Download Free Austrias Neutrality Today And Its Impact On The Nations Security Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Austrias Neutrality Today And Its Impact On The Nations Security and write the review.

Seminar paper from the year 2016 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 1,7, University of Lisbon, language: English, abstract: In my paper, I want to investigate to which extent Austrian neutrality is still existing. Is it yet more than a romantic picture of our home country? How has this concept been affected by the membership in various International Organizations, especially the EU? And how does a neutral state cope with its security in a globalized world? My hypotheses are that in the course of time, Austria has quietly given up neutrality in favor of the benefits of being part of the international community. Security Policies are coordinated and in a globalized world, that is continuously moving closer together, cannot work independently. Therefore Austria has to participate and cannot hide behind it’s neutrality.
After Stalin's death, during a respite in Cold War tensions in 1955, Austria managed to rid itself of a quadripartite occupation regime and become a neutral state. As the Cold War continued, Austria's policy of neutrality helped make this small country into an important mediator of East-West differences, and neutrality became a crucial part of Austria's postwar identity. In the post-Cold War era Austrian neutrality seems to demand redefinition. The work addresses such issues as what neutrality means when Austria's neighbors are joining NATO? What is the difference between Austrian neutrality in 1955 and 2000? In remaining apart from NATO, do Austrian elites risk their nation's national security? Is Austria a "free rider," too stingy to contribute to Western defense? Has the neutralist mentalit become such a crucial part of Austrian postwar identity that its abandonment will threaten civil society? These questions are addressed in this latest in the prestigious Contemporary Austrian Studies series. The volume emerged from the Wittgenstein Research Center project on "Discourse, Politics, and Identity," an interdisciplinary investigation of the meaning of Austrian neutrality. The first two chapters analyze the current meaning of Austrian neutrality. Karin Liebhart records narrative interviews with former presidents Rudolf Kirchschlger and Kurt Waldheim, both central political actors present at the creation and implementation of Austria's postwar neutrality. Gertraud Benke and Ruth Wodak provide in-depth analysis of a debate on Austrian National Television on "NATO and Neutrality," a microcosm of Austrian popular opinion that exposed all positions and ideological preferences on neutrality. The historian Oliver Rathkolb surveys international perceptions of Austrian neutrality over the past half-century. For comparative contrast David Irwin and John Wilson apply Foucault's theoretical framework to the history and debates on neutrality in Ireland. Political scientists Heinz Grtner and Paul Luif provide examples of how Austrian neutrality has been handled in the past and today. Michael Gehler analyzes Austria's response to the Hungarian crisis of 1956 and Klaus Eisterer reviews the Austrian legation's handling of the 1968 Czechoslovak crisis. Gnter Bischof is professor of history and executive director of Center Austria at the University of New Orleans. Anton Pelinka is professor of political science at the University of Innsbruck and director of the Institute of Conflict Research in Vienna. Ruth Wodak is professor in the linguistics department at the University of Vienna and director of the research center "Discourse, Politics, Identity" at the Austrian Academy of Science.
In a tension-filled world characterized by opposing blocs of nations, the pursuit of the policy of neutrality by a few states such as Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Austria may conjure up the vista of a peaceful oasis. But what is the actual meaning of neutrality at present, and what are the rights and obligations of governments that claim to be neutral? Are there differences in the concepts of neutrality as embraced by individual states? Have the legal concepts of neutrality been changing over time and especially during the last few decades? And can and do states adopt neutral stances on selected international issues while remaining partisan on others and what consequences flow from such foreign policy behavior? These and other questions regarding neutrality are examined and discussed in this volume co-published with the Institute for Comparative Study of Public Policy at the University of New Orleans.
In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia. The new security architecture would require that Russia, like NATO, commit to help uphold the security of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other states in the region. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from those countries in a verifiable manner; after that, corresponding sanctions on Russia would be lifted. The neutral countries would retain their rights to participate in multilateral security operations on a scale comparable to what has been the case in the past, including even those operations that might be led by NATO. They could think of and describe themselves as Western states (or anything else, for that matter). If the European Union and they so wished in the future, they could join the EU. They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination in every sense of the word. But NATO would decide not to invite them into the alliance as members. Ideally, these nations would endorse and promote this concept themselves as a more practical way to ensure their security than the current situation or any other plausible alternative.
Austria, a small-state society with barely eight million inhabitants differs from the rest of Europe in that it displays various paradoxical developments in its political culture, social life, and economy. First, most Austrians are the descendents of immigrants from all parts of the Habsburg Monarchy due to intensive migration occurring before 1913. Yet contemporary election campaigns and domestic and international politics have been dominated by xenophobic anti-migration slogans, especially since 1989. Without migration, the country's population would be in serious decline. Second, the Austrians have profited enormously from EU membership and EU enlargement but are stubbornly opposed to EU institutions, and there is little evidence of any EU hyphenated identities. Last, attitudes to historical events are equally contradictory: even though up to 600,000 Austrians were members of the Nazi Party, often holding prominent positions (Adolf Hitler himself), the German Reich has been regarded as solely responsible for the Holocaust. These and a number of other paradoxical perceptions are explored and interpreted in this fascinating and wide-ranging work by one of Austria's leading historians.
This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1959.
This inventive collection explores Austria's international position after the end of the Cold War. Austria joined the European Union in 1995 and aligned its foreign policy with the EU. Unlike its neighbors to the East, it did not join NATO but continued its policy of neutrality. Austria strengthened its investments in Central and Eastern Europe. Austria experienced devastating wars in its neighborhood in the Balkans and Austrian diplomats served as mediators in the region.
The law of neutrality - the corpus of legal rules regulating the relationship between belligerents and States taking no part in hostilities - assumed its modern form in a world in which the waging of war was unconstrained. The neutral State enjoyed territorial inviolability to the extent that it adhered to the obligations attaching to its neutral status and thus the law of neutrality provided spatial parameters for the conduct of hostilities. Yet the basis on which the law of neutrality developed - the extra-legal character of war - no longer exists. Does the law of neutrality continue to survive in the modern era? If so, how has it been modified by the profound changes in the law on the use of force and the law of armed conflict? This book argues that neutrality endures as a key concept of the law of armed conflict. The interaction between belligerent and nonbelligerent States continues to require legal regulation, as demonstrated by a number of recent conflicts, including the Iraq War of 2003 and the Mavi Marmara incident of 2010. By detailing the rights and duties of neutral states and demonstrating how the rules of neutrality continue to apply in modern day conflicts, this restatement of law of neutrality will be a useful guide to legal academics working on the law of armed conflict, the law on the use of force, and the history of international law, as well as for government and military lawyers seeking comprehensive guidance in this difficult area of the law.