Choosing to Go It Alone: Irish Neutrality in Theoretical and Comparative Perspective
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512106058624 |
| Date | 01 January 2006 |
| Author | Neal G. Jesse |
| Published date | 01 January 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Choosing to Go It Alone: Irish Neutrality in
Theoretical and Comparative Perspective
NEAL G. JESSE
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 under-
standing historical and contemporary foreign policy.
Keywords: • Foreign policy • Ireland • Liberalism • Neutrality
Introduction: Neutrality and Ireland
Neutrality is both a common form of foreign policy and a little understood issue in
international relations. Neutrality is also a relatively new concept. It is only as old
as the current international order. The decline of empires in the 18th and 19th
centuries ushered in the reign of nation-states and its ideological counterpart –
nationalism. The rise of nationalism has led to foreign policy directed by the
governments of each nation-state in the name of protecting the security of its
sovereignty, primarily by protecting its borders. Security being the main realist aim
of sovereign government, each state engages in the international order in an
International Political Science Review (2006), Vol 27, No. 1, 7–28
DOI: 10.1177/0192512106058624 © 2006 International Political Science Association
SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
attempt to increase its security. While the modern form of neutrality traces back to
Swiss neutrality in the 16th century, its current nationalist incarnation goes back
only as far as the Concert of Europe (1815), the Hague Agreements (1907), and
the Treaty of Versailles (1919). Since then, only a small number of states have
pursued neutrality,1most of which have been small European states, for example,
Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Given the major international conflicts of the 20th century, it is not surprising
that both politicians and political scientists have at worst neglected the important
policy stance of neutrality and at best relegated it to a secondary or tertiary
consideration. The study of international relations often pushes nations that
pursue neutrality into residual categories and leaves them unexplained,
unexamined, or dismissed as either uninteresting or unimportant. The realist
perspective that so pervades our modern understanding of international relations
assumes a neutral stance to be the product of rational calculation of a small state’s
interests and capabilities in the state-centered, unfriendly, self-help international
environment.
Included in the group of European neutrals is the Republic of Ireland. Ireland
has pursued neutrality since World War II. A realist perspective appears to explain
Irish neutrality quite easily. After all, Ireland’s geographical isolation from the
European continent, shielded by the bulk of the English mainland, provides it
with a perfect place to hide from the past century of European conflict. In
addition, the lack of any true capability to project power beyond its shores, and
perhaps the inability to protect its shores from external threat, makes a foreign
policy choice of belligerence unobtainable. With the exception of its historic,
hegemonic neighbor, Great Britain, Ireland has no enemies and no international
intrigues. It seems that one would be hard-pressed to find a more uninteresting
story than Irish neutrality. The Republic of Ireland has neither the ability nor the
desire to engage in conflict and thus pursues neutrality out of necessity and
prudence – end of story.
However, this story is not so simple. A number of authors have painted Irish
neutrality as much more complex. Irish neutrality wraps itself in its historical
relations with Britain, the continuing separation of Northern Ireland, notions of
independence and sovereignty, party politics, and the continuance of myths in
Irish public opinion. Given these factors, it is obvious that realist theory grossly
underestimates the contributions of domestic factors to the establishment and
maintenance of Irish neutrality. Moreover, realist theory cannot account for
Ireland’s unique form of neutrality, what Keatinge (1984) calls its “Singular
Stance.” Irish neutrality has morphed from its World War II form into something
much more amorphous and pragmatic, a form that can engage in NATO’s
Partnership for Peace (PfP) and, simultaneously, the European Union’s Common
Foreign and Security Policy. Ireland’s singular stance contains the core element of
nonparticipation in military alliances while also promoting activity in international
peacekeeping operations, particularly under the auspices of the United Nations.
Irish deviation from the form of neutrality based on international law that other
European neutrals follow (that is, withdrawal from any international commitment
that would place the neutral country in a position to have to choose sides in the
event of the escalation of conflict) places it in a unique place, one that realist
theory cannot explain. I argue that the explanation relies on domestic sources of
Irish neutrality and that this explanation is consistent with the liberal perspective
of international relations.
8International Political Science Review 27(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial