Advertisement

Neutrality and the EU: An Austrian View

  • Andreas Rendl
Chapter

Abstract

Neutrality is linked to the concept of sovereignty. At its beginning, this concept entailed the right of nation states to go to war whenever this seemed appropriate to them, depending on their national interests. Neutrality represents the complementary right of states not to take part in such wars. Thus neutrality is an expression of national sovereignty.1 It is mainly a political concept. The legal rules, which developed over time, reflected consolidated international political practice. Neutrality was never meant as an end in itself but always as a policy instrument, aimed at restricting and regulating use of military force in international relations. Neutrality doesn’t preclude a country from taking part in international cooperation with the aim of limiting or preventing international conflicts, as do collective security arrangements. On the contrary: such arrangements actually pursue the same purpose as neutrality.2

Keywords

Security Policy Crisis Management Austrian Government European Economic Community European Security 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Daniel Frei (1968): NeutralitätIdeal oder Kalkül? Zweihundert Jahre aussen-politisches Denken in der Schweiz, Frauenfeld/Stuttgart (Huber), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrew Bennet and Joseph Lepgold (1991:108): Reinventing Collective Security after the Cold War and Gulf Conflict, in: Political Science Quarterly, pp. 213–215; Frei (1968), pp. 176, 178 (see note no. 1).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heinz Vetschera (1990): Austria, in: Richard E. Bissell and Curt Gasteyger (eds.): The Missing Link. West European Neutrals and Regional Security, Durham/London (Duke University Press), p. 59.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vetschera (1990), p. 60 (see note no. 3).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Report of the Federal Government to the National Council and to the Federal Council concerning the Future Relations of Austria with the European Communities, Vienna, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Commission Opinion on Austria’s Application for Membership (SEC (91) 1590 final), in: Bulletin of the European Communities (supplement 4) (1992), p. 6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paul Luif (1995): On the Road to Brussels. The Political Dimension of Austria’s, Finland’s and Sweden’s Accession to the European Union, Vienna (Braumüller), p. 198.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Commission opinion on Austria’s application, p. 17 (see note no. 6).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luif (1995), p. 240 (see note no. 7); Thomas Nowotny (1991): Das Avis der EG-Kommission zum österreichischen Beitrittsansuchen, in: Österreichisches Jahrbuch für Politik, p. 264.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bericht des Aussenpolitischen Ausschusses des Nationalrates, Stenographisches Protokoll, 20.10.1992, p. 3, cited in: Luif (1995), p. 244 (see note no. 7).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vetschera (1990), p. 76 (see note no. 3).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Otmar Höll and Helmut Kramer (27 February — 3 March 1997): Globalization, Normalization and Europeanization of a Small(er) State’s Foreign Policy. The Case of Austria (Paper prepared for the 25th ECPR Joint Session of Workshops), Berne, p. 17.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vetschera (1990), p. 77 (see note no. 3).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paul Luif (1998): Der Wandel der österreichischen Neutralität. Ist österreich ein sicherheitspolitischer Trittbrettfahrer? (öIIP Arbeitspapier 18), Laxenburg, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luif (1998), p. 44 (see note no. 14).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laurent Goetschel (1998): Die GASP nach der Regierungskonferenz 96’. Auf dem Weg zum europäischen Krisenmanagement?, in: Friedensbericht 1998 (österreichisches Studienzentrum für Frieden und Konfliktlösung / Schweizerische Friedensstiftung (ed.)), Chur/Zurich (Rüegger), pp. 63–78.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2 April 1998, p. 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Rendl

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations