Amid the recent international crises in various parts of the world, some states claim cautiously to be neutral. They do so for various reasons but mostly to evade being dragged into a potential conflict. Nevertheless, are these states really neutral? The concept of neutrality has been scrutinized by many scholars, and there are now numerous versions of neutrality to choose from. The UN definition of neutrality stresses the abstention of a state from all participation in a war between other states and the state’s attitude of impartiality. Strictly speaking, to remain impartial, a state should refrain from any contact with other non-neutral states. This is because every contact has some influence on the contacted state and this influence is virtually impossible to be the same for all non-neutral parties involved. In practice, such neutrality is therefore unlikely and states reflect this in their foreign policies. For instance, the prominent example of a neutral state, Switzerland, literally says in its Foreign Policy Strategy 2024–27 that: “Neutrality does not mean indifference.” So, is neutrality just a diplomatic term to cover certain actions? If policymakers use neutrality in different ways, it can be difficult for IR scholars to incorporate this concept into their theories. On the other hand, if the theories do not reflect the language of policymakers, policymakers will hardly listen to the theories. This miscommunication then widens the gap between IR theory and practice.

International Relations are known to be cooperative or conflictual. This means that when actors in the international system act towards one another, they either help or harm their counterparts. Yet, we can often........

© E-International