The UN Charter, particularly Chapter VI on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, provides the legal framework for neutral nations to engage in conflict resolution. International law recognizes the right of states to remain neutral in armed conflicts. This framework allows neutral nations to offer their services without violating international norms.

Despite their advantages, neutral nations face limitations. Their influence is limited to persuasion and facilitation; they lack the power to enforce agreements. Conflicting parties must be willing to engage in good faith. Additionally, a nation's neutrality can be questioned if it is perceived as biased or if it fails to uphold its neutral status consistently.

Neutrality enhances a nation's credibility by fostering trust among conflicting parties. Because neutral nations do not take sides, they are seen as impartial and unbiased. This impartiality allows them to build relationships with all parties involved, giving them unique access and influence. Switzerland and Sweden are examples of countries that have leveraged their neutrality to build trust and facilitate dialogue.

Maintaining neutrality while actively mediating presents several challenges. These nations must avoid any actions that could be perceived as favoring one party over another. They need to carefully manage their relationships with all sides to ensure continued trust and access. Public perception and media scrutiny can also pose challenges, as any perceived bias can undermine their credibility. For example, Oman's role in the Middle East requires balancing relationships with various factions.

The UN Charter, particularly Chapter VI on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, provides the legal framework for neutral nations to engage in conflict resolution. International law recognizes the right of states to remain neutral in armed conflicts. This framework allows neutral nations to offer their services without violating international norms.

Despite their advantages, neutral nations face limitations. Their influence is limited to persuasion and facilitation; they lack the power to enforce agreements. Conflicting parties must be willing to engage in good faith. Additionally, a nation's neutrality can be questioned if it is perceived as biased or if it fails to uphold its neutral status consistently.

Neutrality enhances a nation's credibility by fostering trust among conflicting parties. Because neutral nations do not take sides, they are seen as impartial and unbiased. This impartiality allows them to build relationships with all parties involved, giving them unique access and influence. Switzerland and Sweden are examples of countries that have leveraged their neutrality to build trust and facilitate dialogue.

Maintaining neutrality while actively mediating presents several challenges. These nations must avoid any actions that could be perceived as favoring one party over another. They need to carefully manage their relationships with all sides to ensure continued trust and access. Public perception and media scrutiny can also pose challenges, as any perceived bias can undermine their credibility. For example, Oman's role in the Middle East requires balancing relationships with various factions.