Talk:Neutral country/Archive 01

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

A suggestion
I think the section on rights and duties of neutral powers, should become a template, wich in turn, should be shared by this article, and the article on the hague conventions. I will start working on it, as soon as I find time for it. Realpolitik agenda (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion
-- Here I get confused. The link that says "Second Hague Convention" goes to a page with "Hague V" in its title. The problem is that I myself have put the link on the page, initially. I wonder if I am confused now or if I was then! --Ruhrjung 12:40, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I strenously object to listin the United States as an example of "Neutral countries" while excluding for example Ireland and Sweden on the basis that they surreptitiously cooperated with one side during the Second World War. The US has certainly tried to stay out of "permanent alliances", put to claim that it isn't currently in any defense alliances of significane (e.g. NATO) would certainly be very misleading. --Gabbe 21:49, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

May I kindly ask you to read the article once again?

Maybe you then will notice that it's a list of "models", and that it for the US has solely historical relevance. --Ruhrjung 13:43, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

US Neutral Up to Pearl Harbor??
I strongly object to the idea that the U.S. followed Washington's advice up to Pearl Harbor? Ever heard of a little thing called the Spanish American War(and probably others before hand)? Superm401 23:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe it's not ideal to say that USA followed Washington's advice up to Pearl Harbor, but engagement in Europe and Asia was most definiterly very uncommon until the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of these exceptions was the brief participation in World War I, that immediately was reversed and resulted in an isolationism as strong as ever. /Tuomas 06:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why Spain and Portugal were left out of the list of Neutral Countries in WWII. Admittedly, Spain leadership during WWII (e.g., Franco) had a lot of Nazi sympathy since they were supported by the Nazis during the Spanish Civil were, but they never actually fought on either side in WWII. Turkey was also neutral WWII, even though they were on the side of the Germans in WWI.


 * They were not surrounded by warring parties as Switzerland, Sweden, or (sort of) Ireland. --Johan Magnus 06:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

--

Why isn't Mexico coloured in on the map? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

--

It can be argued that the United States was neutral until at least 1812 under the Monroe doctrine, a foreign policy defended when Britain seized goods and ships on the open seas trading with France at the time. Since the United States was trading with both countries (in limited fashion towards Britain given that a war was just concluded with them) they can be considered neutral until the declaration of war with Britain at that time (1812). They were neutral again until the war with Mexico, which largely was over the status of Texas at the time. From there they were neutral again until the Spanish American war, and then neutral again until WWI. The United States was never formally a British Ally until after WWI under the League of Nations, subsequently followed by NATO and the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.42.77.165 (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
After moving back to Neutral country, a revert should be done also, and only then consolidation of the new material. Currently, the page is not very readable. --Vuo 13:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The added material was a blatant copyright violation from the Columbia Encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

better definition needed
I think a better explanation of what makes a country neutral is needed. And perhaps more explanation of how neutral countries act. For example, prior to entering WWII the US was officially neutral in respect to the war in Europe, but many citizens weren't. the US government was divided between policies helping the Allies, or maintaining neutrality. Also, a nation can be neutral in one conflict, yet partisan in another. Rds865 (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In WWII, Spain and Italy temporarily adopted the status of "non-belligerent" - not the same as "neutral" - although it had no legal validity. The US was effectively the same, until Pearl Harbor. This distinction should be made in the article. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious map
Where does this map come from? Why does the information on it differ from what's said in the article? Wisapi (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Map to incorperate EU neutrality
Should the map be amended so that all countries that are neutral, but follow the EU foreign policy, and therefore are not entirely neutral, be shown in a different colour from the truly neutral nations like Switzerland?

Caladin (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Japan
Isn't it pretty much a contradiction in terms to describe Japan as a neutral country in a military alliance? I know there's a formal constitutional ban on acts of belligerency, but I always understood the rejection of military alliances to be part of the definition of neutrality ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.98.206 (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ireland
Ireland is given a bit of a free-ride in this article. For example, the Hague Convention defines among the rights and responsibility of neutral powers that:

Article 2: Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

...

Article 5: A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory. ...

US troops travel openly and with the permission of the Irish government through Shannon Airport en route to war in Iraq and Afghanstan. Usable reference: Irish Times, May 23, 2011. -- RA (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * yes - but - it's a particular form of neutrality A traditional policy of military neutrality defined as non-membership of mutual defence alliances. - Lugnad (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweden lend troops to Denmark in First Schleswig War
Is that particularly neutral? --Svippong 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that it was volunteers. The Swedish state itself did not participate afaik. henrik  • talk  21:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Major clean up required
This article requires some major clean up. The "recognized neutral states" may be merged with the list of "claimed neutral states" as it does not say who has recognized these states as "neutral". The column on EU membership is also not required or relevant. I propose to make these changes, please let me know your thoughts. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah there are a few issues. Mainly, the recognized neutral states are described as not neutral and non-aligned. Apart from membership in the NAM and the context of the cold war is it a thing? Plus, does EU membership automatically preclude a state from being both these things? Also, non-permanently neutrality is completely ignored. That is, being neutral in a specific conflict (country A is at war with B, c is neutral). 188.200.194.26 (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

demilitarization not neutral
Demilitarization does not make Japan neutral, after all they have American military bases on their soil etc. Additionally some of those listed on party to defense pacts. 188.200.194.26 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Given nobody has responded to the 2 comments on Japan after nearly 2 year s and the fact they are unreferenced, I am going to delete itMycosys (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Japan
Shouldn't Japan at least be listed under "Claim to be neutral" because war is officially prohibited by the constitution? I know they are a U.S. ally, but think Japan is at least worth mentioning in some way.Raymond1922 (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On second thought, maybe not. Although foreign wars are forbidden, there is not, and never was as far as I know, a rule forbidding alliances, which is required for neutral countries. Forget about it. Raymond1922 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Laos, Cambodia, and Ukraine
I doubt Laos returned to neutrality after the communist takeover; can anyone get a source on that? Also, Cambodia and Ukraine are completely unsourced and Cambodia has no information other than the dates; can anyone find sources for those?Raymond1922 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a source for Ukraine. Raymond1922 (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Country neutrality (international relations). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080211185659/http://dev.prenhall.com:80/divisions/hss/worldreference/CR/defense.html to http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/CR/defense.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ireland formerly neutral?
Why isn't Ireland in the neutral section. Sweden and Finland are both there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleowljrn (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems strange to me. It is shown on the map as being neutral. This doesn't tally with its listing further down. I feel it definitely belongs up with Finland, Sweden, et al. Aerach (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)