AARMS SECURITY

Vol. 10, No. 2 (2011) 305326

Neutrality and international solidarity a comparison of

the policy of certain neutral European countries with
respect to the UN
WOLFGANG ZECHA

Bundesministerium fr Landesverteidigung und Sport, Vienna. Austria

The neutrality policy of the European neutral states, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden,
and Switzerland towards the UN changed during the years since the end of the Second
World War. At least all of the neutral countries joined the UN, the last one Switzerland
in 2002. Four of them were non permanent member of the Security Council and all of
them conducted UN operations. Only Switzerland conduct measures of the UN Security
Council through an independent law, meanwhile the four others take the measure like
an internal law. That circumstance was one of the main changes from the point of
neutrality law.

Preface

The policy of certain neutral European countries has changed during the last 65 years after
World War Two. Especially during the last 21 years it has changed gravely in general but
also towards international organisations. These changes of neutrality policy were done by
all neutral countries but in different matters. It is the aim of this essay to describe these
differences of policy towards the United Nations (UN) but also the common interests and
behaviour. So the neutrality policy of the permanently neutral countries Austria and
Switzerland will be described as well as the policy of Finland, Ireland, and Sweden, which
mentioned that it conducts nowadays a non-alignment policy.
In general the effort of the policy of neutral countries depends to a high degree on
the credibility, trustworthiness, and predictability of its policy. So the acceptance of a
neutral country in the international community depends also on the expectations of the
international community and especially of the global players, the regional powers or
superpowers. The question of changeability of neutrality policy therefore is a legal
question and a political question as well. So it is also the question whether or not the
factual politics of certain neutral countries and the development of neutrality policy are
accepted, tolerated, expected, or even forced by the international community.
This essay answers the question in which way the policy of the neutral European
countries towards the UN has changed during the 65 years after the end of the Second

Received: May 24, 2011

Address for correspondence:

WOLFGANG ZECHA
E-mail: wolfgang.zecha@bmlvs.gv.at
W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

World War. As a second point the essay stresses the question whether or not these
changes in politics have changed neutrality law and policy as a whole.

Introduction

The content of neutrality accrued at the end of the 14 th century and was deduced from
the Latin word neuter none of both and meant originally the non-participation and
non-involvement in concrete wars.i (Gehler) In general one discriminates between self-
declared and forced neutrality. From that time until the late 19 th century there did not
exist any written neutrality law in the Land Warfare Regulations. The status of
neutrality was defined during the conference of The Hague 1899 and it was confirmed
in the conference of The Hague 1907. Therefore neutrality in general exists only in
wartime and the practice of neutrality policy was formulated following the policy
Switzerland had practised since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. That kind of practising
of neutrality policy was granted by the Treaty of Versailles 1919. Following the Land
Warfare Regulations of 1899 the main points of neutrality policy are:
1) A neutral country has not to take part in war.
2) A neutral country has not to allow foreign troops to use its territory in any case.
3) A neutral country has not to help any party to the conflict.
4) A neutral country has to defend its own territory.ii (Verdross)
Although different kinds of neutrality were developed between 1899 and 1989, for
instance the permanent, everlasting, economic, moral, or benevolent neutrality, it was
again led back to the core military understanding of neutrality from 1989 to 2010.
Therefore neutrality policy today is understood as a policy treating equally all war or
conflict partners and standing aside of all acts of war or supporting acts of war.
Originally there was only one type of neutrality, the neutrality in wartime. Within
the last 90 years rules and types of neutrality developed and therefore today there are
the following main types of neutral countries:iii (Orvik)
a) permanently neutral countries like Switzerland or Austria
b) traditionally neutral countries related to international law or non-alignment; that
non-alignment can be practised also in peacetime to be neutral in war time, like
Sweden or Finland has practised it since 1995
c) neutralistic, non-alignment, or active peacemaking countries like India, Egypt,
Ghana, Yugoslavia in the1950s.

i GEHLER, Neutralitt, p. 3.
ii VERDROSS, p. 14.
iii ORVIK, p. 23.

306 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

There is also a difference between neutrality, neutrality policy and neutralism.

Neutrality is a status in international law, which means a country chooses that status of
not supporting war acts in a current war or conflict. That status can also be declared as a
maxim of the policy of a country for a certain time or forever. Neutrality can be self-
chosen or forced. Permanent neutrality can be declared or practised like Sweden did
during a certain time in the 20th century. Another possibility is neutrality guaranteed by
international treaty like Switzerlands since the Napoleonic Wars or Belgiums between
the First and Second World War. 1955 Austria declared self-chosen neutrality, but in
the Independence Treaty of Moscow Austria signed that it would choose neutrality
following the Swiss model. Therefore it was formally a self-chosen neutrality but it was
a bargain to get independence.
The difference to neutralized countries is that neutralized countries were forced to
become neutral by regional or superpowers. Neutralized countries usually have to be
neutral economically, politically as well as militarily. In most of those cases the
neutrality politics of those countries differ from their political convictions. Neutral
countries usually are neutral in military affairs and have their own positions in political,
economic, or cultural matters. Neutrality policy includes military matters and non-
supporting conflict partners on the one hand and on the other hand it includes offering
good offices, mediation, impartiality without giving up ones own convictions. That
kind of policy has been practised by Austria and Switzerland during many years.
The difference between neutrality and neutrality politics is understood so that
neutrality is a long lasting general political conviction and neutrality politics is acting in
a concrete political situation which requires neutral acting. In relation to this essay
neutrality politics towards membership in the UN and membership in the leading
council of security policy, the Security Council (SC), conducting measures and
resolutions of the SC and practising military UN operations is researched. From a strict
point of view participating in a military operation under the command and control of the
UN is not compatible with neutrality. Because all of the five neutral European countries
participated in several UN military operations, it has to be researched why they did and
why that was compatible with neutrality policy from their point of view. A second point
is to research if that practice maybe changed neutrality law in general.
It is the aim of this essay to analyse neutrality policy with respect to the UN and to
determine changes during the last 65 years. In a second step, possible consequences for
neutrality, the understanding of neutrality law and neutrality policy will be described
and deduced.
In general a neutral country has to stand aside of all wars and to make sure that it
does not support one side in a conflict. Although there is no international written law as

