AUSTRIA’S ENTRY INTO THE EU ENTAILED A REJECTION OF HER NEUTRALITY
Opponents of Austria’s entry into the EU campaigned on the basis that an entry into such an organization as the EU would undermine, or sacrifice Austria’s neutrality. how much this is the case though depends upon what Austria considered to be her neutrality and therefor what kind of organizations she could be a member of while still remaining a neutral country. Austrian membership certainly has implications for her permanently neutral status. As the EU becomes more cohesive in terms of its foreign and defense policy the EU may in the long run become some sort of military alliance, which if Austria agrees would mean a rejection of neutrality.
Austria’s entry into the EU entailed a rejection of her neutrality
Yes, because... EU intrusion into domestic affairs
It was argued by Bruno Kreisky in the 1950s that the precedence of EC regulations over national law and the qualified majority voting undermined Austrian sovereignty and therefor neutrality.[1] If that was the case in the 1950’s then it would be even more the case by the 1990’s when the EU has expanded so much in terms of its size and scope.
- ^ Jeffrey S. Lantis, Matthew F. Queen, Negotiating Neutrality, Austria and the European Union, 1989-1994, (georgetown university), p.18.
Austria’s entry into the EU entailed a rejection of her neutrality
Yes, because... EU as an alignment
how much does the EU, along with its slow movement towards a common security and defense policy pose a problem due to being a military alliance, does the EU constitute an alliance in any way? Despite the Federal Constitutional Law saying that permanent neutrality is of her “own free will” it is based upon the international recognition by the four powers and therefore Austria becomes bound by international law.[1] This however means that it is not just up too Austria to reject neutrality in favor of the European Union, or interpret neutrality in whatever way the Austrian government desires. Joining the European Union seems to immediately place Austria in a position of favoring the European Union in the case of a war. It would be very difficult while being in a monetary union with one side to trade equally with both sides for example, therefore this seems to be a potential rejection of neutrality.
- ^ Josef L. Kunz, ‘Austria's Permanent Neutrality’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 418-425, pp.421-22.
In the case of Austria its permanent neutrality was not created by treaty but unilaterally and then recognised multilaterally leaving a grey area as to who needs to recognise changes in the status of Austria’s neutrality.[1]
- ^ Josef L. Kunz, ‘Austria's Permanent Neutrality’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 418-425,pp.418, 421.
Vote on this point: EU as an alignment
See history of changes to this point
Austria’s entry into the EU entailed a rejection of her neutrality
No, because... More worried about sovereignty than neutrality
The Austrian government had viewed the powers of the European court over the sovereignty of the member states as incompatible with neutrality. However the Austrian Government was able to gain exemptions on certain areas whereby the commission would not use the controlling powers of the Court of Justice while Austria would support WEU peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.[1] This exemption allowed the government to argue that it was not rejecting neutrality. From this point of view holding on to neutrality looks more like ensuring sovereignty than neutrality.
- ^ Lantis, Neutrality, pp.23-24.
Austria’s entry into the EU entailed a rejection of her neutrality
No, because... Relic of the Cold War
Austrian permanent neutrality was a Soviet proposal where “Molotov offered draft text of proposed 4 power declaration wherein 4 powers wld respect and observe status of permanent Aust neutrality of type observed by Switzerland in relation to other states.”[1] It is therefor not surprising that the soviets felt that membership of the EU would destroy Austria’s neutrality policy.[2] However with no USSR this should no longer prevent any Austrian move to join the EU. The USSR’s view of the neutrality treaty should not bind Austria.[3]
- ^ Telegram from the Office of the High Commissioner for Austria to the Department of State Vienna may 14 1955 William Z. Slany, Foreign relations of the United States, 1955-1957. Austrian state treaty; summit and foreign ministers meetings, 1955, Volume V, (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1955-1957) http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS.FRUS1955-57v05 p.113.
- ^ Lantis, Neutrality, p.20.
- ^ Lahodynsky, 'The Changing Face of Austrian Neutrality' NATO Review, December 40 (6), pp.24-28. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1992/9206-5.htm
Point 1. EU intrusion into domestic affairs
It was argued by Bruno Kreisky in the 1950s that the precedence of EC regulations over national law and the qualified majority voting undermined Austrian sovereignty and therefor neutrality.[1] If that was the case in the 1950’s then it would be even more the case by the 1990’s when the EU has expanded so much in terms of its size and scope.
Point 2. EU as an alignment
how much does the EU, along with its slow movement towards a common security and defense policy pose a problem due to being a military alliance, does the EU constitute an alliance in any way? Despite the Federal Constitutional Law saying that permanent neutrality is of her “own free will” it is based upon the international recognition by the four powers and therefore Austria becomes bound by international law.[1] This however means that it is not just up too Austria to reject neutrality in favor of the European Union, or interpret neutrality in whatever way the Austrian government desires. Joining the European Union seems to immediately place Austria in a position of favoring the European Union in the case of a war. It would be very difficult while being in a monetary union with one side to trade equally with both sides for example, therefore this seems to be a potential rejection of neutrality.
In the case of Austria its permanent neutrality was not created by treaty but unilaterally and then recognised multilaterally leaving a grey area as to who needs to recognise changes in the status of Austria’s neutrality.[1]
Point 1. More worried about sovereignty than neutrality
The Austrian government had viewed the powers of the European court over the sovereignty of the member states as incompatible with neutrality. However the Austrian Government was able to gain exemptions on certain areas whereby the commission would not use the controlling powers of the Court of Justice while Austria would support WEU peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.[1] This exemption allowed the government to argue that it was not rejecting neutrality. From this point of view holding on to neutrality looks more like ensuring sovereignty than neutrality.
Point 2. Relic of the Cold War
Austrian permanent neutrality was a Soviet proposal where “Molotov offered draft text of proposed 4 power declaration wherein 4 powers wld respect and observe status of permanent Aust neutrality of type observed by Switzerland in relation to other states.”[1] It is therefor not surprising that the soviets felt that membership of the EU would destroy Austria’s neutrality policy.[2] However with no USSR this should no longer prevent any Austrian move to join the EU. The USSR’s view of the neutrality treaty should not bind Austria.[3]