In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.
Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.
The salience of neutrality has fluctuated over time and receded significantly following the end of the Cold War, as the United States became the world’s sole superpower. However, with the emergence of multipolarity, neutrality has once again seen a global revival, although its meaning is less clear than before.
Neutrality, as well as its related but distinctly different relatives, non-alignment and multi-alignment, can take many forms, which have resulted in a patchwork of approaches.
The ambiguities inherent in 21st century neutrality make it harder for neutrals or aspiring neutrals to act in a consistent manner that makes their position more credible while enhancing their security. Switzerland’s gradual embrace of non-U.N. sanctions has diminished its perception as a viable host for peace talks (or even a place to store one’s money) while non-sanctioning and selectively neutral Middle Eastern states have been far more successful in facilitating prisoner exchanges and negotiations between Moscow, Washington, and Kiev.
As neutrality becomes more diffused, so do the responses to it. During the Biden administration, the United States and its NATO allies described China as a “decisive enabler” due to its robust trading relationship with the Russian Federation, even while the same countries ignored Russo-Indian trade. By contrast, the Trump administration has more aggressively targeted India with the president’s economic adviser Peter Navarro referring to the conflict in Ukraine as “Modi’s War.”
As geopolitical competition intensifies and middle powers assert themselves, traditional notions of neutrality, which are rooted in outdated treaties and Cold War-era alignments, are no longer adequate. Neutrality today extends beyond the battlefield, encompassing economic entanglements, digital infrastructure, and diplomatic alignments. Yet there is no updated definition of what it means to be neutral in a multipolar world.
As rising powers, such as Indonesia, Brazil, and India, increasingly eschew traditional bloc politics, the relevance of neutrality or non-alignment will only grow. With it comes tremendous potential to reduce the risk of war and improve global cooperation. However, in the absence of a universally agreed definition of neutrality, its benefits will be limited.
An international treaty on neutrality that clearly defines the rights and responsibilities of neutral states, as well as how others should engage with them, could reduce inconsistencies in how neutrality is interpreted, lower the risk of conflict, and restore trust in international norms.
A neutrality treaty would also provide greater certainty and transparency in interstate relations, especially on the relationship between neutrality and non-war conduct (such as trade) and foster formal recognition of the neutral status of countries by both neutral and non-neutral states.
Such a treaty could commit a state to disregard sanctions that are not authorized by the U.N. or implement a discriminatory visa regime in response to a country’s foreign or security policy while explaining the scope and limits of complying with secondary sanctions. This would inject much needed stability into the international system.
In addition, such a treaty could include provisions that lay out a signatory’s willingness to act as a mediator or host for negotiations between antagonists, which not only could improve the prestige of neutrality, but could also encourage other states to invest in the viability of neutrality.
A treaty on neutrality could also help alleviate concerns about alliance enlargement, which, when left unchecked, can contribute to violent clashes, such as the current Russo-Ukrainian war. By clarifying the nature of joint military exercises, ruling out the permanent hosting of foreign troops, and banning the continuous rotations of foreign military units that result in de facto indefinite basing, neutral states, as well as their neighbors and faraway powers, can benefit from a more stable status quo and minimize the risk of tensions spiraling out of control.
As Europe’s efforts to draw in Ukraine in the 2010s as well as Sweden and Finland’s rapid accession to NATO membership after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrate, in the absence of a treaty commitment, neutrality and non-alignment risk becoming increasingly meaningless and could potentially pave the way for such states to become future frontlines.
On the diplomatic front, ensuring consistent and equal treatment ought to be embedded. Western inconsistencies with respect to honoring or ignoring arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court have undermined the credibility of the transatlantic powers and international institutions, as countries like Mongolia are criticized for not arresting Russian President Vladimir Putin at the same time that Europe and the United States announce exemptions for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A common standard, such as immunity for heads of states and governments, would allow neutrals to play crucial backchannel roles while reconciling their legal obligations and security needs.
The non-compulsory nature of such efforts could also have a norm-setting effect in international relations that may not necessarily always be respected but can nonetheless help integrate an updated version of neutrality into international relations.
The establishment and reinforcement of a new norm around neutrality would in some ways mirror the way that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) or anti-nuclear weapons testing treaties have evolved. These treaties have not prevented all violations but nevertheless succeeded in gradually and fundamentally shifting expectations and desires around the pursuit of nuclear weapons while raising the cost of ignoring anti-proliferation efforts.
As with the NPT, a treaty on neutrality can have two categories of signatories, consisting of neutrals and those states that recognize the neutral statuses of others and agree to engage with them on that basis.
Neutral states themselves and non-aligned middle powers that share their vision of international relations should lead this effort, while major powers like the United States, Russia, and China should support that initiative, thus lending it further legitimacy.
Without a treaty, neutrality risks becoming merely an opportunistic tool. With one, neutrality can be revitalized and become a building block for global security in the 21st century.