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 307

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

to how to practise permanent neutrality policy, a permanently neutral country should

practise a policy in advance like a neutral country does during a current conflict.iv
(Hauser) Therefore permanently neutral countries like Austria and Switzerland have to
pursue a security policy in peacetime in a way so they can withstand a conflict in the
neighbourhood or anywhere in the world without being involved. If a country
undertakes the obligation to be neutral in all future conflicts, then that country has to
make clear that it will not fight against anybody or support any party to the conflict.
That obligation ends if a country is attacked and has to defend itself.v (Stourzh) From
the beginning of the neutrality status up to the end of the Second World War, neutrality
policies, especially the policy of a permanently neutral country, were understood as
equal behaviour towards each other country without respect to ethical and moral
questions. Today it is a common understanding that a neutral country has to
differentiate as to whether or not a conflict party is a democracy or a dictatorship.
Therefore the pragmatic policy of the neutral countries Switzerland and Sweden
towards the Third Reich during the Second World War, backing the economy of the
Third Reich by selling resources and a supporting financial policy, has been heavily
criticized within the last ten years.vi (Zemanek) On the other hand the policy of
Switzerland towards the allies in the last months of the Second World War was
criticized as well. Equal treatment in wartime does not mean, however, that a country is
not allowed to have a different political opinion to the politics of conflict partners or
alliances, whether the conflict be decided by political or military means.
On the other hand until the First World War neutrality policy was also a policy
towards single countries or alliances. With the foundation of the League of Nations in
1919 and especially the United Nations in 1945 that situation changed heavily. After
1945 neutrality policy was practised also with a main focus on the relations of neutral
countries towards the United Nations. Therefore one of the main questions for each
neutral country was its policy towards the United Nations, the Security Council of the
UN, and the obligations under the Charter of the UN. Therefore neutrality policies
towards the UN or other international organisations are focused on the following topics:
1. Membership,
2. Conducting sanctions of the Security Council,
3. Participating in UN operations, and
4. Membership in the Security Council.

iv HAUSER, sterreich, p. 55.

v STOURZH, Staatsvertrag, p. 93.
vi ZEMANEK, Neutralitt, in Hummer, p. 197.

308 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

It is a fact that international law changes following current behaviour of

international actors like countries or international organisations. As neutrality law has
been developed by the practice of Switzerland after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, it
has also been changed by the practice of other neutral countries like Austria, Ireland,
Finland, or Sweden within the last approximately 60 years. The present essay will
concentrate on the policy of these five countries and their relation towards the UN and
other international security organisations.
Until 1989 peace operations were conducted singularly by the UN. After the fall of
the Iron Curtain in 1989 a major change in international relations happened. Because of
the breakdown of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, regional security
organisations like NATO, OSCE, CIS, and EU got more responsibility to conduct peace
operations besides those of the UN. Sometimes the UN authorised peace operations of
these organisations in advance, sometimes an organisation like NATO conducted an
operation by its own decision.

Practice of the policies of certain neutral European countries during the period of the
Cold War
The question of UN membership
In general a neutral country has to stand aside of all wars and to make sure that it does
not support one side during a conflict. If a country additionally undertakes the
obligation to be neutral in all future conflicts, then that country has to make it clear that
it will not fight against anyone or support any of the parties to a conflict. On the other
hand a neutral state has to make it clear that it would defend itself if one of the conflict
parties crossed the border with armed forces. The neutral state is also required to
proceed against physical or juristic persons or groups which intervene in a conflict or
war from the territory of the neutral country. Contrary to the fact that the League of
Nations had invited neutral states as well, it was the opinion of the founding nations of
the UN that neutral countries would weaken the efficiency of the UN. For that reason
Switzerland became a member of the League of Nations but did not want to become a
member of the UN for a long time. In the 1980s the government of Switzerland
changed its mind and tried to convince its people of membership, which was reached in
the year 2002. Today all European neutral states, with the only exception of the Vatican
State, are members of the UN, and owing to that fact there has already been a change of
the understanding of neutrality and neutrality policy on both sides.
The UN Charter describes the UN as an all-inclusive organisation ...to maintain
international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures
for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 309

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

aggression or other breaks of the peace...vii (International Court of Justice). Therefore

the articles of the UN Charter allow forcing measures towards any peace breaker.
And so all member countries have to co-operate in preventing and suppressing threats to
the peace and acts of aggression. Nobody is allowed to be neutral towards a country
which is a peace breaker in the eyes of the Security Council or the General Assembly.
Even if a country is not a member of the UN, it has to act in accordance with the UN
principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and
security. So the UN has to make sure that even non-members act in accordance with its
principles.viii (Hauser)
For that reason some experts mentioned that a neutral country cannot be a member
of the UN because of the aim to enable a collective peace system and because a member
state cannot be neutral towards measures of the UN. Therefore when the UN was
founded in 1945, neutrality was not compatible with membership of the UN in the
thinking of the founding nationsix (LUIF). According to Article 2 Point 6 of the UN
Charter it was irrelevant whether or not a country was a member of the UN, so from the
practical point of view it was better to be a member than not. According to the UN
Charter each country (member or not) has to give full assistance to all measures and has
to support every decision which is passed by the SC or the General Assembly (GA). It
is also forbidden to support any country which is ruled to be a peace breaker.
Therefore neutrality is only possible as long as there is no decision or measure towards
a country by the SC or GA.x (Brunner)
But that principle to have no neutral members of the UN was broken for the first
time when Sweden became a member in 1946. Sweden joined the UN, and after that
decision the Swedish policy was dedicated to neutrality policy within the UN and to
impartiality. But Sweden was also convinced that only neutrality policy gave the
stability to the Nordic region to prevent the USSR from threatening or invading Finland.
Whereas in the founding year 1945 neutral members were not welcome, Sweden could
join only one year after. So the first change in the understanding of neutrality policy
happened through the membership of Sweden 1946, therefore neutrality in the original
frame existed only as long as there was no resolution of the UN SC. Rather, Sweden
understood membership in the UN as a contribution to active neutrality policy. In
accordance with that understanding, Sweden implemented all the consequences of
membership, such as contributing troops to UN operations in Korea and Congo and the

viiInternational Court of Justice, Charter p. 8.

viiiHAUSER, Akteure, pp. 89; Bentwich, pp. 614.
ix LUIF, p. 255.
x BRUNNER, p. 15.

