In this chapter the author firstly present the limits of realist and traditional approaches to military neutrality/non-alignment. She argues that the realist and neorealist views are unable to provide a framework for explaining states’ opting for military non-alignment in the present context through mixture of both military and non-military threats. While realism is preoccupied with the former, it is unsuitable to explain strategies that states employ to defend themselves from threats that do not necessarily originate from rival national powers but from non-state agents, informal groups or even nature. She also argues that a theoretical model of non-alignment cannot be extracted from the alliance-making theory, nor can it be constructed as a mirror reflection of predispositions made in the work of authors that were so far interested in alliance politics. For the purpose of supporting that argument discussion of the major alignment theories and their shortcoming to explain military neutrality is included in this chapter. Based on the pitfalls of dominant theoretical approaches that so far have been employed in the study of neutrality/non-alignment, a novel theoretical model would have to include multiple variables, emerging from different theoretical frameworks, to explain why certain small states choose to stay outside of military alliances in the twenty-first century. An eclectic model of studying neutrality/non-alignment as a strategic choice of (small) states in the twenty-first century would have to take into account three independent variables which account for the choice of that strategy: war experience and historical account of neutrality/non-alignment (as discussed by historical institutionalism); threat perceptions (as discussed by realist and neorealists) and internal political dynamics (as elaborated in the rational choice theory). Each of these variables might account separately for the end result, but it could also emerge in a conjuncture of two or all three variables. Which variable or variables are decisive for the outcome of a concrete case of neutrality/non-alignment will be discussed based on the empirical investigation of the case studies.