Ross here presents a comparative historical study of European neutrality policy with special reference to the problem posed to neutral countries by the imposition of international collective sanctions. The study takes the form of an extended and detailed comparative examination of Swedish and Swiss responses to the League of Nation's embargo against Italy in 1935-36 and the United Nation's sanctions against Rhodesia in 1965-79. Through this analysis, the author explores how and why Swedish and Swiss policies toward sanctions have differed over time and what these differences reveal about neutrality policy in general, particularly in relation to collective security actions taken by international organizations. An ideal supplemental text for graduate and advanced undergraduate courses in comparative politics, international relations, and international organization, this volume will also be of significant benefit to policymakers interested in reviewing past sanctions cases as a guidepost for determining the feasibility of similar operations in the future. The book is distinguished by its broad historical approach and by its close comparison of the two countries--not only in terms of their sanctions policies but also in terms of their domestic political structures and individual overall formulations of neutrality policy. Ross demonstrates that despite the many background similarities between Sweden and Switzerland, the two states have differed substantially in their responses to sanctions operations. He analyzes the reasons for these differences, challenging traditionally held views that characterize Sweden's policies as changeable and Switzerland's as consistent. Finally, Ross identifies seven explanatory factors, derived from the four case studies, which can be used to determine how other source states--both neutral and non-neutral--might respond to future cases of sanctions.

The law of neutrality - the corpus of legal rules regulating the relationship between belligerents and States taking no part in hostilities - assumed its modern form in a world in which the waging of war was unconstrained. The neutral State enjoyed territorial inviolability to the extent that it adhered to the obligations attaching to its neutral status and thus the law of neutrality provided spatial parameters for the conduct of hostilities. Yet the basis on which the law of neutrality developed - the extra-legal character of war - no longer exists. Does the law of neutrality continue to survive in the modern era? If so, how has it been modified by the profound changes in the law on the use of force and the law of armed conflict? This book argues that neutrality endures as a key concept of the law of armed conflict. The interaction between belligerent and nonbelligerent States continues to require legal regulation, as demonstrated by a number of recent conflicts, including the Iraq War of 2003 and the Mavi Marmara incident of 2010. By detailing the rights and duties of neutral states and demonstrating how the rules of neutrality continue to apply in modern day conflicts, this restatement of law of neutrality will be a useful guide to legal academics working on the law of armed conflict, the law on the use of force, and the history of international law, as well as for government and military lawyers seeking comprehensive guidance in this difficult area of the law.

Seminar paper from the year 2020 in the subject Politics - Topic: European Union, grade: 2.0, Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, language: English, abstract: This paper aims to examine the role of neutrality in Swiss foreign policy as some cases of foreign policy behaviour raises questions left to be answered. Focus is given on EU-foreign policy decisions concerning economic sanctions. The role of neutrality in this particular context would suggest not to follow EU sanctions since the country neither is a member of the Euro-pean Union, nor of the European Economic Area (EEA). Switzerland, furthermore, is not bound by international law to join economic sanctions of the EU. Yet, the country’s interest involves a broader spectrum of factors to be considered within its role of neutrality. The main puzzle this paper further tries to solve is concerned with economic sanctions of the EU which have been implemented by the Swiss federal government. Those sanctions mostly originate from external factors that pose threats to international, regional or domestic security. Violations of international law or aggressive foreign policy behavior also represent causes to enforce sanctions as a form of protest. Economic sanctions, thus, either target a national economy as a whole and/or certain individuals, enterprises and/or institutions in order to weaken economic or political positions. Establishing trade embargos, cutting financial aid or seizing foreign assets are named as examples. This approach is often used as a non-violent means in modern foreign policy. The EU as a political union established norms to meet common foreign policy decisions in which economic sanctions are regularly enforced. The above-mentioned EU sanctions, adopted by Switzerland, leave the following questions concerning the Swiss role of neutrality: 1. What is the definition of neutrality? 2. Does the role of neutrality implicate restrictions in joining other countries’ foreign policy stances? 3. On what grounds did Switzerland enforce economic sanctions originally established by the EU? The Swiss foreign policy stance on neutrality has long played a crucial in the nation’s history. Since the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Swiss neutrality has officially been recognized by in-ternational law. This particular foreign policy stance may have contributed to the economic and democratic development of the nation as Switzerland stayed neutral in both World Wars. The exact role of neutrality, however, has experienced frequent adjustments as the term might not indicate a clear strategy in foreign policy behavior.

Comments by Ove Bring.