310 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

measures towards South Rhodesia, as part of its neutrality policy. On the other hand that
understanding of neutrality policy was accepted as a stabilizing factor and increased the
predictability of the Swedish neutrality policy. But Sweden always denied a juridical
embedding of its policy by an international commitment.xi (Woker)
The next milestone in the process of the changing understanding of neutrality policy
and UN membership followed in 1955. Finland and Austria had tried to become
members of the UN from 1949 to 1955. First the USSR vetoed that move because those
countries were unyielding countries. Despite several resolutions of the General
Assembly in the following years the USSR changed its mind only when a State Treaty
for Austria was signed and the treaty of friendship with Finland was enhanced. In 1955,
after signing these treaties, Austria and Finland became members of the UN together
with a number of other countries like Ireland.xii (Emmerich) Ireland had become
independent of Great Britain between the two World Wars and could maintain its
neutrality status only because of its geographically peripheral position. Early in 1945
after the founding of the UN Ireland had submitted its application for membership but
the USSR blocked that move until 1955.
Effective 18 th April 1949 Ireland left the British Commonwealth and tried to show
full independence of Great Britain. The Irish neutrality policy was mainly addressed
towards Great Britain and that was the main reason why Ireland did not join NATO in
1949. The Irish neutrality therefore is mainly defined as non-involvement and limited
and it was only understood as a strictly military neutrality and not as political or
economic.xiii (Gehler)
When Austria, Ireland, and Finland became members of the UN, a big debate started
in Austria about the consequences of membership for Austria and for the UN as well.
With the membership of Austria, Ireland, and Finland one group of experts argued that
it was possible for a neutral country to be a member of the UN because the SC can grant
exemptions for certain countries from conducting measures. From their point of view
the bodies of the UN have to observe the neutrality status of neutral members and have
to avoid decisions or measures which are not fitting for the neutrality status, or grant
exemptions for such countries.xiv (Verdross) That opinion was backed especially by
Alfred Verdross, the Austrian member of the UN Commission on International Law
during the years 19561965, and was called Verdross doctrine. Especially in Austria
a debate started during the final phase of becoming a member of the UN as to whether

xi WOKER, pp. 8490.

xii EMMERICH, pp. 2930.
xiii GEHLER, pp. 1718.
xiv VERDROSS, p. 26.

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 311

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

the neutrality status was compatible with UN membership. The possibility of UN

membership was also discussed heavily in Ireland before it became a member of the
UN. On the one hand possible limitations of neutrality policy were discussed and on the
other hand the new possibilities of membership, benefiting the influence that could be
exerted on decisions, and the possibilities of contribution to international matters led to
the decision for membership. From the point of view of Ireland membership was to
additionally strengthen peaceful policies, international solidarity, and Christian
values.xv (Szpott)
After 1955 the discussion started in Austria whether neutrality law or the UN Charter
was stronger and most of the experts in Austria followed the Verdross doctrine. But even
at that time a minority of Austrian experts argued that the UN Charter was stronger than
national law. Nevertheless Austria has been a member of the UN since 1955 and so
Austria has had to act in certain circumstances. This acting followed some main
principles, which were laid down as the Austrian neutrality policy by foreign minister
Leopold Figl in 1959. He mentioned the following points of Austrian neutrality policy:
supporting the right of self-determinations for peoples, understanding among
nations, law and justice, civil and human rights, basic freedoms, and the practical
implementation of all those;
hosting international organisations or agencies;
strengthening international co-operation and;
exchange of cultural development.xvi (Leopold Figl)
After the end of the Cold War an Austrian delegate to the UN mentioned that the
Verdross doctrine had been rooted in the realistic policy of the late fifties and sixties of
the last century and today it was not realisic any longer.xvii (Handl) The policy of
Sweden as an international bridge-builder and a fair broker of international law
became a model for Austrias active neutrality policy under Bruno Kreisky in the
1970s.xviii (Gebhard)
Despite membership in the League of Nations Switzerland did not become a
member of the UN after the Second World War because of its permanent neutrality
status. But Switzerland did become a member of most UN sub-organisations, took part
in observer missions and became host to the UN-City of Geneva. On the one hand most
of the Swiss politicians were convinced that membership in the UN was incompatible
with the status of (permanent) neutrality. But on the other hand even in the period of the

xv SZPOTT, p. 49.
xvi LEOPOLD FIGL, Die Diplomatie der Neutralitt, in Braunias, 1959, pp. 293303.
xvii HANDL, p. 90.
xviii GEBHARD, pp. 5358.

312 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

Cold War a Swiss expert also argued that within the UN a country has the best
opportunities to bring neutrality policy to effectiveness.xix (Dietrich Schindler) A
second main point was that the Swiss public opinion was against UN membership
because of the status of neutrality. In the year 1948 Switzerland sent an ambassador to
the UN for an observing mission, but in both 1956 and 1969 the Federal Council of
Switzerland refused possible membership.
Nevertheless the Swiss policy usually followed the political guidelines of the
Security Council (SC) and backed its decisions. Beginning with the Korean War and the
measures towards Congo and South Rhodesia, Swiss policy followed the decisions of
the SC. Like in Austria they were passed autonomously by the Swiss parliament.
In Switzerland the discussion went on and therefore in 1971 the Federal Council set
up a commission to give advice in that case. In 1976 that commission gave the advice to
join the UN but it took the country another 8 years to reach this decision in the Federal
Council. The main step in the neutrality policy of the Federal Government was made
towards the application for membership in 1984, pending the peoples agreement. So
the Swiss policy towards UN membership changed significantly and the Federal
Government tried to become a member of the UN.
Although the Swiss politicians had wanted to join the UN since 1984, the people of
Switzerland denied that idea in 1986. So the process had to start again. The main
reasons for joining the UN from the Swiss point of view were:xx (Wildhaber Lucius)
1. The growing international interdependence has changed the law of neutrality, so
a neutral state is not able to stand aside if the international community decides to
act towards an aggressor.
2. Neutrality policy is part of foreign policy.
3. If the system of collective security does not work, neutrality policy is still possible.
If the system of collective security works, measures are to be conducted whether or
not a country is a member of the UN. But in 1986 the people of Switzerland denied
membership in a referendumxxi (Brunner) and so the people of Switzerland did not
follow its politicians. But the Swiss politicians remained convinced that Switzerland
should become a member of the UN. After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 the
opinion in the Swiss population changed slowly. The breakdown of Yugoslavia and the
civil war in that country influenced the public opinion another time. Therefore the best

xix DIETRICH SCHINDLER, Europische Neutralittserfahrung und -theorie aus schweizerischer Sicht within
Kaminski, pp. 6776.
xx WILDHABER LUZIUS, Neutralitt, Auenpolitik und internationale Organisationen aus Schweizer Sicht,

within Koja/Stourzh, p. 226.

xxi BRUNNER, p. 62.

