Relic of the Past or Immortal Phoenix? The Legal Relevance of Neutrality in the Russo-Ukrainian War

The article examines the role of neutrality in the Russo-Ukrainian war by analyzing the legal justifications offered by States with reference to the provision of weapons and economic assistance to the belligerents. The findings reveal that the law of neutrality has played a limited role as neutrality-based legal arguments were rarely utilized, even when they were available, either by countries supporting Ukraine or by those maintaining some impartiality towards the belligerents. The decision of a significant group of states to provide military and economic assistance to Ukraine was based on ius ad bellum arguments and rarely took into consideration the law of neutrality. Perhaps surprisingly, even the parties to the conflict seldom employed legal arguments related to neutrality. Permanent neutrals or countries traditionally adopting a policy of neutrality, on their turn, tend to limit the obligations of neutrality to their military dimension while remaining open to providing economic and humanitarian support. This diminishing relevance of neutrality law, amidst the ongoing crisis of the United Nations’ collective security system, may lead to a legal order where third-party involvement in conflicts becomes more common. The authors maintain that the obsolescence of the law of neutrality is not yet complete, as occasional references to its rules still emerge, and many states have chosen not to take sides in the present conflict. Neutrality, however, as reflected in state declarations, appears to be interpreted more as a political choice rather than a legal obligation.