The Law of Neutrality: No Foreign Troops in Switzerland!
von Dr. iur. Marianne Wüthrich
The Federal Council is currently dithering over whether to allow the US to fly its warplanes through Swiss airspace on their way to the war in Iran – an unprecedented breach of neutrality! And this is no one-off slip-up, but part of a broader agenda: “In the area of military mobility in particular, Switzerland contributes to security and cooperation in Europe by facilitating and supporting the transit of personnel or equipment from other armed forces through Switzerland, in compliance with the law of neutrality.” (Switzerland’s Security Strategy 2026, p. 59)
This sentence, which must make every Swiss person’s hair stand on end, is tucked away on the penultimate page of this strategy – which is extremely disastrous for our country and is open for consultation until the end of March.1
This autumn, the Swiss people will have the opportunity to put a stop to such un-Swiss activities by voting in favour of the Neutrality Initiative. Indeed, the ban on the transit of troops and weapons belonging to other states through Swiss territory is one of the oldest cornerstones and an indispensable part of Swiss neutrality. It guarantees not only neutrality vis-à-vis the outside world, but also the internal peace of the Swiss people.
Historical digression:
The 1647 Defensionale of Wil and the
1674 Declaration of Neutrality by the Federal Diet
During the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), the Swiss only just managed to avoid being drawn into this terrible conflict. Some cantons, however, granted one or other of the warring parties permission to march through Swiss territory. But at the end of the war, they jointly recognised that only by maintaining neutrality – and indeed, armed neutrality – could they preserve their freedom vis-à-vis the outside world and their internal cohesion. In the Defensionale of Wil of 1647, the Confederates resolved to protect their borders with armed troops against the passage of foreign armies. In 1674, the Federal Diet followed suit and officially declared Switzerland’s neutrality for the first time. Unfortunately, the cantons subsequently failed to implement the agreed organisation of a sufficient joint military force, leaving them unable to resist the French invasion of 1798. In 1815, Switzerland’s neutrality was then recognised – not created – by the major European powers. The lesson from history: Switzerland’s neutrality must necessarily be backed by military force to keep foreign troops off our territory. The Swiss successfully set about this after 1815, thereby protecting themselves from future wars.
The law of neutrality under the Hague Convention of 1907
The “Hague Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in the Case of War on Land” of 18 October 1907 establishes, as binding on all neutral states, the prohibition on the transport of troops and arms by any belligerent party – a prohibition which Switzerland itself has imposed upon itself for centuries:
Art. 1 The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.
Art. 2 Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.
[...]
Art. 5 A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory. […]
Some Swiss historians sympathetic to NATO claim that the Hague Conventions are obsolete because the UN Charter now governs the rights and obligations of states in wartime. In reality, such a contradiction is a fabrication concocted by the Swiss NATO enthusiasts. The Hague Conventions remain in force; 92 states plus the European Union have signed them, and no state questions the agreement on the rights and obligations of neutral states. In fact, it is now more urgent than ever that as many states as possible respect the Law of neutrality!
In today’s geopolitical situation, the term “belligerent powers” must also be interpreted more broadly than it was at the start of the 20th century. Back then, troops generally only marched through other countries to go to war. Today, the distinction from direct participation in war is not always clear when members of military alliances, for example, deploy their troops and fighter jets to the Russian border or the Middle East. Switzerland would do well to stick to its principle – not only in the event of direct military deployment by other states, but as a matter of principle: no right of transit for other armed forces through Switzerland.
Calling the Federal Council to account
Back to the Swiss Federal Council, which seems to have lost all touch with reality and is commenting on US military flights through Switzerland without the US having even submitted a request. In fact, it is common knowledge that Switzerland does not permit overflights by warring parties. As reported in the press regarding the Iran war: “The airspace of neutral Switzerland and Austria is avoided, as is that of countries that do not belong to NATO.”2 The US government, too, has apparently so far found a different route from Germany to Iran for its flights. It is quite possible that the US might be dissatisfied if Switzerland does not tolerate military flights through its airspace – but that does not justify a breach of the law of neutrality. Whilst Federal Councillor Cassis ponders “whether the escalation in the Middle East fulfils the conditions for the application of the law of neutrality”3, it is apparently clear to the Spanish government that a war is taking place in Iran: it is prohibiting the US from using two Spanish bases and is prepared to accept being berated by President Trump.
Robert Kolb, Professor of International Law at the University of Geneva, makes it unmistakably clear: “This is an intense international armed conflict. As such, the law of neutrality applies.” He adds that it is likely “politically motivated” that the Federal Council is “dodging its obligations under the law of neutrality” in this case.4 Even now that the US has submitted requests, Federal Councillor Cassis continues to dither, approving some and rejecting others (press release of 14 March). Professor Kolb: “Then the country must draw attention to its obligations – otherwise it violates the law of neutrality itself and loses credibility.”
During the 2003 Iraq War, we still had a Federal Councillor who was prepared to uphold Switzerland’s obligations under neutrality law. Back then, he decided to close Swiss airspace to American military aircraft a full month before the war began.
The Federal Council’s hesitation and manoeuvring do have one positive aspect: they provide the Neutrality Initiative with a golden opportunity. •
1 Incidentally, back in 2024 the Federal Council already signed our country up to the EU’s “Military Mobility” project under the “Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)” framework, which is intended to “streamline the administrative procedures” for cross-border transport. The claim that PESCO is a “European” project is just as misleading as the planned regulation under the Security Policy Strategy: it is a NATO project, given that Canada and the US are also involved. (see www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-21-15-oktober-2024/sich-auf-den-wert-der-neutralitaet-zurueckbesinnen)
2 Monn, Julia and Shaw, Roland “Europa unterstützt die UA” (Europe supports the UA). In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 10 March 2026
3 Meier, Dominik. “Wann gilt Neutralitätsrecht? Bundesrat vor heiklem Entscheid im Iran-Krieg” (When does the right to neutrality apply? Federal Council faces a delicate decision in the Iran war). In: SRF News of 3 March 2026
4 Berner, Selina. “Der Iran-Krieg wird für die Schweiz zum Balanceakt” (The Iran war becomes a balancing act for Switzerland). In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 5 March 2026
Three billion for total surveillance of citizens?
mw. Federal Councillor Martin Pfister, Head of the Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS), is demanding funding for Switzerland’s integration into NATO and EU security structures – as outlined in the “Security Policy Strategy 2026” – and for the monitoring of public opinion: 31 billion Swiss francs for the army over ten years (partly also for necessary national defence projects). With a hefty 0.8 per cent increase in VAT from 2028, the Federal Council intends to make the entire population foot the bill. We are expected to allocate three billion francs solely for the “expansion of civil security authorities”: “Additional revenue of around three billion francs is required for the federal civil agencies responsible for security tasks. This will strengthen civilian security instruments such as intelligence services, civilian alert systems, security communications and resilient crisis management capabilities, as well as the fight against disinformation. In a hybrid threat environment, these make a key contribution to Switzerland’s security.”1 (emphasis added)
According to the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung”, the DDPS intends to create 420 to 520 new full-time posts (!) in the ‘security sector’ for this purpose – of which 100 to 200 posts will be at the Federal Office of Police (Fedpol) and 115 at the Intelligence Service.2 An administrative bloat without parallel, aimed, amongst other things, at the total surveillance of citizens and the corresponding restriction of their freedom of information and expression!
We do have one small consolation: as raising VAT requires a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot avoid holding a mandatory referendum requiring a majority of both the people and the cantons. The consultation period runs until the end of May 2026. According to the polls, a ‘no’ vote appears likely.
1 Federal Council press release of 6 March 2026 www.news.admin.ch/de/newnsb/fJDRVJGpA_Y1vcW5RHUkG
2 Gafafer, Tobias and Schäfer, Fabian. “Bundesrat Pfister will die höhere Mehrwertsteuer im Eiltempo durchbringen – doch SVP und FDP winken ab.” (Federal Councillor Pfister wants to push through the higher VAT at breakneck speed – but the SVP and FDP are rejecting the idea.) Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 6 March 2026