Context

Switzerland’s neutrality has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution since 1848. It is internationally recognised and guaranteed by international law. Switzerland uses its neutrality to safeguard its security, independence and prosperity. Neutrality helps Switzerland to provide its good offices. While preserving its neutrality, Switzerland works with other countries to strengthen its security. It may also participate in sanctions regimes. By doing so, it supports the international order. For example, following Russia’s attack on Ukraine – which contravened international law – Switzerland largely adopted the EU’s sanctions.

The initiative

The initiative calls for a stricter approach to neutrality and seeks to enshrine in the Constitution the provision that Switzerland’s neutrality is perpetual and armed. Switzerland should not join any military or defence alliance, nor should it cooperate with any such alliance – unless it is under military attack or an attack is imminent. Furthermore, it must not take part in military conflicts between third countries, nor impose sanctions on belligerent states. Exceptions would include United Nations (UN) sanctions and measures designed to prevent the circumvention of sanctions. Lastly, Switzerland should use its neutrality to its advantage in its role as a mediator.

Contents of the initiative

Context

Permanent and armed neutrality

Swiss neutrality has developed over several centuries. It has been recognised under international law since 1815. It has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution since 1848. Switzerland’s neutrality is permanent. This means that Switzerland remains neutral in all wars between states. Switzerland’s neutrality is also an armed one: the armed forces are responsible for defending the country and its neutrality.

Neutrality in the Constitution

The Federal Constitution already stipulates that the Federal Council and Parliament shall take measures to safeguard Switzerland’s neutrality. The Federal Council and Parliament use neutrality as a tool to further Switzerland’s interests, in particular to protect its security, independence and prosperity.

Neutrality in international law

The law of neutrality forms part of international law. Switzerland’s neutrality was acknowledged at the Congress of Vienna and recognised in the Treaty of Paris of 1815. Since then, Switzerland has been subject to the rights and obligations of a neutral state. Since the 19th century, states have developed a body of practice in this regard, which is also enshrined in the Hague Conventions of 1907. These conventions set out how a neutral state is to conduct itself towards belligerent states. Among other things, a neutral state must not take part in armed conflicts between other states, must not provide military support to belligerent states, and must not make its territory available to the warring parties. Within these rules, there is some scope for manoeuvre in the application of neutrality.

Attack on neutral states

If a neutral state is attacked, it is not bound by the law of neutrality: it may defend itself and, to this end, may also enter into alliances with other states.

Neutrality in practice

The Federal Council and Parliament have applied the principle of neutrality since the founding of the Swiss Confederation in 1848. They utilise neutrality to safeguard Switzerland’s foreign, security and economic policy interests. This practice of neutrality complies with international law and ensures Switzerland has the flexibility to safeguard its interests under varying foreign policy circumstances. Neutrality enjoys strong support amongst the Swiss population, as regular surveys show.

Neutrality and good offices

Neutrality helps to ensure that Switzerland is sought after as a mediator in conflicts and can offer its good offices. This is evident, for example, in the international talks that regularly take place in Geneva.

The practice of neutrality and the war against Ukraine

Russia’s attack on Ukraine, which contravenes international law, has worsened the security situation in Europe. In response, Switzerland has strengthened its security cooperation with partner states and has largely adopted the EU’s sanctions against Russia. These sanctions are compatible with Switzerland’s neutrality and serve to uphold international law. Switzerland decides independently on a case-by-case basis which sanctions it will adopt and which it will not.

Criticism of the adoption of sanctions

The initiators take the view that, by adopting the EU sanctions, Switzerland has not applied its neutrality strictly enough and has thereby become a party to the war. It is against this backdrop that they have tabled the initiative.

Demands of the initiative

The initiators wish to define neutrality more strictly in a new constitutional article. This is to state explicitly that:

• Switzerland’s neutrality is perpetual and armed,
• Switzerland may not join any military or defence alliance,
• cooperation with such alliances is only permitted if Switzerland is directly attacked militarily or if such an attack is being prepared,
• Switzerland may not participate in military conflicts between third countries,
• Switzerland must no longer impose sanctions against belligerent states (with the exception of UN sanctions),
• Switzerland may take measures to prevent the circumvention of sanctions imposed by other states,
• Switzerland should use its neutrality to fulfil its role as a mediator.

Key demands already fulfilled

The initiative’s demands correspond in key respects to the legal obligations of a neutral state and are already being observed in Switzerland’s practice:

• Switzerland is permanently neutral. Its neutrality is therefore already perpetual.
• As a permanently neutral state, Switzerland does not currently belong to any military or defence alliance (such as NATO).
• Switzerland does not currently participate in military conflicts between third countries.
• Switzerland already implements all UN sanctions. It is obliged to do so as a member of the UN.
• The initiative committee’s demand that Switzerland utilise its neutrality for its role as a mediator and for the promotion of peace is already standard practice.

Consequences of the initiative

A strict definition of neutrality in the Constitution, as called for by the initiative, would restrict Switzerland’s scope for action:

Restriction of defence capabilities

To strengthen its defence capabilities, Switzerland currently cooperates in a targeted manner with selected partners, in particular its neighbouring states. For example, it coordinates arms procurement, exchanges information and takes part in joint exercises. In doing so, Switzerland adheres to the law on neutrality. Nor does it join any alliance involving a duty of mutual assistance. The neutrality initiative seeks to further restrict cooperation with military and defence alliances. Such cooperation would only be permitted if Switzerland were to come under direct military attack or if such an attack were being prepared. A restriction on security cooperation could also lead to a weakening of the Swiss defence industry.

No choice on sanctions

Furthermore, the initiative seeks to prohibit Switzerland from adopting international sanctions against belligerent states, with the exception of UN sanctions. Switzerland would therefore, for example, be unable to adopt the sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia following its attack on Ukraine and would, if necessary, have to lift existing sanctions. It would only be permitted to take measures to ensure that sanctions cannot be circumvented via Switzerland. The initiative leaves open exactly which specific measures would fall under this provision. At present, the Federal Council decides on a case-by-case basis whether to adopt international sanctions in full, in part or not at all. This assessment is made taking into account foreign policy, foreign trade and legal criteria. For example, during Russia’s war against Ukraine, Switzerland did not adopt the EU’s ban on certain Russian media outlets. This is because the Federal Council believes it is more effective to counter false and harmful statements with facts rather than to ban them.

Results

The initiative was rejected.

Voter turnout: 47.06%
Yes votes: 29.85%