Choosing to Go It Alone: Irish Neutrality in Theoretical and Comparative Perspective

Abstract

Realist and liberal paradigms of foreign policy analysis offer different views of the important policy stance of neutrality. Realism explains a neutral stance as the rational calculation of a small state’s interests in the state-centered, unfriendly, self-help environment. Liberalism argues that international norms and internal dynamics lead nations to seek and maintain neutrality. This article explores the neutral foreign policy stance of the Republic of Ireland from 1938 to the present in comparison to Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland. The Irish policy of neutrality differs from the other European neutrals in two important ways: it is unarmed neutrality and it is not impartial neutrality. I argue that domestic actors, public opinion, and governmental decision-making institutions provide an explanation for the continuing stance of neutrality. Thus, liberalism provides a better explanation for Irish neutrality than realism. The value of this study is that it illustrates in a comparative perspective the varying sources of neutrality in Europe and points to the continued usefulness of varied perspectives in understanding historical and contemporary foreign policy.

How Irish Citizens Negotiate Foreign Policy: A Social Representations Approach to Neutrality

“…She stated that “the concept of Irish neutrality as understood by the Irish people is a reflection of their values and a projection of their national identity in international affairs” (p. 473). The policy has been viewed as fulfilling the need to assert Irish sovereignty or independence, especially useful to the citizens of a newly independent nation (Devine, ; Fanning, ; Goetschel, ; Jesse, , ; Keatinge, ). Keatinge () posited that support for neutrality (especially during World War II) could be explained in part by “the psychological need for a dramatic manifestation of independence” (p. 78).…”

Ustav i neutralnost kao spoljnopolitička orijentacija države

“…Отуда, неутралност није сама себи циљ већ рационалан начин који се сматра важним инструментом у континуираном остваривању циљева безбедности, а који је дефинисала влада ради очувања независности земље. 10 Неутралност као форма уставног идентитета не би требало да буде одбачена, односно о њој би се могло говорити са аспекта њене реалне функције у поређењу са идентитетом безбедности који је базиран на чланству у војним савезима. 11 На питање "уставног идентитета" могу се надовезати и друга тзв.…”

Leader-driven foreign-policy change: Denmark and the Persian Gulf War

“…In studies of foreign-policy change, the individual decision-maker has been overlooked. 3 Some theories focus exclusively on how changes in the environment, such as shifts in the balance of power or changes in the domestic political system, impact on foreign-policy change (Cason and Power, 2009; Huxsoll, 2003; Jesse, 2006; Lahneman, 2003; Skidmore, 1994; Volgy and Schwarz, 1991). These theories do not take the individual into account at all.…”