Citation

Goetschel L. Coop. Confl. 2011; 46(3): 312-333.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, Nordic Committee for the Study of International Politics, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0010836711416957

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Neutral and alliance-free states continue to exist. Even though neutrality has lost its realistic survival function, it continues to serve as provider of national identity for neutral states. This identity is rooted in neutrality's idealistic function, according to which neutral states used to engage for humanitarian issues and the reduction of violence in international relations. The argument developed suggests an extension of this traditional role concept of neutral states: they should engage as promoters of ideas in international peacebuilding which are contested because they are perceived as a threat to national sovereignty, such as the responsibility to protect (R2P). While neutrality's realistic functions make neutral states credible advocates of sovereignty and autonomy, its idealistic functions provide them with a track record in positive reforms in international relations. Acting as norm entrepreneurs, neutral states could reduce the contradiction between 'prevention' and 'intervention'. Therefore, the key argument of this article focuses on the basis of neutrality's conceptual roots, the conditions for success of political ideas and examples from recent peacebuilding practice.