PROJECT WORK ON

“PUBLIC INTERENATIONAL LAW”

TOPIC: “THE CONCEPT OF NEUTRALITY IN

INTERNATIONAL LAW.”

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

Ms. Neelam Lama

SUBMITTED BY:

NAME: Mohini bala barman

ROLL NO: 74/LLBH/16026
REGISTRATION NO: 32A1505040027
SEMESTER – IX(5th YEAR)
CLASS ROLL NO: 21

DEPARTMENT OF LAW
NORTH BENGAL UNIVERSITY
CONTENTS PAGE NO:

1. INTRODUCTION ………….

2. RESEARCH PROBLEM …………..

3. HYPOTHESIS ………….

4. OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK ………….

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ………….

6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY …………..

7. RESEARCH METHODOLY …………..

8. CHAPTERISATION

i) Introduction …………

ii) Role of neutrality in international

Law …………

iii) Difference between permanent

And classical neutrality …………

iv) Archetypes of neutralization …………

v) Conclusion …………

vi) Bibliography …………

1. INTRODUCTION
NEUTRALITY
Neutrality is a term of International Law, it applies to the state which is
impartial and does not take part in war or conflict between two states. Such a
state does not support or help either side of the conflict or disagreement.

According to Black Law Dictionary, “The state of a nation which take no part
between two or more nations at war.”

According to Lawrance, “Conditions of those states which in times of war take

no part in the contest but continue pacific (peaceful character) intercourse
(communication) with the belligerents (a nation or person engaged in war or
conflict.

According to Jessup, “Neutrality is a legal status arising from the abstention

(an instance of dealing to vote for or against) of a state from all participation in
a war between other states.”

2. Research problem
Throughout history, states have generally had two choices of action in regard
to a conflict between states, to get involved on one side or to avoid the conflict.
If the state was not in the area of conflict and otherwise unaffected by the
conflict the state could stay out of the conflict by simply not taking any action.
However, if the state had interests affected by the conflict, e.g. a trade route
leading through one of the states partaking in the conflict, or if it was
approached by one of those states, the situation often required an official
standpoint on the issue.

The purpose of declaring neutrality depends on from which side you choose to
see the declaration. From the point of view of the neutral state, the purpose is to
be as unaffected as possible of the ongoing conflict. From the perspective of
the belligerents the purpose of provoking such a declaration is to ensure that
the opposite side does not get any support from the neutral state either. To
ensure that these purposes were fulfilled certain obligations and rights have
developed over time.

The two classical duties of a state claiming neutrality are to remain uninvolved
(abstention) and to treat the conflicting parties equally (impartiality). These are
to a certain extent two ways of defining the same obligation. If the neutral state
is not taking part in the conflict it is hard for it to be partial towards one of the
belligerents. On the other hand, if a state treats the parties of the conflict
equally it can still be involved in the conflict, e.g. by supplying military
equipment, which is why there has been a greater interest for the latter term.
The relation between these two terms is unclear, it is because neutrality
consists only of abstention. The UN Charter has restricted the possibilities to
trade with aggressors and consequently changed the balance between
impartiality and abstention in favor of the latter.

3. HYPOTHESIS:
Neutrality status entails specific rights and duties in the relationship between the
neutral and the belligerent states. On one hand, there is the right of the neutral state to
remain apart from and not to be adversely affected by the conflict. On the other hand,
there is the duty of non-participation and impartiality. Both of them somehow results
into a contradiction to a certain extent by not being a part of both the parties. Further
it could result into more diplomatic conflicts and unrest, damaging the status quo of
the nation.
4. OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK:

The main object of the research is to clear the concept of neutrality in

international law and its pros and cons in international level. Further the study
aims to bring light on the roles played by neutrality in different areas and how
it does adversely affects the status of one nation.

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

The proposed research questions are as follows:

i) What is the role of neutrality in International Law?

ii) What is the difference between permanent and classical neutrality?

iii) What are the archetypes of neutralization?

iv) Why the countries prefer to stay neutral?

v) How neutrality help in pursuing and maintaining world peace?

6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The scope of the study revolves around the role of neutrality in international
law and how neutrality helps in maintaining world peace. Further why
countries choose to be neutral and the archetypes of neutralization.
7. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The methodology adopted in this work is purely Doctrinal. To complete this

work it covers various authentic websites, journals and textbook has been
analyzed and criticized.

8. CHAPTERISATION: