No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
This article analyses the foreign policy of two post-neutral EU member states, Sweden and Finland. Both these Nordic states have adjusted their past policies of neutrality in favour of extended participation in the European and transatlantic security community. Yet within a similar and comparable pattern of change, there are two very significant differences between them: their views towards future membership in NATO and their choice of military strategy. The article utilizes an analytical framework that treats neutrality as an institutionalized idea containing causal and principled beliefs. The persistence of neutrality as a guiding principle of policy depends on feedback regarding: (1) its strategic usefulness (implications for security) as well as (2) its social appropriateness (implications for identity). The feedback mechanisms are related in the sense that the self-interested element of military non-alignment for the sake of security needs to be compensated by an appropriate role, such as demonstrating responsibility and engagement in international issues. Having taken a more autonomous decision, although with a historical record of shortcomings as regards declared neutrality, Sweden has been more dependent than Finland in ensuring that its respective policy of neutrality is complemented by an appropriate international role. This was possible during the Cold War, yet became increasingly difficult after the collapse of the bipolar world order. Thus, the analysis undertaken suggests, paradoxically, that in order to remain militarily non-aligned, Sweden has come to favour a more European outlook at the expense of the integrity of its policy of neutrality.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.