久久精品国产亚洲7777小说_国产91成人精品亚洲精品_亚洲aⅴ久久久噜噜噜噜_久久精品亚洲精品无码_青青青视频免费_9191精品国产费久久_成人国产一区二区三区精品_99久久综合久中文字幕_免费黄色一级电影

Canary in a Cage: Neutral States in the International Game

Article by Xia Guohan

Originally published in World Cultures - Focus, Sep, 2022

On the eve of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan on 2 August 2022, the Director of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Development (SECO), Inezine Fleisch, threatened in an interview with Neue Zürcher Zeitung that if China were to use force against Taiwan Switzerland would join the EU in imposing tougher sanctions on China than on Russia. If we look back a little, in the early days of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict in March 2022, Switzerland quickly took the initiative to side with the West by imposing aggressive sanctions on Russia, both at the state and private levels, and was once perceived by international public opinion as having "abandoned its neutrality". These actions even led to a major debate in Switzerland about the definition and scope of "neutrality". Also as a result of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Finland and Sweden, two other European "permanent neutrals", abandoned their long-standing position of "acting as a bridge between Russia and NATO countries" and formally applied to join NATO at the same time, opening the door to the sixth post-Cold War "expansion" of NATO. The sixth "expansion" of NATO ...... The performance of Switzerland, Finland and Sweden in the current international crisis has undoubtedly brought the concept of "neutrality" back into the public eye. Former US Secretary of State John Kerry once referred to a report on the growing dangers of climate change as the "canary in the coal mine", a warning of the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming. In the old days, coal miners took canaries down the mines, a bird that is far more sensitive to dangerous gases than humans, and if a canary died, the miners knew there were dangerous gases down the mine and needed to evacuate. Thus, the proverb 'canary in the mine' is often used to refer to someone or something as a warning sign of impending danger. If we compare the complex game relations in the international arena to a "siege", then I would like to refer to those "neutral countries" as "canaries in the siege", because the latter, as the weaker side in the context of the game of the great powers, are the ones who are the most vulnerable. When neutrals are no longer neutral, does it mean that the old international order will also undergo a huge change?

I. Basic concepts of neutrality: juridical origins, rights and obligations and classification

1. Juridical origins

The word "neutrality" is of Latin origin and first appears in 1536 in the oldest document of the Helvetic states, where "neutral" is used to mean "sitting still". The word "neutrality" was first used in 1536 in the oldest literature of the Helvetic countries to mean "sitting still. In the modern context, the basic semantic meaning of 'neutrality' is 'being between two opposing sides, not inclined to either'. For the country itself, neutrality is an attitude and a principle. "Neutrality is a principled expression of the parties to a conflict and of a potential conflict, implying non-participation in the war and an "impartial" attitude towards the belligerents. One of the early authoritative expositions of this principle was by the Dutch scholar Grotius, the "father of international law", who formulated the principles of "just war" and "impartiality". The principle of "just war" and "impartiality" was formulated by the Dutch scholar Grotius, the father of international law. The original intention was that the neutral state should first judge the justice of the belligerents and support the just side against the unjust side, otherwise the principle of impartiality towards the belligerents could only be manifested if the neutral state was unable to judge the justice of the belligerents. However, with the evolution of international relations, due to the lack of objectivity and operability in judging the justice of the war between the two sides, the principle of "justice in war" was gradually separated from the principle of "impartiality" and ceased to be one of the principles of neutrality. The principle of "impartiality" gradually became the basic principle of neutrality in later times. As a matter of foreign policy, 'neutrality' refers to the de facto state of a state being outside war in time of international war and not allowing any party to use its territory for warfare, or not participating in military alliances in peacetime, not allowing any foreign state to establish military bases on its territory, and not assuming any obligation that would involve itself in war. Prior to the mid-19th century, the rules of neutrality existed mainly in the form of international custom, and there were no legal documents or treaties on neutrality. It was not until 1856, when seven countries, including Britain and France, signed the Declaration of the Paris Conference on International Maritime Law in Time of War (hereinafter referred to as the Paris Declaration) in Paris, that the first convention on neutrality was born. Following the Paris Declaration, the concept of neutrality became law in the Convention on the Obligations and Rights of Neutral States and Persons in Time of War between States, concluded at The Hague in 1907, where neutrality simply meant that a state did not take part in wars between other states. Later, international agreements such as the Declaration of Naval War drawn up in London in 1909 regulated, directly or indirectly, the rights and obligations of neutrality in time of war. In addition, the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Treatment of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field and the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Treatment of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, as well as the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, also contain provisions on neutrality.

