1. Examples are: ‘Neutering Neutrality’ (The Economist (11 June 1994)); ‘Swedes Head for EU after ‘Yes’ in Referendum: Historic Independence as Neutral is Altered’ (International Herald Tribune (14 November 1994)); ‘A Resounding Austrian ‘Yes’ to EU: In a Surprise, 66% Reject Warning of Loss of Identity and Jobs’ (International Herald Tribune (13 June 1994));‘Finland Votes Decisively for EU Membership’ (The Financial Times (17 October 1994)).

2. Negotiations began in February 1993 and assent to each application was given by the European Parliament on 4 May 1994 and the European Council took its decision on the admission of the new member States on 16 May 1994. The EU formally signed the Accession Treaty with Austria, Sweden and Finland at the Corfu Summit on 24–25 June 1994.

3. For the text see Treaty on European Union (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 1992). The Treaty entered into force in November 1994.

4. See in Official Journal of the EU C241/8 of 29 September 1994.

5. See in Rosch, M., ‘Switzerland's Security policy in Transition’, 41 NATO Rev. (1993) no. 6, pp. 19, 22.Google Scholar

6. Mock, A., ‘Austria's Role in the New Europe’, 43 NATO Rev. (1995) p. 15.Google Scholar

7. See for a discussion of this topic in greater detail Subedi, S.P., ‘Neutrality in a Changing World: European Neutral States and the European Community’, 42ICLQ (1993) no. 2, pp. 238–268.Google Scholar

8. See generally, Neuhold, H., ‘Perspectives of Austria's Membership in the European Union’, 37 GYIL (1994) pp. 9–39;Google ScholarOosterhof, A., ‘Legal Aspects of the EU Enlargement Negotiations’, 7 Leiden JIL (1994) no. 2, pp. 73–84;Google ScholarCook, K. and Sands, P., ‘External Relations [of the EU]’, 44 ICLQ (1995) no. 1, pp. 225–234;Google Scholar M.R. Eaton, ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’, in O'Keeffe, D. and Twomey, P.M., eds., Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty (1994) pp. 21–225;Google Scholar N. Neuwahl, ‘Foreign and Security Policy and the Implementation of the Requirement of “Consistency” under the Treaty on European Union’, in Ibid., pp. 227–246; M. Cremona, ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union and the External Relations Powers of the European Community’, in Ibid., pp. 247–258; Fink-Hooijer, F., “The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union’, 5 European JIL (1994) pp. 173–198.Google Scholar

9. Mock, loc. cit n. 6, p. 15 at p. 17.

10. See in Official Journal of the EU C241/8 of 29 September 1994.

11. In an effort to reassure the EU member States that the Finnish policy of loose neutrality would not be allowed to stand in the way of closer European integration in all matters, including the CFSP and eventual common defence policy, the Finnish Minister for Foreign Trade appeared to suggest in a speech made in Brussels on 1 February 1993 at the opening of negotiations for Finnish membership of the EU that Finland would not hesitate to do anything in its power to join the EU. This was in contrast to Austria’s position during its negotiations with the EU that it would not completely abandon its policy of neutrality but would seek an arrangement which was satisfactory to both sides.

12. Hurd, D., ‘Developing the Common Foreign and Security Policy’, 70 Int. Affairs (1994) no. 3, p. 421 at p. 427.Google Scholar

13. M.R. Eaton, ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’, in O'KeeffeandTwomey, eds., op. cit. n. 8, p. 215.

14. According to Cook and Sands, ‘[t]he first priority areas in which the European Council asked the Council to prepare joint action were: reinforcement of the democratic process and regional co-operation in Central and Eastern Europe; using political, economic and financial means to support a comprehensive peace plan in the Middle East; assistance in preparing for and monitoring the South African elections; search for a negotiated and durable solution and contribution to the implementation of a peace plan and support for humanitarian action in the former Yugoslavia and support for the democratic process in Russia including despatch of a team of observers for the parliamentary elections on 12 December’. Cook and Sands, loc. cit. n. 8, p. 227.

15. Hurd, loc. cit. n. 12. A similar view is taken by the current British Foreign Secretary, Rifkind: ‘Today the interests that bind European countries are greater than those dividing them. But that does not mean that the European Union has a single foreign policy, or is likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future. The interests of member States are not identical on all the issues we face. Where they are, we are greatly strengthened by a common approach. Where they differ, we should not seek to promote an artificial unity’. Rifkind, M., ‘Interest Against Influence’, The Times (21 09 1995) p. 13.Google Scholar

16. J. Lodge, ‘From Civilian Power to Speaking with a Common Voice: The Transition to a CFSP’, in Lodge, J., ed., The European Community and the Challenge of the Future, 2nd edn. (1993) p. 227 at p. 231.Google Scholar

17. Hurd, , loc. cit. n. 12, p. 423.Google Scholar

18. ‘Neutering Neutrality’, loc. cit. n. 1, p. 31.Google Scholar

19. Fink-Hooijer, , loc. cit. n. 8, pp. 173–198 at p. 197.Google Scholar

20. See Mock, , loc. cit. n. 6, p. 15 at p. 17.Google Scholar

21. As reported in The Independent (14 11 1994) p. 11.Google Scholar

22. Lodge, , loc. cit. n. 16, p. 246.Google Scholar

23. Fink-Hooijer, , loc. cit. n. 8, pp. 173–198 at p. 197.Google Scholar

24. Although Sweden and Finland have decided to enrol in NATO's Partnership for Peace programme (see International Herald Tribune (6 May 1994) p. 2), they have made it clear that they will maintain their military non-alignment. They see NATO's Partnership for Peace programme as a confidence-building process rather than a programme leading to a military alliance. See the statement of the Swedish Foreign Minister in 42 NATO Rev. (1994) no. 2, pp. 10–11.

25. See the press release: ‘Remarks by the President at Intervention for the North Atlantic Council Summit, Nato Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium’, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 10 January 1994.

26. This may be one reason why neutral States have sometimes been criticised by their critics as States pursuing opportunist policies. It was the then US Secretary of State, Dulles, who said at the beginning of the Cold War that the policy of neutralism was an immoral concept. See in Lyon, P., Neutralism (1963) p. 47.Google Scholar

27. See ‘Sweden to Retain Policy of Neutrality’, Financial Times (23 02 1995) p. 13.Google Scholar

28. The Federal Constitutional Act of 26 October 1955. See in Whiteman, M.M., Digest of International Law (1971) Vol. I, pp. 348–349.Google Scholar

29. ‘Sweden in the European Union’, Fact Sheets on Sweden (January 1995, the Swedish Institute, Stockholm) p. 1. See generally for the Swedish version of neutrality, Wahlback, K., The Roots of Swedish Neutrality (1986).Google Scholar

30. Oosterhof, A., ‘Legal Aspects of the EU Enlargement Negotiations’, 7 Leiden JIL (1994) no. 2, p. 73 at p. 80.Google Scholar