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 313

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

place to pursue neutrality policy is within the UN, as a Swiss expert mentioned some
years ago.xxii (Dietrich Schindler) Consequently the Swiss politicians tried to persuade
their people to join the UN by arguments and acts following the principle: Integration as
far as ever possible, deciding in each case separately but following the acting of the
international community.xxiii (Burgener) At the end of that process the people of
Switzerland decided to join the UN in a national referendum in March 2002.xxiv
(Hollmann) After the Kosovo crisis the time for another referendum had come and on
3rd March 2002 the Swiss people said yes to membership in the UN. Switzerland
became a member of the UN on 10 th September 2002 and was, as the 190 th member
state of the UN, welcomed by the GA.
As a result, the policies of all the neutral countries towards membership in the UN
moved during the last approximately 60 years and that change was the first main change
in practising neutrality policies. Today most of the experts agree that the understanding
of neutrality changed over those years.

Applying mandates
For a neutral country it is a major problem how to handle sanctions, mandates or
measures passed by the SC or the GA. The first time this happened was during the
South Rhodesian crisis in the sixties. In the year 1966 the SC imposed economic
measures following the unilateral declaration of independence of South Rhodesia.xxv
(Handl,61) The SC informed all countries, whether or not they were members of the
UN, that they had to obey the measures towards South Rhodesia. Austria answered that
it would examine each decision of the SC or GA on its own to decide whether or not to
follow the measures. The Austrian parliament passed a move by the government to
implement measures towards South Rhodesia which were like the measures passed by
the SC it was a move to show independency, but at the same time to act in solidarity
and according to the Verdross doctrine. Austria mentioned in its reply to the UN that
Austria would conduct the same measures as the SC but only under a national law
because of its neutrality.
Switzerland replied that it principally did not obey any measure passed by any body
other than the government of Switzerland. But Switzerland conducted the measures
under a national and autonomous law. Within its answer to the SC Switzerland denied

xxii DIETRICH SCHINDLER, Europische Neutralittserfahrung und -theorie aus schweizerischer Sicht, within
Kaminski, p. 75.
xxiii BURGENER, within Tagung 2004, pp. 5053.
xxiv HOLLMANN, p. 41.
xxv HANDL, p. 61.

314 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

the legitimacy of measures of the SC for a non-member state.xxvi (Handl, 62) Also
Sweden, Finland and Ireland conducted the measures towards South Rhodesia under
national law.
That situation did not change until 1991. During the Kuwait crisis Austria conducted
the measures of the SC towards Iraq directly for the first time. The Austrian parliament
passed a move that all measures and actions of the SC would be conducted like national
law.xxvii (Luif) So international law became stronger than the neutrality law of Austria
and the Verdross doctrine was dead. In that aspect of applying international law there
was only partial development because the Swedish Riksdag had passed a similar law
early in 1971. Finland, Ireland and Switzerland have no similar laws at all and therefore
their parliaments have to conduct measures by separately passing national law. Despite
that fact today all experts agree that as soon as a resolution is passed by the SC, the only
possibility is to act in solidarity.xxviii (Handl, 56)

Participating in UN operations
Participating in UN operations, Switzerland was the first neutral country which
conducted a peace surveillance mission along the Korean border in the year 1953 by a
93-person contingent without arms.xxix (Luginbhl Caspar) From the legal point of
view UN peacekeeping operations are no wars because all parties have to accept the
operations and an armistice has to be signed in advance. In 1958 Ireland conducted its
first international operation starting on 28 th June with UNOGIL in Lebanon an armed
operation. That mission was followed by another unarmed observer mission UNTSO
in December 1958.xxx (http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/un_operations.htm) So there
had been good examples when in August 1960 the Secretary General of the UN, Dag
Hammerskld, posed the question to the Austrian government (together with Finland,
Ireland and Sweden) whether or not Austria would be able to contribute to the UN
armed operation in Congo.
In 1960 it was also the first operation for Sweden under the UN flag, but unlike
Sweden, in Austria that operation was not undisputed, therefore the development of the
decision for that operation will be outlined briefly.
Austria did not have any law for participation in international operations at that time.
So a committee of ministers wrote a proposal as to how to act. In that committee opinions

xxvi HANDL, p. 62.

xxvii LUIF, p. 276.
xxviii HANDL, p. 56.
xxix LUGINBHL KASPAR, VOGT MARCUS JURIJ, Schweizer Neutralitt im Wandel, within Hartmann, p. 53.
xxx http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/un_operations.htm, 18. 02. 2010.

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 315

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

were divided into pros and cons. After a discussion the pro party convinced the
chancellor, Julius Raab, that from a pragmatic point of view it would be good to grant the
request. The answer to that request after an internal decision-making process was to
conduct the operation by contributing a field hospital. Therefore an Austrian contingent of
medical soldiers was sent into that international operation just as an armed Swedish
contingent was.xxxi (Minutes no 48 of the council of ministers of Austria on 20th
September 1960 point 33) By conducting this first operation the neutral countries began a
tradition of peacekeeping and until 1989 the neutral member states of the UN, i.e. Austria,
Finland, Ireland and Sweden, provided the personnel backbone of the peacekeeping
operations as some experts mentioned.xxxii (Caytas) On the other hand the UN forces
needed logistic backing especially of the US to bring the troops to the areas of operations
and to support them during the operations. So the opinion of those experts does not cover
the whole scenario and concentrates only on the troop contributing countries.
That situation was especially caused by the principles which had to be developed
during the first peacekeeping mission, UNEF I, in the year 1956, following the Suez
crisis. The GA authorized in Resolution 1122 the establishment of a multilateral
emergency force (UNEF I) and rules of engagement for that force. The UN Forces
should be neutral forces. If possible they should not be from a permanent member state
of the SC, they should preferably be from neutral states.xxxiii (Norrie) But these
demands had to be given up very quickly.
During the 1960s the international operations were extended and the international
community had to react to that. In 1964, in advance, the SG, UThant, asked the Nordic
countries to prepare and earmark troops of up to battalion size. Additionally to that
general request to earmark troops the necessity of troops arose and before these troops
could become operational, the UN made the next request. The necessity for an armed
international operation in Cyprus arose in the year 1964 and Sweden, Ireland and
Finland offered armed troops. SC Resolution 186/1964 established a peace operation in
Cyprus, to which all neutral European countries except Switzerland contributed troops.
Austria conducted the operation by sending a field hospital and a police contingent.xxxiv
(Minutes No 37 of the council of ministers of Austria on 17 th March 1964) Austria
contributed that field hospital and denied again the contribution of armed troops
because of neutrality reasons. In 1965 the Austrian parliament agreed to the conduct of

xxxi Minutes no 48 of the council of ministers of Austria on 20 th September 1960 point 33.
xxxii CAYTAS, p. 107.
xxxiii NORRIE, p. 5.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NL5/600/14/PDF/NL560014.pdf?OpenElement, 28 06 2010.
xxxiv Minutes No 37 of the council of ministers of Austria on 17 th March 1964.

