There are two doctrines in international law that, together, form a legal firewall against third-State intervention in armed conflict: the law of neutrality, which imposes neutrality during international armed conflict and its corollary during non-international armed conflict, the principle of non-intervention. This paper aims at shedding light on how both doctrines operate in practice and how theoretical uncertainties potentially influence their application. In particular, the paper explains that a status of non-belligerency has no foundation in international law, clarifies the relationship between neutrality law and the UN Charter and argues that the principle of non-intervention does not hamper assistance upon request of a government embroiled in a non-interventional armed conflict. After having illuminated the myth, the paper focuses on reality by looking at State practice in respect or in violation of the law of neutrality and the principle of non-intervention, highlighting that even apparent violations do not always mean that the doctrine as such is no longer valid. Finally, the paper compares and contrasts both legal doctrines, arguing that the legal firewall against intervention in armed conflict is still standing.
By entering this website, you consent to the use of technologies, such as cookies and analytics, to customise content, advertising and provide social media features. This will be used to analyse traffic to the website, allowing us to understand visitor preferences and improving our services. Learn more