"Neutophilia"

--- CONTENT ---
The term Neuterophilia is a relatively modern term of International Law put into common use immediately after World War II in the outbreak of the cold war that followed. Neutophilia is a different term than neutrality.

General
In general, neutrality characterizes the position of those countries wishing to abstain from political or diplomatic commitments with one of the two sides of the conflict that followed between the eastern (communist) and the Western coalition. This position is generally dependent on both the following diplomacy and foreign policy, as well as on the geographical position, which occurs in various forms in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe (Sweden, Yugoslavia, Cyprus).

The countries following neutrality were established to be called Unbound countries, and this movement of the Unbundled Movement.

Use the term
When using the international term (Neutralism, pronounced Newtralism) it often happens to be identified, its and confused, in the sense of traditional neutrality (Neutrality). The main differences in these terms in their use are as follows:
1. Neutophilia may refer to either at individual level, or group politics, or especially foreign country politics as a spiritual attitude - position or ideology. On the other hand, neutrality is a special legal situation - equality, which only sovereign countries can adopt in cases of conflict of countries, the consequences of which are specifically identified by relevant provisions of international law. Neutophilia then freely manifests itself without special regulations in a wide range of so-called extreme isolationism, until active involvement in reducing international tension.
2. Neutophilia expresses a political solid philosophy with the induction of principles that are held between those of the two international opposing Forces up to the absolute repudiation of these Principles - perceptions. Neuterophilia is thus a political worldview with a distinct concept of international relations, such as the adjuvant of armed violence, the balance of forces, etc. On the contrary, Neutrality has never been a particular worldview. Some neutral countries in the past may have justified their attitude on moral grounds by tradition. But this position was very limited, it was not general, since it was adopted mainly on national interests and according to the circumstances, without the conscious need for a moral justification.
3. On the international stage, neutrality can even express disfellowshiping relations regarding not in the sense of war or peace, (in their historical perception), but against a dispute violent or peaceful of the two major coalitions. Instead some countries in the recent past (e.g. USA, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc.) described themselves as "permanently neutral"