The Compatibility of EU Membership with Neutrality

  • Walter Carlsnaes


A foreign policy such as neutrality can be analyzed in at least two ways: as a doctrine underlying and justifying the pursuit of a particular kind of foreign policy; or with reference to the substance of interstate political actions in real time and space. Quite obviously it makes a significant difference which of these approaches one chooses, since the former refers to a cognitive realm populated exclusively by logical entities — what Karl Popper called the world of ideas to distinguish it from both the inanimate and psychological worlds — whereas the latter focuses on an empirical and dynamic reality containing actors, structures and ideas.


Foreign Policy International Relation Security Policy World Politics Maastricht Treaty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Oppenheim, Political Concepts: A Reconstruction (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), p. 10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Baldwin, ‘Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends Versus Old Tendencies’, World Politics 31:2, 1979, p. 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. See also David A. Baldwin, Economic Statecraft (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 16f, 20.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    ‘Power Analysis and World Politics’, pp. 163ff.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Wallace, ‘What Price Independence: Sovereignty and Interdependence in British Politics’, International Affairs 62: 3, 1986, p. 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 5.
  7. 6.
    Richard N. Cooper, Can Nations Agree? Issues in International Economic Cooperation (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1989).Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Russell, Power (London: Macmillan, 1975), p. 25.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Elster, Explaining Technical Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 75.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    ibid.,pp.15f.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Wildhaber, ‘Swiss Neutrality — Legal Base and Historical Background’, in Neutrals in Europe: Switzerland (Stockholm: Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Conference Papers 10, 1988), p. 5.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    C. Church, ‘The Changing Domestic Dimensions of Swiss Neutrality’, paper prepared for a planning session on ‘The EFTA Neutrals and the EC: Foreign Policy Implications of Membership’, ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Leiden University, April 1993, p. 1.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    op. cit., pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    op. cit., p. 2.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Harto Hakovirta, East-West Conflict and European Neutrality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 59.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    On Austrian neutrality, see Hakovirta op. cit. and Ephraim Karsh, Neutrality and Small States: The European Experience after World War Two (London: Routledge, 1988).Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Hanspeter Neuhold, ‘The Permanent Neutrality of Austria: A Status Similar to and Different from Sweden’s “Non-Alignment”’, in Bo Huldt (ed.), Neutrals in Europe: Austria (Stockhohn: Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Conference Paper 7, 1987), pp. 6–9.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    op. cit., p. 10.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    op. cit., p. 119.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    op. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    op. cit., p. 12.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    op. cit., p. 214.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
  24. 23.
    op. cit., p. 12.Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    op. cit., p. 212.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    From The Odyssey in Jon Elster, Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 36.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    Elster, Ulysses and the Sirens, pp. 36ff.Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Åström, Sweden’s Policy of Neutrality (Stockholm: Swedish Institute, 1983), p. 9.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Elster, Explaining Technical Change, pp. 75f.Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    Specifically, Undén’s policy was to make a clear distinction between questions pertaining to, respectively, Swedish national security, international disarmament and the pursuit of human rights and democratic principles in the international arena. Neutrality, in his view, pertained only to the first of these issue areas. One implication of this view — not always fully appreciated abroad, either conceptually and/or normatively — is that Sweden has felt no compunctions about the need to be ‘neutral’ with respect to the other two areas. Indeed, very often the opposite has been the case.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    For an authoritative discussion of the evolution of European Political Cooperation (ECP) — the precursor of CFSP — into the current policy, see William Nicoll and Trevor C. Salmon, Understanding the New European Community (New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1994), pp. 185–212.Google Scholar
  32. On the EPC, the most thorough treatment is Simon J. Nuttall, European Political Co-operation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 31.
    Nicoll and Salmon, op. cit., p. 207.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
  35. 33.
    op. cit. p. 208.Google Scholar
  36. 34.
    op. cit. pp. 211–12.Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    op. cit., p. 212.Google Scholar
  38. 36.
    Thomas Pedersen, ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Challenge of Enlargement’, in Ole Nørgaard, Thomas Pedersen and Nikolaj Petersen (eds), The European Community in World Politics (London: Pinter Publishers, 1993), p. 36.Google Scholar
  39. 37.
    Pertti Joenniemi, ‘Neutrality Beyond the Cold War’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1993), p. 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 38.
    op. cit., p. 295.Google Scholar
  41. 39.
    op. cit., p. 303.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Irish School of Ecumenics 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Carlsnaes

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations