Comparative analysis of demilitarized and neutralized territories in international law

Abstract

Different approaches to the definitions of “demilitarized zone” and “neutralized territory” were analyzed. The overview of international practice has provided an opportunity to make the following conclusions as to the identity of these phenomena before the First World War and their regulation by peace agreements after. Aftermath of the world wars there were mostly cases of conclusion of bilateral and multilateral agreements that envisaged either demilitarization or neutralization of territories, or both options at the same time. Clarification is made on the following approach of defining demilitarization as a synonym for disarmament. In particular, it is concluded that the latter is an integral part of demilitarization and demobilization. It is proved to be inappropriate to identify the concepts of “neutralization” and “neutrality” since the latter determines the legal status of a State, whereas neutralization defines the legal status of a part of a State. Based on the comparative analysis of demilitarized and neutralized regimes, applying the criteria of their objectives, legal framework and duration of functioning, common and distinctive features of such regimes could be defined. It is summarized that demilitarization and neutralization of territories provide peace and security, and serves for a prevention of armed conflicts, having positive effect on the settlement of post-war disputes between States