563 / 736
under which Sweden is firmly decided not only
not to participate in a war between other States
and to apply should such a war occur, the law of
neutrality, but also in time of peace, to avoid
arrangements which would involve the country in
a war or make it impossible strictly to apply the
law of neutrality in time of war."
Professor Eek said there seemed to be almost
general agreement in legal writing that it would
not be possible for any of the three neutrals to
become a full member of the E.E.G. He cited two
reasons generally offered for this view; the first
was that the obligations of the Treaty of Rome
would conflict with the demands for impartiality
in commercial matters under the general law of
neutrality. The second was that the Treaty did not
provide for the suspension of obligations under it
—it was concluded for "an unlimited period".
He said the first argument was sometimes slated
in very broad terms, even to the extent of saying
that a neutral country could not jom a customs
union with another State. But he argued that two
"escape clauses"
in the Rome Treaty could be
redefined
to give neutrals freedom of action.
Article 223 provided that the Treaty should not
adversely affect the right of a member State to
take measures which it considered necessary for
the protection of its security. Article 224 said that
member States should consult one another for the
purpose of taking common steps to prevent the
functioning of the Common Market being affected
by measures which a member State might be
called upon to take in case of war or serious
international tension, or in order to carry out
undertakings into which it bad entered for the
purpose of maintaining peace and international
security.
Professor Eek admitted that the Treaty did
not provide for suspension of obligations in time
of war—which would allow a member State to
remain neutral in the legal sense. Could a State
then leave the organisation? Professor Eek said
it was obviously unrealistic to believe that even a
clause in a treaty which clearly forbade its denun
ciation by a party could always be enforced after
the outbreak of a major war.
He argued that it was possible to reformulate
certain articles in the Treaty in order to safeguard
the position of a member State wanting to stay
neutral
in
the case of war. This presupposed
clarification of the meaning of economic warfare.
The position of States such as Sweden, he said,
would also benefit from an authoritative clarifi
cation of the political aims of the Communities.
"It could now clearly be stated that the aim of
the integration of Europe, of the approximating
of economic policies of the Western European
countries, is
to guarantee peace in Europe, not
to prepare for war. Co-operation with the 'neu
trals' might promote this aim; that is peace and
prosperity in Europe. They ought not to be looked
upon in the East as collaborators in a military
conspiracy or in the West as carriers of the bac
teria of a neutralism which might contaminate
the Communities.
"An authoritative clarification by the organs of
the E.E.C. would undoubtedly facilitate negoti
ations as well as the acceptance of their outcome,
which must be given by the competent constitu
tional organs of applicant States."
Speaking during the discussion, Judge Pescatore
of the European Court, said it was the practice
that escape clauses should be interpreted narrowly,
and he said he really saw little chance of full
membership for neutral countries. It was said that
the obstacle for neutral countries was the political
content of the Communities, and as little progress
was being made towards political union this some
how made things easier for neutral countries to
adhere. (This was more or less the line taken in
Dublin recently by Dr. Luns of the Netherlands
when questioned about Ireland's "neutrality".)
Judge Pescatore, however, said that entering
even a customs union was a political act of prime
importance. A common market was a relationship
which was just short of federation or confedera
tion. It was a very close tie which involved a
common economic policy and a common attitude
towards third countries.
The main speaker at this discussion was Dr.
Michael Gaudet, former director-general of the
legal service of the E.E.C. He took this relation
ship with third countries as his main theme, and
dealt with the effects of Community membership
on foreign policy.
From a strictly legal point of view, he said, the
Communities had but a limited responsibility in
foreign affairs. Decisions could not extend bevond
the economic and social matters defined in the
Treaties, but everyone knew that although limited
by the Treaties, the Communities had a profound
influence on foreign policy.
The process of economic integration had gradu
ally affected the foreign policies of member States,
as their national economic structure and capacity
107