After Russia invaded Ukraine, the war has lasted more than a year.At the UN Urgent Special Meeting in February this year, two -thirds of member states in favor of Russia's unconditional withdrawal. This is the fourth decision of the UN General Assembly that Russia immediately withdraws the troops.In this resolution, several countries that have invested abandoned votes, including China and India, have always declared that they have held a "neutral" position on the Russian and Ukraine issue, but they have been questioned by the international community.In some countries, including Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, have abandoned the strict "neutral" position in the past.Although Switzerland still claims that they are implementing "differently treating neutral policies", whether the neutral country can continue to be established in fact is also questioned.

In fact, as early as World War II, the legal basis of the "neutral" position in the war has begun to shake, and it is not surprising that this situation is today.This article attempts from the perspective of the evolution of international law theory and internal logic, to say why "neutral" is not spiritual now, but it will be questioned by the international community.

Humanity has ever since, war is like a shadow.However, after the end of World War II, the number of war between the country and the local armed conflict was significantly reduced compared with the past.

From the history of the evolution of the world map, it will be found that before and after the World War I, the world map has undergone tremendous changes.After the First World War, the huge Austro -Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire no longer existed, and the territory of the defeated country was divided or compressed.However, the world map basically maintains stable continuity after World War II.Why?This has to mention the iconic incident in international law: the signing of the general treaty of abandoned war as a national policy tool in 1928.

This international treaty is also known as the Non -War Convention in Paris or the Kelorg -Bailian Convention, which can usually be referred to as the Non -War Convention.Although only three years after the signing of this treaty, Japan invaded China, and the World War II also broke out. However, it still marked the beginning of human beings' efforts to "illegally war in war" and the beginning of the new international legal order.If we talk about international law on war in 1928, we will have great help to understand the meaning of "neutral".

Worked war is a legitimate right

It can be said that the war before the signing of the Non -war Convention, war is legal.One of the main theoretical contributions of Hugo Grotius, the father of the father of international law, the Dutch lawyer and the philosopher, is that it is a legitimate right to mobilize war with each other in each country.right.The international legal order of "power is axioms" has been formed in the 17th century, and although the legal war called Gradus must also be a war of justice.

At that time, people believed that war could defend life and territory, and they could also collect debts, punish crimes, and compensation for damage.Although people will distinguish between "justice" and "non -righteousness" in the concept, the party of declarations will always find the reason for "justice".Moreover, in addition to a "Prize Court" (Prize Court "at that time, it was possible to claim the property rights that the goods captured at sea.Rights protection means.Especially in international trade conflicts, people often solve problems through war or war threats, or open channels for trade exchanges.Later, European colonists opened the gate of China, Japan and other countries, which were closed at the time in East Asia.

In the past, although the war was legal, how to fight about the war, it has a series of rules, including strict neutral principles.The state that announces neutrality must be absolutely fair and cannot favor any side of the war country.If the neutral country shows an attitude of either party, it means that it has abandoned the neutral position and became a participating country.

For example, look at this neutral principle, how strict with the international legal order at the time.

During the French Revolution in the 18th century, a series of wars occurred between France and European countries around the Director of the French Revolution.France declared war on Austria in 1792.In 1793, Louis XVI was sent to a broken decision, which angered monarchs in European countries.Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, etc. have joined the Anti -French Alliance.At that time, France hoped to be united with the United States, because in terms of ideas, France and the United States were close, and the famous thinker Thomas Panne even said that it was the principle that the United States insisted on it and opened the door of the bus prison.

But the US national strength was weak at the time, and he was unwilling to join the war and decided to maintain a neutral position.In 1793, when the French envoy dragged the captured British ship into the port of Philadelphia, the then US Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson appreciated the French Revolution, and it had to declare that the United States could not allow ports to be used by France as military purposes becauseThe United States is a neutral country.

The French ambassador to the United States, Edmond Charles, was very angry, thinking that Jefferson's statement was abandoned by the 1778 American French Alliance Treaty.The treaty stipulates that the United States and France will expel the opponent's enemies out of their respective ports.The French believe that since the treaty is prohibited from using the US port, it implies the meaning -allowed France to use US ports.At that time, France wanted to receive US assistance, even if the United States did not participate in the war; according to international law rules, the United States with any favoritism or assistance to France would be regarded by other countries as participating in the war.

By the 18th and 19th centuries, the international development has developed a very detailed rule to regulate the rights and obligations of the State State.It is good to announce neutrality, which means that you can not only keep your business, but also maintain trade with the warriors.However, the premise is that the neutral country must treat the warfare equality and fairly, so neutralization cannot impose economic sanctions on any party.Economic sanctions and trade discrimination are regarded as a kind of participation. If the other party responds with force, it is also reasonable and legal.This is the basic requirement of neutrality.

Non -war concept changes after neutral concepts

The World War I witnessed how terrible the war can reach. After the war, many scholars, thinkers, jurists, and politicians after the war began to think about how to build a new world order and declare that war is illegal.In 1919, the Paris Association signed an international alliance contract, requiring member states not to resort to war to resolve the dispute. Instead, it is submitted to the alliance to resolve, undergoing investigations from the Alliance Council, or accepting the ruling of the arbitration court and the permanent international court.The failed party in the ruling must abide by the ruling, but if the failure party is not convinced, the ruling will be resorted to the war after three months.

The United States is dissatisfied with the above provisions, which not only refuses to join the international alliance, but also triggers a movement that allows war illegalization.Later, after the efforts of some thinkers in the United States and France, the idea of "illegal war" expanded to Europe and even the world.In 1928, representatives of various countries gathered in Paris, and finally signed a treaty of abandoned war, which is the non -war convention in the previous article.From then on, war, military power is no longer axiom, and all disputes must be resolved peacefully.

This can be said to be a lofty declaration that shows the desire to pursue peace in all civilized countries.But when we see what happened later, it is inevitable that this Convention is too ideal.As one of the signing countries, Japan set off from the "self -defense rights" of various countries that have been kept in this treaty, and to invade China with excuses.In the face of such challenges, countries around the world realize that only ideals are not enough, and people need to find more technical means to curb war.

Before 1928, war was a legitimate means to resolve disputes and determine rights and obligations between war countries. Therefore, international law requires that neutral countries must maintain strict fairness among the war.However, after the war was announced as illegal, the country that launched the war was the "illegal" in the sense of international law. The concept of people's concepts on war and neutrality has gradually changed.After 1928, the war was not just a matter of warfare, but to affect the rights and obligations of all non -war conventions.At that time, US Secretary of Secretary Stattan gave a speech declared that because "it was associated with a new outlook on war", even if it was "distant,""China" conflicts, and other countries must also take action. Stin Sheng invented a strategy, which was later known as "Stimson Doctrine", which affected the development of international law theory.

At that time, Japan established the "Manchuria State" in Northeast China. The United States issued a photo meeting to China and Japan and did not recognize any changes in any legal rights in Northeast China.Because theoretically, since the war is illegal, the rights and interests obtained through the war are also illegal, and "Manchuria" is naturally not recognized.This legal "does not acknowledge" is the core of Stin's birth.

In February 1933, most countries in the world joined the International Alliance.The International Alliance also adopts Stin's birthistitarianism: "The situation, treaty or agreement that may be formed by violating the spirit of the international alliance or the spirit of the non -war convention is an inconspicuous obligation of members of the National Federation."

The land obtained by military conquest can no longer be recognized in the sense of international law.The influence of this principle continued to the current international law. In 2014, Russia's force was obtained by Crimea, and so far it has not been recognized by most countries.

The launch of the war is no longer protected by international law

In the era of war, the neutral country maintains strict and fair, and is the only choice outside the war.However, when the war was illegalized, the original neutrality was equivalent to abolishing in essence.Those who violate the war on the non -war conventions are no longer protected by international law.The onlookers are no longer required to maintain strict neutrality, and the neutral country can treat the parties to all parties.From then on economic sanctions, selling weapons and ammunition to victims, and providing economic assistance, with the illegalization of the war, under certain conditions, it has also become a legitimate means to suppress war.

In 1942, 24 countries signed the Declaration by United National, the most important principle was to reject war and territorial expansion.In 1945, all 50 countries in the meeting signed the United Nations Charter. The United Nations was established. All countries agreed to prohibit force threats and use force. The right to use force was left to the country's self -defense, and the security council that could only take collective operations could only be adopted.After 1928, the war was truly illegal. In fact, during World War II, countries were reached step by step, involving many international treaties.

The final defeat of World War II was not Germany, Japan, and Italy, but the old world order.It is precisely because war is no longer a means to expand territorial territories, and many weak countries have survived in the future.

Today, when the war has been illegalized, for every member country of the United Nations, the so -called "neutral" has actually lost the solid legal foundation in the past.Besides, neutrality is also profitable, and it is impossible to make Bai Ye flawless in morality.If morality is a high standard of social norms, the law is the minimum standard of social norms; even the requirements of this minimum standard are despised, it is difficult to be questioned by the international community.

International law is formed and changed through common actions of various countries. The current international legal order is challenged because of Russia's aggression. Will it change and how to change, and no one can accurately predict.However, if countries around the world still adhere to the consensus of "illegal war", the existing international legal order will still have the cornerstone that remains.The so -called "neutral" failure is precisely because of "war illegal."

The author is a former media person, the authors of the Children's Book