Some have regarded Finland and Sweden's recent decision to join NATO as another nail in the coffin of neutrality. Yet here, on this tiny island, our politicians keep defending neutrality politics and neutrality law with a non-aligned approach to superpowers, arguing there can be new life in these old concepts.
Malta's national policies of neutrality and non-alignment can contribute to strengthening international peace and security and play an important role in developing mutually beneficial relations among countries of the world. We have already done this before, and this goes on to show the value of neutrality in international relations.
However, in times of crises, our neutrality always comes under pressure. Malta is once more grappling with a key question: should it follow a path of openness or isolationism?
It is time for it to define its course for the future.
The war in Ukraine reignited the whole debate about Malta's neutrality. Since joining in the sanctions against Russia, some have flown accusations at the government for having relinquished its neutrality.
Looked at from an international law point of view, however, the imposition of purely economic sanctions is unproblematic, as it doesn't involve adopting a concrete position with regard to an armed conflict.
Critical voices are again being raised locally. Labourite hardliners are calling for strict neutrality to be maintained. Still, others contend that we never wrote a narrowly defined neutrality into the constitution.
Meanwhile, a more liberal camp is pushing for "active" neutrality. What does this mean in reality?
Perhaps we are not fully realising that EU or UN membership can entail a watering down of neutrality. Malta must today try to figure out how its neutrality can fit into the changed global political constellation.
Neutrality is by no means the easiest foreign policy. It presupposes a constant endeavour to maintain the balance alertly and energetically, however threatening the storm clouds look. As long as international conflicts remain a staple of world politics, neutrality will also remain.
Neutrality is often defined in its meaning under international law as the legal status arising from the abstention of a state from all participation in a war between other states, the maintenance of an attitude of impartiality toward the belligerents, and the recognition by the belligerents of this abstention and impartiality.
Admittedly, that international legal definition is not always fully observed by all states. History amply proves this. In today's realities, the concept of neutrality varies significantly, posing crucial questions about its definition, practice, and implications.
The war in Ukraine, the escalating tensions between Western nations and China, and the shifting stances of traditionally neutral countries like Ireland, Austria and Finland have reignited the debate on the role and relevance of neutrality today.
By a Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 2 February 2017, the United Nations underlined that some states' national policies of neutrality can contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security and play an important role in developing mutually beneficial relations among countries of the world.
Malta has strong credentials to assert on an international level that the policy of neutrality contributes to the strengthening of peace and security in relevant regions and at the global level and plays an important role in developing peaceful, friendly and mutually beneficial relations between the countries of the world.
It is worth noting that our policy of neutrality, a key factor for providing conditions and building a platform for peaceful negotiations, is also closely interconnected with and based on the tools of preventive diplomacy, such as mediation, good offices, negotiation, the use of special envoys, informal consultations, peace-building and targeted development activities.
That notwithstanding, in light of a deterioration of its security situation, the EU, including Malta, has had to significantly rethink its defence strategy, emphasising the need for a more cohesive and coordinated security framework. Additionally, Trump's presidency and the potential withdrawal of the United States from NATO have added urgency to these endeavours.
While this poses a multitude of challenges, one frequently discussed is what this means for the future role of the neutral countries in the European Union.
Many today are viewing neutrality within the EU as hypocritical, as EU-neutral countries, in particular Malta, will now have to rely on the defence capabilities of other EU and NATO members in case of an attack while contributing less to collective defence.
Malta will probably not bear the brunt of such negative views. Consequently, we remain free to determine the content of our neutrality policy and are always at liberty to take measures on our own initiative and regardless of obligations relating to neutrality law in order to guarantee the effectiveness and credibility of neutrality.
This is best achieved by the adoption of a comprehensive approach that coordinates all the political instruments of neutrality: foreign and security policy, diplomacy, trade and economic policy.
Our neutrality and non-alignment have for years now been a cornerstone of our foreign policy and are deeply ingrained in our political culture and public opinion. They reflect our strategic location in the Mediterranean and the desire to maintain independence and avoid being drawn into regional conflicts.
It is in Malta's long-term interests and imperative that the EU's ambition to become a fully-fledged defence union evaluate the definition of neutrality and its compatibility with collective security objectives.
Without this, commemorating the International Day of Neutrality on December 12 risks becoming meaningless for Malta.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer