Neutrality is not an abstract matter that can only be properly grasped by initiated experts in national and constitutional law. Quite the opposite. In everyday dealings with personal conflicts, it is an intuitively understandable principle. If two people are arguing and a third party takes sides, then the disadvantaged party will also get angry with him. However, if the dispute is to be settled, both sides expect the third party to be impartial.  Anyone who wants to be accepted by both sides of a conflict must therefore not take sides, but must show understanding for both sides. In conflict research This is referred to as "impartiality". This means that anyone who wants to mediate must be able to understand the point of view of both parties - without making it their own position.

In international politics, the conflict dynamics are many times higher than in a personal dispute. But the logic remains the same. That is why the idea of Impartiality a central principle for conflict resolution by mediators. The latter are not allies. Their task requires empathy and understanding for both sides. This does not mean that they approve of the actions of the parties, nor that they morally defend their positions. Being able to explain a conflict from the perspective of one party does not mean justifying it. However, it is the necessary prerequisite for being able to understand both sides from their respective perspectives. In wars, only third parties who do not clearly support one side or the other can deal reasonably with both sides and mediate.

Sanctions are unilateral actions intended to inflict disadvantages on another state. Under international law, such measures are justified against states that violate the rules of international law. Today, however, sanctions are increasingly being used as instruments by rival states as a means of their "trade war". The law of neutrality (as a part of international law) does not contain any regulations regarding the economic behaviour of neutral states. Nevertheless, the deliberate economic disadvantaging of one of two parties in a war is clearly taking sides.

This was impressively demonstrated in the early months of the Russian-Ukrainian war in 2022, when the only promising peace talks between the two warring parties took place. The mediators were Belarus and Turkey, although both - whether as a friendly state or as a NATO member - were formally close to one of the parties to the conflict. However, both Russia and Ukraine trusted the relative impartiality of the two mediators, especially as Turkey did not support the EU sanctions. As a result, Minsk and Istanbul became the venue for the peace talks - and not Geneva:  With the adoption of EU sanctions, Switzerland lost its credibility as a neutral state vis-à-vis Russia. As a result, it also lost the mediating role it had played in the past in Chechnya or Georgia. The conference on the Bürgenstock in 2024 did nothing to change this: in any case, it could not be described as a "peace summit", as one of the warring parties  - Russia - was not there at all.

The fact that Switzerland continues to describe itself as neutral is irrelevant in this case. Neutrality can only be effective to the extent that it appears credible to third parties. If belligerent states do not actually perceive Switzerland as (more or less) neutral, it cannot assume a mediating role. If it wishes to continue to offer its "good offices", it would be well advised to keep away from sanctions lists and other means of exerting pressure on third countries wherever possible.

We are fundamentally sceptical about sanctions for the following reasons:

- They are often imposed arbitrarily by powerful states against weak ones,
- They affect ordinary people and the poor, but hardly the country's governments and elites,
- They solidarise the population in the affected country and exacerbate the conflict instead of alleviating it,
- Economists doubt their effectiveness, and
- Sanctions  rarely lead to the intended change of political regime.

The most impressive example of this is the comprehensive sanctions imposed by the USA against Cuba. They were imposed more than 60 years ago solely because the USA still does not like the political regime of its small neighbour.

We therefore support the demand of the neutrality initiative that Switzerland should not participate in any sanctions against belligerent states. There should be two exceptions to this constitutional principle; both are important.

The first exception concerns the UN. As a member of the UN, Switzerland - like all other states - is obliged under international law to support UN sanctions. The second exception primarily concerns the EU and the North American partner states. It is to be expected that they will exert pressure on Switzerland as an important trading partner to join their sanctions, among other things to prevent them from being circumvented via Switzerland. Switzerland can therefore take measures to prevent this circumvention. However, the neutrality initiative leaves no doubt that Switzerland wants to refrain from sanctions in principle.

Furthermore, Switzerland, like any other state, has the sovereign right to promote or impede trade with third countries by imposing its own sanctions. In doing so, however, it does not escape the perception of other states:  Anyone who imposes economic sanctions loses their credibility as a neutral mediator.