316 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

international operations. A short time later the SG asked Austria to establish a battalion
for international operations and Austria reported in June 1966 after a generally positive
answer that a battalion with approximately 600 troops was ready to be deployed.xxxv
(Notification of Austria to UN SG) In so doing, Austria acted in line with Swedish,
Irish, and Finnish neutrality policies and left the path of the Swiss model, pursuing
neutrality a second time by following the path of the other European neutral countries.
In March 1968 2,900 troops were prepared and ready for operations including troops
from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.xxxvi (Caytas,116117) So the UN tried to
get troops not only from neutral but also from NATO or non-aligned countries.
During those years UN operations were defined as all measures of the UN on a
military, paramilitary or non-military basis to observe, keep, or re-establish peace and
international security. The kinds of peace-keeping operations at that time were defined
as follows: Observer missions, UN commissions, contingents, surveillance, negotiation
missions, intelligence operations, support of countries to secure security, and preventive
measures.xxxvii (Caytas, 23)
Despite the readiness of the Austrian battalion in 1966 it took 6 more years before
the first armed operation was contributed to. At the beginning of the year 1972 the time
had come to send an armed Austrian battalion to Cyprus, but a newly formed contingent
of volunteer soldiers was sent while the earmarked one was not. Thus Austria made the
next concrete step aside of the path of the Swiss model and deployed armed troops, and
not only medical personnel, for international operations. By those steps Austria
extended participation in UN operations and became the first permanently neutral
country to send an infantry battalion as a contingent to conduct an international UN
operation.xxxviii (173. Bundesverfassungsgesetz: Entsendung sterreichischer Einheiten
zur Hilfeleistung in das Ausland auf Ersuchen internationaler Organisationen).
During the following years Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden conducted the
UNEF II as well as the UNDOF operations. Through those decisions these four neutral
countries manned the bulk of those UN operations and built up the esteem UN
operations earned during that time. But nevertheless there were the British, U.S. or
Canadian troops which enabled those operations by strategic air lifts or transport by
ships, so these countries formed the logistic backbone of the UN operations. Following

xxxv Notification of Austria to UN SG, BMLV GZ. 310.391-Stb/66 on 2 nd Mai 1966.

xxxvi CAYTAS, pp. 116117.
xxxvii CAYTAS, pp. 23.
xxxviii 173. Bundesverfassungsgesetz: Entsendung sterreichischer Einheiten zur Hilfeleistung in das Ausland

auf Ersuchen internationaler Organisationen.

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 317

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

the practical point of view experts thought about the principles peacekeeping forces
should observe:
the minimum use of Force,
impartiality,
to be an honest broker,
self-defence, and
consent of all parties.xxxix (Biermann)
Analysing these principles, it can be mentioned that troops of neutral countries are
almost ideal to conduct peacekeeping operations, which was one main reason the
neutral countries (except Switzerland) became the backbone of such operations in terms
of personnel resources during the time of the Cold War as some experts mentioned.xl
(Neuhold Hanspeter)
Although Switzerland was no member of the UN, the country supported a number of
UN operations. So Switzerland was one of the first countries to send soldiers to the
Korean border and during the following years Switzerland supported UNEF I by air lifts
and money, the UN operation in Congo by humanitarian aid and medical personnel, and
the operation in Cyprus by money.xli (Brunner) After the participation in UN operations
of Sweden, Finland and especially Austria, the Swiss parliament discussed the
possibility of armed Swiss UN contingents. A special commission gave the advice that
in general it could be legally possible but it had to be decided in each case separately.xlii
(Haug, 0708) In general it was said that because of the aims of the UN, e. g. peace for
the world, membership of a permanently neutral country was possible.xliii (Haug, 45)
From the year 2001 onwards Switzerland has participated in UN operations, in the first
year with unarmed troops and then the Swiss contingent was as well armed as the other
contingents were.

Membership in the Security Council as a non-permanent member

Neutral countries have been elected into the SC as non-permanent members as often as
other countries. During those years Sweden and Austria have three times been members
of the SC, Finland and Ireland two times. Switzerland has not been a non-permanent
member of the SC yet because of its short membership in the UN. Astonishing was the

xxxix BIERMANN, p. 141.

xl NEUHOLD HANSPETER, Vlkerrechtliche und neutralittspolitische Aspekte friedenserhaltender Operationen
der Vereinten Nationen, within Koja/Stourzh, pp. 5466.
xli BRUNNER, pp. 3536.
xlii HAUG, pp. 6768.
xliii HAUG, p. 45.

