Neutrality, Where Are You Headed?

Neutrality, Where Are You Headed? — The September 27, 2026, Vote: A Battle Won, a War Still Raging On September 27, 2026, the people and the cantons rejected the “Preservation of Swiss Neutrality” initiative with 70.15% voting “no” and not a single canton in favor. The analysis begins with the numbers. Nationally, the “yes” vote (29.85%) coincides almost exactly with the electoral weight of the sovereignist bloc (30.2%), although polls indicate shifts in both directions. Ticino is the exception: 48.25% voted “yes,” with 45 out of 100 municipalities in favor—about twenty percentage points beyond the SVP-Lega base. This is a sign of waning party loyalty and a vote judged more on the merits of the issue than on the proposer. Legally speaking, the vote does not alter the right to neutrality, codified in the Hague Conventions of 1907, but it shapes policy regarding it: by rejecting the ban, the electorate has endorsed a de facto interpretation of neutrality. For the first time, the sanctions adopted by the European Union have received popular endorsement, albeit indirectly: what was once a decision by the executive branch has become a choice—and a responsibility—of the nation. This has international implications: a practice that is more difficult to reverse, an impact on the customary law of neutrality, and good offices that depend on the consent of those who must accept them. The article then examines the outlook: the November 29 vote on military equipment, the Bilateral Agreements III and their dual-use provisions, and the rapprochement with NATO. It recalls the precedent of “differential” neutrality from the 1920s to 1938 and ETH data on the role of neutrality in shaping national identity. Each step, taken on its own, is compatible with neutrality; the issue is the sum of these steps. Finally, security. The official message is that nothing changes: neutrality will continue to be applied as it has been until now, with the goal of ensuring the country’s security. This is correct, but it is not enough. For a small neutral state, security can rest on credibility—that is, not being perceived as taking sides—or on integration into a larger defense system. A circular dynamic arises between the two, and the choice between them is a fundamental political decision that deserves to be declared as such. The author concludes that the matter is far from settled.

ITEN