This article approaches ‘neutrality’ as an essentially contested concept and traces its meaning and purpose over centuries-long historical timelines and situated political, societal and security contexts. It distinguishes neutrality from other concepts such as ‘neutralization’ ‘non-belligerency’, ‘non-alignment’, ‘military non-alignment’, ‘military neutrality’ and ‘non-allied’. The article explains the politics of defining neutrality in the current European political and legal landscape and in the context of shifting definitions and practices of war, peace, security and state sovereignty. This episteme-based analysis focuses on changes to neutrality in accordance with the rise and fall of particular empires and international actors over time, and changes to its status linked to the development and reification of particular meta-theoretically-based subfields of International Relations and Political Science, setting the background to this special issue of Cooperation and Conflict. A renewed emphasis on the normative aspects of neutrality (i.e. the role of domestic values, politics, preferences, history and mass publics in foreign policy formulation) is achieved by employing a range of perspectives, characterized by increased pluralism in levels of analysis and theoretical approaches. Through this pluralism, authors engage with (1) the strategic and normative drivers underpinning the norm of neutrality, (2) the potential for neutrals to serve as norm entrepreneurs in the field of peace promotion, (3) the tenuous legal status of elites’ quasi-neutral foreign policy constructions underpinned by tensions between discourses and practices and (4) the discursive strategies underpinning the move from neutral states’ traditional forms of neutrality to what is termed ‘post-neutrality’ in the current politico-legal context.
AgiusC. (2006) The Social Construction of Swedish Neutrality. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
2.
AlbrechtU. (1981) ‘Western European Neutralism’, Security Dialogue12: 259–69.
3.
AlbrechtU.AuffermannB.JoenniemiP. (1988) ‘Neutrality: The Need for Conceptual Revision’, TAPRI Occasional Papers, 35, Tampere Peace Research Institute.
4.
AmstrupN. (1976) ‘The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research Efforts’, Cooperation and Conflict11: 163–82.
5.
AndrénN. (1991) ‘On the Meaning and Uses of Neutrality’, Cooperation and Conflict26: 67–83.
6.
BailesA. J. K.HerolfG.SundeliusB. (eds) (2006) The Nordic Countries and the ESDP. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
Baker FoxA. (1959) The Power of Small States: Diplomacy in World War II. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
8.
BarkinJ. S. (2003) ‘Realist Constructivism’, International Studies Review5: 325–42.
9.
BauslaughR. A. (1991) The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10.
BinterB. (1985) ‘The Actual and Potential Role of Neutrality in Search of Peace and Security’, Security Dialogue16: 387–98.
11.
BinterB. (1989) ‘Neutrality, European Community and World Peace: The Case of Austria’, Journal of Peace Research26: 413–18.
12.
BinterB. (1992) ‘Neutrality in a Changing World: End or Renaissance of a Concept?’, Bulletin of Peace Proposals23: 213–18.
13.
BjolE. (1968) ‘The Power of the Weak’, Cooperation and Conflict3: 157–68.
14.
BjörkdahlA. (2007) ‘Constructing a Swedish Conflict Prevention Policy Based on a Powerful Idea and Successful Practices’, Cooperation and Conflict42: 169–85.
15.
BrownC. (2007) ‘From Humanized War to Humanitarian Intervention. Carl Schmitt’s Critique of the Just War Tradition’, in OdysseosL.PetitoF. (eds) The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt. Terror, Liberal War and the Crisis of Global Order, pp. 56–69. Abingdon: Routledge.
16.
BukovanskyM. (1997) ‘American Identity and Neutral Rights from Independence to the War of 1812’, International Organization51: 209–43.
17.
CarlsnaesW.SmithS. (eds) (1994) European Foreign Policy. London: Sage.
18.
CarlsnaesW.SjursenH.WhiteB. (2004) Contemporary European Foreign Policy. London: Sage.
19.
ConnollyW. (1989) ‘Identity and Difference in Global Politics’, in der DerianJ.ShapiroM. (eds) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, pp. 323–42. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
20.
DahlA.-S. (1997) ‘Not if but How: Sweden’s Future Relations with NATO’, NATO Review45: 19–22.
21.
Der DerianJ.ShapiroM. (1989) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
22.
DevineK. M. (2006) ‘The Myth of “the Myth of Irish Neutrality”: Deconstructing Concepts of Irish Neutrality using International Relations Theories’, Irish Studies in International Affairs17: 115–39.
23.
DevineK. M. (2008) ‘Stretching the IR Theoretical Spectrum of Debate on Irish Neutrality: Arguments and Evidence in Favor of a Critical Social Constructivist Framework of Understanding’, International Political Science Review29: 461–88.
24.
DörferI. (1997) The Nordic Nations in the New Western Security Regime. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
DugganJ. (1991) A History of the Irish Army. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.
26.
EkengrenM. (2004) ‘National Foreign Policy Coordination: The Swedish EU Presidency’, in CarlsnaesW.SjursenH.WhiteB. (eds) Contemporary European Foreign Policy, pp. 211–26. London: Sage.
27.
EkengrenM. (2006) ‘The Interface of External and Internal Security in the EU and in Nordic Policies’, in BailesA. J. K.HerolfG.SundeliusB. (eds) The Nordic Countries and the ESDP, pp. 267–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
EliassonJ. (2004) ‘Traditions, Identity and Security: The Legacy of Neutrality in Finnish and Swedish Security Policies in Light of European Integration’, European Integration Online Papers8(6).
29.
EngelbrektK. (2002) Security Policy Reorientation in Peripheral Europe: A Comparative-Perspective Approach. Aldershot: Ashgate.
30.
FaircloughN.WodakR. (1997) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, in WetherellM.TaylorS.YatesS. (eds) Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage.
31.
Ferreira-PereiraLaura C. (2007) ‘Inside the Fence but Outside the Walls: The Military Non-Allied States and the Security Architecture of Post-Cold War Europe’. Bern: Peter Lang.
32.
ForsbergT. (2002) ‘September 11 as a Challenge to Understanding Transatlantic Relations: The Case of Sweden and Finland’, in SundeliusB. (ed.) The Consequences of September 11, pp. 151–62. Conference Papers 30. Stockholm: UI.
33.
ForsbergT.VaahtorantaT. (2001) ‘Inside the EU, Outside NATO: Paradoxes of Finland’s and Sweden’s Post-Neutrality’, European Security10: 68–93.
34.
GilmourJ. (2010) Sweden, the Swastika, and Stalin: The Swedish Experience in the Second World War. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
35.
GstöhlS. (2002) Reluctant Europeans: Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland in the Process of Integration. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
36.
GoetschelL. (1999) ‘Neutrality, a Really Dead Concept?’ Cooperation and Conflict34: 115–39.
37.
GoldmannK. (1989) ‘The Line in Water: International and Domestic Politics’, Cooperation and Conflict24: 103–16.
38.
GoldmannK. (1991) ‘The Swedish Model of Security Policy’, West European Politics14: 122–43.
39.
GoldsteinJ.KeohaneR. O. (eds) (1993) Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
40.
GourlayC. (2006) ‘The Emerging EU Civilian Crisis Response Capacity’, in RicciA.KytömaaE. (eds) Faster and More United? The Debate about Europe’s Crisis Response Capacity, pp. 54–64. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
41.
HägglöfG. (1960) ‘A Test of Neutrality: Sweden in the Second World War’, International Affairs36: 153–67.
42.
Hague Conventions (1907) ‘Laws of War: Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V) (18 October)’, Available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp#art4; accessed on 12 March 2011.
43.
HakovirtaH. (1988) East–West Conflict and European Neutrality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
44.
HallenbergJ. (2000) ‘Swedish Foreign and Security Policy’, in MilesL. (ed.) Sweden and the European Union Evaluated, pp. 19–32. London: Continuum.
45.
HandelM. (1985) Weak States in the International System. London: Frank Cass.
46.
HanfK.SoetendorpB. (eds) (1998) Adapting to European Integration: Small States and the European Union. London: Longman.
47.
HolbraadC. (1991) Danish Neutrality: A Study in the Foreign Policy of a Small State. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
48.
HollisM.SmithS. (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
49.
HolstiK. J. (1970) ‘National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy’, International Studies Quarterly14: 233–309.
50.
HonkanenK. (2002) ‘Small States in NATO Decision-Making: Influence or Accommodation?’, in DahlA.-S.HillmerN. (eds) Activism and (Non)alignment, pp. 7–30. Stockholm: Utrikespolitiska Institutet.
51.
HudsonV. M. (2005) ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations’, Foreign Policy Analysis1: 1–30.
52.
IngebritsenC. (2002) ‘Norm Entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics’, Cooperation and Conflict37: 11–23.
53.
IngebritsenC. (2006) Small States in International Relations. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
54.
International Studies (1981) Special Issue on Non-Alignment, 20(1–2).
55.
JacobsenJ. K. (2003) ‘Duelling Constructivisms: A Post-Mortem on the Ideas Debate in Mainstream IR/IPE’, Review of International Studies29: 39–60.
56.
JessupP. C.DeákF. (1935) Neutrality: The Origins. (Vol. 1, Neutrality: Its History, Economics and Law). New York: Columbia University Press.
57.
JessupP. C. (1936) Neutrality: Today and Tomorrow (Vol. 4, Neutrality: Its History, Economics and Law). New York: Columbia University Press.
58.
JoenniemiP. (1989) ‘The Peace Potential of Neutrality: A Discursive Approach’, Bulletin of Peace Proposals20: 175–82.
59.
JohanssonA. W. (1997) ‘Neutrality and Modernity: The Second World War and Sweden’s National Identity’, in EkmanS.EdlingN. (eds) War Experience, Self-Image and National Identity: The Second World War as Myth and History, pp. 163–208. Stockholm: Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation and Gidlunds Förlag.
60.
JoppM.OjanenH. (eds) (1999) European Security Integration. Implications for Non-Alignment and Alliances. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Institut für Europäische Politik and WEU Institute for Security Studies.
61.
JørgensenK. E. (1999) ‘Possibilities of a “Nordic” Influence on the Development of the CFSP’, in JoppM.OjanenH. (eds) European Security Integration. Implications for Non-Alignment and Alliances, pp. 103–36. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Institut für Europäische Politik and WEU Institute for Security Studies.
62.
KarshE. (1986) ‘Finland: Adaptation and Conflict’, International Affairs62: 265–78.
63.
KarshE. (1988) Neutrality and Small States. London: Routledge.
64.
KatzensteinP. J. (1985) Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
65.
KeohaneR. O. (1971) ‘The Big Influence of Small Allies’, Foreign Policy2: 161–83.
66.
KiteC. (2006) ‘The Domestic Background: Public Opinion and Party Attitudes Towards Integration in the Nordic Countries’, in BailesA. J. K.HerolfG.SundeliusB. (eds) The Nordic Countries and the ESDP, pp. 99–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67.
KruzelJ.HaltzelM. H. (eds) (1989) Between the Blocs. Problems and Prospects for Europe’s Neutral and Nonaligned States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
LabsE. J. (1992) ‘Do Weak States Bandwagon?’ Security Studies1: 383–416.
69.
LeonardA. T. (ed.) (1988) Neutrality. Changing Concepts and Practices. New Orleans, LA: University Press of America and Institute for the Comparative Study of Public Policy, University of New Orleans.
70.
LindellU.PerssonS. (1986) ‘The Paradox of Weak State Power: A Research and Literature Overview’, Cooperation and Conflict21: 79–97.
71.
LiskaG. (1957) International Equilibrium: A Theoretical Essay on the Politics and Organization of Security. London: Harvard University Press.
72.
LyonP. (1963) Neutralism. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
73.
MalmborgAf. M. (2001) Neutrality and State-Building in Sweden. Houndsmills: Palgrave.
74.
MannersI.WhitmanR. G. (eds) (2000) The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
75.
MaudeG. (1982) ‘The Further Shores of Finlandization’, Cooperation and Conflict17: 3–16.
76.
McSweeneyB. (ed.) (1985) Ireland and the Threat of Nuclear War: The Question of Irish Neutrality. Dublin: Dominican Publications.
77.
MilesL. (1995) ‘Sweden and Security’, in RedmondJ. (ed.) The 1995 Enlargement of the European Union, pp. 86–124. Aldershot: Ashgate.
78.
MilesL. (2000) ‘Sweden and Finland’, in MannersI.WhitmanR. G. (eds) The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States, pp. 181–203. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
79.
MilesL. (2005) Fusing With Europe? Sweden in the European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate.
80.
MilesL. (2006) ‘Domestic Influences on Nordic Security and Defence Policy: From the Perspective of Fusion’, in BailesA. J. K.HerolfG.SundeliusB. (eds) The Nordic Countries and the ESDP, pp. 77–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
81.
MöllerU.BjereldU. (2010) ‘From Nordic Neutrals to Post-Neutral Europeans: Differences in Finnish and Swedish Policy Transformation’, Cooperation and Conflict45: 363–86.
82.
MoravcsikA. (1997) ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization51: 513–53.
83.
MourtizenH. (1988) Finlandization: Towards a General Theory of Adaptive Politics. Avebury: Gower Publishing.
84.
MourtizenH. (1991) ‘Tension Between the Strong, and the Strategies of the Weak’, Journal of Peace Research28: 217–30.
85.
MunroE. (ed.) (2005) Challenges to Neutral and Non-Aligned Countries in Europe and Beyond. Geneva: Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
86.
NeackL.HeyJ. A. K.HaneyP. (1995) Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
87.
OgleyR. (1970) The Theory and Practice of Neutrality in the Twentieth Century. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
88.
OjanenH.HerolfG.LindahlR. (2000) Non-Alignment and European Security Policy: Ambiguity at Work. Helsinki: Ulkopoliittinen Instituutti and Institut für Europäische Politik (Programme of the Northern Dimension of the CFSP. No. 6).
89.
OjanenH. (2000) ‘Finnish Non-alignment: Drills in Flexibility’, in OjanenH.HerolfG.LindahlR. (eds) Nonalignment and European Security Policy: Ambiguity at Work, pp. 86–154. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
90.
OjanenH. (2002) ‘Sweden and Finland: What Difference Does it Make to Be Non-Aligned?’, in GrægerN.LarsenH.OjanenH. (eds) The ESDP and the Nordic Countries: Four Variations on a Theme, pp. 154–217. Helsinki: Ulkopoliittinen Instituutti (Programme on the Northern dimension of the CFSP).
91.
OjanenH. (ed.) (2003) Neutrality and Non-Alignment in Europe Today. FIIA Report 6/2003. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
92.
OnufN. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Durham, NC: University of South Carolina Press.
93.
OppenheimL. (1906) International Law: War and Neutrality. London: Longmans.
94.
ØrvikN. (1953) The Decline of Neutrality. 1914–1941. Oslo: Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag.
95.
PenttiläRisto E. J. (1999) ‘Non-Alignment – Obsolete in Today’s Europe?’, in JoppM.OjanenH. (eds) European Security Integration, Implications for Non-Alignment and Alliances, pp. 167–87. Finnish Institute of International Affairs and Institut für Europäische Politik and WEU Institute for Security Studies.
96.
PhinnemoreD. (2000) ‘Austria’, in MannersI.WhitmanR. G. (eds) The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States, pp. 204–23. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
97.
PursiainenC.SaariS. (2002) Et tu Brute! Finland’s NATO Option and Russia UPI Report 1/2002. Helsinki: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
98.
RaymondG. A. (1997) ‘Neutrality Norms and the Balance of Power’, Cooperation and Conflict32: 123–46.
99.
RiekerP. (2004) ‘Europeanization of Nordic Security: The European Union and the Changing Security Identities of the Nordic States’, Cooperation and Conflict39(4): 369–392.
100.
ReiterD. (1994) ‘Learning, Realism, and Alliances: The Weight of the Shadow of the Past’, World Politics46: 490–526.
101.
ReiterD. (1996) Crucible of Beliefs. Learning, Alliances, and World Wars. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
102.
RiekerP. (2002) From Territorial Defence to Comprehensive Security? European Integration and the Changing Norwegian and Swedish Security Identities Nr. 626. Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt.
103.
RiesT. (1999) Finland and NATO Strategian Tutkimuksia, Julkaisusarja 1, No. 15. Helsinki: National Defence College, Department of Strategic and Defence Studies.
104.
RiesT. (2002) ‘Activism and Nonalignment: The Case of Finland’, in A-S. Dahl and N. Hillmer (eds)Activism and (Non)alignment, pp. 71–82. Stockholm: Utrikespolitiska Institutet.
RossJ. F. L. (1989) Neutrality and International Sanctions. Sweden, Switzerland and Collective Security. Westport, CT: Praeger.
107.
RothsteinR. L. (1968) Alliances and Small Powers. New York and London: Columbia University Press.
108.
RubinA. P. (1988) ‘The Concept of Neutrality in International Law’, in LeonardA. T. (ed.) Neutrality. Changing Concepts and Practices, pp. 9–34. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
109.
RusiA. (1987) ‘Finlandization without Finland?’, in Yearbook of Finnish Foreign Policy, 1987. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
110.
SivonenP. (2001) ‘Finland and NATO’, in HuldtB.TiilikainenT.VaahtorantaT.Helkama-RågårdA. (eds) Finnish and Swedish Security. Comparing National Policies, pp. 92–104. Stockholm: Swedish National Defence College and the Programme on the Northern Dimension of the CFSP, Finnish Institute of International Affairs and the Institut für Europäische Politik.
111.
SternM. (1991) Security Policy in Transition – Sweden after the Cold War (Padrigu Thesis Series. University dissertation from Padrigu Papers). Gothenburg: Department of Peace and Development Research, Göteborg University.
112.
StrömvikM. (2006) ‘Starting to “Think Big”: The Nordic Countries and EU Peace-building’, in BailesA. J. K.HerolfG.SundeliusB. (eds) The Nordic Countries and the ESDP, pp. 199–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
113.
SundeliusB. (ed.) (1987) The Neutral Democracies and the New Cold War. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
114.
SundeliusB. (1994) ‘Changing Course: When Neutral Sweden Chose to Join the European Community’, in CarlsnaesW.SmithS. (eds) European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe, pp. 177–201. London: Sage.
115.
Thucydides (1951) The Peloponnesian War. Introduction by FinleyJohn H.Jr.New York: Random House.
116.
TiilikainenT. (2001) ‘Finland in the EU’, in HuldtB.TiilikainenT.VaahtorantaT.Helkama-RågårdA. (eds) Finnish and Swedish Security. Comparing National Policies, pp. 60–70. Stockholm: Swedish National Defence College and the Programme on the Northern Dimension of the CFSP, Finnish Institute of International Affairs and the Institut für Europäische Politik.
117.
TonraB. (2000) ‘Denmark and Ireland’, in MannersI.WhitmanR. G. (eds) The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States, pp. 224–42. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
118.
TorfingJ. (1999) New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell.
119.
VagtsD. F. (1998) ‘Neutrality Law in World War II’, Cardozo Law Review20: 459–82.
120.
VagtsD. F. (1999) ‘The Traditional Legal Concept of Neutrality in a Changing Environment’, American University International Law Review14: 83–102.
121.
VaahtorantaT.ForsbergT. (2000) ‘Post-Neutral or Pre-Allied?, Finnish and Swedish Policies on the EU and NATO as Security Organisations’, UPI Working Papers 29 (2000). Helsinki: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
122.
VäyrynenR. (1971) ‘On the Definition and Measurement of Small Power Status’, Cooperation and Conflict6: 91–102.
123.
VäyrynenR. (1989) ‘Constraints and Opportunities in the Foreign Policies of Small States’, in HeurlinB.ThineC. (eds) Danmark og det Internationale System, pp. 52–62. Copenhagen: Politiske Studier, København.
124.
VäyrynenT. (2006) ‘“The Higher Cause of Peace”: What Could and Should the Nordic Countries Contribute to the Development of Conflict Mediation in the EU Context?’, in BailesA. J. K.HerolfG.SundeliusB. (eds) The Nordic Countries and the ESDP, pp. 215–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
125.
VitalD. (1967) The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
126.
VitalD. (1971) The Survival of Small States: Studies in Small Power/Great Power Conflict. London: Oxford University Press.
127.
VukadinovicR. (1989) ‘The Various Conceptions of European Neutrality’, in KruzelJ.HaltzelM. H. (eds) Between the Blocs. Problems and Prospects for Europe’s Neutral and Nonaligned States, pp. 29–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
128.
WæverO. (1990) ‘The Language of Foreign Policy’, Journal of Peace Research27: 335–43.
129.
WæverO. (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization52: 687–727.
130.
WæverO. (2010) ‘Towards a Political Sociology of Security Studies’, Security Dialogue41: 649–58.
131.
WahlbäckK. (1986) The Roots of Swedish Neutrality. Stockholm: Swedish Institute.
132.
WaltStephen M. (1991) ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International Studies Quarterly35: 211–39.
133.
WalzerM. (2006) Just and Unjust Wars. A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th edn.New York: Basic Books.
134.
WeldesJ. (1999) Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
135.
WendtA. (1992) ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It’, International Organization46: 391–425.
136.
WhiteB. (1999) ‘The European Challenge to Foreign Policy Analysis’, European Journal of International Relations5: 37–66.
137.
WidmerS. (1989) ‘Forms of Neutrality’, in KruzelJ.HaltzelM. H. (eds) Between the Blocs. Problems and Prospects for Europe’s Neutral and Nonaligned States, pp. 17–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
138.
WibergH. (1987) ‘The Security of Small Nations: Challenges and Defences’, Journal of Peace Research24: 339–63.
139.
WilsonRobert R. (1941) ‘“Non-Belligerency” in Relation to the Terminology of Neutrality’, American Journal of International Law35: 121–3.
140.
WinnerstigM. (2001) ‘Sweden and NATO’, in HuldtB.TiilikainenT.VaahtorantaT.Helkama-RågårdA. (eds) Finnish and Swedish Security. Comparing National Policies, pp. 76–91. Stockholm: Swedish National Defence College and the Programme on the Northern Dimension of the CFSP, Finnish Institute of International Affairs and the Institut für Europäische Politik.
141.
WrightQ. (1941) ‘The Lend-Lease Bill and International Law’, American Journal of International Law35: 305–14.
142.
WylieN. (ed.) (2002) European Neutrals and Non-Belligerents During the Second World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
