The relevance of Malta's neutrality and nonalignment after the cold war

Abstract

Unlike nonalignment, neutrality per se has not lost its significance in international relations, least of all in international law. States still remain the primary actors, and as such, interstate wars cannot be excluded in the future. The aim of emerging security structures in Europe is to minimise and if possible eliminate threats of war. By opting to become a member of the European Union our country has put itself firmly into the European fold, pledging to "assert its (the EU's) identity on the international scene" as written down in the Maastricht treaty on European Union. Neither the Maltese government nor the opposition want to shed Malta's Mediterranean and European dimensions. Both have separate plans as to how balance should be maintained, and surely this issue will emerge as of one of the hottest in the next elections. In Malta there is no tradition of holding referendums on such important issues as is done in the rest of Europe, so the opinion of the Maltese population regarding EU membership and its implications shall be mainly reflected in the way it votes in the national elections. As far as Malta's neutrality is concerned, it is no longer relevant in the form it exists today, and the way it is written down in the Constitution has been rendered anachronistic by international events. This is primarily because or neutral status is based upon the principles of nonalignment, and not because neutrality may not be relevant today. Nonalignment was inserted into the Constitution for the purpose of justifying Malta's neutrality as active.