318 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

first membership in the SC of Ireland because it lasted only one year, an unusual
exception. Usually membership lasts for two years if you are a non-permanent member.
Sweden became a member of the SC from 1957 to 1958 as the first neutral country
ever. At that time Dag Hammarskjld was Secretary General and so it came as no
surprise that Sweden got the honour to become a member of the SC. From the
beginning Sweden was very active establishing Resolutions 123/1957, 122/1957 and
126/1957. The topic was the Cashmere Conflict between India and Pakistan, the
ensuing Swedish presidency acting through negotiations and inviting India and Pakistan
to the SC.xliv (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc) In all of the three cases Sweden voted
yes, the USSR abstained, thus Sweden voted together with the western countries.
Invited by Sweden, India as well as Pakistan could explain their positions, Sweden
strengthening its profile as a neutral country. Thus the acting of Sweden as a neutral
member of the SC confirmed the thesis that neutral countries have good possibilities to
act within the UN and to strengthen their neutrality policy profiles.
In the year 1958 the questions of Palestine and Lebanon arose and were the content of
SC Resolutions 127129/1958.xlv (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1958/scres58.htm)
In the case of Palestine the SC invited Israel and the United Arab Republic to explain their
positions on that issue. In the case of the Lebanese question the governments of Lebanon
and Jordan were invited too. In both cases Sweden acted as a good broker and according to
its neutrality status. But nevertheless Sweden voted yes in all of the three cases together with
the other western countries and the USSR, the latter abstaining in the case of Lebanon.
Ireland was the second neutral country to be invited, in 1962, to become a non-
permanent member of the SC. Astonishingly its membership lasted only one year. During
that year there was only one security-related resolution, i.e. on the question of Palestine,
the other resolutions were on membership for certain countries. In the resolution on
Palestine, Israel was condemned and Syria and Israel were called upon to support the
Secretary General to reach a solution. On that resolution only 10 members voted yes, one
of those was Ireland, with only France abstaining. In 1961 the SC had only 10 members
because Egypt and Syria merged to form the United Arab Republic although the number
had basically been fixed at 11. In 1965 the number of non-permanent members was
increased from 6 to 10.xlvi (http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp) While Ireland had no big
problems with those questions, there was also the question of Cuba in 1962, which
resulted in many discussions in the SC but no resolutions were passed because of the veto
possibilities of the U.S. and USSR.

xliv http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/131/30/IMG/NR013130.pdf.
xlv http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1958/scres58.htm, 02 07 2010.
xlvi http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp, 11 07 2010.

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 319

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

Finland was the third neutral country to be elected into the SC for the years 1969
and 1970. In Finland this led to no discussions about the compatibility of membership
in the SC with neutrality. During the past 6 years the situation had changed gravely and
in 1969 13 resolutions and in 1970 15 resolutions were passed by the SC; only three of
them were about routine affairs like membership of new members. The resolutions
concerned the questions of Namibia in 6 cases, of the Middle East also in 6 cases, of
Cyprus in 4 cases, of Guinea in 3 cases, of South Rhodesia in 2 cases, and of the race
conflict in South Africa, of Zambia and of Senegal in one case each. During those two
years certain countries abstained in the SC several times. But most of these countries
were western countries because only one time in a special question concerning Namibia
the USSR abstained while in all other cases it voted yes. So it could not be so difficult
for Finland to vote yes too. Only on Resolutions 269/1970 (Namibia) and 271/1970
(Middle East) Finland abstained together with the U.S., voting differently than the
USSR. Additionally these votes against the majority were new to the international
community and strengthened neutrality policy. But this was to remain an exception to
the unwritten rule that neutral countries vote with the majority.
As Austria was asked in 1972 to fulfil a non-permanent mandate in the Security
Council in the years 1973 and 1974 it was the fourth neutral country to fulfil that task.
And for that reason Austria could reach back to the good practices of three other neutral
states which had been members before. But again some of the Austrian experts were
opposed to that offer because in case of a chapter VII decision Austria would have to
abandon neutrality, they argued. The Austrian government disagreed, arguing that it
was one criterion for SC membership to contribute to the maintenance of international
peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization. Unlike this discussion
in Austria, the Finnish period as a member of the SC, which lasted from 1969 to 1970,
was not discussed in that country, which, in turn, was no argument in the Austrian
discussion. Representing the new understanding of neutrality in Austria, the Austrian
government saw it as good neutrality policy to hinder the growing of conflicts in their
inceptive phases through good offices and the conclusion of agreements. So the
Austrian government, by being a member of the SC, saw broad possibilities to fulfil that
principle of active neutrality policy. The other part of the Austrian experts backed the
decision of the Austrian government, especially because it was very rare that a
resolution of the Security Council was to lead to war but usually it led to an act of the
collective security system. Therefore Austria would not get into a situation in which it
had to act as a neutral country, they argued.xlvii (Handl, 64) By the way, during that first

xlvii HANDL, p. 64.

320 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

period in the Security Council Austria was not confronted with decisions which would
have been difficult from the point of view of its neutrality. During those two years only
the UN operations UNEF II and UNDOF were established and the Austrian mission for
that two-year period, i.e. to offer good offices and negotiations between conflict parties,
was fulfilled.xlvii (Handl,66) 20 resolutions were passed in the year 1973, thereby
continuing the increase in recent years. Almost all of those resolutions concerned
security matters and no routine affairs. Staying in abstention was less frequent than
before, and often chosen by the Peoples Republic of China and the other veto powers.
The picture during the year 1974 was nearly the same, 22 resolutions were passed, only
4 concerning new members. Staying in abstention was practised by China and the other
veto powers. During both years Austria voted yes in each case, maybe an additional
reason was that Austrian diplomat Kurt Waldheim was Secretary General at that time
and Austria did not want to embarrass him by its voting.
In the SC Austria was followed by Sweden from 1975 to 1976 for its second period. In
Sweden there was no discussion of SC membership and neutrality because it was the
second time for Sweden. During the two years of Swedish membership the situation did
not change. In both years 19 resolutions were passed and the number of abstentions did
not increase. The topics of the resolutions were mainly security affairs in concrete matters,
about a quarter of them related to new memberships. In all cases Sweden voted yes.
More than ten years later Finland was elected again into the SC from 1989 to 1990
for its second period. As we know 1989 was the year of the big change, the fall of the
Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall. This had an impact on the SC as well. In the year
1989 20 resolutions were passed, 18 of them unanimously, in only two cases the U.S.
abstained. In the year 1990 the number of resolutions increased from 20 to 37, they
nearly doubled in one year. Nine of the resolutions were not in consensus. In one case
Yemen did not vote at all and in four cases Cuba and/or Yemen voted no. The topics of
these resolutions related to the Kuwait crisis, which came to its peak in December 1990.
Finland voted yes with the majority in all cases.
At the peak of the Kuwait crisis Austria followed Finland with its second period in
the SC from 1991 to 1992. During that period some difficult decisions had to be taken
in the Security Council, for instance on measures regarding Iraq, Libya, and
Yugoslavia. Austria was involved directly in most of the measures and voted like the
other western countries did. In the year 1991 42 resolutions were passed by the SC,
most of them unanimously. Similarly to the previous year, Cuba and Yemen voted no in
several cases; sometimes China, India and other countries abstained. Resolution

xlvii HANDL, p. 66.

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 321

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

688/1991, which addressed the suppression of the Kurdish people and the displaced
persons in Iraq, got only 10 votes in favour, China and India abstained, and Cuba,
Yemen and Zimbabwe voted no. In 1992 the number of resolutions increased heavily,
up to 74. That was caused especially by the Yugoslav crisis and the situations in
Somalia and Mozambique. There were also 13 resolutions related to new members of
the UN. The voting scale changed, most of the resolutions were in consensus, and only
a few of them had abstention votes from China, India, Ecuador or Zimbabwe. In both
years neutral Austria always voted yes with the majority.
During those two years Austria made a new step in its neutrality policy towards UN
measures or resolutions. While Austria followed the resolution on Iraq in 1991 in an
autonomous way, in 1992 the resolution on Libya was immediately transferred into
national law. During that period the domestic understanding of Austrian neutrality
policy changed. The Verdross doctrine (The UN has accepted the neutrality of
Austria and, hence, takes it into account in its decisions) changed into the Ermacora
doctrine:
UN Security Council measures are to be implemented because they are like police
actions and therefore they have no impact on neutrality law.xlviii (Handl, 9294)
Consequently, the Austrian parliament passed a law regarding the implementation of
measures of the Security Council as a rule.
Another six years went by until Sweden was elected to the SC from 19971998 for a
third period.
In 1997 57 resolutions were passed by the SC, 1998 there were 74 resolutions. The
number remained high, but most of them were unanimous. Only the questions of Iraq,
Haiti, Kosovo, and Albania sometimes led to abstentions. Sweden always voted yes
with the majority.
Ireland was elected to the SC a second time from 20012002, it was its first two-
year period. Although 2001 was the year following the peak of the Kosovo crisis and
the terrorist attacks of 9/11, only 54 resolutions were passed. 53 of them were
unanimous, only Resolution 1372/2001 on Sudan was with the abstention of the U.S. In
2002 the high number of 90 resolutions was passed by the SC, 85 of them unanimously.
It was the year of the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign, but all resolutions
regarding that matter were passed in consensus. Only the matters of the Iraq-Kuwait
crisis and the situation in the Middle East caused abstentions, usually of the U.S. In all
of the cases Ireland voted yes with the majority.

xlviii HANDL, pp. 9294.

322 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

Finally Austria was elected for a third period from 2009 to 2010. During this
ongoing period the tendency has not changed. In 2009 the number of resolutions was
87; 83 of them in consensus. On the matter of Cyprus, Turkey voted no twice, on the
question of the Middle East the U.S. abstained once. China and Liberia abstained on
matters of Central Africa. Austria always voted yes with the majority.
In general it seems to be clear that the number of resolutions increased after the end of
the Cold War. Also the degrees of approval increased during the last 20 years, so
approximately 90 percent of the resolutions were passed in consensus. Only in exceptional
cases some nations abstained. This was probably due to the intensive preparation process
of negotiations and consultations before a move was presented in the SC. Another reason
could be the decrease of antagonism between the western world and Russia or China. It
was astonishing that there were not any no votes during the Cold War whereas they did
occur in the last 20 years, the probable reason being that moves where they would likely
have occurred had simply not been voted on during the Cold War and the bipolar system
of the time. After the end of that system, some non-permanent members, like Cuba,
Zimbabwe, Yemen, or Turkey, were not asked before a move or could not be convinced
of abstention, so they gave signs of opposition to such moves.
Switzerland has not been a member of the SC because of the short time of UN
membership (8 years). Voting of the neutral countries in general showed the following
picture:
The four neutral European countries tried to negotiate and to mediate before a move
led to a resolution. The four countries almost always voted yes with the majority in all
their periods in the SC. Voting kept predictably unattached to that of the permanent
members of the SC; so you can say it was independent of political influence from the
global or regional powers. The sole exception to that rule was the voting of Finland in
the period of 1968 to 1970. Finland abstained on two resolutions on Namibia together
with the U.S., maybe an example of its independence of its big neighbour USSR during
the period of the Cold War.
It can be mentioned that the neutral countries, by consistently voting yes on nearly
all matters, showed a neutral policy towards the promoters of moves. Therefore the
neutral countries showed a neutrality policy in the SC towards any group of promoters
of moves. The neutral countries agreed to resolutions on the addressees and backed
them by contributing troops to UN operations for instance. So there was no neutrality
towards the addressee of a resolution, following the principle that there is no neutrality
after a resolution has been passed by the SC.xlix (UN Charter, Chapter XVI, 103) This

xlix UN Charter, Chapter XVI, 103.

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 323

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

shows that the opinion of some of the experts that usually in security affairs a neutral
country acts like someone who jumps on the bandwagonl (Hummer) is not true. At least
if you look at voting in the SC and the conduct of measures and mandates that opinion
is falsified.

Conclusions

The acting of the five researched neutral European countries shows a difference
between two subgroups during the last 65 years. The first subgroup, consisting of the
two permanently neutral countries Austria and Switzerland, showed more independence
towards the UN in the questions of membership, mandates, and UN operations. The
second subgroup, consisting of Finland, Ireland, and Sweden, acted more proactively.
Although Finland was bound to the USSR by a treaty of friendship and assistance
during the Cold War, Finland sometimes voted contrary to the USSR. By those votes it
showed independency. Sweden, Finland and Ireland usually implemented mandates,
measures and resolutions of the SC directly (Sweden from 1971), Austria (until 1991)
and Switzerland did by their own decisions and parliamentary moves. In Switzerland
the legal situation is still so whereas in Austria there has been a law since 1991 under
which resolutions of the SC are to be obeyed like national laws. Even though in Finland
and Ireland there had been short discussions about the compatibility of neutrality and
UN membership after accession, those discussions were dead. In Austria such
discussions came to life regularly whenever Austria made a new step towards changing
its practice of neutrality policy, such as participating in UN operations, applying
mandates or becoming a member of the SC. Switzerland stood aside of the UN until
2002 because of its directly democratic system but the same process of discussion goes
on there, for instance before membership or before the decision to conduct international
operations, unarmed first and then again regarding armed operations. Nevertheless
Switzerland supported all resolutions of the SC and many of the UN operations by
special (mostly financial) means. Finland, Ireland, and Sweden were convinced that
participating in UN operations is part of active neutrality policy; Austria came to that
conviction after the first operations and also conducted the following ones with armed
troops. Therefore the neutral countries often formed the personnel backbone of the UN
operations, the logistic backbone was formed by the U.S. or NATO in most cases.
To summarize, it can be stated that the understanding of neutrality policy of all
neutral European countries has changed dynamically during the last 65 years. It is

l HUMMER, Bestandspflicht, Neutralitt, Solidaritt, within Kernic, p. 121.

324 AARMS 10(2) (2011)

 W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

standard that UN membership and obeying resolutions are compatible with neutrality
policy. Also participating in UN operations needs no discussion, and they are conducted
by all of them. Membership in the SC was practised by four of them in a proper way to
show their neutrality to the promoters of moves but not towards the addressees of
resolutions. Only Switzerland has not been a member of the SC, but there is no official
statement as to whether this is due to the short time of UN membership or to principle.
As a summary it is to be stated that the international law of the UN Charter and the
resolutions of the SC and GA are stronger than national neutrality law and the
international neutrality law as it was handled before. So it is now state of the art that
neutrality law ends where the Charter of the UN begins and the resolutions of the SC
and GA follow.
Therefore the understanding of neutrality law and policy moved from a strictly
military understanding to a comprehensive one, and from there it went under the law of
the UN Charter and resolutions.

Literature and sources

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter.shtml, 10 07 2010.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc, 10 07 2010.
BENTWICH NORMAN, MARTIN ANDREW, A Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations,
Routledge&Kegan Paul, London, 1950.
BIERMANN WOLFGANG, VADSET MARTIN, UN Peacekeeping in Trouble: lessons Learned from the Former
Yugoslavia, Ashgate Verlag, Aldershot, Brookfield, Singapore, Sydney, 1998.
BONJOUR EDGAR, Geschichte der schweizerischen Neutralitt, Kurzfassung, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel-
Stuttgart, 1978.
BRAUNIAS KARL, STOURZH GERALD, Diplomatie unserer Zeit, Graz, Wien, Kln, Styria, 1959.
B. BRUNNER GABRIELE C., Die Schweiz und die Vereinten Nationen, Jur. Diplomarbeit, Innsbruck, 1987.
CAYTAS IVO G., Internationale kollektive Friedenssicherung, 20 Jahre sterreichische Praxis, Berlin, 1982.
EMMERICH KLAUS, Unterwegs zum Frieden, 50 Jahre sterreich in den Vereinten Nationen, Ueberreuter
Verlag, Wien 2005.
GEBHARD CARMEN, Neutralitt und europische Integration, sterreich und Schweden im
sicherheitspolitischen Vergleich, Schriftenreihe der Landesverteidigungsakademie 9/2005, Wien, 2005.
GEHLER MICHAEL, Finis Neutralitt, Historische und politische Aspekte im europischen Vergleich: Irland,
Finnland, Schweden, Schweiz und sterreich, Zentrum fr Europische Integrationsforschung, Bonn 2001.
HANDL MARKUS, Die immerwhrende Neutralitt sterreichs, jur. Diss. Wien, 2001.
HARTMANN RUDOLF, MEYER CHRISTIAN WILHELM, VOGT MARCUS JURIJ (Hrsg.), CIMIC-Aspekte I:
Traditionelle Neutralitt in Europa, Speyer 2005, Speyrer Arbeitsheft 176.
HAUSER GUNTHER, Das europische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungssystem und seine Akteure, BMLV,
Landesverteidigungsakademie, 4. vllig berarbeitete und wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Wien, 2008.
HAUG HANS, Das Verhltnis der Schweiz zu den Vereinten Nationen, Paul Haupt Verlag, Bern/Stuttgart, 1972.
HAUSER GUNTHER, Das europische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungssystem und seine Aktuere, BMLV,
Landesverteidigungsakademie, 4. vllig berarbeitete und wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Wien, 2008.

AARMS 10(2) (2011) 325

W. ZECHA: Neutrality and international solidarity

HAUSER GUNTHER, sterreich dauernd neutral, Studien zur politischen Wirklichkeit, Band 14, Braumller,
Wien, 2002.
HOLLMANN ANNA, Die Schweizer und Europa, Wilhelm Tell zwischen Bern und Brssel, Nomos Verlag,
Baden-Baden, 2005.
HUMMER WALDEMAR (Hrsg.), Staatsvertrag und immerwhrende Neutralitt sterreichs, Eine juristische
Analyse, Verlag sterreich, Wien 2007.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, Charter of the United Nations, Statute and Rules of Court and other
Constitutional Documents, second edition, The Hague, 1947.
KAMINSKI GERD, Neutralitt in Europa und Sdostasien, Wehling, Bonn, 1979.
KERNIC FRANZ, HAUSER GUNTHER (Hrsg.), Handbuch zur europischen Sicherheit, Peter Lang, Frankfurt,
Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2005.
KOJA FRIEDRICH, STOURZH GERALD, Schweiz-sterreich, hnlichkeiten und Kontraste, Bhlau Verlag,
Wien, Kln, Graz, 1986.
LUIF PAUL, On the Road to Brussels, The Political Dimension of Austrias, Finlands and Swedens Accession to
the European Union, Austrian Institute for International Affairs, Braumller, Laxenburg, 1995.
MACQUEEN NORRIE, United Nations Peacekeeping in Africa since 1960, Longman Verlag, London/New
York, Toronto, Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong, Cape Town, New Dehli, Madrid, Paris, Amsterdam,
Munich, Milan, Stockholm, 2002.
sterreichische Gesellschaft fr Landesverteidigung und Sicherheitspolitik, Internationale Tagung 2004,
Internationale Einstze im Dienste der Sicherheit Europas, Wien, 2004.
ORVIK NILS, Sicherheit auf Finnisch, Finnland und die Sovietunion, Seewald Verlag, Stuttgart, 1972.
SJHOLM LARS ERIK, Neutralitt im Wandel, Die Positionen Schwedens und Finnlands bis 1995, Dipl. Arb.,
Wr. Neustadt, 2000.
STOURZH GERALD, Geschichte des Staatsvertrages 19451955, sterreichs Weg zur Neutralitt, Styria, Graz,
Wien, Kln, Studienausgabe, 3. Auflage, 1985.
VERDROSS ALFRED, Die immerwhrende Neutralitt der Republik sterreich, 2. wesentlich erweiterte
Auflage, Wien, sterreichischer Bundesverlag.
WOKER DANIEL, Die skandinavischen Neutralen, Schriftenreihe der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fr
Auenpolitik 5, Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern/Stuttgart, 1978.

326 AARMS 10(2) (2011)