On point #2:
Under The Hague Convention, neutral nations are actually required to be indifferent. The only humanitarian aid they can legally offer is to allow the sick and wounded to cross their territory (cross, not remain). In practical terms, even this is next to impossible, since the transports aren’t allow to have any military members of the belligerent parties.
On the broader question, the ethics of taking a neutral stance would largely have to be determined by the nature of the individual conflict. It would be unethical for the West to stand idly by and let Russia take over Eastern Europe, while a neutral stance on some purely internal conflicts would seem to be ethically justified.
Boru
Under The Hague Convention, neutral nations are actually required to be indifferent. The only humanitarian aid they can legally offer is to allow the sick and wounded to cross their territory (cross, not remain). In practical terms, even this is next to impossible, since the transports aren’t allow to have any military members of the belligerent parties.
On the broader question, the ethics of taking a neutral stance would largely have to be determined by the nature of the individual conflict. It would be unethical for the West to stand idly by and let Russia take over Eastern Europe, while a neutral stance on some purely internal conflicts would seem to be ethically justified.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
