In the 19th century neutrality was a highly appreciated concept. In the 20th century it has widely lost relevance and in principle it should be incompatible with UN membership. However, also under the UN system some states have opted for neutrality and it can be argued that there is still space for this status within the universal peace order. In fact, this peace order is far from perfect. There are several lacunae in the prohibition of the use of force and this concept is open to different interpretations. New challenges, such as international terrorism, are emerging that could threaten the absolute prohibition of the use of force. It is contended here that neutrals could play an important role when it comes to find an interpretation of this prohibition that best could reconcile the goals of peace and security with the overall - still imperfect - structure of the UN system. These questions are analysed with primary reference to Austrian neutrality which on the hand seems obsolete but on the other is forcefully looking for a new meaning.

中文翻译：

---

如何解释一个神话：在特别考虑奥地利案例的情况下联合国系统内的中立

在 19 世纪，中立是一个备受推崇的概念。在 20 世纪，它已经广泛地失去了相关性，原则上它应该与联合国成员资格格格不入。然而，在联合国系统下，一些国家也选择了中立，可以说在世界和平秩序中仍然有这种地位的空间。事实上，这种和平秩序远非完美。在禁止使用武力方面存在一些缺陷，这个概念可以有不同的解释。新的挑战，例如国际恐怖主义，正在出现，可能威胁到绝对禁止使用武力。在此争辩说，在找到对这一禁令的解释时，中立者可以发挥重要作用，以最好地将和平与安全的目标与联合国系统的整体——仍然不完美——结构相协调。这些问题的分析主要参考了奥地利中立，这一方面似乎已经过时，但另一方面正在有力地寻找新的含义。