List of neutral states of the world. The best offshore services. How do non-aligned states behave?

Permanent neutrality is the international legal status of a state that has undertaken the obligation not to participate in any wars that are occurring or may occur in the future, and to refrain from actions that could involve such a state in war. In this regard, permanently neutral states do not take part in military-political alliances, refuse to host foreign military bases on their territory, oppose weapons of mass destruction, and actively support the efforts of the world community in the field of disarmament, building trust and cooperation between states. Thus, permanent neutrality is exercised not only in times of war, but also in times of peace. The status of permanent neutrality does not deprive a state of the right to self-defense in the event of an attack.

The legal confirmation of this status is the conclusion by the interested states of an appropriate international treaty with the participation in it of a state endowed with the status of permanent neutrality. The validity of such an agreement is not determined by any period - it is concluded for the entire future. According to its obligations, a permanently neutral state must comply with the rules of neutrality in the event of a military conflict between any states, i.e., follow the rules of international law regarding neutrality in time of war, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1907 on neutrality in land war (Fifth Convention ) and naval warfare (Thirteenth Convention). Equally, a permanently neutral state cannot allow its territory, including airspace, to be used for interference in the internal affairs of other states and hostile actions against them. Such actions are unacceptable on the part of the permanently neutral state itself. At the same time, the latter has the right to participate in the activities of international organizations, to have

its army and military fortifications necessary for self-defense.

Often the status of permanent neutrality is secured both by an international treaty and by a national legal act of the state. Each state has the sovereign right to independently determine its foreign policy, taking into account the principles and norms of international law. A reflection of this right is the state’s choice of ways to establish the status of its permanent neutrality. This assumes that this status can be determined by the state on the basis of its adoption only of relevant internal acts. It is only important that in this case this status is recognized by other states.

In the historical past, the status of permanent neutrality belonged to Belgium (from 1831 to 1919) and Luxembourg (from 1867 to 1944).

In the modern period, Switzerland, Austria, Laos, Cambodia, Malta, and Turkmenistan have this status.

The agreement on the permanent neutrality of Switzerland was signed by Austria, Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia and Portugal on November 8 (20), 1815 and was confirmed by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The powers that signed the Agreement recognized the “perpetual” neutrality of Switzerland. They guaranteed both the status of neutrality and the inviolability of Swiss territory, which implies the obligation of these powers to defend the status of Switzerland in the event of its violation.

According to the Soviet-Austrian memorandum adopted in April 1955, Austria undertook to issue a declaration that it would accept a status similar to that of Switzerland. On May 15, 1955, the State Treaty on the restoration of an independent and democratic Austria was signed, in which the great powers allied during the Second World War - the USSR, the USA, England, France - declared that they would respect the independence and territorial integrity of Austria in the form this is established by the said Treaty. On December 26, 1955, the Austrian Parliament adopted the Federal Constitutional Law on the Neutrality of Austria. In Art. 1 of the Law, it was determined that in order to long-term and permanently assert its external independence and the inviolability of its territory, Austria voluntarily declares its

constant neutrality. To ensure these goals, the Law enshrines a provision according to which Austria will not enter into any military alliances and will not allow the creation of military strongholds of foreign states on its territory. Austria's status was recognized by the Allied Powers and many other states, but unlike Switzerland's, it was not guaranteed.

At an international meeting in Geneva of 14 countries to resolve the Laotian issue on July 23, 1962, the Declaration of Neutrality of Laos was signed, in which the meeting participants took note of the declaration of the Laotian government on neutrality dated July 9, 1962 and stated that they recognize and will respect and respect the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Laos.

The status of Cambodia was determined by the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Cambodia on October 23, 1991. An integral part of this document is the Agreement Relating to the Sovereignty, Independence, Territorial Integrity and Integrity, Neutrality and National Unity of Cambodia, which sets out its commitment to enshrine permanent neutrality in its Constitution . Other parties to the Agreement pledged to recognize and respect this status of Cambodia. The obligation of permanent neutrality was reflected in the Cambodian Neutrality Law, which came into force on November 6, 1957.

The Government of the Republic of Malta approved on 14 May 1981 the Declaration of Neutrality of Malta, in which it stated that the Republic of Malta is a neutral state and refuses to participate in any military alliances. No installation in Malta may be used in such a way as to result in the concentration of foreign military forces in Malta.

The permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan was proclaimed by the Law “On Amendments and Additions to the Constitution of Turkmenistan” and the Constitutional Law “On the Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan”, adopted in 1995. It was also recognized and supported by the UN General Assembly resolution “Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan”, adopted on December 12 1995

In Art. 1 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan summarizes the content of these documents and establishes the position, according to

which “the neutrality of Turkmenistan recognized by the community is the basis of its domestic and foreign policy.”

Thus, only a full-fledged subject of international law - a state - can have the status of permanent neutrality. The obligations arising from the status of a permanently neutral state cannot serve as a limitation on its sovereignty. A number of lawyers in the past believed that a permanently neutral state cannot be sovereign, since due to its status (the obligation of non-participation in military conflicts) it is deprived of the “right to war” and has limited freedom of action.

Modern international law, which has eliminated the “right to war” and established the principle of faithful compliance with international obligations, thereby creates additional guarantees for states that have the status of permanent neutrality.

In recent years, the situation in the world has become very tense. Every now and then new local conflicts break out in different parts of the world, to which more and more countries are joining. In these difficult conditions, the term “policy of armed neutrality” is heard from time to time on television screens and on the pages of printed publications. However, not all people fully understand its meaning, as well as the obligations that states that declare this status undertake.

Definition of the term

The word "neutrality" has Latin roots. Translated, it means “neither one nor the other.” This term has become widespread in international law. It is used when talking about a state’s refusal to participate in a war in times of troubles and from joining one of the military blocs in times of peace. In other words, neutrality is when a state takes a loyal position in relation to the opinions of other countries that are parties to the conflict.

Types of neutrality

The neutrality of states has several types and can be secured in various ways. This term can be used in four meanings:

1. States such as Switzerland and Austria comply permanent neutrality. enshrined in internal regulations and recognized throughout the world. States that have declared themselves to be supporters of permanent neutrality cannot participate in wars, be in military alliances or allow the construction of foreign military facilities on their territory.

2. Some countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America adhere to positive neutrality. They declare respect for international security, assistance in relieving international tension, and the renunciation of a conference. Once every three years, a conference is held, during which countries again declare their status.

3. Sweden is one of the countries claiming traditional neutrality. Its main feature is that the state does not consolidate its status anywhere and adheres to a policy of neutrality on a voluntary basis. At the same time, it may at any time cease to comply with its obligations, since it has not declared its status anywhere.

4. States often sign international documents declaring their obligations. Treaty neutrality- this is the name of this species. An example is the agreement reached by the Russian Federation and Canada in Ottawa in 1992. We are talking about the Agreement on Harmony and Cooperation between the two countries.

Many international authoritative legal scholars call permanent neutrality the highest form, which applies to all armed conflicts without exception. A state that has taken this path takes on significant obligations not only in wartime, but also in peacetime. In addition to the inability to participate in conflicts, be part of blocs and allow the construction of foreign infrastructure for military purposes, it cannot use armed conflict as a method of solving pressing geopolitical problems.

Wartime restrictions

According to international law, if a state declares its neutrality during a war, it must comply with three rules:

1. Under no circumstances provide military assistance to conflicting countries.

2. Prevent conflicting countries from using their territory for military purposes.

3. Introduce equal restrictions on the supply of weapons and military goods to the conflicting parties. This is necessary so as not to single out one of the parties involved and thereby not provide support for it.

History of the concept

If we consider neutrality from a historical perspective, then for the inhabitants of states that existed in the era of the Ancient World, it was alien. In the Middle Ages, this phenomenon began to acquire its modern significance. Medieval countries declared the commonality of their religious and cultural views and tried to adhere to neutrality, but in some cases this was not observed. We are talking, first of all, about wars in the sea. Only from the 16th century did states begin to understand that neutrality was a status that should be respected.

Let's give examples

The first time in history when countries declared armed neutrality dates back to the end of the 18th century. In world history, a noticeable mark was left by the alliance of major world powers, which committed themselves to defend the principles set out in the Declaration of Catherine II, adopted in February 1780. It included the Russian Empire, France, Spain, the American States, Denmark, Sweden, Prussia, Austria, Portugal, and Sicily. This union functioned while the war for the independence of the American colonies from England was going on. After the end of the war in 1783, it effectively disintegrated.

In 1800, the so-called second armed neutrality was concluded between the Russian Empire, Denmark, Sweden and Prussia. It was based on the principles of Catherine's Declaration with minor changes. However, after the death of Paul I and the accession to the throne of Alexander I, it ceased to exist.

