| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
.jpg)
At the International Pre-Congress on Neutrality, held in Geneva in June this year, experts, academics, diplomats, and activists from 27 countries gathered to explore a pressing question: Is neutrality still possible in today’s world? Together, they examined how the principle of neutrality can be revitalized and reimagined as a tool for peace in the XXIst century.
The International Colloquium on Neutrality was convened under the auspices of the Geneva Centre for Neutrality, in collaboration with World Beyond War, the International Peace Bureau, the Transnational Institute, the Colombia Peace Agreement, the Global Veterans Peace Network (GVPN), and the Inter-University Network for Peace (REDIPAZ). A global call for active neutrality launched from Geneva reassessed and reaffirmed the value of neutrality in an increasingly polarized and militarized world.
The colloquium built upon the foundation laid at the 2024 International Congress on Neutrality in Bogotá and set the stage for the upcoming 2026 Congress. Its central outcome was Modern Neutrality Declaration and an accompanying Action Agenda to Promote Active Neutrality - documents that reflect a collective commitment to advancing neutrality as a dynamic, peace-oriented principle.
Five specialized focus groups explored key dimensions of neutrality: Current Neutrality Practices, Digital Neutrality in the Age of Cyberwarfare and AI Militarization, Neutrality and Media, Neutrality and Common Security in a Militarized World, Building a New Non-Aligned Movement. Moderators from each group collected insights, and formulated forward-looking strategies with practical recommendations, and calls to action.
GROUP 1. CURRENT NEUTRALITY PRACTICE.
Moderator – Katy Cojuhari, Head of International Cooperation Department, Geneva Center for Neutrality.
Global Neutrality in 2025:
● Europe: Neutrality is retreating, though not entirely abandoned, as alliance politics gain ground.
● Post-Soviet Space: Neutrality remains in limbo amid competing internal and external pressures.
● Asia: A nascent neutrality movement is emerging, with countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, ASEAN states, and Mongolia exploring or reaffirming non-alignment.
● South America: Costa Rica continues as a beacon of hope; several states have adopted ad-hoc neutrality during the Ukraine war.
Key Themes and Takeaways:
1.Redefining Neutrality: Neutrality is evolving beyond its legal roots, taking on political, philosophical, economic and strategic dimensions in a multipolar world. It involves a commitment to non-alignment, positive diplomacy, and legal engagement.
2. Global South Perspectives: Countries like Costa Rica exemplify a principled, demilitarized neutrality that contrasts with European models, highlighting the need for decolonizing international discourse.
3. Challenges in Europe: The retreat from neutrality in Europe, especially after the Ukraine conflict, raises concerns about militarization and the loss of alternatives to alliance politics.
4. Role of Civil Society: Grassroots movements across continents (Germany, Colombia, Australia) are advocating for neutrality as a means to prevent war and promote global stability. These efforts represent a form of “neutralism”— a normative commitment to peace without passivity.
5. Legal Complexity: The discussions underscored the legal intricacies of neutrality, especially regarding obligations under international humanitarian law versus unilateral declarations. Costa Rica, Turkmenistan, Austria and Switzerland were identified as states currently possessing internationally binding neutrality.
Key insights:
Rethinking Neutrality:
● Neutrality is not indifference. It represents an active commitment to peace, dialogue, and self-determination.
● Neutrality is not isolation. Neutral states can serve as mediators, conveners, and norm-setters in international affairs.
Diverse Models of Neutrality:
● Costa Rica: A global exemplar of legally binding, unilateral neutrality; no standing army since 1948; strictly non-aligned in moral and economic terms.
● Switzerland: Armed neutrality under pressure due to alignment with EU/U.S. sanctions; national referendum planned regarding its constitutional neutrality clause.
● Moldova: Constitutional neutrality threatened by political elites favoring NATO alignment, despite over 80% public support for neutrality.
● Austria and Ireland: Legal neutrality increasingly diluted by military cooperation with the EU and indirect NATO participation.
● Turkmenistan: UN-recognized neutrality since 1995, illustrating that neutrality is not exclusive to democratic states.
Current Risks:
● Instrumentalization of neutrality for geopolitical ends.
● Undermining neutrality through participation in economic or military sanctions, adopted or not sanctioned by the UN Security Council.
● Erosion of public trust when elite policies contradict constitutions or public sentiment.
● Absence of binding legal mechanisms at the international level to enforce or protect neutrality.
Recommendations.
Call to Action for States:
1.Clarify or codify neutrality in constitutional, legal frameworks and public debates.
2. Develop National Strategies for Peace: Invest in peaceful infrastructure not only security apparatus, including diplomacy, legal institutions, and humanitarian capacity
For Civil Society:
3. Promote neutrality through peace education, public dialogue, cultural nonalignment, conflict prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes.
4. Explain the values and benefits of neutrality through mainstream media, social media and civil society actors.
5. Create independent neutrality observatories to monitor state actions.
6. Support various neutrality initiatives (especially International Neutrality Day on 12th of December and UN resolutions related to neutrality) through grassroots campaigns, referenda, and public discourse.
The creation of an International Neutrality Platform, created at International Pre-Congress on Neutrality:
7. Convene an International Congress for Neutrality bringing together states, experts, and civil society actors.
8. Develop and launch a Global Neutrality Database to benchmark legal, policy, and perception-based aspects of neutrality.
9. Draft and promote a Model Charter of 21st Century Neutrality for voluntary adoption by states, civil society and by the United Nations.
GROUP2. DIGITAL NEUTRALITY IN THE AGE OF CYBER WARFARE AND AI MILITARIZATION
Moderator – Simon Janin, Digital Neutrality Department, Geneva Center for Neutrality.
PART 1. Digital Neutrality and Challenges.
Digital neutrality is defined as a nation’s ability to safeguard its digital infrastructure, data governance, and artificial intelligence (AI) systems from foreign manipulation or influence, ensuring autonomy in digital spaces. This autonomy is critical for maintaining a country's sovereignty, preventing populations from being let into conflicts against their interest, and preserving the democratic ability to determine their future. In today’s world, major corporations frequently function as extensions of geopolitical strategies, with their platforms becoming militarized tools of influence. Examples include: data-driven political manipulation and disinformation campaigns vis social media; surveillance infrastructure and AI-based automated systems that can be weaponized for mass control or conflict escalation.
Policy Recommendations:
- Advocate for a United Nations Declaration on Active Neutrality including digital and cyber neutrality.
- Develop national and regional frameworks to regulate AI and autonomous weapons systems.
- Launch the Digital Neutrality Label project, which will be proposed as a Geneva standard for countries and organizations seeking a sustainable and secure digital future.
- Establish institutional alliances among civil society and government actors engaged in active neutrality worldwide.
Strategic Alliances. Collaborations should actively involve: universities and research institutes; International think-tanks and NGOs; Technology-focused civil society groups; Relevant international organizations (UN, UNESCO, OECD).
PART 2. Cyberspace and AI.
1. Active Neutrality:
○ Neutrality must be actively promoted and defended, as cyberspace is dynamic and actors constantly seek to exploit or undermine neutral stances.
○ Passive neutrality is insufficient given the proactive threats in cyberspace.
2. Attribution Challenges:
○ Estblishing accountability in cyberspace is inherently difficult due to technological complexity, dual-use nature of tools, and the role of non-state actors.
○ Precise attribution of cyber attacks is often challenging, complicating enforcement and response.
3. International Norms and Treaties:
Currently, there is no binding international legal framework specifically addressing digital neutrality or AI militarization. Proposal includes clear international norms, legally binding treaties, and diplomatic agreements specific to cyberspace and AI.
4. Switzerland's Role in International Law:
○ Switzerland should leverage its neutrality tradition and global reputation to lead discussions and possibly establish certification standards and ethical governance guidelines for AI, particularly military applications.
○ Switzerland could serve as a model country for digital neutrality, providing frameworks for technology governance and attracting global partnerships.
5. Startup and Innovation Ecosystem:
Switzerland should foster Silicon Valley-style ecosystems with strong network effects under special regulatory frameworks or sandboxes. The creation of agile, adaptable legal frameworks can encourage innovation, investment, and technological growth without compromising broader regulatory standards.
6. Decentralized Systems and Practical Steps:
Encouragement of decentralized payment and information exchange systems as demonstrated by practical, government independent technological innovations (e.g., transactions in space).
7. Neutrality Advocacy in Big Tech:
○ Promote neutrality through internal advocacy within Big Tech, challenging technological support for militarization or unethical applications of technology.
○ Focus public awareness campaigns on the importance and practicality of active neutrality, peace, and diplomacy as viable alternatives to militarization.
8. Counteracting Propaganda: Actively counter propaganda from military alliances which seeks to portray militarization as progressive or necessary.
9. Incremental and Pragmatic Implementation:
○ Adopt an entrepreneurial mindset—implementing quick, pragmatic steps that can adapt rapidly to technological and geopolitical changes.
○ Establish a clear roadmap with small targets and scalable successes that build toward larger neutrality goals.
10. Interdisciplinary and International Collaboration:
○ Actively facilitate interdisciplinary expert discussions involving legal, technological, ethical, and business perspectives.
○ Prioritize international collaboration to create consensus- driven definitions, norms, and enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion.
Switzerland has a unique opportunity to lead in shaping active digital neutrality and ethical AI governance by leveraging its historical neutrality, technological expertise, and robust legal frameworks. The creation of specialized innovation ecosystems and international treaties is essential to navigate the complexities of modern cyberspace effectively.
GROUP 3. NEUTRALITY AND THE MEDIA
Moderator – Tim Pluta, Global Veterans Peace Network.
Current Challenges and Observations:
1. Political Bias in Media.
Media often aligns with existing imbalances in power structures, reinforcing political agendas and deepening social divisions.
2. Manipulation of Public Sentiment.
There is a growing disconnect between political actions and the will of the people. Media is frequently used to manipulate emotions by spreading fear, hatred, and polarising narratives.
3. Monopoly on Truth.
Mainstream media tends to present itself as the sole authority on truth, marginalising alternative perspectives and voices.
Proposals and Recommendations:
1. Awareness & Culture.
• Create awareness and foster a culture of curiosity around active neutrality and its societal benefits.
• Promote the use of the term “active neutrality” in public and private conversations to normalize and expand understanding.
2. Education & Guidelines.
• Develop a neutrality vocabulary and curriculum tailored to various audiences (politicians, activists, educators, general public etc.).
• Create an educational program that defines active neutrality in political, legal, social, and even spiritual terms.
• Provide recommendations to media professionals to encourage pluralism and eliminate dehumanizing language, fear-mongering, and hate speech.
3. Platforms & Engagement.
• Launch an open, decentralized platform or news channel focused on active neutrality.
• Establish citizen journalism initiatives and online communities centered on neutral reporting and civic media literacy.
• Include media representatives in dialogue circles on active neutrality.
• Conduct public surveys to explore how people perceive active neutrality and whether they value it.
Institutional Strategy:
We propose forming an Active Neutrality Media Expert Team under the Geneva Center for Neutrality, composed of: social media specialists, psychologists and neuro-linguists, youth representatives, journalists, IT-specialists, etc.
This interdisciplinary team would interact to:
• Develop a strategic media campaign around active neutrality;
• Design and implement educational initiatives;
• Foster youth engagement in the media and peace narrative.
To paraphrase Barbara Marx Hubbard, we believe: “We need a neutral media room as sophisticated as the war media room.” This report is a collective call to bring active neutrality to the table — not only as a principle but as a practice embedded in how we inform, educate, and engage society.
GROUP 4. NEUTRALITY AND COMMON SECURITY IN A MILITARIZED WORLD.
Moderator – Emily Molinari, Deputy Executive Director at the International Peace Bureau.
Introduction
This focus group explored the relevance and application of neutrality and common security in today’s increasingly militarized geopolitical landscape.
Key Themes:
1. Redefining Neutrality
Neutrality should not mean silence or inaction. Participants emphasized the need for a new model of engaged neutrality; it must uphold peace, human rights, and international law. Switzerland was often cited, though its model of “armed neutrality” was challenged as contradictory.
2. Legal Dimensions
Neutrality is rooted in customary international law, but remains fragile in the context of the UN’s collective security system. Key legal principles include: non-participation in conflict and impartiality; maintenance of economic relations (excluding arms trade); obligation to avoid escalation and allow humanitarian aid; engagement in diplomacy, mediation, and good offices. Participants discussed whether a binding treaty on neutrality could strengthen these norms.
3. Common Security Framework
Common security — mutual, cooperative security — was reaffirmed as an alternative to deterrence and arms races. It relies on disarmament, trust, and diplomacy. The group stressed links between common security, social justice, and climate resilience.
4. Economic Neutrality, Militarization, and Sovereignty
Neutrality must extend beyond military alliances to economic structures: reduce dependence on arms industries and extractive economies; oppose coercive trade practices by great powers; strengthen economic sovereignty, especially in the Global South. Militarization undermines national and community sovereignty. Neutral states are often pressured into alliances or bloc politics, eroding their impartial roles. Some participants criticized NATO expansion, hybrid threats, and economic coercion.
5. Private Sector & Media
Participants noted that militarism is often supported by business and media, while peace work remains under-resourced. Proposals included: fostering a peace economy and ethical business practices; promoting peace-oriented journalism; countering disinformation and propaganda.
Illustrative Cases and Proposals:
- Costa Rica: A key example of successful demilitarization — post-military investment in education and healthcare helped anchor its neutral, peaceful stance.
- Switzerland: Raised internal tensions around armed neutrality and civil disobedience (e.g. CO debates, TPNW campaign).
- Non-state actors: Movements like MINGA and ISM illustrate the role of grassroots solidarity in peacebuilding.
- New ideas: Proposals included the creation of a “Neutrality Observatory” to monitor violations and a business-peacebuilding network to promote ethical alternatives.
Recommendations:
- Promote engaged neutrality as a proactive and legitimate framework for peace and diplomacy across all actors.
- Open discussion on neutrality concerning autonomous groups, territories, and minority populations, recognizing their unique positions and challenges.
- Highlight the benefits of neutrality for States:
- Not being involved in conflict, being protected from it, and maintaining economic relations with all parties involved in a conflict.
- Credibly exercise the duty of impartiality, meaning treating all conflict parties equally and refraining from influencing the conflict’s outcome.
- Encourage neutrals to actively engage in humanitarian aid, diplomacy, mediation, and good offices, leveraging their impartial status for constructive involvement.
- Support initiatives calling for reductions in global military spending, strengthening arms control and disarmament treaties, and reinvesting those resources into social welfare, climate action, and peace infrastructure.
- Advance economic neutrality, encouraging states to divest from the military-industrial complex, invest in human security, and prioritize economic sovereignty, especially in the Global South.
- Invest in nonviolent civilian defense strategies, such as: civil resistance training; peace education programs; support for conscientious objectors; development of national institutions dedicated to disarmament and peacebuilding.
- Possibility to foster cooperation between peace organizations and some actors of the private sector, including the creation of a peace economy network and incentives for ethical business practices aligned with peace and sustainability goals.
- Establish a Neutrality Observatory to: monitor violations of neutrality and international law; produce independent reports; support advocacy at the UN, EU, and regional bodies.
- Strengthen critical journalism and media literacy by supporting disinformation monitoring initiatives, promoting independent, peace-oriented reporting, and raising public awareness on the links between militarization, media, and public opinion.
GROUP 5. BUILDING A NEW NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT.
Moderator – Gabriel Aguirre, coordinator of the international Congress for Neutrality (Colombia), South American branch of the World Beyond War.
1. Purpose of the Meeting
This focus group was convened to explore the possibility of a new Non-Aligned Movement beyond the traditional state-based model. A global civil society-centred approach was proposed, with a view to building tools for peace and social justice in the context of current conflicts and systemic crises.
2. Criticisms of the Traditional Model of Non-Alignment.
a. The term "non-aligned" is seen by many participants as obsolete, inherited from the Cold War, so we suggest not speaking of Non-Aligned, but of Active Neutrality.
b. Its usefulness is questioned in the face of a contemporary multipolar world, where conflicts are no longer explained solely in terms of East vs. West.
c. It is proposed to replace the notion of “state neutrality” with people’s diplomacy.
3. Emerging Key Themes.
a. People's Diplomacy:
● A form of diplomacy is promoted that does not depend on governments or state interests.
● An international network is being sought that brings together social organizations, communities, indigenous peoples, and grassroots movements to address militarization, colonialism, and the climate crisis.
b. Criticisms of Global Militarization:
● Military spending is denounced as the most polluting activity on the planet.
● Multiple conflicts, especially in Palestine and Ukraine, are identified as examples of the failure of the current international system and the urgent need for a global ceasefire.
c. Rights of Future Generations:
● defence of future generations is incorporated as a new axis of international political thought.
● It is mentioned that this approach must include ecological, climate and intergenerational justice rights.
● Defending plurality is understood as an important value, in order to respect the views of others, not just those of a particular individual, and thus respect diversity, in order to overcome racism and xenophobia.
d. Reparations and historical justice
Participants from Africa and Latin America spoke about the need for reparations for the historical damage caused by colonialism, wars, and unilateral economic sanctions that continue to affect entire populations.
4. Cases Analysed.
Palestine: Considered a symbol of modern genocide and the moral failure of the international community. It is argued that a simple ceasefire is not sufficient if there is no active pressure for lasting justice.
Colombia: The armed conflict and peace agreements are analyzed from a structural perspective. It is emphasized that without social justice, the end of armed violence will not be sustainable.
Venezuela: Economic sanctions are denounced as a form of indirect warfare, with devastating effects on the civilian population, especially on health and nutrition.
5. Strategic Proposals.
a. Promote modern neutrality as defender of sovereignty and uphold the principle of non-alignment.
b. Reshape the international system, beyond the UN and the States.
c. Create a decentralized, non-hierarchical and plural movement.
d. Focus on peace, demilitarization, decolonization and self-determination.
e. Develop a proactive narrative of neutrality as action for peace, not passivity.
f. Defend Active Neutrality to build bridges between peoples, with the fundamental role of civil society.
Conclusion
The group proposed building a new international paradigm from below, where neutrality is not indifference, but an ethical stance in the face of injustice. It aims to articulate a grassroots transnational movement focused on nonviolent action, global justice, environmental sustainability, and the self-determination of peoples. Neutrality should not be understood under a double standard; it should be applied equally to all countries, social movements, communities, etc.
The International Colloquium on Neutrality: A call to action for active neutrality and world peace, 26th and 27th of June, 2025.
.jpg)
The comprehensive analysis by Dr. Edward Horgan, an Irish peace activist and former army commandant, presents a deeply researched and passionate case for positive, active neutrality as a viable and necessary alternative to militarism and war in the 21st century.
Drawing from history, international law, Irish constitutional principles, and moral philosophy, the author critiques Ireland’s drift from neutrality—especially through US military use of Shannon Airport, complicity in war crimes, and proposed abandonment of the Triple Lock (government, Dáil, and UN approval for military missions). Horgan argues that such shifts endanger Irish sovereignty, violate international humanitarian law, and make Ireland complicit in global violence.
The research also highlights:
- The history and types of neutrality (constitutional, active, default, etc.);
- The erosion of the UN and EU as peace-building institutions;
- The environmental and human costs of global militarism;
- Ireland’s role in UN peacekeeping and the potential of unarmed civilian peacekeeping;
- The global legal frameworks (e.g., Hague, Geneva, Genocide Conventions) being undermined by powerful states.