2. Rights and obligations of a neutral state

By choosing neutrality, a state acquires "certain privileges", including the inviolability of its territory, and assumes "certain obligations", such as prohibiting itself from providing military assistance to a belligerent state.

At present, the obligations incumbent on a permanently neutral state can be summarised in two categories according to international law scholars.

(1) Obligations of omission, i.e. the obligation not to initiate war, not to take part in war between any other states, and to remain absolutely neutral at all times during any war. However, a neutral state may choose to defend itself in the event of an attack by another state, and this obligation does not conflict with a state's policy of legitimate defence in peacetime.

(2) Obligation to prevent. To prevent involvement in any action or treaty relating to war and the use of its territory or resources by other states in preparation for war, including the recruitment of troops, the establishment of military installations, the transit of troops and military equipment through its territory, etc.

Based on the obligations undertaken by a permanently neutral state, it is understood that it has the following two rights.

(1) No State may wage war against it; no State may compel it to take part in war.

(2) No State shall compel it to enter into treaties entailing obligations of war; no State shall compel it to assume obligations or take actions which might involve it in war.

3. Classification of neutrals

There are a number of criteria for classifying neutrality, the most common of which is to classify it into wartime neutrality and permanent neutrality, depending on the duration of the relationship.

War time neutrality refers to the state of neutrality or neutral relations between belligerents and non-belligerents in the event of actual war or armed conflict. War time neutrality refers to those states that are neutral in the sense of international law in a particular war.

Permanent neutrality refers to a state which, in peacetime, is neutral in relation to a possible war or armed conflict under an international treaty which has been concluded, and which has voluntarily assumed the obligation and legal status not to wage war against any state. A state that is permanently neutral is known as a permanently neutral state, and there are currently seven permanently neutral states recognised worldwide.

The differences between wartime neutrality and permanent neutrality are:

(1) The structural form of the legal relationship is different. In the case of wartime neutrality, the neutral state is an established sovereign state and the belligerent state is also an established sovereign state, and the structure is "state to state". The legal relationship of wartime neutrality thus exists with the existence of a specific belligerent and disappears with the disappearance of a specific belligerent; the legal relationship of permanent neutrality is structured in a special way, in which the legal relationship is characterised by the "reciprocity" of the rights and obligations of the permanent neutral state, i.e. the permanent neutral state itself on the one hand and all the states of the world on the other. The other party is all the countries of the world.

(2) The duration of the legal relationship is different. Wartime neutrality is a temporary relationship of rights and obligations that presupposes the occurrence of war and lasts only for a limited period of time, i.e. when a peace treaty enters into force, temporary neutrality is terminated or the state concerned abandons its neutrality as a result of its involvement in the war, e.g. the United States abandoned its established policy of neutrality at the end of both world wars and chose to enter the war, whereas permanent neutrality is an obligation to remain neutral in anticipation of future wars. A permanently neutral state must pursue a policy of neutrality in perpetuity, whether in wartime or in peacetime. As the resolution of the Swiss Confederation on the eve of the outbreak of World War II mentioned at the beginning of the text states, "Neutrality in all circumstances and for all countries".

The 7 most important permanently neutral countries today

It is very difficult to achieve the internationally recognised status of "permanent neutrality". Some countries only claim to be "permanently neutral" but are not internationally recognised or are only recognised by regional countries, such as Liechtenstein, the Vatican and Moldova; some former "neutrals" have been forced to end their neutrality due to war and other reasons, such as Belgium, Cambodia and Laos. There are also countries that have been "neutral" for reasons of war, such as Belgium, Cambodia and Laos, and countries that have been trying to become "permanently neutral" but have been depressed, such as Mongolia.

At present, there are only seven countries recognised by the international community as "permanently neutral": Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, Costa Rica and Turkmenistan.

1. Switzerland

Switzerland covers an area of 41,000 square kilometres and is a mountainous country with few natural resources. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the participating countries agreed to make Switzerland a permanently neutral country. Thanks to its neutrality, Switzerland was spared from the two subsequent world wars. Switzerland was able to avoid war, of course, not only because of its strict neutrality, but also because it was a country where the entire population was ready to fight, like a "poisonous scorpion", and could make life difficult for the aggressors. At the same time, European countries needed a peaceful "neutral" place to conduct their private dealings, and the combination of these factors led to Switzerland being recognised by the international community as a "permanently neutral country".

Switzerland is a masterpiece of neutrality, and its permanent neutrality is difficult to emulate or replicate. The Swiss Confederation's flexible concept of neutrality has enabled it to develop a prudent foreign policy and to establish four principles for its external relations: the principle of permanent neutrality with "armed neutrality", the principle of universal diplomatic relations, the principle of solidarity and the principle of facilitation. With a favourable international environment (guaranteed by the great powers), an efficient federal government, a universal war deterrent, flexible diplomacy and developed economic success, Switzerland has created almost the most successful model of "permanent neutrality". Thanks to its status as a "permanent neutral state", Switzerland has established itself as a world financial centre (now that UBS has begun to decline), a hub for international organisations and one of the top three countries in the world in terms of human development.

2. Finland

Finland is known as the "Land of a Thousand Lakes", with some 179,000 islands and 188,000 lakes, as well as being a country of mountains and jungles in a precarious location. In its early years, Finland was part of Tsarist Russia, and in December 1917 it gained independence from the collapsing Tsarist Russia, but this did not go well and sowed the seeds of future conflict. Shortly after Finland's independence, the Soviet Union fought a fierce war with Finland, which later became known as the Winter War. This was a cold war in which the Finns defeated Soviet attacks on several occasions with characteristic tenacity and flexibility. The Soviet army's superior strength and firepower later forced Finland to seek peace after losing the Karelia region.

"In World War II, Finnish troops took part in the blockade of northern Leningrad. When the Germans had lost the upper hand, the Soviets planned to regain the lost ground in one fell swoop. With a total population of 3.5 million, Finland mobilised 500,000 men to fight on the front line - one seventh of its population - and its army was unusually resilient. In this situation, Mannering, then President of Finland, offered peace to Stalin, who was not willing to commit more troops and resources, but simply asked Finland to outlaw fascist organisations and hand over some of its territory. This ended the war between Finland and the Soviet Union. Having learnt this lesson the hard way, the Finns declared their "permanent neutrality", refraining from intervening in major power conflicts and maintaining an "active policy of peace and neutrality". Throughout the Cold War, Finland tried to maintain a strategic balance between the two camps and refused to join NATO. Finland's flexible foreign policy has been described as the 'Finnish model', and it was even suggested that Ukraine adopt the 'Finnish model' when the conflict between Russia and Ukraine resumed in 2022, but Finland was the first to abandon its long-held principle of neutrality and join Sweden in a complete defection to NATO. The Finnish model was the first to abandon the principle of neutrality and to join Sweden in its complete defection to NATO.

3. Sweden

Sweden was once a powerful Nordic power, and in the 17th century its territory included present-day Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Russia, Germany, Poland and Denmark. Sweden was defeated in the Great Northern War against the Tsarist Russians and never recovered.

In 1780, Sweden signed a joint armed neutrality alliance with Tsarist Russia and Denmark, which was the beginning of Sweden's neutrality policy. However, Sweden's neutrality was not absolute, and during the Second World War Sweden exchanged many benefits with Nazi Germany, and the German army used Sweden for a long time to transit troops and supplies. German warplanes were allowed to fly over Sweden and German naval ships were allowed to stay in Swedish ports for 24 hours. By 1943, Sweden had helped to transport at least 2.14 million soldiers and 100,000 wagons of military supplies to Germany. This was largely used to fight the Soviets on the Eastern Front, and the West turned a blind eye to this after the war.

Sweden itself realised the dangers of treading a tightrope and avoided taking sides as much as possible after World War II, refusing to join NATO. Sweden had a well-developed nuclear industry and had even planned to build an atomic bomb at one point, but later abandoned its nuclear programme and signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, considering that it could not afford the consequences. In this way, Sweden preserved its neutrality during the Cold War. In the post-Cold War era, Sweden has always been known as the "most developed country of mankind" and with the Nobel Prize as an absolute voice, Sweden seems to have regained its pride as the dominant Nordic country.

4. Austria

Austria can be considered a legacy of the once unbeatable Austro-Hungarian Empire, where the Habsburgs ruled for 640 years. "The Austro-Hungarian Empire was defeated in World War I and split into a number of smaller states, but the "First Austrian Republic", which was the foundation of Austria, survived relatively intact. The First Austrian Republic was forced by Nazi Germany to merge with Nazi Germany in 1938, known as the "German-Austrian merger".

"Austria was a major contributor to the Nazis during the Second World War and suffered heavy losses. "After World War II, Austria was occupied by the Allies and the Austrian State Treaty was signed in 1955. Austria became independent and was declared a permanently neutral country in 1959 by the Federal Statute.

5. Ireland

In its early years, Ireland was a colony of England and was exploited, and in the mid-19th century, millions of Irish people starved to death during the Great Irish Famine, but England did nothing. Eventually, the Irish had to leave the United States in large numbers. The result was that there were far more people of Irish descent in America than in Ireland itself, and this large ethnic group had a considerable impact on the direction of American policy. At the same time, the Irish fought against British rule without stopping for a moment. Eventually, with the support of the United States, Ireland gained its independence from Britain in 1949.

In 1948, Ireland declared its permanent neutrality in its own constitution for two reasons: firstly, because of the centuries-long ethnic tensions that made the British fear that Ireland would become a collaborator with other anti-British countries; secondly, because Ireland itself had finally gained its independence and did not want to make any more problems, and because it still had the Northern Ireland issue to deal with. It would be easier for Ireland to emerge as a permanently neutral state to set the stage for what was to come. Ireland's permanent neutrality soon gained international recognition.

6. Costa Rica

Costa Rica is the only permanently neutral country in the Americas. The country covers an area of only 51,000 square kilometres and the country has no army. On 17 November 1983, Costa Rica declared its permanent neutrality, a move that was widely supported and endorsed by the international community.

7. Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan is the only permanently neutral country in the Asian region. It covers an area of 480,000 square kilometres and was a member of the Soviet Union before becoming independent with the collapse of the Soviet Union. On 12 December 1995, Turkmenistan was granted permanent neutrality by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

III. Neutrality: A logical choice of international strategy for small states

1. The international security dilemma of small states and their external strategic choices

In a state of international anarchy, the security needs and concerns of small states are much greater than those of large states, for the fundamental reason that the role of small states in the international power system is different from that of large states.

One of the most commonly heard arguments on the topic of 'world multipolarity' over the past two decades is that the root cause of world multipolarity is that the average economic growth rate of developing countries is higher than that of developed countries, so that the share and voice of developing countries in the world economy is gradually increasing to the point where they are able to compete with the group of developed countries.

The above argument is obviously based on "economic determinism", but I believe that the essence of "world multipolarity" is security determinism rather than economic determinism. In terms of the size and comprehensive power of the United States (especially its military capability), although its security sphere of influence is almost global, it can only provide security protection to small and medium-sized countries in its camp (the size of the country and its population is no larger than that of the United Kingdom and Germany), while for regional powers such as China, Russia, Brazil and India, the United States is simply unable to provide security public goods to them. Therefore, these regional powers have no other choice but to implement a policy of security autonomy, which is called "security multipolarity". The security autonomy strategy of the regional powers will most likely lead to a "security dilemma" in the surrounding regional geopolitical blocks, in which the most affected may be the small countries in the region.

From the perspective of small states, we can draw several conclusions: firstly, the survival of small states depends heavily on the stability of the international/regional order; secondly, the security autonomy strategy of regional powers is likely to trigger a regional security dilemma, as small states either choose to rely on regional powers for their survival or to rely on extra-territorial powers to counterbalance them. Thirdly, other small and medium-sized countries in the region may have security concerns about the big powers in the region and therefore have common security needs. Taking the above conclusions as a starting point, the possible foreign strategies of small states

Options are also three:

Alliance strategy.

In today's world, 'alliances' are an effective means for states to maintain and gain power and interests, and an important strategy for small states to maintain their own security and interests. Essentially, small states participate in alliances because their security needs are significantly higher than those of ordinary states. Alliances have a number of benefits for small states: firstly, on the military security level, by checking rival groups or deterring aggression, alliances increase the power of small states while saving on security costs, and as small states mostly lack systematic weapons manufacturing capabilities, military alliances make it easier for them to procure advanced weapons and ordnance and thus maintain a certain level of military capability; secondly, on the economic and other collateral levels, small states are likely to be able to Secondly, there is the economic dimension, as small states are likely to be able to obtain both capital and technical support from powerful allies (e.g. joint technological development, FDI across borders, etc.). However, the alliance is also likely to undermine the sovereignty of the smaller state (foreign military presence, extraterritoriality, etc.). Formally, small states can choose to join a security alliance dominated by a hegemonic power or a regional alliance that does not include a hegemonic power. Typical of the former is the relationship between Nordic countries such as Sweden and Finland and NATO, while typical of the latter is Singapore and ASEAN. Due to its special geographic location and skillful diplomatic manoeuvres, Singapore has managed to ascend to the top as the military advisor of ASEAN for a tiny country, and has thus been able to operate a balanced diplomacy between China, the US and Japan.

Balanced strategy.

The balance of power strategy, also known as the balance of power strategy, is a basic idea in realist thinking to ensure international peace, and an effective tool for small countries to navigate and manoeuvre between major powers in order to maintain and promote their own interests. It is also an effective tool for small states to navigate and manoeuvre between the great powers in order to safeguard and promote their own interests, and is manifested in two ways: firstly, it is "isometric diplomacy", which means that small states in the middle of the struggle between the great powers adopt a strategy of impartiality and non-alignment towards all the powerful states in the region and beyond, and do not fall in favour of any one side, using flexible diplomatic manoeuvres to exploit the contradictions between countries and try to adjust the balance of power between the great powers, so as to maintain a relatively stable strategic The second is to act as a "strategic balancer", that is, to use diplomatic tactics to add its "weight" to the powerful countries or groups of countries in the system, so as to balance the distribution of power among the powerful countries. The second is to act as a 'strategic balancer', i.e. to use diplomatic tactics to add one's 'weight' to that of the powerful states or groups of states in the system, in order to balance the distribution of power between them and reduce the 'zero-sum game' in the system.

Neutral strategies.

In other words, "permanent neutrality" is a status of neutrality guaranteed by the major powers, with the smaller states acting as strategic buffers between the major powers. In other words, "permanent neutrality" is a status of neutrality guaranteed by the big powers, with small countries acting as a strategic buffer zone between the big powers, which to a large extent dilutes the security dilemma between the big powers; secondly, permanent neutrality is mostly a place with a high concentration of international organisations, more obviously in Europe, which contains the logic of a regional power game - that is, the regional powers do not want important international institutions with international discourse to be located in rival countries, so they all tacitly agree to place These important international organisations and institutions are placed in neutral countries in order to ensure a balance of power. The greater the number of important international organisations and institutions, the greater the international status of the neutral country and the greater the stability of the inter-state system, as in the case of Switzerland.

But the strategy of neutrality also has its limitations: firstly, it is extremely dependent on a stable international order, in other words, "permanent neutrality" can only be effective if all states abide by the existing international rules, and if there are disruptive changes in the system, the corresponding international rules are likely to change as well. Secondly, neutrality is enough to ensure that there are no enemies in times of war, but accordingly, there are no friends in times of non-war. The reason for saying "non-war" rather than "peace" is that the international community is likely to enter a state of "non-war, non-peace" tension from time to time in the future. The COVID-19 epidemic, for example, has brought the international community into this "non-war, non-peace" state of tension in the past two years, as Switzerland is a "permanently neutral country". As Switzerland is a "permanently neutral country", meaning that it is not affiliated to any alliance, it is of course considered by the European Union as "not one of us", and in the early stages of the 2020 epidemic there was a rush by many European countries, led by Germany, to grab Swiss medical resources for masks.

Therefore, on balance, the strategy of neutrality may also be a disguised "siege".

2. The process of becoming a neutral country

The prerequisite for neutrality is the guarantee of a major power, and once this condition has been met, a series of normative procedures are theoretically required to become a "permanent neutral state" in the juridical sense. Neutrality is currently established by

(1) International treaties. The most undisputed way of establishing neutrality is through the conclusion of an international treaty. International treaties can be bilateral or multilateral. For example, the Vatican became a neutral territory on 11 February 1929 by signing the Lateran Pacts of (1929) with Italian Prime Minister Mussolini, which provided in Article 24 that the Holy See would not be involved in disputes between other states. Switzerland was recognised as a permanently neutral state by the Treaty of Paris in 1815 and guaranteed the integrity and inviolability of its territory.

(2) Unilateral acts. A state that intends to become a permanently neutral state states its permanent foreign policy of neutrality through political declarations, speeches by its leaders and domestic legislation. In practice, such a state must also faithfully fulfil its obligations and practise neutral behaviour generally accepted by the international community, such as refraining from waging war against other states and refraining from participating in military alliances and treaties. The countries concerned will be half-hearted, and will basically listen to what they say and watch what they do. Historically, this was the case with Sweden, which, after two wars with the Russian Empire in 1809 and with Norway in 1814, was in a state of decline and then took the path of neutrality. However, Sweden's neutrality was never legally confirmed by international treaties, but was established through its own constraints.

(3) The United Nations. Recognition through a collective resolution of the United Nations is also considered to be a way of establishing neutrality. For example, Turkmenistan gained its independence in 1991 and joined the United Nations the following year; on 12 December 1995, the 50th session of the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the Resolution on the Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan, co-sponsored by 25 countries, including China, the United States, Russia, France, Turkey and Iran, making it the first and so far the only permanently neutral country to be recognised by the international community in the form of a General Assembly resolution after the Cold War. The resolution on the permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan was unanimously adopted at the 50th session of the UN General Assembly, making it the first and so far the only post-Cold War country to be universally recognised by the international community by means of a General Assembly resolution.

In purely jurisprudential terms, the criterion of neutrality is clear: the recognition and guarantee of the permanent neutrality of the State in the form of an international treaty or a United Nations resolution. Unilateral declarations of neutrality by means of domestic legislation or statements with the force of law, on the other hand, are binding only on its own nationals and are not legally binding. A State cannot rely on its domestic legislation as the basis for a right or obligation of neutrality vis-à-vis other States. Likewise, no foreign state can rely on the domestic legislation of that state as a basis for imposing a neutral obligation on or a neutral right towards it. However, from a political point of view, the waiver and restriction of some rights by the State on its own initiative has political significance in international life due to its initiative to state its position, attitude and viewpoint of neutrality and its feasibility and stability in terms of operational techniques.

Summary

As the canary in the siege, the survival of neutral states is extremely dependent on the guarantee of powerful states, the stability of the international system and the effective functioning of the international order. At a time of unprecedented change, the "defection" of the neutrals seems to indicate that an old era is being dulled and that a new order is emerging.