Neutral in Europe - now what?
By Kristoffer Sætre, 7 minutes.
The EU is currently sending a lot of weapons to Ukraine. But wait, aren’t member states such as Austria, Ireland and Malta neutral? Are neutral states allowed to send military aid to states in war? Read this article to answer these questions and find out more about neutrality under international law and its relevance for EU member states.
“Little Austria in the heart of Europe as a bringer of peace to the whole world.” (translated from German, Herbert Kickl, FPÖ chairman, 25.10.2023) These and other romanticising statements are made regularly in neutral Austria’s parliamentary discussions. The Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine has once again put the issue of neutrality in the European Union (EU) to the test. However, does this disputed statement, thus, contain an element of truth? Does EU membership truly limit neutrality? Or is this just a statement to gain the voter’s favour? The answers to these questions have roots deep in international law, the contemporary history of neutral states in the EU, and special EU instruments.
Navigating neutrality
First, we have to take a step back to question: What is neutrality? Let us look at how neutrality is defined under international law. In its plain definition, neutrality is the national state´s status to abstain from an armed conflict. However, when choosing to not be party to a conflict, certain rights and duties are conferred upon that state. For instance, this neutral state has the right to remain apart. In other words: It must not be affected by that conflict. Likewise, it has the duty of non-participation and impartiality. In detail, this state must treat all parties involved in the exact same manner. This also applies to commercial relationships. For example, massive financial contributions, excluding humanitarian aid, to one party are seen as a violation of impartiality. So, if a country donates millions of Euros to another country in war, it could be seen as a violation of neutrality. Another key fact is that neutrality can be declared ad hoc (from this moment onwards) or can be permanent if constitutionally codified. Considering the Second World War, examples of neutral states in Europe were Switzerland and Sweden. The US, on the other hand, was not considered neutral but non-belligerent before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. With its financial contribution and weapons shipment to the UK, it did not fulfil the conditions of neutrality.
The Soviet choice for Austria
Neutrality did not disappear after the Second World War. Today, three EU member states have chosen to remain permanently neutral. Austria, for instance, is still holding on to this legal concept. This is due to deep roots connecting neutrality with the establishment of the Austrian State. Upon deciding on the faith of liberated Austria, the Soviets made neutrality a prerequisite to its independence. That is why neutrality is held as a core constitutional value of Austria. Moreover, in the UN, Austria has made it clear to fight for rule of law compliance, the right to self-determination, and against the use of force. However, one must mention that Austria also has strong monetary interest and is committed to Western values and the EU. Whether Austrian neutrality is compatible with EU membership and policies will be answered on closer analysis below.
Ireland striving away from British rule
Another example of neutrality within the EU is the Republic of Ireland (henceforth: Ireland). However, its history with neutrality differs from that of Austria. Before its secession, Ireland constituted an integral component to the United Kingdom (UK), much like England or Scotland. The island’s rule from protestant London, however, was perceived as foreign and imperial by Ireland's catholic majority, which led to the country’s eventual independence from the UK. This created deep resentment towards the main island of the UK. Subsequently, Ireland introduced a policy of isolation and self-reliance vis-à-vis its former imperial overlords in London. To further distinguish itself from Britain it neither joined the Allied Forces during the Second World War nor did it subsequently become a NATO member. Instead, the relatively small, newly independent nation chose to remain neutral. On close analysis, for Ireland neutrality was a ‘means to an end’: To emphasise its independence from the UK.
The EU’s self-defence strategy
Now, let us use the definition of neutrality and the histories of Austria and Ireland to find out whether the EU allows for neutrality of its member states. Article 42 (7) of the Treaty of European Union (TEU) reads that all member states must aid another member state suffering from armed aggression. In other words: If an EU member is attacked, the other members have to intervene. Entering into such a commitment would sharply contradict neutrality. Austria or Ireland, for instance, have the duty of non-participation.Under international law, they are not allowed to aid militarily. Precisely for this reason, the provision contains the Irish Clause, which determines that said duty to assist should not prejudice member states’ security policy. Hence, Ireland and Austria are allowed to exercise neutrality despite this provision.
The EU’s military aid to the world
That being said, the Council likewise introduced special funds present that might interfere with neutrality. The European Peace Facility (EPF), for instance, is an off-budget fund to finance military operations by the EU. Its objectives concern aiding third states or avail financial means for member states to ensure procurement of weapons. These funds shall enhance defence capabilities of the receiving states. It is important to mention that the EPF has established strict requirements on who receives military aid and under what circumstances. Ukraine in its defence against Russia, for example, has received huge financial contributions by the EPF. , a fact that, once more, raises the question of neutrality for certain EU member states. Here, it is important to note that member states can choose to abstain from measures concluded under the EPF. To illustrate, Austria, Ireland and Malta made this choice by not contributing to the military aid given to Ukraine. The consequence is that it is possible to be a member of the EU whilst retaining neutrality and abstain from any EU military contributions.
LIVEX - a new chapter in defence policy?
The third challenge to neutrality within the Union is live military exercise. Most recently, in October 2023, LIVEX (first live military exercise conducted by the European Union) took place. This exercise required the mobilisation of 2800 troops with equipment. It simulated a member state’s request for military support. Nine countries, notably, including Austria and Ireland, participated in LIVEX, which raises the question: Is such behaviour still neutral? To compare, the definitions and requirements given in international law harshly contradict the actions of Austria and Ireland. They are not allowed to participate in providing military aid for others, as for their duty of non-participation. One must mention that training as such does not violate neutrality. However, it begs the question: Why does Austria, Ireland and Malta want to train for a scenario they are not allowed to participate in. This leaves us with a stark controversy in relation to LIVEX and neutrality and points to a possible future with a European Army.
All things considered, the EU does allow its member states to exercise their neutrality, as exceptions in law and politics illustrate. Nonetheless, considering the rise of conflicts and external pressure in Europe, calls to unite the EU in defence policy have grown louder. Joint military exercises might be an indication that the status of neutrality is challenged once again. Thus, for the foreseeable future, the question as to whether EU membership and neutrality will prove mutually compatible will remain on the agenda.
