Neutrality, non-belligerency, and permanent neutrality according to recent practice and doctrinal views.

This article analyzes the evolving concept of neutrality in international law, particularly in the context of the Russian Federation–Ukraine conflict and the UN Charter framework. It explains that classical neutrality, traditionally applicable only in international armed conflicts between states, remains legally valid but has transformed significantly, shifting from jus in bello (law in war) to jus ad bellum (law on the use of force). The article distinguishes neutrality from non-belligerency (or qualified neutrality), a practice where states provide support short of direct participation in hostilities, which has gained prominence despite ongoing doctrinal debate. It also addresses the limited applicability of neutrality in non-international armed conflicts, the role of permanent neutrality in peacetime and war, and the impact of UN Security Council actions and countermeasures on neutral states' duties and rights. Overall, the article concludes that neutrality persists as a legal institution but is increasingly shaped by contemporary international law and state practice.