Alternatives to Neutrality

Alternatives to Neutrality

Introduction

The virtually complete breakdown of neutrality that marked the two world wars reflected changes in the nature of warfare and the growing economic interdependence of nations throughout the world. See more about Alternatives to Neutrality here.

History of Alternatives to Neutrality

During the two world wars, vast quantities of munitions, vehicles, equipment of all kinds, and other goods were required, and productive capacity became crucial to victory. Economic targets were as important as military targets, warfare covered entire nations, and weapons became increasingly destructive and difficult to control, thus increasing the likelihood that neutral citizens and property might be harmed.

At the same time the flow of trade from neutral nations became vitally important to the survival of most of the belligerent nations. Just as every belligerent was determined to protect its own flow of trade, so also was it anxious to disrupt the foreign trade of its enemies by any possible means. With the development of atomic weapons, moreover, neutrality in any form became increasingly impractical.

Alternatives to neutrality already in existence after World War I included an agreement in the Covenant of the League of Nations that league members should take collective action against any nation that violated its covenant obligations to refrain from hostilities until the league had had nine months to attempt a settlement, or had violated the territorial integrity or political independence of a nation within the league. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, to which nearly all nations including the United States were parties, went further by prohibiting war as an instrumental policy and requiring peaceful settlement of international disputes or conflicts.

Although the outlawing of war and the principle of collective action broke down in such crises as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italo-Ethiopian war, these ideas were revived and amplified in the charter of the United Nations after World War II. United Nations military forces were used to oppose aggression in the Korean War and in other regional wars of the 1950s and ’60s.

In the United Nations

Such action could not be used, however, to restrain illegal action by a major power that had a veto in the Security Council, particularly the major nuclear powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. In their conduct of foreign policy during the third quarter of the 20th century, both these nations showed an awareness of the need to prevent a nuclear war by mutual deterrence and to seek ways to limit the production and possession of highly destructive weapons.

In areas where these nations or their allies developed conflicting interests, they sometimes agreed in principle to accords guaranteeing the neutrality of such areas, a practice that had been observed in the past by the neutralization of Switzerland and other areas.

Source: “Neutrality” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia

See Also

Neutrality
Convention (XIII) Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
Convention (X) for the Adaption to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention
MPEPIL: Use of force, war, peace and neutrality
Convention (XI) Relative to Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War
Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land
Convention (XIII) Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
About the Declaration of Paris, Historical
Convention (VI) Relating to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities
Geneva Convention (II)
International Law
Rules of Warfare, Arms Control conventions
Disarmament conventions

Neutrality Alternatives to Neutrality

Introduction to Alternatives to Neutrality

The virtually complete breakdown of neutrality that marked the two world wars reflected changes in the nature of warfare and the growing economic interdependence of nations throughout the world. During the two world wars vast quantities of munitions, vehicles, equipment of all kinds, and other goods were required, and productive capacity became crucial to victory. Economic targets were as important as military targets, warfare covered entire nations, and weapons became increasingly destructive and difficult to control, thus increasing the likelihood that neutral citizens and property might be harmed. At the same time the flow of trade from neutral nations became vitally important to the survival of most of the belligerent nations. Just as every belligerent was determined to protect its own flow of trade, so also was it anxious to disrupt the foreign trade of its enemies by any possible means. With the development of atomic weapons, moreover, neutrality in any form became increasingly impractical.

Alternatives to neutrality already in existence after World War I included an agreement in the Covenant of the League of Nations that league members should take collective action against any nation that violated its covenant obligations to refrain from hostilities until the league had had nine months to attempt a settlement, or had violated the territorial integrity or political independence of a nation within the league. The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, to which nearly all nations including the United States were parties, went further by prohibiting war as an instrumental policy and requiring peaceful settlement of international disputes or conflicts. Although the outlawing of war and the principle of collective action broke down in such crises as the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italo-Ethiopian war, these ideas were revived and amplified in the charter of the United Nations after World War II. United Nations military forces were used to oppose aggression in the Korean War and in other regional wars of the 1950s and ’60s. Such action could not be used, however, to restrain illegal action by a major power that had a veto in the Security Council, particularly the major nuclear powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. In their conduct of foreign policy during the third quarter of the 20th century, both these nations showed an awareness of the need to prevent a nuclear war by mutual deterrence and to seek ways to limit the production and possession of highly destructive weapons. In areas where these nations or their allies developed conflicting interests, they sometimes agreed in principle to accords guaranteeing the neutrality of such areas, a practice that had been observed in the past by the impartiality of Switzerland and other areas.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

Guide to Alternatives to Neutrality


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *