Talk:Neutrality (international relations)

A suggestion

I think the section on rights and duties of neutral powers, should become a template, wich in turn, should be shared by this article, and the article on the hague conventions. I will start working on it, as soon as I find time for it. Realpolitik agenda (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion

-- Here I get confused. The link that says "Second Hague Convention" goes to a page with "Hague V" in its title. The problem is that I myself have put the link on the page, initially. I wonder if I am confused now or if I was then!
--Ruhrjung 12:40, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I strenously object to listin the United States as an example of "Neutral countries" while excluding for example Ireland and Sweden on the basis that they surreptitiously cooperated with one side during the Second World War. The US has certainly tried to stay out of "permanent alliances", put to claim that it isn't currently in any defense alliances of significane (e.g. NATO) would certainly be very misleading. --Gabbe 21:49, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

May I kindly ask you to read the article once again?

Maybe you then will notice that it's a list of "models", and that it for the US has solely historical relevance.
--Ruhrjung 13:43, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

US Neutral Up to Pearl Harbor??

I strongly object to the idea that the U.S. followed Washington's advice up to Pearl Harbor? Ever heard of a little thing called the Spanish American War(and probably others before hand)? Superm401 23:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's not ideal to say that USA followed Washington's advice up to Pearl Harbor, but engagement in Europe and Asia was most definiterly very uncommon until the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of these exceptions was the brief participation in World War I, that immediately was reversed and resulted in an isolationism as strong as ever. /Tuomas 06:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why Spain and Portugal were left out of the list of Neutral Countries in WWII. Admittedly, Spain leadership during WWII (e.g., Franco) had a lot of Nazi sympathy since they were supported by the Nazis during the Spanish Civil were, but they never actually fought on either side in WWII. Turkey was also neutral WWII, even though they were on the side of the Germans in WWI.

They were not surrounded by warring parties as Switzerland, Sweden, or (sort of) Ireland. --Johan Magnus 06:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

--

Why isn't Mexico coloured in on the map? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

--

It can be argued that the United States was neutral until at least 1812 under the Monroe doctrine, a foreign policy defended when Britain seized goods and ships on the open seas trading with France at the time. Since the United States was trading with both countries (in limited fashion towards Britain given that a war was just concluded with them) they can be considered neutral until the declaration of war with Britain at that time (1812). They were neutral again until the war with Mexico, which largely was over the status of Texas at the time. From there they were neutral again until the Spanish American war, and then neutral again until WWI. The United States was never formally a British Ally until after WWI under the League of Nations, subsequently followed by NATO and the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.42.77.165 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

After moving back to Neutral country, a revert should be done also, and only then consolidation of the new material. Currently, the page is not very readable. --Vuo 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The added material was a blatant copyright violation from the Columbia Encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

better definition needed

I think a better explanation of what makes a country neutral is needed. And perhaps more explanation of how neutral countries act. For example, prior to entering WWII the US was officially neutral in respect to the war in Europe, but many citizens weren't. the US government was divided between policies helping the Allies, or maintaining neutrality. Also, a nation can be neutral in one conflict, yet partisan in another. Rds865 (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In WWII, Spain and Italy temporarily adopted the status of "non-belligerent" - not the same as "neutral" - although it had no legal validity. The US was effectively the same, until Pearl Harbor. This distinction should be made in the article. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious map

Where does this map come from? Why does the information on it differ from what's said in the article? Wisapi (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Map to incorperate EU neutrality

Should the map be amended so that all countries that are neutral, but follow the EU foreign policy, and therefore are not entirely neutral, be shown in a different colour from the truly neutral nations like Switzerland?

Caladin (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Japan

Isn't it pretty much a contradiction in terms to describe Japan as a neutral country in a military alliance? I know there's a formal constitutional ban on acts of belligerency, but I always understood the rejection of military alliances to be part of the definition of neutrality ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.98.206 (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ireland

Ireland is given a bit of a free-ride in this article. For example, the Hague Convention defines among the rights and responsibility of neutral powers that:

Article 2: Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power. ... Article 5: A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory. ...

US troops travel openly and with the permission of the Irish government through Shannon Airport en route to war in Iraq and Afghanstan. Usable reference: Irish Times, May 23, 2011. --RA (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

yes - but - it's a particular form of neutrality A traditional policy of military neutrality defined as non-membership of mutual defence alliances. - Lugnad (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweden lend troops to Denmark in First Schleswig War

Is that particularly neutral? --Svip^pong 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was volunteers. The Swedish state itself did not participate afaik. henrik•talk 21:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)