The law of neutrality and the principle of non-intervention both promulgate neutrality norms pertaining to third-state assistance for belligerent parties embroiled in an international or non-international armed conflict. This article compares and contrasts these two legal frameworks and assesses whether they work in perfect harmony or, on the contrary, establish different standards of behaviour depending on the type of armed conflict. Additionally, by approaching both regulatory frameworks simultaneously, conceptual uncertainties hindering their effective application in practice can be clarified. It is submitted that by adopting such a holistic approach, fresh insights are offered on the “duty of neutrality”, sensu lato, during armed conflicts under international law.
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