As the United Nations Security Council is unable to prevent or solve crises endangering international peace and security, other tools of international law are gaining priority. Neutrality fills the gap as long as the UNSC is unable to adopt a binding resolution. The analysis of permanently neutral countries and states following a neutral foreign policy is therefore back on the agenda. The Republic of Moldova and Serbia face the same great powers and international organizations in their vicinity, and both decided to become a neutral country, but for different reasons. This post compares the two different paths of neutrality and concludes that neutrality is still relevant in the 21^st century.

The Republic of Moldova and Serbia both became neutral states, but for different reasons. After the aggression of Russia against Ukraine in 2022, neutrality gained importance. As the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is unable to solve some of the crises of international peace and security, other methods of isolating armed conflicts, securing peace and mediating between the parties fill the gap. Analyzing and understanding the law of neutrality is therefore necessary in the 21^st century.

The Republic of Moldova faced a challenging security crisis right at the beginning of its independence from the Soviet Union in the 1990s. Transnistria began the process of seceding, becoming a de facto state not recognized by the international community by adopting a declaration of independence in 1991, followed by a constitution. The Republic of Moldova adopted its declaration of independence in 1991 and its constitution in 1994, which does not recognize Transnistria and considers the territory occupied by Russian forces up to this date a part of its own territory.

There was a civil war taking place from 1990 to 1992 between the Republic of Moldova and the Transnistrian separatists, which was ended by a Russian intervention and the following ceasefire agreement still in force today.

The Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (1994) declares in its Article 11 that the Republic of Moldova is a permanently neutral state. It is situated geopolitically between Russia, NATO and the European Union. Using the above-described timeline, it is easy to deduce that the Republic of Moldova was trying to preserve its independence, sovereignty, and restore its territorial integrity by assuming permanently neutral status, which was also confirmed by UNGA Resolution 72/282 (2018). This strategy worked partially, as it did not gain back control over the territory it lost during the Transnistrian war.

In the case of Serbia, the situation was different. Serbia adopted a parliamentary resolution declaring neutrality in 2007, referencing “the overall role of NATO, from the illegal bombardment of Serbia without a Security Council decision to Annex 11 of the rejected Ahtisaari’s plan, which determines that NATO is “ultimate supervisory authority” in an «independent Kosovo»”. Therefore, the Serbian parliament decided that Serbia should follow a policy of neutrality justifying its stance based on the independence of Kosovo and NATO’s military intervention. The policy of neutrality is therefore a message to NATO and its members and a method for balancing diplomatic relations between Russia and NATO in this case.

Comparing the two situations, one can establish that neither state had the option of joining a military alliance at the time of assuming neutral status. The Republic of Moldova is clearly a permanently neutral state, while Serbia (arguably, depending on whether a unilateral act of the state is enough for permanently neutral status or not) follows a neutral foreign policy, without international recognition. Both states became EU candidate countries.  Neutrality is a pragmatic foreign policy tool, but it is also shaped by geopolitical constraints.

Neutrality is not a uniform concept, but it reflects a spectrum of different state practices stemming from different security dilemmas, conflicts, and relationship to great powers. Still, the effectiveness of neutrality is limited in some cases, as the Republic of Moldova is still unable to restore its full territorial integrity. Neutrality is not an absolute guarantee, but a political instrument to navigate complex security environments.

The shortcomings of the UN-based international legal order make it necessary to rely on such tools and leads to a dynamic development of special part of international law. Neutrality remains relevant in the 21^st century.

Árpád Lapu is an assistant research fellow at the Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary. He was a policy adviser on constitutional issues at the European Parliament between 2019-2024. He worked as an adviser at the Ministry of Justice of Hungary (2017-2019) and the Ministry of European Union Affairs (2024-2026), conducting EU law, international law and comparative constitutional analyses. He has earned his JD at the Pázmány Péter Catholic University in Hungary, has a BA in international relations from the University of Szeged, and an MA in European and international administration from Andrássy Gyula German Speaking University in Budapest. He has completed an LLM in international law at the Catholic University of Louvain (UCLouvain).