Non-aggression pact: Difference between revisions

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Otheruses|Non-aggression Pact (band)|Non-aggression principle}}
{{Otheruses|Non-aggression Pact (band)|Non-aggression principle}}


A '''non-aggression pact''' or '''neutrality pact''' is a [[treaty]] between two or more states/countries that includes a promise by the signatories not to engage in military action against each other.<ref name="KrauseSinger2001">Volker Krause, J. David Singer "Minor Powers, Alliances, And Armed Conflict: Some Preliminary Patterns", in "Small States and Alliances", 2001, pp 15-23, {{ISBN|978-3-7908-2492-6}} (Print) {{ISBN|978-3-662-13000-1}} (Online) [http://www.bundesheer.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/05_small_states_03.pdf]</ref> Such treaties may be described by other names, such as a treaty of friendship or non-belligerency, etc.
A '''non-aggression pact''' or '''neutrality pact''' is a [[treaty]] between two or more states/countries that includes a promise by the signatories not to engage in military action against each other.<ref name="KrauseSinger2001">Volker Krause, J. David Singer "Minor Powers, Alliances, And Armed Conflict: Some Preliminary Patterns", in "Small States and Alliances", 2001, pp 15-23, {{ISBN|978-3-7908-2492-6}} (Print) {{ISBN|978-3-662-13000-1}} (Online) [http://www.bundesheer.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/05_small_states_03.pdf]</ref> Such treaties may be described by other names, such as a [[Treaty of Friendship|treaty of friendship]] or [[non-belligerent|non-belligerency]], etc.


Leeds, Ritter, Mitchell, & Long (2002) distinguish between the concept of the terms '''non-aggression pact''' and '''neutrality pact'''.<ref name="Leeds_2002">Brett Leeds, Jeffrey Ritter, Sara Mitchell, Andrew Long, "Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944", "International Interactions: Empirical and Theoretical Research in International Relations", 2002, vol. 28, issue 3, p. 237-260, DOI: 10.1080/03050620213653 [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03050620213653]</ref> Leeds et al. (2002) posit that the term ''non-aggression pact'' is considered to be a pact that includes the promise not to attack the other pact signatories, whereas a ''neutrality pact'' includes a promise to avoid support of any entity that acts against the interests of any of the pact signatories. The most readily recognized example of the aforementioned entity is another country, nation-state, or sovereign organization that represents a negative consequence towards the advantages held by one or more of the signatory parties.<ref name="Leeds_2002"/>
Leeds, Ritter, Mitchell, & Long (2002) distinguish between the concept of the terms '''non-aggression pact''' and '''neutrality pact'''.<ref name="Leeds_2002">Brett Leeds, Jeffrey Ritter, Sara Mitchell, Andrew Long, "Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944", "International Interactions: Empirical and Theoretical Research in International Relations", 2002, vol. 28, issue 3, p. 237-260, DOI: 10.1080/03050620213653 [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03050620213653]</ref> They posit that the term ''non-aggression pact'' is considered to be a pact that includes the promise not to attack the other pact signatories, whereas a ''neutrality pact'' includes a promise to avoid support of any entity that acts against the interests of any of the pact signatories. The most readily recognized example of the aforementioned entity is another country, nation-state, or sovereign organization that represents a negative consequence towards the advantages held by one or more of the signatory parties.<ref name="Leeds_2002"/>


In the 19th century neutrality pacts have historically been used to give permission for one signatory of the pact to attack or attempt to negatively influence an entity not protected by the neutrality pact. The participants of the neutrality pact agree not to attempt to counteract an act of aggression waged by a pact signatory towards an entity not protected under the terms of the pact. Possible motivations for such acts by one or more of the pacts' signatories include a desire to take, or expand, control of, economic resources, militarily important locations, etc.<ref name="Leeds_2002"/>
In the 19th century neutrality pacts have historically been used to give permission for one signatory of the pact to attack or attempt to negatively influence an entity not protected by the neutrality pact. The participants of the neutrality pact agree not to attempt to counteract an act of aggression waged by a pact signatory towards an entity not protected under the terms of the pact. Possible motivations for such acts by one or more of the pacts' signatories include a desire to take, or expand, control of, economic resources, militarily important locations, etc.<ref name="Leeds_2002"/>
Line 9: Line 9:
Such pacts were a popular form of international agreement in the 1920s and 1930s, but have largely fallen out of use after the [[Second World War]].{{citation needed|date=February 2018}} Since the implementation of a non-aggression pact necessarily depends on the good faith of the parties, the international community{{Who|date=March 2018}}, following the Second World War, adopted the norm of multilateral collective security agreements, such as the treaties establishing [[NATO]], [[ANZUS]], [[SEATO]] and [[Warsaw Pact]].{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}
Such pacts were a popular form of international agreement in the 1920s and 1930s, but have largely fallen out of use after the [[Second World War]].{{citation needed|date=February 2018}} Since the implementation of a non-aggression pact necessarily depends on the good faith of the parties, the international community{{Who|date=March 2018}}, following the Second World War, adopted the norm of multilateral collective security agreements, such as the treaties establishing [[NATO]], [[ANZUS]], [[SEATO]] and [[Warsaw Pact]].{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}