Let's sum it up

Neutrality is a legal status that has come a long way until it finally acquired its modern meaning. The Russian Empress Catherine II made a great contribution to its formation, who outlined many of its principles in the Declaration of 1780. If a state declares its neutrality, it assumes significant obligations. This is equally true in peacetime and wartime. Therefore, this phenomenon is not as widespread in the world as we would like.

Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Finland, and Ireland are considered to be neutral countries on the European continent. With some reservations, this group includes Malta, San Marino and the Vatican, as well as Liechtinstein, which does not have its own armed forces and is guided by neutral neighbors in its foreign policy.

These countries came to neutrality in different ways and at different times. For the longest period, Switzerland has maintained neutrality. After the signing in 1815 at the Vienna Congress of the Declaration on the recognition and guarantee of its neutrality by the great powers, in the same year in Paris this decision was confirmed in political and legal terms by the signing of the corresponding act. In 1848, Switzerland's neutrality was enshrined in the country's Constitution. A new version of the Swiss Constitution was adopted in 1999. It confirmed the continuation of the previous course: the government is still obliged to “take measures to ensure the external security, independence and neutrality of Switzerland” (Article 185, paragraph 1).

Switzerland did not suffer material damage during the Second World War, thanks to the government's foreign policy line. It retained its entire production base and even received benefits stemming from its special position. Enterprises involved in military orders for the warring countries (chemical industry, mechanical engineering, metalworking) operated at full capacity, and product exports increased significantly.

The extent to which Switzerland managed to maintain pure neutrality during the Second World War and to what extent it was necessary to deviate from the principle of absolute non-intervention in the national interests still causes controversy among historians. In September 1996, Switzerland once again faced challenges regarding the position of its political leadership and financial circles during the Second World War. The discussions went beyond the country's borders. In the safes of Swiss banks, escheat capital belonging to Jews repressed by the Nazis and Nazi party gold, a significant part of which was seized in the occupied territories, were discovered.

Jean Ziegler, professor of sociology at the University of Geneva and former National Councilor of the Socialist Party, has once again exposed the less-than-legal activities of Swiss banking institutions during the war. His book "Switzerland, Gold and the Dead" Ziegler J. La Suisse, l "or et les morts. - Paris, 1997. claims that Swiss banks deliberately financed Hitler's war expenses, and that they also served as concealers of property stolen from deportees or sent to gas chambers. Such statements make one wonder about the degree of voluntariness of such steps, about whether Switzerland’s actions were caused by an obvious, albeit indirect threat to its status and security, which forced it to “play along” with the potential aggressor.

It is important for political scientists and international relations experts to understand to what extent Switzerland’s neutrality protected it from German aggression, and what concessions were required even by formal non-interference in the internal affairs of a neutral state. Then the Swiss were frightened by the very thought that even the universally recognized neutrality of their country could not guarantee their security. It has once again become clear that the norms and traditions of international life depend entirely on the goodwill of states operating on the world stage.

At the same time, the military experience of Switzerland once again confirmed that in the context of a large-scale military conflict, all norms of international law are violated. However, the status of neutrality allows us to hope for the preservation of albeit very fragile, but peaceful relations with the warring states. A complete refusal to ensure the protection and inviolability of the territory with the status of a permanently neutral state was considered to directly threaten the “independence of the confederation ... and the security of Switzerland” Rechtsaussen attackieren Ziegler mit Strafklage. // Sonntagszeitung, Ndu 27 September, 1998..

Currently, Switzerland is not only a prosperous European country, but also a state where international life and the activities of humanitarian international organizations are most active. It is thanks to its neutral status that Switzerland is the European center of UN activities. Geneva is home to the UN Office for Europe, the headquarters of the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization and many other major international organizations.

A flexible interpretation of the neutrality policy has allowed Switzerland to cooperate with NATO member states. For example, the Swiss army collaborated with the armies of NATO countries in the process of training military personnel and standardizing weapons. Western firms fulfilling NATO orders for weapons production were located in Switzerland.

Another influential European country, Austria, came to the camp of neutral states, in accordance with the Moscow Memorandum of 1955, where it was agreed that the Austrian government would undertake to adhere to neutrality. Then this gave Austria the opportunity to restore the economic complex after war destruction. In the same year, an agreement was signed with the victorious countries on the restoration of an independent and democratic Austria.

