Neutrality serves different purposes during times of war and peace. ‘Notions of Neutralities’ portrays those historical challenges that neutrals faced, and are still facing, to maintain some form of economic stability and political order as chaos and wars rage. Neutrals are exposed to existential issues and questions of civil-society, international politics, and morality, in a world defiant to principles of universal peace. Every age has its own armed conflicts and while the questions they raise are often the same, the answers are different because the international word order changes. Is neutrality justifiable even when the humanity of civilization is at risk as in the Second World War or the wars of the post-Cold War era? Can those who refuse the call to arms still act by providing humanitarian services to contain the impact of war or, on the contrary, are neutrals shut-off from global politics – mere weaklings that “suffer what they must?" This book addresses such questions through an interdisciplinary scholarship by some of the world’s foremost experts on neutrality. Twelve chapters tackle different but profound aspects of the concept over a span of five hundred years. They succinctly show the evolution of international norms in the context of war and peace. What is more, the essays portray fundamental categories of thinking about a variety of neutralities that the international system has produced in the past and present. The authors discuss the complexities of neutrality, providing a new and refreshing understanding of international relations and security for the past as well as for the multipolar world of the twenty-first century.

In a tension-filled world characterized by opposing blocs of nations, the pursuit of the policy of neutrality by a few states such as Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Austria may conjure up the vista of a peaceful oasis. But what is the actual meaning of neutrality at present, and what are the rights and obligations of governments that claim to be neutral? Are there differences in the concepts of neutrality as embraced by individual states? Have the legal concepts of neutrality been changing over time and especially during the last few decades? And can and do states adopt neutral stances on selected international issues while remaining partisan on others and what consequences flow from such foreign policy behavior? These and other questions regarding neutrality are examined and discussed in this volume co-published with the Institute for Comparative Study of Public Policy at the University of New Orleans.

This book analyses the notion of neutrality to the politics of the state in Southeast Asia. Distinguishing among neutrality, neutralism and neutralisation, it asks what relation do the concepts bear to the independence of states, and how do they relate to other forms of inter-state relations and to participation in international organizations. The author considers concepts of neutrality and the policy of non-alignment as they were developed in South and Southeast Asia. Using case studies of a variety of Asian countries, including India, Burma, Cambodia and other countries in Southeast Asia, he discusses the novel notion of a regional form of neutralisation as a means of decolonising the region and examines the relevance neutralism has in current international politics and what might it have in the future. This new work by one of the most foremost historians on Southeast Asia is of interest to scholars in the field of Asian History, Politics, International Relations and Strategic Studies.

Violations of religious freedom and violence committed in the name of religion grab our attention on a daily basis. Freedom of religion or belief is a key human right: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, numerous conventions, declarations and soft law standards include specific provisions on freedom of religion or belief. The 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief has been interpreted since 1986 by the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Special Rapporteurs (for example those on racism, freedom of expression, minority issues and cultural rights) and Treaty Bodies (for example the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Rights of the Child) have also elaborated on freedom of religion or belief in the context of their respective mandates. Freedom of Religion or Belief: An International Law Commentary is the first commentary to look comprehensively at the international provisions for the protection of freedom of religion or belief, considering how they are interpreted by various United Nations Special Procedures and Treaty Bodies. Structured around the thematic categories of the United Nations Special Rapporteur's framework for communications, the commentary analyses, for example, the limitations on the wearing of religious symbols and vulnerable situations, including those of women, detainees, refugees, children, minorities and migrants, through a combination of scholarly expertise and practical experience.

Looking at Classical warfare from the perspective of the non-belligerents, Robert A. Bauslaugh brings together the scattered evidence testifying to neutral behavior among the Greek city-states and their non-Greek neighbors. Were the Argives of 480/479 B.C. really "Medizers," as many have accused, or were they pursuing a justifiable policy of neutrality as they claimed? On what basis in international law or custom did the Corcyraeans claim non-alignment? Why were the leading belligerent states willing to accept the inclusion of a "neutrality clause" in the Common Peace of 371? These questions have not been asked by historians of international law, and the answers provide a far more complex and sophisticated picture of interstate relations than has so far been available. Despite the absence of exclusively diplomatic language, the concept of respect for neutrals appears early in Greek history and remains a nearly constant feature of Classical wars. The problems confronting uncommitted states, which have clear parallels in modern history, were balanced by widespread acceptance of the need for limitations on the chaos of warfare.