especially when the Security Council is blocked (e.g., Russian veto).
Q: How did WWII influence modern neutrality thinking?
A: The U.S. pioneered non-belligerency—a form of qualified neutrality—by supplying the UK without declaring war. Legal justifications were based on violations of international law by aggressors (e.g., Nazi Germany).
Q: What are criticisms of qualified neutrality?
A: Critics argue it’s open to political abuse, allowing states to violate neutrality rules under moral pretexts. Aggressors might also misuse it by claiming self-defense, leading to escalation or legal uncertainty.
Q: What is Schmitt’s conclusion on qualified neutrality?
A: Schmitt supports qualified neutrality as legally valid and morally justified in clear cases of aggression (like Ukraine). He warns of its risks but believes neutrality should not impede support for victims of unlawful force.
Q: What legal instruments form the basis of neutrality law?
A: The 1907 Hague Conventions V (land war) and XIII (naval war) are the core treaties, supported by manuals like the San Remo Manual and national military doctrine.
Q: When does neutrality law apply?
A: Only during international armed conflicts (IACs). The Russia–Ukraine conflict qualifies, especially since the 2022 invasion escalated hostilities.
Q: Are neutral states allowed to supply weapons to a belligerent?
A: No. While private exports aren’t prohibited under Hague V Article 7, state-supplied arms to a belligerent violate neutrality, particularly under Hague XIII and the duty of impartiality.
Q: What is “qualified neutrality” and what’s the author’s view on it?
A: Qualified neutrality allows neutrals to support the victim of aggression. The author is critical, arguing that without UNSC confirmation, this approach risks undermining neutrality law.
Q: Why is the Ukraine war considered an exceptional case?
A: Because:
Russia’s aggression is clear and unjustified.
The UNSC was blocked by Russia’s veto.
A vast majority of states condemned Russia’s actions.