In national legislation, neutrality was consolidated by the adoption on October 26, 1955 of the federal constitutional law on permanent neutrality, in which the Republic of Austria pledged to maintain and protect its new political and international legal status “with all the means at its disposal” (Article 1) International law in selected documents. - M., 1957. T. 3. P. 211.. The status of permanent neutrality brought Austria, as well as the other above-mentioned states, political stability and economic well-being. The country's territory gradually became the venue for important international meetings. The country's authority and confidence in its policies only increased with the adoption of neutral status.

Ireland's adoption of a neutralist foreign policy had a very significant impact on the country's international prestige. It gained the actual opportunity to adhere to neutrality in the 30s, after the liquidation of British naval bases on its territory. The basis for the adoption of the policy of neutrality was the Irish Constitution, which was marked by the renunciation of dominion status.

Ireland's neutrality initially had a unique form and rather fit the definition of “armed neutrality.” Article 28 of the Irish Constitution states that "no war shall be declared, nor shall any State become involved in any war, without the consent of the House of Representatives" of the Constitution of the States of the European Union. - M. 1997. P. 56. . At the same time, the Constitution left Ireland the right of self-defense: “in the event of an invasion of its territory, the Government may take such actions as it deems necessary for the defense” Decree. Op. P. 58.. Ireland's neutrality consisted in its refusal to participate in military blocs, primarily in NATO. Ireland was not part of the group of neutral and non-aligned CSCE countries and in 1973 became the first neutral member state of the Common Market. “Irish neutrality is not a doctrine frozen in time and isolated from security realities. It is not imposed from outside, nor is it guaranteed by any international treaty. This policy was supported by all Irish governments. Its essence, its main characteristic, is avoidance of participation in military alliances” Ireland and the Partnership for Peace: an Explonatory Guide. - Dublin, 1999. P.7/. The central direction of Irish foreign policy in the early 60s. became peacekeeping in various regions of the world, primarily in Europe.

The neutrality of Luxembourg has its own specifics. The neutralist policy did not become a long-term characteristic of the international position of this country. Under the influence of the political situation, the ruling circles of Luxembourg voluntarily abandoned their neutral status as an obstacle to close economic cooperation with the leading Western European powers. This state received more than half of its national income from the metallurgical industry; accordingly, more than half of the workers were employed in this industry. This economic situation made Luxembourg dependent on export-import exchanges and foreign investment, which, in turn, left an imprint on foreign policy. In September 1944, the governments of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg signed an agreement to unify customs duties, and in 1948 they united in their own customs union. That same year, together with England and France, they signed the Brussels Act establishing the Western Union.

The inclusion of the Benelux countries in the Marshall Plan and the beginning of the Cold War determined the further development of the policies of these countries towards “Atlanticism”. In 1949 they joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For Luxembourg, this required the preliminary removal of the article on neutrality from the Constitution.

An example of the successful implementation of the principle of neutrality is Sweden. For a long time throughout its history, it was in armed confrontation with Russia, however, it did not achieve military victories and was only financially exhausted. The policy of neutrality gave it the opportunity to sharply reduce military spending, accumulate financial resources, achieve economic growth and ultimately made it one of the most prosperous states in Europe.

Swedish policy is a classic example of traditional neutrality. At the same time, unlike the Swiss version, Sweden’s obligation to adhere to a policy of neutrality is not enshrined in any legislative act. There are no documents that mention the neutrality status of this Northern European state. After World War II, Sweden's foreign policy was to "abstain from membership in alliances in order to maintain neutrality during the war." International treaties containing rules of neutrality. /Materials of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Decree. Op. P.15.. Since the foreign policy of this country since the 19th century. remains neutral invariably; all other states recognize this position in international relations.

Adherence to a policy of neutrality and, as a result, stability and social absence of conflict in society allowed Sweden to carry out a number of successful reforms. Rapid economic growth has turned Sweden into the most developed European country. The set of socio-economic and political measures successfully implemented by Sweden even received the name “Swedish model of a welfare state.” The right of state control in the distribution, consumption and redistribution of national income is widely used in order to improve the living standards of the population. The Swedish state is equally active in developing a foreign policy strategy. The reputation of a country that strives to adhere to a neutral position in any international conflict allows Sweden to play an active mediating role, to act as an impartial arbiter, whose services are willingly resorted to by conflicting parties.

Finland began to adhere to a policy of neutrality from the moment the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance was signed in Moscow between the USSR and the Republic of Finland. It pointed out “Finland’s desire to remain aloof from the contradictions between the interests of the great powers” ​​Foreign policy of the Soviet Union. 1948 - M., 1950. Part 1. P. 183. From the essence of the agreement it followed that the Soviet Union acted as the guarantor of the security of Finland in the event of an attack by Germany or its allies. The Finnish side was to provide military assistance to the USSR only in the event of an attack on it through the territory of Finland. In this case, Finland's use of armed forces did not contradict neutrality, since it coincided with self-defense.

Remaining aloof from active military operations, the countries of Northern Europe suffered relatively little material damage during the Second World War. After signing bilateral armistice agreements with the USSR and Great Britain, Finland began to establish a new course in domestic and foreign policy.

The signing of the UN Charter by the Northern European countries did not mean a complete break with the policy of neutralism. All countries have expressed their desire to stay outside the blocs. In the summer of 1947, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark accepted the Marshall Plan. On April 4, Denmark, Norway and Iceland became NATO co-founders with “basic reservations,” meaning that the territories of the three countries would not be used to host foreign military forces in peacetime. Sweden did not join NATO, remaining faithful to its policy of neutrality.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many new independent states were formed on post-Soviet territory. Each of them approached the process of state building in its own way with the goal of rebuilding the political system. For young sovereign states, the idea of ​​neutralism was very attractive. Neutrality, as an established institution, has already proven its validity and expediency for states building independence. It was, in fact, a proven mechanism for preserving sovereignty and defending their national interests for countries that are not great powers.

The idea of ​​acquiring the status of a permanently neutral state, or declaring a policy of neutrality, was at one time explored in many former Soviet republics. Almost all the states created after the disintegration of the USSR discussed this version of the foreign policy course. Similar discussions took place in the Baltic republics, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

Today, Ukraine is perceived by Europe as a state adhering to a neutral policy, since it has not directly stated its intention to join the North Atlantic Alliance or any other military-political bloc.

Turkmenistan, due to its geopolitical position, finding itself close to countries where the political situation is extremely unstable, as well as due to ambiguous assessments by the international community of the development of its religious contacts with the Islamic world, considered it beneficial for itself to acquire the status of a permanently neutral state.

By that time, none of the newly formed states in the post-Soviet space had yet created their own national laws. The defining idea of ​​the Constitution of independent Turkmenistan was the organic combination of traditional and modern, the achievements of world civilization and the historical experience of state and social construction Kadyrov V. The Constitution is the personification of democracy and humanism in the policies of Saparmurat Turkmenbashi. // Neutral Turkmenistan. May 18, 2000...

Using world experience, Turkmenistan declared the status of a permanently neutral state with the main goal of identifying the country in the system of international relations. In 1992, Turkmenistan joined the European Organization for Security and Cooperation.

The mechanism for recognizing the neutrality of Turkmenistan was an absolute innovation in the history of this institution of world politics. Turkmenistan became the first state in the world whose neutrality was approved by the UN. On December 12, 1995, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Resolution “Permanent Neutrality of Turkmenistan”. It was supported by representatives of 185 countries.

It is obvious that the neutral countries of modern Europe not only came to neutrality in different ways and at different times, but also have a different range of political and international legal responsibilities. In addition, the content and interpretation of these duties have changed in different historical periods.

Thus, the right of a neutral state to have its own armed forces for self-defense in the event of an attack and to defend neutrality did not appear immediately. Today, a “flexible” understanding of the term allows even states with the status of permanent neutrality not only to purchase weapons for their military units, but also to produce them themselves. The development of high technologies and the integration of European countries in the economic sphere have naturally led to the fact that neutral states no longer consider the export of arms unacceptable.

As members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), neutral countries have military-industrial companies that produce weapons. Thus, the Swiss “Eidgenossische Rustungsb” produces small arms and ammunition, engines, aviation and artillery equipment, and “Oerlikon-Buhrle” also produces missile technology. SIPRI Yearbook. 2000. Armaments, disarmament and international security. - M., 2001. P. 357-359. . The Swiss Celsius produces ammunition, small arms and artillery equipment, ships and vessels. World famous "Saab" and "Ericsson" - military electronics. In addition, Saab produces artillery and missile technology Decree. Op. pp. 357-361.. Austria also exports various types of conventional weapons. In the period from 1995 to 1999, conventional weapons were supplied to Switzerland for 1 billion 672 million dollars, to Finland - 2 billion 513 million dollars. Decree. Op. P. 371.

Since the 60s, Switzerland has shown interest in rapprochement with other neutral European countries - Sweden and Austria. In May 1960, both Switzerland and Austria joined the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), conceived as an alternative to the EEC, a purely economic organization that did not provide for the creation of supranational institutions.

The agreement between the EEC and EFTA on the creation of the European Economic Area aroused additional interest of neutral countries in integration. In January 1995, Austria became a member of the European Community.

Exceptions only confirm the general trend. The population of Switzerland, for example, so approves of their country's policy of neutrality that they refuse to support joining any international unions. In the 1992 referendum, 50.3% of the population opposed joining a united Europe. Recent history of the countries of Europe and America. XX century (1945 - 2000). - M., 2001. S. 18..

Thus, we can conclude that the institution of neutrality has undergone a long evolution. It arose in European politics at the dawn of the formation of large states and became a specific diplomatic tool for ensuring the security and economic stability of individual states that found themselves in a hostile environment in the context of international crises and wars. The current state of the institution of neutrality is based on a complex set of norms of international law. At the same time, it is obvious that this phenomenon of world international relations, like no other, is distinguished by many forms and options that reflect the national specifics of neutral states and are their specific contribution to the preservation of pan-European peace. Neutrality cannot be considered outside the living context of world politics. Its variability is only confirmation that this institution, based on international law, can nevertheless function to a large extent only as a result of the “flexible” use of the foreign policy approaches of neutral countries that have proven their effectiveness.

Yesterday, the director of the FSB of the Russian Federation, Bortnikov, ordered the creation of a border zone on the border with Belarus. So, for the first time in the history of sovereignty, we have some semblance of demarcation with Russia. Today the Internet is filled with rumors that Belarus is considering leaving the CSTO and the Customs Union.

If this ever really happens, it will mark a new vector in Belarus’s foreign policy. We are moving not in words, but in deeds towards the creation of a neutral state. But what is this, a neutral state?

SWITZERLAND

The process of legislative registration of Swiss neutrality began back in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, which reshaped the world after the Napoleonic Wars. But even before that, Switzerland had not taken part in armed conflicts or wars of conquest for hundreds of years.

This mountainous country managed to survive two world wars in the 20th century and become a center of mediation on many issues. Despite the non-aligned status, the headquarters of many international organizations are located in the country:

• UN Europe
• World Health Organization
• The International Labour Organization
• International Committee of the Red Cross
• World Council of Churches
• world Trade organisation
• World Intellectual Property Organization
• International Olympic Committee

Switzerland is considered the most reliable country for investment and investments, which is why it is chosen by the most important and influential international organizations. True stability attracts those who need transparent rules of the game and an appropriate business climate. Well, yes, the Swiss are one of the most militarized nations in the world, so even Hitler was afraid to interfere with the war.

AUSTRIA

Austrian neutrality has been officially enshrined in law at the constitutional level since 1955. The law proclaims eternal neutrality and renunciation of military alliances, and a ban on the placement of any military bases on its territory. But Vienna remains an important global and diplomatic center of the world. The Austrian capital houses the headquarters of OPEC, OSCE, and IAEA.

Austrian neutrality is quite mobile and flexible. Austria did not stand aside during the Balkan wars, opening its airspace to NATO aircraft. In this way, the country maneuvers, protecting its interests in the region at critical moments. However, the population as a whole is not eager to join any military-political blocs. And why, when life is already wonderful, judging by GDP per capita!

FINLAND

Formally, Finland’s policy sounds like “military non-alignment and self-defense.” The country is not a NATO member (has observer status) and does not send troops to international hot spots. Nevertheless, Suomi is active in international affairs and supports all major UN peacekeeping initiatives.

Parliament of Finland

Despite its neutral position, Finland closely follows world politics. After the Crimean events, the population's sympathy for NATO membership increased. The Finnish Army conducts joint exercises with the Alliance in various fields and areas. Finns remember the Winter War of 1939-1940 all too well.

IRELAND

Ireland, having a difficult history of relations with England, is not a member of NATO and seeks to pursue its own independent foreign policy. Ireland is also a real European Silicon Valley, actively attracting international giants in this field. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Oracle, Dell, Apple, SanDisk, Kingston, Facebook, Intel, HP, Eircom, EMC, IBM, Red Hat, Ericsson, Bentley Software, Siemens, Twitter, Linkedin, Yahoo!, Cisco, Dropbox, Electronic Arts, Alcatel, AOL - here is a short list of the main companies whose centers are located on the island. If the lion's share of Switzerland's influence is banking assets, then Ireland gathers all the cool players in intellectual work in its mega-hub.

As a result, Ireland experienced record GDP growth for the third year in a row. While overall growth in the EU is 1.5%, for the Irish in 2015 it was 26%. This is what true stability and neutrality looks like.

MALTA

Maltese cadets

Malta gained independence from Great Britain in 1964. And the first thing she did was immediately begin to get rid of foreign military bases and closed the NATO office. For some time, the island even refused to accept US warships for joint exercises. The Maltese competently weigh the pros and cons of various unions. When they needed more economic ties and tourists, they joined the EU in 2004.

Valleta is the capital of Malta

Despite the small population (just over 400 thousand), the islanders maintain about 2 thousand military personnel to protect their country. Economically, the Maltese also feel calm. Malta is among the top 30 countries in terms of GDP per capita, and also has high potential in the Human Development Index.

Thus, we see a concrete example of how countries quietly exist in Europe that do not need the Union States or the CSTO. And it’s interesting that they are all highly developed and economically stable states. It is precisely this kind of stability that we should take as an example.

In contact with

Neutrality was a characteristic feature of European politics throughout the 20th century. In 1945 there were 11 neutral states; four countries that did not participate in either the First World War or the Second World War did not allow themselves to be drawn into post-war military blocs; the two countries received neutral status in the immediate post-war years. Moreover, neutrality was closely linked with economic prosperity, and most neutral countries were in no hurry to join the EEC.

Switzerland flourished, for which neutrality was a way of life. It fought hard to resist German intervention during the war, and the population grew significantly after the war. It also took advantage of its proximity to northern Italy and southern Germany (both regions marked by vigorous economic growth after the war) and at the same time continued to play a special role in banking and tourism. Switzerland happily invited multinational companies and international agencies from the chemical concern Bayer to UNESCO. Romansh rose to the level of a national language along with Swiss, German, French and Italian, and the French-speaking Jura became a special canton. However, the defense budget remained high, and conscription for men was not abolished - thereby providing support for the national militia. Swiss women received

Thanks to Switzerland, several surrounding territories have begun to seek the status of free customs zones. This included the German enclave of Büsingen, the Italian regions of Camnione d'Italia, Livigno and Vale d'Aosta, and from 1815 the French department of Haute-Savoie.

Sweden benefited greatly from its neutrality during the war, and it continued to use it successfully in peacetime. Sweden was the crown jewel of the regional Baltic Council, but remained aloof from both NATO and the EEC even as its Scandinavian partners joined those alliances. In Sweden, the Social Democrats remained in power for a long time: until the 1989 elections. Under Olav Palm, who was assassinated in 1986, Sweden led a number of initiatives on the Third World, refugees and environmental protection.

Francoist Spain remained a political pariah until the death of the caudillo. So the exceptionally long reigns of Franco and Salazar kept Iberian politics in a temporary cocoon until the mid-1970s. This fascist anachronism in Western Europe acted as a counterweight to communism in the West, especially in France. When Portugal became a member of NATO, Spain agreed to American bases but refused to take further steps. However, mass tourism saved her from complete isolation. The restoration of the constitutional monarchy in 1975 opened the way for Spain to join the EEC, and also marked the beginning of a great economic recovery in the 1980s. Although the final revival of Spain was also hampered by Basque terrorism, Catalan separatism and a difficult dispute with Great Britain over Gibraltar.

The Republic of Ireland survived the threat of British occupation during the war and left the Commonwealth at the end of the war.

But economic dependence on the United Kingdom remained a reality: Ireland had no choice but to reluctantly follow Britain in negotiations with the EEC. In the political life of Ireland the main ones were

810 DIVISA ET INDIVISA

the privileged position of the Catholic Church, endless conflicts with Northern Ireland and the rivalry between the two main parties Fianna Fáil “Soldiers of Destiny” and Fine Gael “Gaelic Nation”. According to the Irish constitution, the counties of British Ulster were an integral part of the republic. But the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was considered illegal on both sides of the border; and relations between London and Dublin were no great obstacle to a settlement.

Finland, which together with Germany attacked the USSR, nevertheless escaped Soviet occupation, although under the 1944 armistice it had to make further territorial concessions, in particular Viipuri (Vyborg) and Petsamo (Pechenga). In 1947, however, a peace treaty confirmed formal Finnish sovereignty in exchange for the lease of Porkkala for a naval base. From that time on, Finland was obliged to maintain neutrality, reduce its armed forces and pursue a foreign policy consistent with the interests of the USSR. After the war, economic growth begins in Finland, and Helsinki becomes one of the most elegant and expensive capitals in Europe - the last Western outpost on the outskirts of Leningrad. Many countries occupied by Soviet troops dreamed of the status of Finnish defenders, but only Austria managed to follow this path.

Austria was greatly helped by the myth that it was the first victim of the Nazis. Divided, like Germany, into four occupation zones, the republic was able to fully restore sovereignty on the basis of the Staatsvertrag, that is, the State Treaty (1955), signed by representatives of all four occupation powers. The terms of this treaty included strict neutrality and a commitment to maintain the vast Soviet war memorial in perpetuity. The restoration of Austrian independence was followed by a period of unprecedented prosperity, like in neighboring Switzerland, and relative political detente. In politics, the Socialist Party, which held the post of chancellor to Bruno Kreisky (1970-1983), and the conservative People's Party competed largely peacefully. In 1986, even an international campaign to discredit the Austrian

President Kurt Waldheim, the former UN Secretary General, did not harm him; but this campaign recalled Austria's past. There were some inconsistencies in defining the borders of Austria. According to the agreement of 1868, two areas - Jungholz and Mittelberg - were included in the Bavarian customs zone. The provinces of Vorarlberg and Tyrol enjoyed the benefits of free trade with Alto Adige and Trentino in Italy.

The seven European principalities, the last of the historical mini-states, were too small to influence international relations; but each took advantage of its position.

San Marino (founded in the 5th century AD, with a territory of 62 km and a population of 23,000 people) claimed to be the oldest state in Europe. Its independence was recognized in 1631. Situated on the slopes of Monte Titano near Rimini, it was surrounded on all sides by Italian territory. After the war, San Marino became a tax haven for wealthy Italians; the local government here was alternately headed by communists and Christian democrats.

The Principality of Liechtenstein (founded in 1719, territory 157 km, population 27,000) entrusted its foreign policy to Switzerland. In 1980, it had the highest gross national product per capita in Europe: $16,440. It is the last surviving member of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Principality of Monaco (territory 150 hectares, population approx. 30,000 people) was a self-governing protectorate of France, occupying a tiny enclave on the Riviera east of Nice. Its modern status took shape in 1861; Until that time, Monaco had been a possession of Spain (since 1542), France (since 1641) and Sardinia (since 1815). According to the constitution, Monaco is ruled by the Grimaldi family. The income of the principality is highly dependent on the income of the casino in Monte Carlo.

Andorra (territory 495 km, population approx. 43,000 people) - in the Eastern Pyrenees has maintained its autonomy since 1278, when Andorra was transferred to the joint possession of the Bishop of Urgell and the Count of Foix. Currently his Europe divided and undivided, 1945-1991 811

rights are exercised by the Prefect of Ariège on behalf of the President of the French Republic. Andorra thrives on tourism, especially ski resorts, and duty-free shopping.

The Isle of Man (area 518 km2, population 65,000 in 1986) and the Channel Islands (Jersey, Alderney, Guernsey and Sark - area 194 km2, population approx. 134,000 in 1981) have been under the jurisdiction of the British Crown since Norman conquest. They were never formally part of the United Kingdom, but were thriving taxpayer havens. The Lady of Sark22 fought for her prerogatives with Westminster in the 1960s. In the 1990s. The Isle of Man parliament entered into an open fight, refusing to follow the example of England and legalize homosexuality.

Gibraltar is the only British territory to join the EEC. He thus followed the example of the French overseas departments: Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion and Guiana. All other British and French colonies, as well as the autonomous Danish regions [Faroe Islands] and Greenland, did not join the EEC.

The Vatican City State (territory 44 hectares, population approx. 1000 people in 1981) was the last autocracy in Europe, the ruler of the Vatican - the pope, has unlimited power, both in the modern papal state and in the Roman Catholic Church, whose central institutions are located in the Vatican. The only thing comparable to the Vatican is the monastic republic of Athos [Athos], which has had autonomy within Greece since 1926.