Permanent neutrality: A systems-theoretical interpretation

Permanent neutrality is usually studied in terms of legal doctrines or country-level case studies. This article, in contrast, presents a systems-level theory drawing from Niklas Luhmann. It argues that, within the diplomatic system, an arrangement of states as sovereign equals (segmentary differentiation) is more peaceful than a hierarchy of two blocs (stratified differentiation). However, the diplomatic system is regularly drawn away from segmentation because states expand their power capacities to politicize the international. Permanent neutrality counters stratification and ensures the continued existence of a peace-oriented segmentary differentiation within diplomacy. But not every state needs to be neutral to uphold this type of differentiation: there are other diplomatic institutions that serve this function, hence neutrality is not indispensable. In fact, great powers are structurally inclined away from neutrality, so that mainly small states tend to adopt permanent neutrality, while middle powers may function as their guarantors. The discussion section speculates how systems theory offers novel understandings of military neutrality versus diplomatic neutrality; of how the “permanence” of permanent neutrality is an illusion that erodes with a better understanding of diplomacy’s temporality; and of how neutrality today implies a bridging of the liberal versus illiberal divide.