An example of non-aggression pact is the 1939 [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]] between the [[Soviet Union]] and [[Nazi Germany]]. The Pact lasted until the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union in [[Operation Barbarossa]].<ref name="KrauseSinger2001"/>
An example of non-aggression pact is the 1939 [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact]] between the [[Soviet Union]] and [[Nazi Germany]]. The Pact lasted until the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union in [[Operation Barbarossa]].<ref name="KrauseSinger2001"/> However, such pacts May be a device for neutralising a potential military threat, enabling at least one of the signatories to free up its military resources for other fronts. For example, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact freed German resources from the [[Russian front]] and was the trigger for the [[Second World War]].


It has been found that [[major power]]s are more likely to start military conflicts against their partners in non-aggression pacts than against states that do not have any sort of alliance with them.<ref name="KrauseSinger2001"/>
It has been found that [[major power]]s are more likely to start military conflicts against their partners in non-aggression pacts than against states that do not have any sort of alliance with them.<ref name="KrauseSinger2001"/>

Revision as of 18:48, 3 June 2019

For other uses, see Non-aggression Pact (band) and Non-aggression principle.

A non-aggression pact or neutrality pact is a treaty between two or more states/countries that includes a promise by the signatories not to engage in military action against each other.[1] Such treaties may be described by other names, such as a treaty of friendship or non-belligerency, etc.

Leeds, Ritter, Mitchell, & Long (2002) distinguish between the concept of the terms non-aggression pact and neutrality pact.[2] They posit that the term non-aggression pact is considered to be a pact that includes the promise not to attack the other pact signatories, whereas a neutrality pact includes a promise to avoid support of any entity that acts against the interests of any of the pact signatories. The most readily recognized example of the aforementioned entity is another country, nation-state, or sovereign organization that represents a negative consequence towards the advantages held by one or more of the signatory parties.[2]

In the 19th century neutrality pacts have historically been used to give permission for one signatory of the pact to attack or attempt to negatively influence an entity not protected by the neutrality pact. The participants of the neutrality pact agree not to attempt to counteract an act of aggression waged by a pact signatory towards an entity not protected under the terms of the pact. Possible motivations for such acts by one or more of the pacts' signatories include a desire to take, or expand, control of, economic resources, militarily important locations, etc.[2]

Such pacts were a popular form of international agreement in the 1920s and 1930s, but have largely fallen out of use after the Second World War.[citation needed] Since the implementation of a non-aggression pact necessarily depends on the good faith of the parties, the international community[who?], following the Second World War, adopted the norm of multilateral collective security agreements, such as the treaties establishing NATO, ANZUS, SEATO and Warsaw Pact.[citation needed]

An example of non-aggression pact is the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The Pact lasted until the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa.[1] However, such pacts May be a device for neutralising a potential military threat, enabling at least one of the signatories to free up its military resources for other fronts. For example, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact freed German resources from the Russian front and was the trigger for the Second World War.

It has been found that major powers are more likely to start military conflicts against their partners in non-aggression pacts than against states that do not have any sort of alliance with them.[1]

List of non-aggression pacts

References

  1. ^ a b c Volker Krause, J. David Singer "Minor Powers, Alliances, And Armed Conflict: Some Preliminary Patterns", in "Small States and Alliances", 2001, pp 15-23, ISBN 978-3-7908-2492-6 (Print) ISBN 978-3-662-13000-1 (Online) [1]
  2. ^ a b c Brett Leeds, Jeffrey Ritter, Sara Mitchell, Andrew Long, "Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944", "International Interactions: Empirical and Theoretical Research in International Relations", 2002, vol. 28, issue 3, p. 237-260, DOI: 10.1080/03050620213653 [2]
  3. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 108, pp. 188-199.
  4. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 157, pp. 372.
  5. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 148, pp. 114-127.
  6. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 131, pp. 298-307.
  7. ^ Andrew Wheatcroft, Richard Overy (2009). The Road to War: The Origins of World War II. Vintage Publishers. p. 7. ISBN 9781448112395.
  8. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 148, pp. 320-329.
  9. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 165, p. 274.
  10. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 161, p. 230.
  11. ^ R. J. Crampton (1997). Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century – And After. Routledge Publishers. p. 105. ISBN 9780971054196.
  12. ^ League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 181, pp. 102-105.
  13. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 197, p. 38.
  14. ^ a b R. J. Crampton (1997). Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century – And After. Routledge Publishers. p. 105. ISBN 9781134712212.
  15. ^ Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 203, p. 422.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-aggression_pact&oldid=900144871"