Neutrality 2.0: Redefining the Law of Neutrality in a Changing World - A Critical Analysis on the Validity and Relevance of the Law of Neutrality

Abstract: The unprecedented military and economic support provided by non-participating States to Ukraine following the Russian aggression has reignited the debate surrounding the law of neutrality. The law of neutrality, first codified in the Hague Conventions of 1907, defines the legal relationship between States involved in an international armed conflict (IAC), known as belligerents, and States not taking part in such hostilities, commonly known as neutrals. The law of neutrality establishes a system of reciprocal rights and duties for belligerents and neutrals, particularly the duties of strict impartiality and non-participation of neutral States in the conflict. In essence, the aim of the law of neutrality is to limit the escalation of conflicts. However, since its codification, the evolving landscape of international law, in particular the establishment of the collective security system through the UN and the adoption of the UN Charter, has led to widespread disagreement about the validity and relevance of the law of neutrality. This thesis therefore undertakes a critical examination of the law of neutrality in contemporary international law, examining the changing perspectives of scholars and States over the past century. Moreover, it conducts case studies on two contemporary IACs characterised by extensive third State support - the 2003 Iraq War and the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War - in order to examine whether there has been an evolution in customary international law regarding the commitment to and acceptance of the law of neutrality. While the majority of scholars consider the law of neutrality to be a valid and relevant body of international law, while recognizing certain modifications imposed by the UN Charter, this thesis identifies critical gaps and unresolved aspects in the doctrine. Specifically, there is a significant lack of consistent State practice and opinio juris regarding the law of neutrality, which is particularly evident when examining the case studies. This inconsistency raises questions about the current validity of the law of neutrality. With regard to its current and future relevance, this thesis acknowledges potential ways in which the law of neutrality could play a crucial role in mitigating conflict escalation. However, it stresses the need to redefine the content and applicability of the law of neutrality. States appear to adopt intermediate positions of neutrality in line with their political objectives, leading to a lack of predictability in the current framework. There is a need to address these deficiencies to effectively restrain the escalation of conflicts in the changing landscape of international relations.