Amid recent international conflicts in various parts of the world, some states are cautiously neutral. They do this for various reasons but mainly to avoid being dragged into a potential issue. However, are these states really neutral? The concept of neutrality has been studied by many scholars, and now there are many versions of neutrality to choose from. The UN definition of neutrality emphasizes the neutrality of a country. Strictly speaking, in order to remain impartial, a state must avoid any contact with other neutral states. This is because all contacts have some influence on the situation they are contacted and this influence is unlikely to be the same for all impartial parties. In practice, such neutrality is not possible and states reflect this in their foreign policies. For example, a prominent example of a neutral country, Switzerland, literally says in the Foreign Policy Strategy 2024–27 that: “Neutrality does not mean indifference.” So, is neutrality just a diplomatic term that covers certain actions? If policy makers use neutrality in different ways, it can be difficult for IR scholars to integrate this concept into their theories. On the other hand, if the theories do not reflect the language of the policy makers, the policy makers will not listen to the theories. This miscommunication widens the gap between IR theory and practice.
International relations are known to be cooperative or adversarial. This means that when actors in an international system interact, they help or harm their partners. However, we often hear that states do not have a neutral relationship with others. What does this mean? In general, one would think that if a country has a neutral relationship with another country, the neutral country is not an arm or enemy of the other country. That is, a neutral state does not help or harm another state, and thus has no influence on the state of another state. But can this still be called a “relationship”? In order to have a relationship with a person, a person must cooperate with his partner, that is, perform an action on his partner. Now, follow this argument: To act consciously, one must first form an intention to act, so all conscious actions are the result of one’s intention to act. Because all actions take place in time, each action implies a change from a previous state to a new one. If this change is intended to benefit the partner, the action is cooperative and vice versa. There can be no act of neutrality because it is logically impossible to change something to be the same.
The idea that a relationship is neither cooperative nor conflictual may remind us of Erwin Schrödinger’s famous thought about the dead or alive cat. Schrödinger’s goal was to point out the absurdity of the situation that matter can be in two opposite states at the same time. We know that this, at least on a large level of reality, is impossible. Logically, this proposition is known as the principle of non-contradiction and, for example, Aristotle called it a strict law because it can derive any information at all. Therefore all relationships must be cooperative or conflictual because these two types of relationships are mutually exclusive. No relationship can be neutral because all relationships require some action that leads to some change. No change means no action, and no action implies a relationship.
We have seen that, despite the official language, no neutral relationship can exist. But why is this important? First, it shows the duality of international politics, which is, surprisingly, less obvious to other IR scholars. Second, it can help policy makers make sense of IR theory. How? All IR theories describe certain factors that are thought to lead to a certain type of relationship. For example, economic interdependence may, in terms of freedom, produce a cooperative relationship. According to the IR school, these causal factors can be material power, identity, pre-existing relationships, structure, social norms, etc. Some of these factors should drive players to cooperate and some of them lead to conflict. There is no factor that would cause players to establish a different type of relationship simply because no other type of relationship is legally possible. Dividing factors such as interaction and conflict simplifies the entire field of IR theory for people who are not interested in philosophical debates but who care more about facts. How? Instead of following a particular theory, one can simply make a list of all the causal factors listed by all IR theories and divide the list into two main groups: 1) factors that promote cooperation, and 2) factors that promote conflict.
Such a summary of IR theory can be an important tool for all policy makers because it describes all known factors that have the potential to influence what type of international relations will be realized. Policy makers then select only those factors that are present in their particular situation and assign a certain weight to each of those factors according to how important the role these factors may play in the relationship. For example, if military power is thought to be more influential, we should give more weight to it. Finally, policy makers compare the total weight of the cooperative factors with the total weight of the conflicting factors in their situation. Based on the result, policy makers will know whether to expect cooperation or conflict, including the intensity of cooperation or conflict. Indeed, this is a brief summary of how the IR model of cooperative conflict can help policy makers apply the knowledge of IR theory. The details of this approach are described at length elsewhere, however, even this quick overview hopefully shows how removing the term “neutral relation” from IR discourse can help bridge the muddy waters between IR theory and practice.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
