With 70.15% against to 29.85% in favour, the Swiss electorate rejected the Neutrality Initiative in a popular vote on 27 September 2026. The central question was whether we wish to retain neutrality in its current form, or whether an article should be inserted into the Federal Constitution requiring a stricter practice of neutrality. The latter would have marked a clear change of direction. Neutrality has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution since 1848.
Switzerland’s neutrality has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution since 1848. It is internationally recognised and safeguarded under international law. Switzerland uses its neutrality to protect its security, independence and prosperity. Neutrality contributes to Switzerland’s ability to provide its good offices.
On 11 August 2026, Ignazio Cassis, Head of the FDFA, launched the referendum campaign on the Neutrality Initiative at a press conference on behalf of the Federal Council.
Aim of the Neutrality Initiative
The initiative called for the stricter practice of neutrality and seeked to add a new article to the Federal Constitution stating that:
Switzerland’s neutrality shall be perpetual and armed;
Switzerland shall not join any military or defence alliance, neither shall it cooperate with such an alliance, unless Switzerland is under military attack or such an attack is being prepared;
Switzerland shall not take part in armed conflicts between third countries and shall not impose sanctions against warring parties. Exceptions are made for sanctions decided by the United Nations (UN) and measures to prevent the circumvention of sanctions; and
Switzerland uses its neutrality to fulfil its role as mediator.
Position of the Federal Council and Parliament
The Federal Council and Parliament rejected the Neutrality Initiative without offering a counter-proposal. In their essence, the demands of the initiative corresponded to the legal obligations of a neutral state, which Switzerland already upholds in practice.
Switzerland is permanently neutral, therefore its neutrality is already perpetual.
It is current practice that, as a permanently neutral state, Switzerland does not join any military or defence alliance such as NATO.
Under the present system Switzerland does not take part in armed conflicts between third countries.
Switzerland already adopts all UN sanctions. As a member of the UN it is required to do so.
The initiative committee is calling for Switzerland to use its neutrality in its role as mediator and to promote peace. That is already the current practice.
Where the demands of the initiative exceeded what is the practice today, they would have damaged Switzerland's interests:
• Compared with current practice the initiative would have curtailed the flexibility that allows Switzerland to protect its security, independence and prosperity. This room for manoeuvre is particularly important amid a deteriorating security situation.
• The adoption of the initiative would have impeded cooperation on security policy. Switzerland cannot wait until it is attacked to begin cooperating, as the initiative would have envisaged, as this would have grave consequences for the country's security. Switzerland would be excluded from knowledge-sharing, cease to be a reliable partner in international security policy, and be less secure in the event of an attack.
• Sanctions are a means of responding to violations of international law and threats to the international order. As a small state, Switzerland benefits especially from this order. Under the initiative Switzerland would no longer have been able to adopt sanctions against warring states, which would have had impact on both it’s interests and reputation. In certain cases it might also could have triggered a backlash from other states.
Based on the wording of the initiative, it would also have been assumed, should the initiative be approved, , existing sanctions against belligerent states would have had to be lifted. According to the text of the initiative, Switzerland should not impose sanctions on belligerent states. If the initiative had been accepted, Switzerland would therefore no longer have been able to adopt sanctions directed against a belligerent state. In practical terms, this would have meant that it would no longer have been possible to adopt EU sanctions, such as those imposed by the EU against Russia since February 2022.
Furthermore, the text of the initiative stated that if it is adopted, Switzerland could have taken measures to prevent EU sanctions from being circumvented via Switzerland. If the initiative had been adopted, a comprehensive analysis would therefore have had to be carried out to determine how such measures should be structured in order to fulfil their intended purpose.
Where sanctions are decided by the UN, as a member State Switzerland is bound to adopt them.
The Embargo Act provides the legal foundation for adopting sanctions outside the UN. On this basis, the Federal Council decides on a case-by-case basis whether adopting the sanctions is in Switzerland’s interests. It may adopt sanctions imposed by the EU, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) or Switzerland’s main trading partners in full, in part or in an amended form. Following Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine, the Federal Council decided to adopt most of the EU’s sanctions against Russia.
When adopting sanctions Switzerland’s neutrality is relevant only if those sanctions concern goods that directly affect the military strength of a warring party. These are referred to as ‘militarily relevant goods’. If Switzerland restricts the export or transit of such goods for one warring party, it must apply the same restrictions to the other warring party, as required by the law of neutrality.
States may respond with sanctions if other states violate international law. Recent years have seen an increase in sanctions imposed outside the UN framework. One of the reasons is that major powers are often unable to agree, so the UN Security Council sometimes cannot reach a decision. Outside the UN, states or regional organisations such as the EU may decide to impose sanctions. For example, the EU imposed sanctions against Russia in response to the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Even if they were not decided by the UN, adopting such sanctions is consistent with Switzerland’s neutrality.
When Switzerland joins broadly supported sanctions – particularly in the event of a war of aggression against another State – its actions help to strengthen peace and a just international order. That is in Switzerland's own interest.
Under the law of neutrality Switzerland is prohibited from supplying any material relevant for war purposes directly to parties to conflict from its own military inventory. In the case of private-sector exports Switzerland must treat all warring parties equally. This means that if Switzerland restricts exports from private-sector entities to one party to a conflict, it must apply the same restrictions to the other party, as required by the principle of equal treatment.
The War Materiel Act also applies. This goes beyond the law of neutrality. The War Materiel Act provides that export licences for war materiel will not be granted if the destination state is involved in international or non-international armed conflict. It applies equally to military inventory and private-sector entities.
The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) authorises overflights by foreign military and other state aircraft. Requests of major political importance, especially those concerning permits for flights relating to preparations or support for hostilities, are referred by the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) to the Federal Council for decision. The Ordinance on the Protection of Airspace Sovereignty is the authoritative basis here.
Decisions on arms exports must be made in accordance with the relevant legal foundations, specifically the Federal Act on War Materiel and the Goods Control Act. Here, too, the Federal Council decides on requests of major foreign or security policy importance.
Neutrality is always taken into account when a decision is made.
Neutrality may for example also be a factor in the export of so-called as dual-use goods (i.e. those that can be used for both civilian and military purposes) and specific military goods (designed specifically for military purposes, but not classified as weapons or ammunition themselves; e.g. body armour). Their export to a country at war might also constitute the grant of military advantage, so the neutrality plays a role here too.
Neutrality may also be of relevance in connection with private security services provided abroad. These services which fall under the Federal Act on Private Security Services Provided Abroad must be reviewed to ensure their consistency with neutrality. The services must be prohibited if they provide a militarily advantage to one party to a conflict.
Switzerland is subject to cross-border threats in just the same way as other European states. The security policy climate has become more uncertain and will remain unstable in the future. It is therefore in Switzerland's interest to align its security and defence policy with international cooperation.
As a neutral state Switzerland is permitted to take part in international military exercises of a war context. Participation in such exercises does not come with any obligations of joint defence. These exercises allow Switzerland to enhance its own capabilities in comparison with foreign armed forces. If Switzerland were attacked, it would be able to cooperate with other states to defend itself. However, such cooperation cannot be practiced for only in an emergency, but must rather be trained for in advance.
The text of the initiative made no specific statement as to which forms of cooperation with NATO or other partners would still be permitted if it is adopted. It is clear that under the initiative, cooperation would have had to be restricted compared with current practice, for example in joint exercises with NATO or the exchange of data.
As the initiative restricted international cooperation to cases of armed attack on Switzerland or the preparation of such attacks, it would have been be assumed that peace support operations would also, in principle, have been called into question.
Good offices
Good offices can help to de-escalate or resolve conflicts between states or within an individual state. In some cases they also serve to maintain dialogue between conflict parties, and to mitigate the consequences of armed conflict.
Switzerland has a long tradition of good offices, and they are an important component of its foreign policy. They represent values that are associated with the state, such as reliability, discretion, rigour and impartiality.
Neutrality is not a precondition for the ability to mediate credibly. However, alongside a Swiss political system built on dialogue, a willingness to compromise and cultural diversity, and characteristics such as discretion, expertise and flexibility, neutrality can reinforce trust in Switzerland and improve its credibility as a mediator.
When the first Federal Constitution was drafted in 1848, neutrality was referred to in the provisions on the duties and powers of the Federal Assembly and the Federal Council. The Federal Constitution states that the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly shall take ‘measures to safeguard […] Switzerland’s neutrality’ (Art. 173(1) and Art. 185(1) of the Federal Constitution).
As a permanently neutral state Switzerland does not participate under any circumstances in a war between states. It does not start any war, neither does it let itself become involved in any war. Permanent neutrality is first and foremost a commitment to peace.
Armed neutrality means that Switzerland is able and ready to defend its territory. It can therefore also prevent its territory being misused for war-related purposes. This contributes to the credibility and effectiveness of Swiss neutrality.
The law of neutrality applies to armed conflict between states of a certain duration and intensity. The conflict is then referred to as a war in the sense of the law of neutrality, or as a neutrality case. The law of neutrality does not apply where the UN Security Council has passed a resolution that authorises military action.
The decision on whether or not a neutrality case has arisen rests with the Federal Council. This is not usually an abstract decision, but one made in response to a specific need, such as overflights requests or adoption of sanctions.
The application is made by the specialist government department concerned, for example:
the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (EAER) in the case of sanctions and war materiel exports; or
the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) in the case of overflights.
The Directorate of International Law (DIL) conducts the legal analysis in each case and is in constant contact with the competent authorities.
Applying the law of neutrality gives rise to the following obligations in relation to the parties to the conflict:
No transit of troops and weapons through Swiss territory or airspace;
A ban on exports of militarily relevant goods from Switzerland's own government inventory;
The duty to observe the principle of equal treatment in the case of private-sector exports of militarily relevant goods. ‘Militarily relevant’ refers to goods that directly support the combat capability of parties to a specific conflict in a militarily meaningful way.
Neutrality is a substantial instrument of Swiss security, foreign and economic policy. It helps to safeguard Switzerland's interests and values in these areas.
At the same time, neutrality has importance for domestic policy. Many people see it as a major element of the Swiss identity. That is why decisions on applying neutrality must take domestic policy factors into account in addition to foreign policy ones.
In particular, neutrality supports the following interests and values that are embedded in the Federal Constitution:
The law of neutrality is part of international law. It governs how a neutral state must conduct itself towards belligerent states. Specifically, a neutral state may not:
take part in armed conflict between other states
provide military support to warring states
allow warring parties to use its territory.
Within these rules of international law there is a degree of flexibility in how neutrality is applied.
The law of neutrality becomes effective only in international conflicts of a certain duration and intensity.
Neutrality policy:
Neutrality policy covers policy decisions and measures that Switzerland takes to ensure that neutrality remains effective and credible, so that it is respected by other states.
Neutrality in practice:
The Federal Council and Parliament have employed neutrality to protect Switzerland's foreign, security and economic political interests ever since the federal state was established in 1848. This practice of neutrality abides by international law and grants the country the flexibility it needs to safeguard those interests in a range of foreign policy contexts. The Federal Council has set out its practice in numerous reports (see reports on the Iraq conflict and the conflict in Kosovo).
Switzerland needs a strong defence industry to defend itself. It is also dependent on key export markets. Trust in the reliability of Swiss defence companies would also be undermined if Switzerland ceased to be seen as a trustworthy security policy partner because it cooperated with its partners for the sole purpose of defending itself against attack.
There are other neutral states in addition to Switzerland. Each of them decides for itself what neutrality means in its particular case. This is why the practice of neutrality can differ widely.
Some states pursue permanent neutrality, such as Austria, Ireland and Costa Rica.
Other states invoke neutrality only in certain situations.
Switzerland takes a special interest in the practices of the other European countries.
Neutrality has never been a rigid concept, neither is it today. The way in which it is applied in practice is both by international law, as well as by the particular political and security policy circumstances of the time.
The Federal Council's practice demonstrates that it has always used its room for manoeuvre in applying neutrality in the best interests of Switzerland.
