Neutrality Studies

Neutrality and Nonalignment in International Relations

We Support Switzerland’s Neutrality Initiative

Neutrality Studies is an international academic research project, for the study of neutrality as a concept in international relations, sociology, international law, diplomacy, political science, security, and history.

The research group organizes conferences, workshops, and publications for a scholarly understanding of neutrality.

Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Upcoming Seminars and Talks

Past Seminars

Early Austrian Neutrality

From the Hungarian Crisis to the Rapacki Plan and Raab’s Proposal for the Solution of the German Question 1956-1958 https://youtu.be/vFwN6O934vs…

1 2 3 4

Books

No post found!

YouTube Channel

[Part 2 of 2] Pan-Asianism is bound to come back. The regional order is still influenced by interference from the other side of the Pacific and with "Global NATO" expanding into North East Asia, attempts at 'divide and conquer' are not abetting, but the trajectory of the continent and its various regions are set toward more cooperation and collaboration. From the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation over ASEAN and the Asian part of BRICS; we are looking at more, not less pan-asian collaboration. A pivotal question is what will Japan do, the East Asian power house in terms of its economy and cultural influence. While the country can certainly not compete in the very big boys club—Russia, China and the USA will remain unmatched in that category for decades to come—Japan is a heavy weight in the middle-power category. In this talk John Pang and Naoko Kumada discuss the interactions between Japan and South East Asia, and what to expect in the region. Follow John Pang on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jynpang?s=21&t=5nXsh3RFKTkxeskt0NCAVw And Naoko Kumada: https://twitter.com/kumadanaoko?s=21&t=5nXsh3RFKTkxeskt0NCAVw Bios: John Pang has served in policy and thought leadership in government, business and academia with a focus on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). He was also the founding CEO of the ASEAN research institute and of the council of Southeast Asian business leaders, consulting firms and decision makers in government and business. He is interested in the reframing of the discourse of international relations, especially as it applies to China and Southeast Asia, towards the emergence of a multipolar world order. - As you might now, John is with me in the multipolar peace alliance. Links in the description. Dr. Naoko Kumada is a Lecturer in Zhejiang University's School of International Studies. She is a social anthropologist and Myanmar specialist, studying the interaction of politics, religion, and legal order in East Asia. She received her PhD in social anthropology from the University of Cambridge and also holds an LLM in US Law from Santa Clara University.
The Neocon's WORST Nightmare Is Coming True: A United Asia | J. Pang and Naoko Kumada
[Part 1 of 2] Look at who's throwing out Western notions of superiority faster than any of them can say Kuala Lumpur. For years, Europeans have been belittling ASEAN for not being as integrated as the EU. Now the tables have turned. Nobody in Southeast Asia would even dream of still looking at the EU as a role-model. The block has lost all and any attraction, not just because of its increasingly undemocratic approach to micro-managing members, but also because of its absolute subservience to US interests. ASEAN countries are now discovering that their arrangement, which does not interfere in each-others affairs, is in fact the winning strategy and the backbone of the new multipolarity. What's more, they have so much experience in handling not just former colonisers but also China that they are in a pole-position for benefitting from the new order. Follow John Pang on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jynpang?s=21&t=5nXsh3RFKTkxeskt0NCAVw And Naoko Kumada: https://twitter.com/kumadanaoko?s=21&t=5nXsh3RFKTkxeskt0NCAVw Bio: John Pang has served in policy and thought leadership in government, business and academia with a focus on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). He was also the founding CEO of the ASEAN research institute and of the council of Southeast Asian business leaders, consulting firms and decision makers in government and business. He is interested in the reframing of the discourse of international relations, especially as it applies to China and Southeast Asia, towards the emergence of a multipolar world order. - As you might now, John is with me in the multipolar peace alliance. Links in the description. Dr. Naoko Kumada is a Lecturer in Zhejiang University's School of International Studies. She is a social anthropologist and Myanmar specialist, studying the interaction of politics, religion, and legal order in East Asia. She received her PhD in social anthropology from the University of Cambridge and also holds an LLM in US Law from Santa Clara University.
Southeast Asia CRUSHES Western Hegemony | J. Pang & N. Kumada
US politics has shifted dramatically in the past few years. While the republicans used to be the pro-big-business and pro-interventionist party of the past—just think of past Bush administrations—it has been thoroughly over-hauled by a new form of conservatism that wants to use tariffs to protect local jobs, subsidies to help workers, and most importantly, it is strongly opposed to foreign wars. While this does not mean that the new US conservatism is pacifist—not at all—it does mean that realism in foreign policy thinking and a new gained appreciation for the limits of military power are gaining ground. To help make sense of the shift I've got with me again the conservative thinker and writer, David Pyne. David is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union and other regions. He currently serves as Deputy Director of National Operations for the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. Follow David here: https://dpyne.substack.com
Why Conservatives Are Now The Pro-Peace Party | David Pyne
Historical narratives are among the strongest epistemic drivers for group behaviour. What we believe about the past and even more so what we chose to ignore shape the way perceive ourselves and the future we want to create. Let's discuss this with Dr. Jeff Rich. Jeff's YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@theburningarchive Jeff's Substack: https://jeffrich.substack.com Dr. Jeff Rich is a historian, author, and ex-government official. He got his PhD from the Australian National University and worked for various Australian state agencies. He is a prolific writer with a great Substack on current affairs and he runs the YouTube channel “The Burning Archive”, on which he discusses thinkers and world politics. Please do check out his channel! Jeff is also part of the new media alliance that several of us pro-peace social media folks are currently forming, so I wanted to do a one on one with him to pick his brains about the craziness we are living in.
Untold Histories: NATO Always Was A Tool For Global Domination | Historian Dr. Jeff Rich
The International Court of Justice just delivered another land-mark ruling concerning Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine that, judging from Netanyahu’s furious reaction, must really hurt. So, let’s have a look at this. The Advisory Opinion: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf Before going into the ruling of the International Court of Justice (or the ICJ as I will call it from here on), let’s make it clear what we are dealing with here. Because, while this is a highly significant decision that had to be duly voted on by all the court’s 15 judges, it is not an enforceable judgment over a concrete case brought to the ICJ by a UN member, like the South Africa case against Isreal. There is no “guilty” verdict or punishment attached to this one. What the court produced was a so-called “advisory opinion” on a legal matter which the UN General Assembly asked it to produce. Why did the Assembly do this? Well, advisory opinions from the ICJ are the most authoritative interpretations of international law that you can get. It means the court’s 15 lawyers and their teams studied a certain legal question for months and years and then deliver a judgment in the sense of a “super expert opinion” on the matter. In the practice of international law, these opinions then become “sources of law,” which itself can serve several purposes 1. They can be the basis for future verdicts on concrete questions if members decide to drag each other to the court. 2. They can inform UN members at the General Assembly and the Security council of what the law actually says, which makes it easier to argue for or against resolutions that might be proposed. Which is something we can expect to happen in this case. The General Assembly will certainly in the future create resolutions that will be based on this verdict. The second thing to note is that while Israel forcefully “rejects” the ruling and certainly won’t adjust its behaviour. This is a big set-back for the Zionist project. You see, International Law is not like domestic law. It’s not enforceable the way that domestic law is. It also doesn’t come about the same way as domestic law. Domestic law is made (usually) by legislative bodies, (usually) called parliaments. They are more or less concrete rules which are then used by the state machine to structure social live inside a country. International Law doesn’t work like that, because there is no world parliament with the same force over everyone. The UN General Assembly might look a bit like a parliament but it really isn’t the same kind of institution. International Law represents first and foremost the “general collective will” of the international community as expressed through treaties, declarations, custom, and—expert opinions. So what this verdict signifies is another instant of “the world” not recognising Israel’s claims over Palestinian lands. Of course Israel is angry now and says, literally, “The people of Israel are not occupiers in their own land and in their eternal capital, Jerusalem” — this is actually a quite useful statement, because exactly this is the core of the issue. The verdict means that the world does not recognise precisely this claim, namely that Israel, by virtue of Jews having lived in these lands 2000 years ago, derives some magical historical rights over the land. This is not a concept of international law and won’t be one. And Isreal is furious about not being able to impose its will here. Because, you know, this is a very big problem Zionism since Isreal’s entire political strategy is to just create facts on the ground. Isreal’s idea ever since its establishment in 1948 has been to just ignore international law, do things that are clearly considered crimes under that law, just take the land, replace the people who are living there, and, over time, let that become a fact of international live. This is not even a new strategy as this is exactly how all successful settler colonial states were created. New people from Europe eradicated native populations, set up their own states and those became members of the international community by virtue of all other states at the time recognising them. You see, recognition by other states is really the core of how international law works. International Law is the will of the world, so if the wold loses the will to oppose Israel and actually recognises its claims, then those claims will become “legal” in the sense of being recognised by the international community. Past actions will always remain illegal under past IL, but for the future they will become recognised and the illegality of them will seize. ....
UN Court Deals HUGE BLOW To Israel. This Will HURT Zionism For Decades.
Well, this is it. The end of the road is in plain sight for everyone to see. But the driver is still hitting that gas pedal as if there was no tomorrow. The game of chicken is on, but this is one that the West cannot win. The rise of China is the greatest existential threat to the USA in its history not because of any security, economic, or epistemic dangers, but purely because it invalidates the self-conception of the Washington elites that equate themselves with "the world." The sheer fact that there is a counter concept on the global stage that is successfully rivalling the US in all spheres–from the economy, to tech, to culture, and foreign influence—invalidates its hegemony and thereby the core of the modern self-image of the USA. Listen to the explanations of Professor Michael Brenner, who explores both, US relations with China and Russia to make sense of the suicidal policies that the US is taking toward its rivals. Turns out that hegemony—once the mindset has firmly taken root—undermines the very foundations upon which it is built. Or, put differently, success is blinding the US into defeat.
The US Is SCARED As Hell: Hegemony Or Bust | Prof. Michael Brenner
Load More... Subscribe