US-Iran talks: Why Switzerland’s image of neutrality is more complicated than it appears

The origins of Switzerland’s neutrality

It all began with the Battle of Marignano in 1515. The Swiss confederacy at the time suffered a defeat at the hands of the French and chose to retreat from greater power politics in the region. This “forced neutrality” was born from the need for self-preservation. 

Centuries later, at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the eight great European powers agreed that Switzerland must enjoy the benefits of perpetual neutrality. The Act of Paris (1815) guaranteed the inviolability of Switzerland’s territory.

These powers believed that Switzerland’s independence from any foreign influence was in the “true interest of the policy of the whole of Europe”. In simpler terms, this essentially meant that Switzerland’s role as a buffer between Austria and France prevented the Alps from being used as a staging ground by either power. 

This laid the architectural groundwork for Switzerland’s future role as a diplomatic hub.

The letter of the law

Despite the 1815 recognition of Swiss neutrality, it was not until a century later that the rules governing neutrality were codified. This was done during the Hague Conventions of 1907. 

Under international law, a neutral state must adhere to strict conditions during an armed conflict:

• It cannot engage in military conflicts between other states.
• It cannot supply state-owned military aid or troops to warring nations. However, under the Hague Conventions, a neutral state is not required to ban private arms manufacturers from exporting weapons, provided the government applies any export restrictions equally to all warring parties.
• It must not allow its territory, airspace or waters to be used by foreign armies for transit.

Offering “Good Offices” (acting as a mediator or hosting peace talks) can never be considered an unfriendly act or a breach of neutrality.

The Swiss Constitution codified this, requiring the country to maintain heavily armed neutrality.

An elastic neutrality

Swiss neutrality has in the past operated like an accordion — expanding and contracting based on the degree of geopolitical threat. 

“Neutrality is about perception as much as reality,” Dr Mark Fox, Researcher at the Centre for Religion, Economics and Politics at the University of Zurich, told The Indian Express. “Switzerland has mastered the art of being regarded as neutral internationally, even if it is distinctly questionable whether that is always reality.” 

Switzerland’s entry to the League of Nations in 1920 was succeeded by its participation in collective economic sanctions against rogue states. This “differential neutrality” allowed it to be a part of the league while maintaining military neutrality. 

Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia, however, coupled with the German annexation of Austria in the 1930s, led to the Swiss government decoupling itself from economic sanctions and reverting to the previous model of “integral neutrality” in 1938.

Following World War II, Switzerland had to navigate the strict difference between the Law of Neutrality (the binding Hague rules during wartime) and its Neutrality Policy (the voluntary, peacetime steps taken to ensure other nations trust its neutrality). The Bindschedler Doctrine, articulated by legal advisor Rudolph Bindschedler, dictated that a permanently neutral state must avoid any peacetime commitment that might compromise its ability to remain neutral in a future war. 

This formed an aversion to any form of sovereignty pooling such as joining a supranational body like the European Economic Community (EEC). This also led to Switzerland viewing the UN as a body incompatible with its neutrality policy. 

In 2002, a crucial legal distinction was identified: the Hague Conventions applied to interstate war between two parties referred to as belligerents. Actions mandated by the UN Security Council, however, were “international police actions” undertaken to restore peace under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Therefore, Switzerland legally concluded that adopting UN-mandated economic sanctions does not violate its neutral status, subsequently sparking a fresh line of debate over neutrality and economics. 

Business and behavior of neutrality

The tenet of neutrality also serves a glue that maintains internal cohesion. In a decentralised confederation of German, French and Italian speakers, neutrality has also been a way of preventing domestic fractures during times of conflict in Europe. Much of today’s Swiss populace views neutrality as a secular religion. 

This behavioural reflex has also yielded great economic return. Protected from the physical destruction of two World Wars and shielded by a policy of non-interference, Switzerland transformed into an attractive administrative and financial destination. 

Crucially, rival belligerents actively chose to respect this self-imposed neutrality because a secure Switzerland provided an indispensable, mutually beneficial hub for intelligence gathering, back-channel diplomacy, and discreet banking for all sides. This neutrality provided the ultimate bedrock for Swiss banking secrecy (formally codified in 1934). 

This dual reality — profiting while maintaining a morally neutral stance — creates a complex national identity. Dr Fox said: “There are 9.1 million versions of what ‘neutrality’ really means, and what should follow from it. In other words, every Swiss citizen manages to find their own interpretation of it.”

The situation today

The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 brought to the forefront a reckoning. The Swiss government signaled alignment with the EU by adopting economic sanctions against Russia. The Federal Council argued that legally enforcing economic sanctions does not violate the military stipulations of the 1907 Hague Conventions.

Further stretching the elasticity of its neutrality, the government published its latest Security Policy Report in 2023. Acknowledging a deteriorating European security environment, it prioritised interoperability and closer defence cooperation with NATO and the EU, arguing that such cooperation does not compromise Switzerland’s neutral status.

A 2023 Swiss government document shows how citizens have felt about neutrality over the years.

This shift has sparked discontent among the Swiss populace. Right-wing and conservative factions view the alignment with EU sanctions as an erosion of Swiss sovereignty and a shift away from the Bindschedler doctrine. Harnessing this public anger, they successfully gathered enough signatures to force a public referendum (public referendum possible for almost anything after 100,000 signatures). The upcoming ‘Neutrality Initiative’ seeks to amend the constitution to strictly ban the country from adopting any non-UN economic sanctions.

Simultaneously, the nature of Swiss diplomacy is changing on the global stage. Earlier this week, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif proclaimed in Parliament that while the US-Iran negotiations will happen in Geneva, Islamabad and Doha are the true hosts. 

Under its “Good Offices” mandate, the Swiss government has willingly absorbed the massive financial costs of providing the venue, security apparatus, and logistical framework for international summits. However, as the Pakistani PM noted, while Switzerland continues to foot the bill to provide the secure “hotel,” the active political mediation is increasingly being driven by regional players.

As the US and Iranian delegations arrive in Geneva to sign a historic peace deal, they are stepping into a nation that is debating what it means to be neutral in a highly polarised reality. The historic “safe space” remains intact, but the domestic consensus defining might be changing in real time.