In the midst of recent international crises around the world, some countries have been cautiously asserting neutrality. They assert neutrality for a variety of reasons, but most of all to avoid being drawn into potential conflicts. Nevertheless, are these countries really neutral? The concept of neutrality has been closely examined by many scholars, and there are now many versions of neutrality to choose from. The UN definition of neutrality emphasizes that a country does not participate in wars between other countries and that the country is impartial. Strictly speaking, to be impartial, a country must refrain from contacts with other non-neutral countries. This is because any contact has some effect on the country that is contacted, and this effect cannot be the same for all the non-neutral parties involved. Therefore, in practice, such neutrality is unlikely, and countries reflect this in their foreign policy. For example, Switzerland, a prominent example of a neutral country, literally states in its Foreign Policy Strategy 2024-27 that “neutrality does not mean indifference.” So is neutrality merely a diplomatic term that covers a specific behavior? If policymakers use neutrality in different ways, it may be difficult for IR scholars to integrate the concept into their theory. On the other hand, if the theory does not reflect the language of policymakers, policymakers will hardly listen to the theory. This misunderstanding then widens the gap between IR theory and practice.
International relations are known to be either cooperative or conflictual. That is, when actors in the international system act toward each other, they either help or harm the other. However, we often hear that a state has neutral relations with other states. What does this mean? Normally, if a state has neutral relations with other states, we would think that the neutral state is neither an ally nor an enemy of the other state. That is, the neutral state does not help or harm the other state, and therefore does not affect the state of the other state. But can we still call this a “relationship”? In order to have a relationship with someone, you have to interact with that other state. That is, you have to take action toward that other state. Now, follow this argument. In order to act consciously, you must first form an intention to act, so every conscious action is the result of someone’s intention to do something. Since all actions occur in time, every action implies a change from a previous state to a new state. If this change is intended to benefit the other state, the action is cooperative, and vice versa. There can be no neutral action, because it is logically impossible to change something to be more like it was before.
The idea that relationships are neither cooperative nor conflictual brings to mind Erwin Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment about a cat that is neither dead nor alive. Schrödinger’s goal was to point out the absurdity of a situation in which something can be in two contradictory states at the same time. We know that this is impossible, at least on the macroscopic level of reality. In logic, this proposition is known as the principle of contradiction, and Aristotle, for example, called it the most certain law by which we can obtain any knowledge. Therefore, all relationships must be either cooperative or conflictual, because these two kinds of relationships are mutually contradictory. No relationship can be neutral, because every relationship requires some action that brings about some change. Without change, there is no action, and without action, there is no relationship.
We have seen that, despite diplomatic language, there can be no neutral relationship. But why is this important? First, it demonstrates the dualistic nature of international politics, which is surprisingly unclear to some IR scholars. Second, it can help policymakers understand IR theory. How? All IR theories essentially define certain factors that are supposed to lead to certain types of relationships. For example, economic interdependence can generate cooperative relationships according to liberalism. Depending on the IR school of thought, these causal factors can be material capabilities, identities, existing relationships, structures, social norms, etc. Some of these factors are supposed to lead actors to cooperation, and some to conflict. No one factor can lead actors to establish other kinds of relationships, because other kinds of relationships are not possible in principle. Classifying factors as cooperative and conflictual simplifies the entire field of IR theory for those who are not interested in philosophical debates but are primarily interested in facts. How? Instead of following a particular theory, we can simply list all the causal factors listed in all IR theories and divide that list into two main groups. 1) Factors that promote cooperation, 2) Factors that promote conflict.
This summary of IR theory can be an essential tool for any policymaker, because it defines all known factors that have the potential to influence which form of international relations will be realized. The policymaker then selects only those factors that are present in a particular case and assigns a certain weight to each factor based on how important it is likely to be in the relationship. For example, if military power is assumed to have a significant impact, it should be assigned a high weight. Finally, the policymaker compares the total weight of the cooperative factors to the total weight of the conflictual factors in that case. Based on the results, the policymaker can predict whether the relationship will be cooperative or conflictual, including the intensity of cooperation or conflict. Of course, this is only a brief summary of how the cooperative-conflict model of IR can help policymakers leverage their knowledge of IR theory. The details of this methodology are discussed in detail elsewhere, but even this brief overview will hopefully show how eliminating the term “neutral relationship” from IR discourse can help bridge the murky waters between IR theory and practice.
Additional Resources on E-International Relations
