Neutrality Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Neutrality is the act of remaining neutral and impartial and not taking sides in a given conflict. The two main types of neutrality are external and internal, and each refers to a different political sphere of action. Neutrality is most commonly understood in the context of international relations. In this arena, neutrality is external and understood as the act of not engaging with warring parties through ideological, financial, or military means. U.S. president Woodrow Wilson’s appeal for neutrality highlights this idea of remaining neutral in times of war by arguing the American people should “remain neutral both in thought and in action,” as acting to the contrary would be perceived as a preference for one of the parties in the conflict. Wilson argued that

America . . . should show herself in this time of peculiar trial a nation fit beyond others to exhibit the fine poise of undisturbed judgment, the dignity of self-control, the efficiency of dispassionate action; a nation that neither sits in judgment upon others nor is disturbed in her own counsels (Wilson 1914, para. 6)

Internal Neutrality

In domestic politics, neutrality is a normative consideration geared toward impartiality in the daily workings of governments, whereby the government must remain neutral regarding the conception of the public good as society struggles to define it. For example, governments should not take punitive action against minorities, whether racial, numerical, or ideological, in any given struggle and may not enter the debate itself. A person should not get a traffic ticket from the police because of personal beliefs about abortion, for instance. Yet internal neutrality of action by governments does not mean that the societal effects are the same for every citizen. The personal situation of the ticketed person would alter the effect of neutrality of the state; for example, if the ticketed person is wealthy, the ticket might not have the same material effect it would have if given to a person who is poor.

According to David Paris, “Internal neutrality (or impartiality) involves the understanding and application of impersonal rules and procedures within some specific or ‘local’ cultural practice or set of principles” (2001, 912). This type of neutrality refers mostly to the procedures applied internally to organizations or groups that are in charge of applying a set of rules in any given international or domestic setting. For example, in the United States, the government is supposed to fairly apply the law without prejudice toward its citizens, no matter their ethnic background, religious beliefs, or linguistic skills. Another example is that of a referee, in any game, who is supposed to behave in a neutral manner toward teams or individual competitors. In international organizations, there are sets of rules that are specifically geared to neutrality, such as the United Nations’ (UN’s) nondiscrimination rules in humanitarian and human rights cases. This type of neutrality does not affect the outcome of whatever ruling is taking place. Yet while the rules are neutral, the outcomes are not, and thus the results may vary. A judge applying the same rules against disputants to a claim can reach variable outcomes. Outcomes can be different in games between competing teams in which the referee applies the same rules. Naturally this is the case in humanitarian law as applied by the UN or its members to human rights abuses or humanitarian crises.

Neutrality In International Relations

External neutrality is what practitioners call principled belief, and it “does not involve the context of a local practice or set of practices. Neutrality in this sense means placing oneself outside a practice or issue, suggesting noninvolvement, disinterest, or indifference” (Paris 2001, 913). At an individual level, external neutrality means to observe competing positions; an example is the role of international organizations that participate in international politics and do not favor one political group over another. An individual may remain neutral during wartime, but usually the term neutrality is used for interstate or interorganizational behavior during times of conflict.

The archetypal modern example of neutrality is Switzerland, which has been neutral in European and global international relations for nearly six hundred years. Neutrality for the Swiss, one could argue, originally resulted from the realization that the country would be unable to protect itself against surrounding major European powers such as France. Additionally the Swiss lagged behind their neighbors in creating cohesive central government institutions, which would enable them to create a military and defense strategy. Starting with the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), the Swiss remained out of Europe’s conflicts even at the times when the entire world seemed at war in World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945). The Swiss attempted to solve their problems by arbitration and were successful in codifying their neutrality in international law in the Hague convention of 1907. Even though the Swiss were active in global humanitarian operations, because of their view of neutrality, they did not become a member of the United Nations until 2002.

While the Swiss have been able to protect their strict neutrality, other neutral countries such as Ireland have had a more difficult time. Ireland is a prime example of a neutral country whose neutrality is more diluted than that of the Swiss. While the Swiss prevent any military action from their soil and even flyovers by aircraft of foreign countries, the Irish traditionally have not only participated in wars such as the two world wars but also have given assistance to warring parties such as the United States. In addition, Ireland is a member of international organizations such as the UN and the European Union (EU), and this sometimes creates difficulties for remaining neutral. For example, a neutral country that is a member of the EU would have to opt out of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).

Beyond interstate relations, there are international organizations that also have claims to neutrality. The prime example of an international organization which is considered neutral is the International Committee of the Red Cross. Maintaining that neutrality, however, has been a challenge for them as well, even in the strictest humanitarian operations.

Bibliography:

Goetschel, Laurent. “Neutrality, a Really Dead Concept?” Cooperation and Conflict 31 (1999): 115–139.
Ku, C., and J. C. Brun. “Neutrality and the ICRC Contribution to Contemporary Humanitarian Operations.” International Peacekeeping 10, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 56–72.
Paris, David C. “The ‘Theoretical Mystique’: Neutrality, Plurality and the Defense of Liberalism.” American Journal of Political Science 31, no. 4 (November 1987): 909–939.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Wilson, Woodrow. Message on Neutrality, August 19, 1914.
The Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/oralhistories/detail/3791.

This example Neutrality Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.