Foreign military bases and state responsibility:
Rethinking neutrality in modern warfar
By Kamran Yeganegi
Political analyst
In the evolving landscape of the international system, the concept of state neutrality can no longer be interpreted in its traditional, simplistic form. The expansion of foreign military bases across strategically significant regions has increasingly blurred the line between neutrality and indirect participation in armed conflict.Under the fundamental principles of international law—most notably the prohibition of the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter—states are obligated to refrain from actions that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states. At the same time, Article 51 of the Charter recognizes the inherent right of self-defense in response to an armed attack.
Against this backdrop, a critical question arises: can a state that permits a foreign power to establish military bases on its territory still credibly claim neutrality in an ongoing conflict?
From an international legal perspective, neutrality is not merely a political posture but a status accompanied by clear legal obligations. According to customary international law and established legal doctrines, a neutral state must not allow its territory to be used for military operations by parties to a conflict. Failure to uphold this obligation may expose the state to being regarded as an indirect participant in hostilities.
In contemporary conflicts—particularly those characterized as hybrid or networked warfare—the use of military infrastructure located in third states has become a central instrument of power projection. This development has not only transformed the geographical scope of warfare but has also expanded the legal and strategic responsibilities of host states.Where military operations are organized, supported, or facilitated from the territory of a given state against another country, a fundamental legal question emerges: can such territory still be considered external to the battlefield? A growing number of international legal scholars argue that, under such circumstances, the principle of neutrality is effectively undermined, and the host state cannot fully dissociate itself from the legal and security consequences of the conflict.
Page 2