Neutrality: why countries choose not to join a war – and what responsibilities come with it

We'd love to hear what you think about The Conversation Weekly. Please let us know via our listener survey, which should take about five minutes to complete. Thank you!

When war breaks out, what does it mean for a country to remain neutral? In this episode we explore the advantages and disadvantages of neutrality – and what responsibilities come with the choice not to take sides. We talk to an historian about how an age of neutrality emerged in the 19th century and what lessons it has for the war in Ukraine. And we dig down into the reasons why one country – India – has decided to remain neutral on the conflict.

Featuring Maartje Abbenhuis, professor of history at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, and Swaran Singh, professor of diplomacy and disarmament at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, India.

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was produced by Gemma Ware and Mend Mariwany. Sound design is by Eloise Stevens and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl. Full credits for this episode are available here. You can read a transcript on The Conversation's website.

Further reading

Why India chose a path of ‘proactive neutrality’ on UkraineWhat does it mean to be ‘neutral’ over Ukraine – and what responsibilities come with it?As Ukraine war deepens great-power divisions, a revitalized non-aligned movement could emergeRussia’s war with Ukraine: Five reasons why many African countries choose to be ‘neutral’History may explain South Africa’s refusal to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine