Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:44:18.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neutral Austria in the United Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Karl Zemanek
Karl Zemanek
Affiliation:
Professor of International Law and Organization, School of Law and Political Science, University of Vienna., Austria.
Get access

Extract

The permanent neutrality of Austria is not rooted in ancient traditions as is its model, the permanent neutrality of Switzerland. It was established as late as 1955 and may, therefore, give rise to the question of why, in an age of collective self-defense, such a seemingly outdated decision was taken.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , Summer 1961 , pp. 408 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a more detailed analysis see Kunz, J. L., “Austria's Permanent Neutrality,” American Journal of International Law (hereafter cited as A.J.I.L.) 50, 1956, p. 418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ermacora, F, Österreicbs Staatsver-trag und Neutralität, Frankfurt-Berlin, 1957Google Scholar; Ver-dross, A, Die immerwährende Neutralität der Republik Österreicb, Vienna, 1958Google Scholar; de Nova, R, “Die Neutralisation Österreichs,” Die Friedenswarte 54, 1958, p. 298–334Google Scholar; and Kreisky, B, “Austria Draws the Balance,” Foreign Affairs 37, 1959, p. 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The translation into English used here is published in A.J.I.L. 49, 1955, Suppl., p. 191–194.

3 B.G.Bl. 1955, July 30, 1955, No. 152. Italics supplied. The English text is also published in A.J.I.L. 49, 1955, Suppl., p. 162–191.

4 B.G.Bl. 1955, November 4, 1955, No. 211. The English translation is taken from Kunz, op. cit. (note 1), p. 420.

5 Citing Switzerland's recognition of Austria's permanent neutrality, M. Nef, Verschiedene Gestalten der Neutralitāt, Zurich, 1956, p. I, takes the same view.

6 For a complete discussion of this legal aspect see de Nova, op cit. (note 1), p. 299–305. This opinion is also snared by Kunz, op. cit. (note 1), p. 422, and Verdross, op. cit. (note 1), p. 12–13. Certain other writers, however, deny the binding character; see, for instance, Reut-Nicolussi, E., “Die österreichische Neutralitätserklärung vom 26.X.1955,” Internationales Recbt und Diplomatie, 1955, p. 15–28Google Scholar, and Ermacora, op. cit. (note 1), p. 108–111.

7 See Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1946–1951, New York, 1954, p. 245–264Google Scholar, and Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Vol. 2, New York, 1955, p. 169–172Google Scholar, also on further proceedings.

8 Austria has no diplomatic relations with China. The latter was, therefore, neither notified of Austria's constitutional law nor invited to recognize its permanent neutrality.

9 Recommendation contained in Document A/3099 (705th meeting), Cf. also Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, Suppl. 1952–1955, New York, 1957. P. 85.Google Scholar

10 General Assembly Resolution 995 (X), December 14, 1955. See also Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Suppl. No. 1, Vol. 1, New York, 1958, p. 80, 90, 92.Google Scholar

11 Report of the Rapporteur of Committee 1/1, United Nations Conference on International Organization (U.N.C.I.O.), Selected Documents, Washington, 1946, p. 498.Google Scholar

12 For a legal evaluation of this development with regard to collective security see Komarnicki, T., “The Place of Neutrality in the Modern System of International Law,” Recueil des Cours 80, The Hague, 1952, 1, p. 483–490.Google Scholar

13 Back in 1948, the great Swiss international lawyer M. Huber wrote: “Je mehr sich die Weltpolitik nacheinem Gleichgewicht hin entwickelt, ist es denkbar, dass, wie im Zeitalter des europäischen Gleichgewichts, die Idee der dauernd Neutralen und der Pufferstaaten wieder aktuell wird, denn ein Gleichgewicht zwischenzwei politischen Gruppen, in denen alle oder fast alle Staaten eingegliedert sind, ist, wie ein Gleichgewicht Zwischen zwei Weltmächten, sehr labil und gefährdet. Eine neutrale Zwischengruppe könnte diese Gefahr vermindern, soferne sie eine ausreichende Kraft der Selbstverteidigung hätte und ihre neutrale Stellung vonden als mögliche Gegner in Betracht kommenden Staaten anerkannt würde.” “Neutralitätsrecht und Neutralitätspolitik,” Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für inter-nationales Recht 5, 1948, p. 26.Google Scholar

14 See the Report of December 22, 1841, of the Commission set up to examine the proposed Franco-Belgian Customs Union, cited in Gottschalk, E., Frank-reich und das neutralisierte Belgien, Stuttgart, 1926, p. 68Google Scholar: “Das europäische Gleichgewicht verlangt, dass Belgien niemals mit Frankreich vereinigt wird.” The Austrian Foreign Minister, Kreisky, analyzing the reasons for Austria's permanent neutrality before the United States–Austrian Chamber of Commerce in New York, stated on October 6, 1960: “… arriving at this decision, Austria was conscious of the fact that, in gaining her independence, she must not cause the delicate international balance to be upset.” (Transcript supplied by courtesy of the press attaché, Austrian Mission to the UN).

15 Thus, for example, the UN agreed that “neutrals” police the Korean armistice. See Taubenfeld, H. J, “International Actions and Neutrality,” A.J.I.L. 47, 1953. P. 394Google Scholar. note 104. Furthermore, the Outer Space Committee, set up by General Assembly Resolution 1472A(XIV), December 12, 1959, is composed of 24 members, five of whom were nominated as “neutrals,” Austria being among them. Cf. the debates in the First Committee of the Fourteenth General Assembly, 1079th–1081st meetings.

16 See examples in Engel, S., “The Changing Charter of the UN,” Yearbook of World Affairs 7, 1953, p. 71–101Google Scholar; and in Robinson, J., “Metamorphosis of the UN,” Recueil des Cours 94, The Hague, 1958, II, p. 497–589.Google Scholar

17 International Court of Justice Reports 1949, p. 174–220; see especially p. 179, 180, 182, 184.

18 Particularly Chaumont, Ch., “Nations Unies et neutralité,” Recueil des Cours 89, The Hague, 1956, 1, p. 30–45.Google Scholar

19 It is, however, doubtful whether Austria's unilateral declaration of permanent neutrality together with subsequent recognitions constitute “international agreements” in this sense and whether, therefore, Article 103 would apply at all.

20 Cf. Sloan, F. B., “The Binding Force of a ‘Recommendation’ of the General Assembly of the UN,” British Yearbook of International Law 25, 1948, p. 1–33Google Scholar; and D. H. N. Johnson, “The Effect of Resolutions of the General Assembly of the UN,” ibid. 32, 1955/1956, p. 97–122.

21 Italics supplied.

22 In the Security Council the vote was: 11 for, none against, and no abstentions; in the General Assembly: 56 for, none against, and no abstentions. For references see notes 8 and 9.

23 On June 25, 1959, the Foreign Minister of Switzerland, Mr. Petitpierre, said in a speech in Vienna: “Die gleichen Staaten, die die Neutralität Österreichs anerkannten, stimmten gleichzeitig für dessen Aufnahme als Mitglied der Weltorganisation. Damit legten sie die Satzung in einer Weise aus, die vom Sinn und von der Tragweite abweicht, die ihr von den Autoren verliehen wurden. Durch den Beitritt zu den Vereinigten Nationen wurde aber zweifellos die Neutralität Österreichs verstärkt und gleichzeitig die Neutralität als geltender Satz des Vökerrechts anerkannt.” Die Schweizerische Neutralitāt in der Weit von heute, Vienna, 1959, p. 8.Google Scholar

24 See Verdross, A., “Austria's Permanent Neutrality and the United Nations Organization,” A.J.I.L. 50, 1956, p. 61–68.Google Scholar

25 See supra, p. 409.

26 Verdross, A., Neutrality Within the Framework of the United Nations Organization, The Hague, 1958, p. 410–418Google Scholar, writes on p. 416: “Finally, article 27 of the Charter enables any permanent member of the Security Council to prevent a certain state from being called in to participate in non-military sanctions; … Thus, in order to obligate Austria to engage in non-military sanctions, all permanent members of the Security Council would have to disregard its permanent neutrality before recognized by them.”

27 See International Law, edition by the Institute of Law, Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, under the editorship of F. I. Koshevnikov, Moscow, 1957; German translation, Hamburg, 1960, p. 90, 457–458.

28 “Neutrality in Contemporary International Law,” Sovetski eshegodnik meshdunarodnovo prava (Soviet Yearbook of International Law) 1, 1958, p. 200–225Google Scholar; the English summary, from which the quotations are taken, is to be found on p. 225–229. From the reasoning on p. 227, not quoted here, it is apparent that this passage refers to actions under Chapter VII.

Similar remarks, yet with a question mark so as to indicate the necessity of further studies and decisions, were made by the delegate of Ceylon, A. B. Perera, in the Sixth Committee of the Fifteenth General Assembly of the UN on October 31, 1960 (65, 8th meeting). At the Seventh Congress of the Association Internationale de juristes démocrates held in Sofia between October 10 and 14, 1960, where the legal aspects of neutrality were discussed, the papers of H. Gyula (Hungary) and P. Georgiev (Bulgaria) arrived at the same conclusion as Galina. Others, however, defended views similar to those expressed in this article, e.g., P. Frederik (Belgium). The final resolution evaded a decision inasmuch as it simply confirms that “contemporary neutrality is consistent with the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. …”

29 Lalive, J. F., “International Organization and Neutrality,” British Yearbook of International Law 24, 1947, P. 72–89Google Scholar; on p. 80: “The non-military measures do not in themselves involve an act of belligerency. This is the purpose of the distinction between Articles 41 and 42. The resulting position may be one of qualified neutrality. The state affected by those measures cannot legally complain of being the victim of an unfriendly act, nor could it legally adopt measures of retaliation. By its acceptance of the Charter it has in anticipation acquiesced in such measures.”

30 This view is also affirmed by competent Austrian political authorities. See for instance Austrian Foreign Minister Figl's address to the International Seminar for Diplomats at Klessheim in 1958, published in Contemporary Diplomacy, Graz-Vienna-Cologne, 1959, p. 295–296. A similar view was expressed in 1960 by the Secretary of State in the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gschnitzer, at the same seminar (not yet published).

31 Because of documentary reasons, this survey does not cover the Fifteenth General Assembly (1960). All quotations from statements by Austrian representatives in General Assembly Committees are, if not otherwise indicated, translated by the author from the German originals, published in the annual reports of the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Parliament on proceedings in the UN. This has proved necessary because the summary records of the UN quite often give insufficient transcripts. In these translations the author has been assisted by Dr. Herbert Hausmaninger of the University of Vienna Law School, to whom he expresses his sincere thanks.

32 Cf. Huber, op. cit. (note 13), p. 18, 19.

33 The ideas outlined here are based on the concept developed by Swiss Foreign Minister Petitpierre in his speech in Vienna, op. cit. (note 23), p. 6, 9.

34 Address by Austrian Foreign Minister Figl to the Seminar for Diplomats, op. cit. (note 30), p. 299. (Author's translation).

35 Foreign Minister Figl at the 589th meeting of the General Assembly on November 22, 1956. General Assembly Official Records (14th session), Plenary Meetings, Vol. 1, p. 229.

36 At the 800th meeting of the General Assembly on November 21, 1959. General Assembly Official Records (14th session). Plenary Meetings, p. 39.

37 See supra, p. 410–411.

38 On bloc voting in the UN see Riggs, R. E., Politics in the UN, Urbana, 1958, p. 21–28Google Scholar; Goodrich, L. M., The United Nations, New York, 1959, p. 96–99Google Scholar; and Hadwen, G. and Kaufmann, J., How UN Decisions Are Made, Leyden, 1960, p. 64–65.Google Scholar

39 This was recognized by the United States chief delegate to the UN, James Wadsworth, in an address to the UN Correspondents Association, New York, on October 11, 1960, when he said: “The Asian-African group has from the very first been hopelessly split. They practically never voted as a bloc. And other neutrals, of course, like Sweden, Austria, and so forth, vote the way that their conscience dictates.” (Italics supplied ).

40 Special Political Committee, 90th meeting, October 16, 1958. Cf. also the statement by the Austrian representative at the 676th meeting of the Fifth Committee, November 5, 1958.

41 Cf. the statement of the Austrian foreign minister at the 589th meeting of the General Assembly, on November 22, 1956, loc. cit. (note 35), p. 229.

42 At the 755th meeting of the General Assembly, on September 23, 1958. General Assembly Official Records (13th session), Plenary Meetings, p. 107. Cf. also the remarks of the Austrian representative during the debate on peaceful coexistence at the 936th meeting of the First Committee (December 13, 1957).

43 Since in the scope of this article it is not possible to give a complete survey of Austria's voting record in the General Assembly, the author had to select a few problems which he considered to be representative. Particular emphasis has thereby been put on political problems. It goes without saying that the author's choice is purely subjective.

44 At the 723rd meeting of the General Assembly, on November 26, 1957.

45 Special Political Committee, 90th meeting, October 16, 1958. General Assembly Official Records, Special Political Committee, p. 23.

46 At the 142d meeting, on November 3, 1959.

47 Only the humanitarian aspects are discussed here.

48 General Assembly Resolution 1007 (Second Emergency Special Session), November 9, 1956.

49 At the 571st meeting of the General Assembly on November 9, 1956. General Assembly Official Records (Second Emergency Special Session), p. 59.

50 At the 755th meeting of the General Assembly, on September 23, 1958, loc. cit. (note 42), p. 108.

51 See for instance the statement referred to in note 45.

52 Document A/C.1/L.246.

53 At the 1078th meeting of the First Committee, on December 7, 1959.

54 Document A/4339, para. 7.

55 Document A/L.276.

56 Draft resolution A/C.1/L.197, contained in Document A/3794. (731st meeting of the General Assembly).

57 At the 1008th meeting, on December 4, 1958.

58 Draft resolution A/C.1/L.193, contained in Document A/3757. (724th meeting of the General Assembly). Austria explained its vote at the 923d meeting of the First Committee, on November 26, 1957.

59 At the 589th meeting of the General Assembly, on November 22, 1956, loc. cit. (note 35), p. 229.

60 563d meeting of the General Assembly, on November 4, 1956.

61 The vote on both resolutions took place at the 838th meeting of the General Assembly, on November 17, 1959.

62 For the advisory opinion see International Court of Justice Reports 1950, p. 144.

63 General Assembly Resolution 1301 (XIII), December 10, 1958.

64 Austria's activity in this respect was recognized by the election of that country to the Outer Space Committee at the Fourteenth General Assembly (Resolution 1472A (XIV) December 12, 1959).

65 At the 1053d meeting of the First Committee (November 12, 1959), when the draft resolution was discussed in committee.

66 For the text of the draft resolution see Document A/L.231 and Rev.1 and Add.1, and for the Albanian amendment, see Document A/L.236.

67 At the 1053d meeting of the First Committee (November 12, 1959), when the draft resolution was discussed in committee.

68 Foreign Minister Figl before the Seminar for Diplomats, op. cit. (note 30), p. 300.