The Law of Neutrality - Obstruction or Completion to the System of Collective Security?

Abstract: The concept of neutrality emerged at a time when conflicts between states were still regional matters. Today the system of collective security within the UN Charter has converted these conflicts into a global issue. The purpose of this essay is to examine the correlation between the law of neutrality and the Charter of the United Nations and how this affects the neutral member states of the United Nations. The question I will try to answer in this essay is to what extent a state’s neutrality is compatible with the concept of collective security within the United Nations. The answer will clarify if neutral states hold a special position within the UN, and if so, what this position entails. The methods that have been used are a legal dogmatic method regarding the analysis of separate articles and legal systems, a comparative method regarding the comparison of the law of neutrality and the UN Charter and a historical method for the background to the question at issue. My conclusion is that the law of neutrality is compatible with the Charter of the United Nations, but only regarding permanent neutral states. These hold a special position within the United Nations that renders them exempt from obligations under the UN Charter that would jeopardise their status as permanent neutral states. Member states, pursuing a policy of neutrality, e.g. Sweden, can be forced to abandon their position to assist a victim state or to partake in non-military sanctions. Consequently, non-permanent neutrality is not compatible with the system of collective security.