Event review: What neutrality in conflict means today - King's scholars host high-level diplomatic discussion

On 10 November, King’s College London and the Malta High Commission to the United Kingdom welcomed a panel to discuss the past, present and future of neutrality against the present-day backdrop of a global political landscape shaped by great power rivalries. Ambassador Martin Fraser of Ireland, Ambassador Bernhard Wrabetz of Austria, Ambassador Natasha Meli - Malta's Ambassador to the United Nations in New York, Dr Alex Sceberras Trigona, a former Parliamentarian and Foreign Minister of Malta, and Dr Hillary Briffa, Senior Lecturer in National Security Studies and Assistant Director of the Centre for Defence Studies, brought their expertise in international diplomacy and international relations to the table.

At the forefront of the discussion stood “active neutrality”. It explored the contemporary significance of neutrality: how and by what means neutral states navigate the geopolitical environment, and how their position is not only useful but essential in ensuring that the future of the rules-based international order is preserved. As the world has changed, so has neutrality and what it entails. Neutrality does not mean sitting idly by as conflict ravages around, but being an active participant in multinational organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and others aimed at ensuring peaceful cooperation and coexistence. Standing up for the norms of international law, emphasising dialogue between hostile nations, offering one’s services and territory for mediating negotiations are all essential parts of what neutrality entails in the contemporary political landscape.

But neutrality is not without its challenges. At worst, it risks accusations of cowardice or opportunistic shelter-seeking. Additionally, questions arise around the relevance of neutrality in the region today. States need to consider how they can balance principles with pragmatism, what unique contributions they can make towards global peace and humanitarian efforts and to what extent they still matter.

The panel explored these challenges in the context of their own country’s historical and present-day position.

The path to neutrality

Each of the countries represented faced significant challenges in the process of enshrining neutrality into their constitutions. There was substantial pressure from great powers on these states to align themselves with one side or the other, and how these states navigated such a political environment – and these expectations – to achieve neutrality was a central theme of the event.

In the Austrian case, after World War II and the occupation of the country by the Allies, there was significant pressure on Austria to join NATO following the withdrawal of troops. The Soviet Union hoped to prevent this and petitioned for Austria to remain neutral. In these circumstances, Austria chose neutrality. While this, at first, brought tensions with the West, the benefit of having a neutral state where both sides could meet and engage in talks proved immensely valuable to the fragile stability of peace in a time of hostility between the two blocs.

Dr Alex Sceberras Trigona explained how Malta navigated the challenges of post-war Europe, the difficult path to independence from Britain all while enshrining neutrality into its constitution. With its strategic position in the middle of the Mediterranean, Malta was coveted by both the West and the Soviets. There was significant pressure from the West – especially the British – for Malta to align itself with NATO. However, the small island state leveraged the interests of both parties masterfully. As the Cold War divided the world into two camps, Malta chose the way of non-alignment and sought to maintain good relations with the Soviets as well as the West. Since its independence, Malta has positioned itself as an active mediator between the West and East and, after the Cold War, further campaigned for dialogue and humanitarian activism in regional conflicts – highlighting the good active neutrality can bring.

By actively choosing non-alignment, these states ensured favourable relations with both sides and were able to mediate in conflicts, emphasising dialogue and negotiation. In a time of great power rivalries, neutrality shows its value by allowing hostile nations to come together and settle disputes through diplomacy, upholding the rules-based international order and avoiding further carnage. Neutral states are in a unique position to contribute to the global security architecture by providing their good services and standing up for the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Active Neutrality and Supranational organisations

Ambassador Meli of Malta drew on the important distinction between political neutrality and remaining militarily neutral. While the latter pertains to abstaining from entering any armed conflict on one side or the other, the former allows Malta to take a clear political stance. She showed how Malta used its reputation as a “bridge-builder” in international conflicts to step in when the OSCE was in crisis. Marred by the conflict in Ukraine, it had no budget and was struggling to find a country to preside over its operations. The Russian Federation refused Estonia’s presidency since – through its membership in NATO – it did not present a sufficiently neutral position to preside over the organisation. That’s when Malta was considered for the position, since its constitutional neutrality and good relations with both sides in the past made it an ideal candidate.

Once in position, Malta assumed the presidency and began intensifying efforts towards dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the conflict. However, rather than pursuing an apolitical position, Malta stood firmly on the principles of international law and the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which set out key European security principles, and condemned Russian aggression and its disregard for the norms it had signed onto. While this might have complicated negotiations, under Malta’s leadership the OSCE aimed to ensure that diplomatic channels remained open. The example highlighted how Malta’s reputation made it possible for this vital international organisation to remain operational, and that efforts towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict remained possible while still standing firmly on the rules-based international order.

Similarly, Austria has maintained its neutrality and good services, contributing to UN peacekeeping missions all around the world and cooperating with partners in regional conflicts such as Kosovo. Its membership in the EU has complicated neutrality slightly, but Austria has continued active neutrality and, like Malta, emphasised that taking a strong political stance does not interfere with its status as a neutral country. Even within a supranational organisation like the EU, Austria maintains its neutrality but stresses that it is bound by its constitution and will contribute as far as it is allowed. In the eyes of the ambassador, neutrality allows for some flexibility, while remaining true to the principles of multilateralism and international law is an essential part of what it means to be neutral. A good example of this is how Austria, while refusing to send financial or military aid to Ukraine, has dedicated itself to sending humanitarian aid and contributing to rebuilding once the conflict is resolved. Thus, neutrality does allow taking a strong political stance while finding ways to contribute to peace and stability through its own means.

While the EU aims to further strengthen its defence cooperation, this directly challenges the constitutional neutrality of Malta, Ireland and Austria. Even though the EU is not considered a strategic or military alliance, it does contain a mutual defence clause. However, there are limits to this. Nicknamed the “Irish clause”, Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty allows neutral member states to comply with the mutual defence obligation in a way that is consistent with their neutrality and constitution. This clause was included on the behest of Ireland, to safeguard its constitutional obligation to remain neutral. While this could be seen as an easy way out, the clause does not exempt them from contributing. It still stresses that these states are required to help – in a way that is in accordance with their constitutional obligations. As such, they focus their efforts on providing humanitarian aid, rebuilding efforts and pursuing a peaceful resolution of conflict.

Throughout the event, all speakers emphasised the importance of neutral states in the international community and how their active efforts towards peace, cooperation and dialogue have been a vital contribution to both international and regional security architecture. Their efforts in the OSCE and in mediating talks between hostile parties helped ease tensions, alleviate the suffering of civilians caught in the crossfire, and ensure that – no matter the level of hostilities – diplomatic channels remained open and dialogue between nations in conflict was continued. All this while maintaining their political stances, holding true to the norms of the international rules-based order, condemning transgressions and standing up for their principles.