Swiss law on neutrality — II: possible developments following the adoption of the constitutional amendment of 27 September
Whilst the first volume provided an overview of the existing law, this second volume takes the next step: it attempts to project it into the future. Having examined the current regulatory framework and the way in which the Government and Parliament relate to it, the study simulates what might happen if the initiative on neutrality were to be accepted on 27 September 2026. It is not, therefore, a prediction, but a reasoned simulation, based on the findings of the first volume and available historical precedents. The starting point is the constituent power of the popular initiative, illustrated through two contrasting precedents: the Lex Weber of 2012, which was unexpectedly accepted and implemented with disruptive speed; and the 2014 initiative on mass immigration, the implementation of which was stalled for years by European obligations, until a compromise was reached that effectively gutted its scope. These are the two models — one swift, the other contentious — against which to assess the possible effects of the new Article 54a. The study then reviews, in perspective, the themes of the first volume, and addresses some specific chapters: the effect of the shift from flexible to rigid neutrality on humanitarian credibility and the role of the ICRC; the consequences for the financial centre in the face of Western sanctions regimes; the review of sanctions that SECO is expected to conduct, including the fate of the approximately 7.4 billion in frozen assets and the likely shift in the authority’s remit, from monitoring sanctioned entities to monitoring financial flows; Switzerland’s autonomous countermeasures and, conversely, those that Western partners might adopt in response to a Swiss deviation. A chapter of particular interest concerns justiciability: constitutionalised neutrality enshrined in a specific prohibition could — following the model of the Lex Weber, which the Federal Supreme Court declared directly applicable — transform neutrality from an unchallengeable act of government into a test of legality that can be invoked, indirectly, by those affected by it. Such judicial review simply does not exist today, given that acts of foreign policy are not subject to judicial review. The study does not isolate the issue from its context. It highlights the two key issues driving the debate in recent weeks: the security argument, raised by opponents of the initiative, according to which rigid neutrality would weaken defence cooperation at precisely the moment when the European context is becoming unstable; and the convergence with the parallel ‘Bussola’ initiative, which addresses the same issue of the dynamic transposition of European law. Both neutrality and the Bilateral Agreements III, ultimately, revolve around the same question: how much sovereignty Switzerland is prepared to cede. Finally, the study examines the scenario of a rejection of the initiative and the more serious scenario of an open conflict between Russia and the Confederation’s Western partners. The overarching theme of the conclusions is that what is truly at stake on 27 September is not the choice between having or not having neutrality — Switzerland will remain neutral in either case — but rather the choice between two ways of being neutral: a flexible neutrality, which preserves the political scope to align itself selectively, and a rigid neutrality, which sacrifices that scope in exchange for a predefined and consistent position. A choice which, as demonstrated by the Bilateral Agreements III issue and the ‘Compass’ initiative, is merely the first step in a broader redefinition of the relationship between sovereignty, direct democracy and European integration.