The debate about the continued existence or even a possible abandonment of Austrian neutrality has flared up again. So it’s time to separate the facts from the myths and look at the situation from a legal and historical perspective.
First of all: Austrian neutrality is not part of the State Treaty. It regulated the withdrawal of the Allied occupation troops and restored Austria’s full sovereignty. However, it does not contain any provisions on Austria’s neutrality, even though this was one of the Soviet Union’s wishes during the negotiations in Moscow – incidentally, the SPÖ was the most skeptical at the time.
Certainly, the Moscow Memorandum of April 15, 1955, which is repeatedly cited by Russia, was a decisive diplomatic step on the way to regaining Austrian sovereignty. However, it was not a legally binding treaty, but a political agreement between Austrian and Soviet government representatives. At the time, Vienna agreed to make a declaration of neutrality “along the lines of Switzerland”. This meant: no accession to military alliances and no stationing of foreign troops on Austrian soil. This was implemented and still applies today – despite adaptations in the course of EU accession as part of the CSDP. Overflights, exercises and transports are not deployments.
Although the Allies welcomed the “neutral stance” and recognized it (the Soviet Union did so in the same document), it was not part of the later State Treaty of May 1955. Our perpetual neutrality was only decided one day after the withdrawal of the last occupying troops, on 26 October 1955, not only by a declaration, but by a separate federal constitutional law. This states that Austria declares its neutrality of its own free will and will defend it “by all means”. The latter has undeniably been ignored, ignored or even sabotaged by party politics since 1991.
Despite the indisputable importance of neutrality in terms of identity and foreign policy practice, which has grown over decades, there is no obligation under international law that would prohibit its amendment or abolition. Unlike Switzerland, whose neutrality is enshrined in international law. Russia, in the person of former President Dmitry Medvedev (-> Russia threatens Austria if it joins NATO) is once again claiming that Austrian neutrality is enshrined in international law and cannot be unilaterally abandoned. That is simply wrong.
This is because the actual legal basis lies in the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law of October 26, 1955, not in the Moscow Memorandum. Nor does it mention any veto rights or approval obligations on the part of the former four Allies. A simple notification, including to Mr. Medvedev, would suffice. This has already happened once: in 1991, Vienna declared parts of the State Treaty to be obsolete, in particular the “missile ban”. As a result, Sidewinder P4 air-to-air missiles were procured. And without diplomatic protest notes or official statements from the signatory states.
As the Neutrality Act is a domestic constitutional law, it could theoretically be amended or repealed with a two-thirds majority in parliament. However, this is currently not foreseeable and could, if at all, only be the result of a longer political and media discussion process. This does not necessarily have to lead to NATO membership (book tip: Austria’s Neutrality; Law, Politics and Society – A Debate). In Sweden and Finland, such an opinion-forming process was accelerated, but is not a precedent for Austria in a different geographical situation.
However, strengthened by threats such as those recently made by Russian officials, it is important to signal that Austria is determined to defend its neutrality. And not only as long as there is shooting and death in Ukraine (-> Latest news from the war in Ukraine). Because, as the Green Party’s defense spokesman David Stegmüller recently noted, neutrality alone provides no protection in the face of Russia’s blatant, massive disregard for international law. The weakly armed “neutrals” Norway, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands experienced this brutally in 1940 and lost their freedom to a cruel dictatorship – international law or not.