Horgan makes a compelling ethical and legal argument that active neutrality, grounded in international law and humanitarian values, should be central to Ireland’s identity and foreign policy—and part of a broader global movement for peace, justice, and demilitarization.
Full version: NEUTRALITY FOR PEACE AND HUMANITY ALTERNATIVE TO MILITARISM AND WAR
By Dr. Edward Horgan, a former Irish Army commandant, who served with UN peacekeeping missions in Cyprus and the Middle East in the 1960s and 1970s. He is a committed peace activist with Shannonwatch, member of the Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance, founder member of Veterans For Peace Ireland, and Veterans Global Peace Network, and member of the board of directors of World Beyond War.
Discussed during the International Colloquium on Neutrality: A call to action for active neutrality and world peace, 26th and 27th of June, 2025.
Switzerland along its long history has experienced different, interactive and evolving kinds of neutrality. In their first Alliance Convention (1291) the three cantons’ representatives introduced the duty for them to refrain from participating in disputes of the other, but to encourage and help them to achieve amicable agreement. The objective is to preserve the inside security and unity.
Soon joined during the next centuries by other cantons, the successive Alliance Conventions were concluded each time with the same approach : the duty to refrain from participating in the internal dispute inside the Alliance is conceived to protected this union. The third and not implicated canton is invited to « mediate », in order to reestablish interior peace and avoid external intervention. Neutrality linked with mediation has a (self)protection objective (passive neutrality). This idea was more developed when Basel Canton joined the Alliance (1501) : the duty to refrain from participating in dispute is clearly connected with the duty to intervene as a third party to find amicable solution. Moreover, Basel was called to « mediate » a dispute between a canton member of the union, Bern, and a non-member at the time, Geneva, and they reach an effective and sustainable agreement, after negotiations facilitated by the third (a Basel representative ; le Départ de Bâle de 1544). It looks like a first esquisse of the pacification objective, which developed as the active neutrality during the decades following the second world war.
The intercantonal Agreement called « Le Défensional de Wil » (1647) forbids the cantons to intervene militarily also outside of the Alliance, in the dispute between other Countries. The aim was to avoid though neutrality and independence external interferences and to protect against themselves. Refraining from participating into the 30 Years War (1618-1648), the cantons preserved at the same time external intervention and internal disputes, sparing a lot of population slaughters, cities, crops, harvests and other unlimited destructions, and losses of territories. This objective of protection was reflected also in the peace treaties of Paris and Vienna (1815) which recognised the Swiss neutrality and independence in the interest of Europa and Switzerland. That was also the common objective of the Parties to these treaties and of Swiss Cantons.
This neutrality of protection was completed by the neutrality of pacification (or active neutrality) after 1945 till the years 2010, with the Swiss Good Offices : Evian Agreement (1962 Algeria independence), first conflicts between USA and Iran, Russia and Georgia, Geneva Initiative (2003, facilitate a two-States peace plan), and encouraging mediations in internal armed conflicts in South America and Africa.
Contributing to build the peace was the Swiss software. But this constructive practice of neutrality seems having lost its importance this last decade for Swiss Authorities. Trough outside and inside pressures it have been few and few put in drawers, in the frame of the events in East Europa as of 2014 and in the Middle East.
The need of security prevails among Swiss Authorities. Thus, they introduced new practices and ideas, with an « original » new concept of neutrality : a so called cooperative neutrality, implying several agreements concluded with the NATO. An oxymoron ! Though it might have and has of course an impact on the trust in Switzerland, perceived as a country having lost or suspended its neutrality and independence.
For the Swiss Authorities, independence and neutrality are political and legal concepts, which should or could be adapted in practice to new situations, whilst for a broad part of the Swiss people they are values, that are part of the identity of the country. What is the perception of other countries about such changing? Will Switzerland deserve the trust from other nations for further mediations, good offices and other amicable facilitations? Will Geneva remain a place for peace negotiations, humanitarian law and disarmament conferences? But also are the Swiss Authorities themselves still willing to be actively implied in amicable processes to preserve or reestablish the peace?
CONCLUSIONS : A SMALL ROOM FOR A GREAT DREAM
On the level of the ideas, neutrality does not seem compatible with dualist visions of the world supported by totalitarian Manichean ideologies, which divide the countries in two camps: the Good and the Evil, the democracies and the democratures, the Nord and the South. In a recent interview[1], Professor Pierre Blanc gives another analysis, distinguishing two movements : a necessity of regulation on one hand and a predation hubris on the other hand, with the conclusion that « the balance of power can not be favourable to predators States » because « their attitude is under the fire of criticism which increases in intensity »… « The world is shared between predators’ appetites and a thirst of regulation. But also between authoritarian excesses and requests for emancipation. » This analysis is fully compatible with a place for peace through mediation and other amicable approaches. It belongs therefore to Independent and Neutral Institutions and States to make sure the switch goes in the right way. Beginning by unifying their efforts to make possible the development and implementation of peace through mediation and other kinds of amicable processes, for instance in the frame of the Geneva Center for Neutrality.
[1] Pierre Blanc, « Les effets du multilatéralisme environnemental sont déjà là », Le Monde, Entretien, 15.06.25 page 8
Full vertion of the research: Peace through mediation: a challenge. Is there a room for efficient and sustainable peace agreements ?
By Jean A. Mirimanoff, Independent Mediator (FSM/SFM), Honorary Magistrate, former ICRC Legal Adviser
For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025
On June 26 and 27, an International Colloquium was held in Geneva on the theme “A Call for Action for Active Neutrality for World Peace.”
The symposium brought together nearly 90 participants, from 27 countries representing all continents. Held under the auspices of the Geneva Center for Neutrality (GCN), the symposium marked a pivotal step in the global effort to redefine the role of neutrality in the 21st century. It followed the 2024 International Congress on Neutrality in Bogotá and served as the International pre-Congress for Neutrlaity for the next Congress planned for 2026 — with Geneva among the potential host cities.
The participants agreed on a declaration listing the current challenges to world peace, as well as an action plan that includes
- Promoting the principle of neutrality as a form of active peacebuilding.
- Building global platforms of action to stop war, reclaiming the important role of neutrality. In this context, we are launching an international network of actors committed to neutrality, acting also as a permanent observatory of global neutrality practices.
- Drafting a United Nations declaration on active neutrality in the digital and cybersphere, with the goal of achieving international treaty on neutrality in the digital age, ensuring a lasting normative framework for digital peace.
- Launching a Swiss Digital Neutrality Label, a new benchmark for nations and organizations striving for trusted, secure, and resilient digital ecosystems.
- Claiming sovereignty and non-alignment as referents of neutrality
This ambitious agenda was shaped with the contribution of leading experts in diplomacy, cybersecurity, international law, and digital governance, who were specifically invited to explore innovative pathways toward technological neutrality and sovereign digital infrastructure.
The participants see neutrality as the cornerstone of a global governance framework that harmonizes the imperatives of peace, climate, and development.
Modern Neutrality Final Declaration
Action Agenda to Promote Active Neutrality
.jpg)
What is the key to a secure and peaceful future? Like its neighbor, Moldova and the breakaway region of Transnistria are ethnically diverse, complicating questions of national sentiment and strategic alignment... Moldova's best option at this critical juncture in the world's geopolitical evolution would be to formally declare its intention to remain neutral. With tensions between East and West resurfacing, it makes sense to expand the buffer zone...
https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/moldavie-eviter-de-devenir-une-nouvelle-ukraine
At the International Pre-Congress on Neutrality, held in Geneva in June this year, experts, academics, diplomats, and activists from 27 countries gathered to explore a pressing question: Is neutrality still possible in today’s world? Together, they examined how the principle of neutrality can be revitalized and reimagined as a tool for peace in the XXIst century.
The International Colloquium on Neutrality was convened under the auspices of the Geneva Centre for Neutrality, in collaboration with World Beyond War, the International Peace Bureau, the Transnational Institute, the Colombia Peace Agreement, the Global Veterans Peace Network (GVPN), and the Inter-University Network for Peace (REDIPAZ). A global call for active neutrality launched from Geneva reassessed and reaffirmed the value of neutrality in an increasingly polarized and militarized world.
The colloquium built upon the foundation laid at the 2024 International Congress on Neutrality in Bogotá and set the stage for the upcoming 2026 Congress. Its central outcome was Modern Neutrality Declaration and an accompanying Action Agenda to Promote Active Neutrality - documents that reflect a collective commitment to advancing neutrality as a dynamic, peace-oriented principle.
Five specialized focus groups explored key dimensions of neutrality: Current Neutrality Practices, Digital Neutrality in the Age of Cyberwarfare and AI Militarization, Neutrality and Media, Neutrality and Common Security in a Militarized World, Building a New Non-Aligned Movement. Moderators from each group collected insights, and formulated forward-looking strategies with practical recommendations, and calls to action.
GROUP 1. CURRENT NEUTRALITY PRACTICE.
Moderator – Katy Cojuhari, Head of International Cooperation Department, Geneva Center for Neutrality.
Global Neutrality in 2025:
● Europe: Neutrality is retreating, though not entirely abandoned, as alliance politics gain ground.
● Post-Soviet Space: Neutrality remains in limbo amid competing internal and external pressures.
● Asia: A nascent neutrality movement is emerging, with countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, ASEAN states, and Mongolia exploring or reaffirming non-alignment.
● South America: Costa Rica continues as a beacon of hope; several states have adopted ad-hoc neutrality during the Ukraine war.
Key Themes and Takeaways:
1.Redefining Neutrality: Neutrality is evolving beyond its legal roots, taking on political, philosophical, economic and strategic dimensions in a multipolar world. It involves a commitment to non-alignment, positive diplomacy, and legal engagement.
2. Global South Perspectives: Countries like Costa Rica exemplify a principled, demilitarized neutrality that contrasts with European models, highlighting the need for decolonizing international discourse.
3. Challenges in Europe: The retreat from neutrality in Europe, especially after the Ukraine conflict, raises concerns about militarization and the loss of alternatives to alliance politics.
4. Role of Civil Society: Grassroots movements across continents (Germany, Colombia, Australia) are advocating for neutrality as a means to prevent war and promote global stability. These efforts represent a form of “neutralism”— a normative commitment to peace without passivity.
5. Legal Complexity: The discussions underscored the legal intricacies of neutrality, especially regarding obligations under international humanitarian law versus unilateral declarations. Costa Rica, Turkmenistan, Austria and Switzerland were identified as states currently possessing internationally binding neutrality.
Key insights:
Rethinking Neutrality:
● Neutrality is not indifference. It represents an active commitment to peace, dialogue, and self-determination.
● Neutrality is not isolation. Neutral states can serve as mediators, conveners, and norm-setters in international affairs.
Diverse Models of Neutrality:
● Costa Rica: A global exemplar of legally binding, unilateral neutrality; no standing army since 1948; strictly non-aligned in moral and economic terms.
● Switzerland: Armed neutrality under pressure due to alignment with EU/U.S. sanctions; national referendum planned regarding its constitutional neutrality clause.
● Moldova: Constitutional neutrality threatened by political elites favoring NATO alignment, despite over 80% public support for neutrality.
● Austria and Ireland: Legal neutrality increasingly diluted by military cooperation with the EU and indirect NATO participation.
● Turkmenistan: UN-recognized neutrality since 1995, illustrating that neutrality is not exclusive to democratic states.
Current Risks:
● Instrumentalization of neutrality for geopolitical ends.
● Undermining neutrality through participation in economic or military sanctions, adopted or not sanctioned by the UN Security Council.
● Erosion of public trust when elite policies contradict constitutions or public sentiment.
● Absence of binding legal mechanisms at the international level to enforce or protect neutrality.
Recommendations.
Call to Action for States:
1.Clarify or codify neutrality in constitutional, legal frameworks and public debates.
2. Develop National Strategies for Peace: Invest in peaceful infrastructure not only security apparatus, including diplomacy, legal institutions, and humanitarian capacity
For Civil Society:
3. Promote neutrality through peace education, public dialogue, cultural nonalignment, conflict prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes.
4. Explain the values and benefits of neutrality through mainstream media, social media and civil society actors.
5. Create independent neutrality observatories to monitor state actions.
6. Support various neutrality initiatives (especially International Neutrality Day on 12th of December and UN resolutions related to neutrality) through grassroots campaigns, referenda, and public discourse.
The creation of an International Neutrality Platform, created at International Pre-Congress on Neutrality:
7. Convene an International Congress for Neutrality bringing together states, experts, and civil society actors.
8. Develop and launch a Global Neutrality Database to benchmark legal, policy, and perception-based aspects of neutrality.
9. Draft and promote a Model Charter of 21st Century Neutrality for voluntary adoption by states, civil society and by the United Nations.
GROUP2. DIGITAL NEUTRALITY IN THE AGE OF CYBER WARFARE AND AI MILITARIZATION
Moderator – Simon Janin, Digital Neutrality Department, Geneva Center for Neutrality.
PART 1. Digital Neutrality and Challenges.
Digital neutrality is defined as a nation’s ability to safeguard its digital infrastructure, data governance, and artificial intelligence (AI) systems from foreign manipulation or influence, ensuring autonomy in digital spaces. This autonomy is critical for maintaining a country's sovereignty, preventing populations from being let into conflicts against their interest, and preserving the democratic ability to determine their future. In today’s world, major corporations frequently function as extensions of geopolitical strategies, with their platforms becoming militarized tools of influence. Examples include: data-driven political manipulation and disinformation campaigns vis social media; surveillance infrastructure and AI-based automated systems that can be weaponized for mass control or conflict escalation.
Policy Recommendations:
- Advocate for a United Nations Declaration on Active Neutrality including digital and cyber neutrality.
- Develop national and regional frameworks to regulate AI and autonomous weapons systems.
- Launch the Digital Neutrality Label project, which will be proposed as a Geneva standard for countries and organizations seeking a sustainable and secure digital future.
- Establish institutional alliances among civil society and government actors engaged in active neutrality worldwide.
Strategic Alliances. Collaborations should actively involve: universities and research institutes; International think-tanks and NGOs; Technology-focused civil society groups; Relevant international organizations (UN, UNESCO, OECD).
PART 2. Cyberspace and AI.
1. Active Neutrality:
○ Neutrality must be actively promoted and defended, as cyberspace is dynamic and actors constantly seek to exploit or undermine neutral stances.
○ Passive neutrality is insufficient given the proactive threats in cyberspace.
2. Attribution Challenges:
○ Estblishing accountability in cyberspace is inherently difficult due to technological complexity, dual-use nature of tools, and the role of non-state actors.
○ Precise attribution of cyber attacks is often challenging, complicating enforcement and response.
3. International Norms and Treaties:
Currently, there is no binding international legal framework specifically addressing digital neutrality or AI militarization. Proposal includes clear international norms, legally binding treaties, and diplomatic agreements specific to cyberspace and AI.
4. Switzerland's Role in International Law:
○ Switzerland should leverage its neutrality tradition and global reputation to lead discussions and possibly establish certification standards and ethical governance guidelines for AI, particularly military applications.
○ Switzerland could serve as a model country for digital neutrality, providing frameworks for technology governance and attracting global partnerships.
5. Startup and Innovation Ecosystem:
Switzerland should foster Silicon Valley-style ecosystems with strong network effects under special regulatory frameworks or sandboxes. The creation of agile, adaptable legal frameworks can encourage innovation, investment, and technological growth without compromising broader regulatory standards.
6. Decentralized Systems and Practical Steps:
Encouragement of decentralized payment and information exchange systems as demonstrated by practical, government independent technological innovations (e.g., transactions in space).
7. Neutrality Advocacy in Big Tech:
○ Promote neutrality through internal advocacy within Big Tech, challenging technological support for militarization or unethical applications of technology.
○ Focus public awareness campaigns on the importance and practicality of active neutrality, peace, and diplomacy as viable alternatives to militarization.
8. Counteracting Propaganda: Actively counter propaganda from military alliances which seeks to portray militarization as progressive or necessary.
9. Incremental and Pragmatic Implementation:
○ Adopt an entrepreneurial mindset—implementing quick, pragmatic steps that can adapt rapidly to technological and geopolitical changes.
○ Establish a clear roadmap with small targets and scalable successes that build toward larger neutrality goals.
10. Interdisciplinary and International Collaboration:
○ Actively facilitate interdisciplinary expert discussions involving legal, technological, ethical, and business perspectives.
○ Prioritize international collaboration to create consensus- driven definitions, norms, and enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion.
Switzerland has a unique opportunity to lead in shaping active digital neutrality and ethical AI governance by leveraging its historical neutrality, technological expertise, and robust legal frameworks. The creation of specialized innovation ecosystems and international treaties is essential to navigate the complexities of modern cyberspace effectively.
GROUP 3. NEUTRALITY AND THE MEDIA
Moderator – Tim Pluta, Global Veterans Peace Network.
Current Challenges and Observations:
1. Political Bias in Media.
Media often aligns with existing imbalances in power structures, reinforcing political agendas and deepening social divisions.
2. Manipulation of Public Sentiment.
There is a growing disconnect between political actions and the will of the people. Media is frequently used to manipulate emotions by spreading fear, hatred, and polarising narratives.
3. Monopoly on Truth.
Mainstream media tends to present itself as the sole authority on truth, marginalising alternative perspectives and voices.
Proposals and Recommendations:
1. Awareness & Culture.
• Create awareness and foster a culture of curiosity around active neutrality and its societal benefits.
• Promote the use of the term “active neutrality” in public and private conversations to normalize and expand understanding.
2. Education & Guidelines.
• Develop a neutrality vocabulary and curriculum tailored to various audiences (politicians, activists, educators, general public etc.).
• Create an educational program that defines active neutrality in political, legal, social, and even spiritual terms.
• Provide recommendations to media professionals to encourage pluralism and eliminate dehumanizing language, fear-mongering, and hate speech.
3. Platforms & Engagement.
• Launch an open, decentralized platform or news channel focused on active neutrality.
• Establish citizen journalism initiatives and online communities centered on neutral reporting and civic media literacy.
• Include media representatives in dialogue circles on active neutrality.
• Conduct public surveys to explore how people perceive active neutrality and whether they value it.
Institutional Strategy:
We propose forming an Active Neutrality Media Expert Team under the Geneva Center for Neutrality, composed of: social media specialists, psychologists and neuro-linguists, youth representatives, journalists, IT-specialists, etc.
This interdisciplinary team would interact to:
• Develop a strategic media campaign around active neutrality;
• Design and implement educational initiatives;
• Foster youth engagement in the media and peace narrative.
To paraphrase Barbara Marx Hubbard, we believe: “We need a neutral media room as sophisticated as the war media room.” This report is a collective call to bring active neutrality to the table — not only as a principle but as a practice embedded in how we inform, educate, and engage society.
GROUP 4. NEUTRALITY AND COMMON SECURITY IN A MILITARIZED WORLD.
Moderator – Emily Molinari, Deputy Executive Director at the International Peace Bureau.
Introduction
This focus group explored the relevance and application of neutrality and common security in today’s increasingly militarized geopolitical landscape.
Key Themes:
1. Redefining Neutrality
Neutrality should not mean silence or inaction. Participants emphasized the need for a new model of engaged neutrality; it must uphold peace, human rights, and international law. Switzerland was often cited, though its model of “armed neutrality” was challenged as contradictory.
2. Legal Dimensions
Neutrality is rooted in customary international law, but remains fragile in the context of the UN’s collective security system. Key legal principles include: non-participation in conflict and impartiality; maintenance of economic relations (excluding arms trade); obligation to avoid escalation and allow humanitarian aid; engagement in diplomacy, mediation, and good offices. Participants discussed whether a binding treaty on neutrality could strengthen these norms.
3. Common Security Framework
Common security — mutual, cooperative security — was reaffirmed as an alternative to deterrence and arms races. It relies on disarmament, trust, and diplomacy. The group stressed links between common security, social justice, and climate resilience.
4. Economic Neutrality, Militarization, and Sovereignty
Neutrality must extend beyond military alliances to economic structures: reduce dependence on arms industries and extractive economies; oppose coercive trade practices by great powers; strengthen economic sovereignty, especially in the Global South. Militarization undermines national and community sovereignty. Neutral states are often pressured into alliances or bloc politics, eroding their impartial roles. Some participants criticized NATO expansion, hybrid threats, and economic coercion.
5. Private Sector & Media
Participants noted that militarism is often supported by business and media, while peace work remains under-resourced. Proposals included: fostering a peace economy and ethical business practices; promoting peace-oriented journalism; countering disinformation and propaganda.
Illustrative Cases and Proposals:
- Costa Rica: A key example of successful demilitarization — post-military investment in education and healthcare helped anchor its neutral, peaceful stance.
- Switzerland: Raised internal tensions around armed neutrality and civil disobedience (e.g. CO debates, TPNW campaign).
- Non-state actors: Movements like MINGA and ISM illustrate the role of grassroots solidarity in peacebuilding.
- New ideas: Proposals included the creation of a “Neutrality Observatory” to monitor violations and a business-peacebuilding network to promote ethical alternatives.
Recommendations:
- Promote engaged neutrality as a proactive and legitimate framework for peace and diplomacy across all actors.
- Open discussion on neutrality concerning autonomous groups, territories, and minority populations, recognizing their unique positions and challenges.
- Highlight the benefits of neutrality for States:
- Not being involved in conflict, being protected from it, and maintaining economic relations with all parties involved in a conflict.
- Credibly exercise the duty of impartiality, meaning treating all conflict parties equally and refraining from influencing the conflict’s outcome.
- Encourage neutrals to actively engage in humanitarian aid, diplomacy, mediation, and good offices, leveraging their impartial status for constructive involvement.
- Support initiatives calling for reductions in global military spending, strengthening arms control and disarmament treaties, and reinvesting those resources into social welfare, climate action, and peace infrastructure.
- Advance economic neutrality, encouraging states to divest from the military-industrial complex, invest in human security, and prioritize economic sovereignty, especially in the Global South.
- Invest in nonviolent civilian defense strategies, such as: civil resistance training; peace education programs; support for conscientious objectors; development of national institutions dedicated to disarmament and peacebuilding.
- Possibility to foster cooperation between peace organizations and some actors of the private sector, including the creation of a peace economy network and incentives for ethical business practices aligned with peace and sustainability goals.
- Establish a Neutrality Observatory to: monitor violations of neutrality and international law; produce independent reports; support advocacy at the UN, EU, and regional bodies.
- Strengthen critical journalism and media literacy by supporting disinformation monitoring initiatives, promoting independent, peace-oriented reporting, and raising public awareness on the links between militarization, media, and public opinion.
GROUP 5. BUILDING A NEW NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT.
Moderator – Gabriel Aguirre, coordinator of the international Congress for Neutrality (Colombia), South American branch of the World Beyond War.
1. Purpose of the Meeting
This focus group was convened to explore the possibility of a new Non-Aligned Movement beyond the traditional state-based model. A global civil society-centred approach was proposed, with a view to building tools for peace and social justice in the context of current conflicts and systemic crises.
2. Criticisms of the Traditional Model of Non-Alignment.
a. The term "non-aligned" is seen by many participants as obsolete, inherited from the Cold War, so we suggest not speaking of Non-Aligned, but of Active Neutrality.
b. Its usefulness is questioned in the face of a contemporary multipolar world, where conflicts are no longer explained solely in terms of East vs. West.
c. It is proposed to replace the notion of “state neutrality” with people’s diplomacy.
3. Emerging Key Themes.
a. People's Diplomacy:
● A form of diplomacy is promoted that does not depend on governments or state interests.
● An international network is being sought that brings together social organizations, communities, indigenous peoples, and grassroots movements to address militarization, colonialism, and the climate crisis.
b. Criticisms of Global Militarization:
● Military spending is denounced as the most polluting activity on the planet.
● Multiple conflicts, especially in Palestine and Ukraine, are identified as examples of the failure of the current international system and the urgent need for a global ceasefire.
c. Rights of Future Generations:
● defence of future generations is incorporated as a new axis of international political thought.
● It is mentioned that this approach must include ecological, climate and intergenerational justice rights.
● Defending plurality is understood as an important value, in order to respect the views of others, not just those of a particular individual, and thus respect diversity, in order to overcome racism and xenophobia.
d. Reparations and historical justice
Participants from Africa and Latin America spoke about the need for reparations for the historical damage caused by colonialism, wars, and unilateral economic sanctions that continue to affect entire populations.
4. Cases Analysed.
Palestine: Considered a symbol of modern genocide and the moral failure of the international community. It is argued that a simple ceasefire is not sufficient if there is no active pressure for lasting justice.
Colombia: The armed conflict and peace agreements are analyzed from a structural perspective. It is emphasized that without social justice, the end of armed violence will not be sustainable.
Venezuela: Economic sanctions are denounced as a form of indirect warfare, with devastating effects on the civilian population, especially on health and nutrition.
5. Strategic Proposals.
a. Promote modern neutrality as defender of sovereignty and uphold the principle of non-alignment.
b. Reshape the international system, beyond the UN and the States.
c. Create a decentralized, non-hierarchical and plural movement.
d. Focus on peace, demilitarization, decolonization and self-determination.
e. Develop a proactive narrative of neutrality as action for peace, not passivity.
f. Defend Active Neutrality to build bridges between peoples, with the fundamental role of civil society.
Conclusion
The group proposed building a new international paradigm from below, where neutrality is not indifference, but an ethical stance in the face of injustice. It aims to articulate a grassroots transnational movement focused on nonviolent action, global justice, environmental sustainability, and the self-determination of peoples. Neutrality should not be understood under a double standard; it should be applied equally to all countries, social movements, communities, etc.
The International Colloquium on Neutrality: A call to action for active neutrality and world peace, 26th and 27th of June, 2025.
The comprehensive analysis by Dr. Edward Horgan, an Irish peace activist and former army commandant, presents a deeply researched and passionate case for positive, active neutrality as a viable and necessary alternative to militarism and war in the 21st century.
Drawing from history, international law, Irish constitutional principles, and moral philosophy, the author critiques Ireland’s drift from neutrality—especially through US military use of Shannon Airport, complicity in war crimes, and proposed abandonment of the Triple Lock (government, Dáil, and UN approval for military missions). Horgan argues that such shifts endanger Irish sovereignty, violate international humanitarian law, and make Ireland complicit in global violence.
The research also highlights:
- The history and types of neutrality (constitutional, active, default, etc.);
- The erosion of the UN and EU as peace-building institutions;
- The environmental and human costs of global militarism;
- Ireland’s role in UN peacekeeping and the potential of unarmed civilian peacekeeping;
- The global legal frameworks (e.g., Hague, Geneva, Genocide Conventions) being undermined by powerful states.
Horgan makes a compelling ethical and legal argument that active neutrality, grounded in international law and humanitarian values, should be central to Ireland’s identity and foreign policy—and part of a broader global movement for peace, justice, and demilitarization.
Full version: NEUTRALITY FOR PEACE AND HUMANITY ALTERNATIVE TO MILITARISM AND WAR
By Dr. Edward Horgan, a former Irish Army commandant, who served with UN peacekeeping missions in Cyprus and the Middle East in the 1960s and 1970s. He is a committed peace activist with Shannonwatch, member of the Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance, founder member of Veterans For Peace Ireland, and Veterans Global Peace Network, and member of the board of directors of World Beyond War.
Discussed during the International Colloquium on Neutrality: A call to action for active neutrality and world peace, 26th and 27th of June, 2025.
Switzerland along its long history has experienced different, interactive and evolving kinds of neutrality. In their first Alliance Convention (1291) the three cantons’ representatives introduced the duty for them to refrain from participating in disputes of the other, but to encourage and help them to achieve amicable agreement. The objective is to preserve the inside security and unity.
Soon joined during the next centuries by other cantons, the successive Alliance Conventions were concluded each time with the same approach : the duty to refrain from participating in the internal dispute inside the Alliance is conceived to protected this union. The third and not implicated canton is invited to « mediate », in order to reestablish interior peace and avoid external intervention. Neutrality linked with mediation has a (self)protection objective (passive neutrality). This idea was more developed when Basel Canton joined the Alliance (1501) : the duty to refrain from participating in dispute is clearly connected with the duty to intervene as a third party to find amicable solution. Moreover, Basel was called to « mediate » a dispute between a canton member of the union, Bern, and a non-member at the time, Geneva, and they reach an effective and sustainable agreement, after negotiations facilitated by the third (a Basel representative ; le Départ de Bâle de 1544). It looks like a first esquisse of the pacification objective, which developed as the active neutrality during the decades following the second world war.
The intercantonal Agreement called « Le Défensional de Wil » (1647) forbids the cantons to intervene militarily also outside of the Alliance, in the dispute between other Countries. The aim was to avoid though neutrality and independence external interferences and to protect against themselves. Refraining from participating into the 30 Years War (1618-1648), the cantons preserved at the same time external intervention and internal disputes, sparing a lot of population slaughters, cities, crops, harvests and other unlimited destructions, and losses of territories. This objective of protection was reflected also in the peace treaties of Paris and Vienna (1815) which recognised the Swiss neutrality and independence in the interest of Europa and Switzerland. That was also the common objective of the Parties to these treaties and of Swiss Cantons.
This neutrality of protection was completed by the neutrality of pacification (or active neutrality) after 1945 till the years 2010, with the Swiss Good Offices : Evian Agreement (1962 Algeria independence), first conflicts between USA and Iran, Russia and Georgia, Geneva Initiative (2003, facilitate a two-States peace plan), and encouraging mediations in internal armed conflicts in South America and Africa.
Contributing to build the peace was the Swiss software. But this constructive practice of neutrality seems having lost its importance this last decade for Swiss Authorities. Trough outside and inside pressures it have been few and few put in drawers, in the frame of the events in East Europa as of 2014 and in the Middle East.
The need of security prevails among Swiss Authorities. Thus, they introduced new practices and ideas, with an « original » new concept of neutrality : a so called cooperative neutrality, implying several agreements concluded with the NATO. An oxymoron ! Though it might have and has of course an impact on the trust in Switzerland, perceived as a country having lost or suspended its neutrality and independence.
For the Swiss Authorities, independence and neutrality are political and legal concepts, which should or could be adapted in practice to new situations, whilst for a broad part of the Swiss people they are values, that are part of the identity of the country. What is the perception of other countries about such changing? Will Switzerland deserve the trust from other nations for further mediations, good offices and other amicable facilitations? Will Geneva remain a place for peace negotiations, humanitarian law and disarmament conferences? But also are the Swiss Authorities themselves still willing to be actively implied in amicable processes to preserve or reestablish the peace?
CONCLUSIONS : A SMALL ROOM FOR A GREAT DREAM
On the level of the ideas, neutrality does not seem compatible with dualist visions of the world supported by totalitarian Manichean ideologies, which divide the countries in two camps: the Good and the Evil, the democracies and the democratures, the Nord and the South. In a recent interview[1], Professor Pierre Blanc gives another analysis, distinguishing two movements : a necessity of regulation on one hand and a predation hubris on the other hand, with the conclusion that « the balance of power can not be favourable to predators States » because « their attitude is under the fire of criticism which increases in intensity »… « The world is shared between predators’ appetites and a thirst of regulation. But also between authoritarian excesses and requests for emancipation. » This analysis is fully compatible with a place for peace through mediation and other amicable approaches. It belongs therefore to Independent and Neutral Institutions and States to make sure the switch goes in the right way. Beginning by unifying their efforts to make possible the development and implementation of peace through mediation and other kinds of amicable processes, for instance in the frame of the Geneva Center for Neutrality.
[1] Pierre Blanc, « Les effets du multilatéralisme environnemental sont déjà là », Le Monde, Entretien, 15.06.25 page 8
Full vertion of the research: Peace through mediation: a challenge. Is there a room for efficient and sustainable peace agreements ?
By Jean A. Mirimanoff, Independent Mediator (FSM/SFM), Honorary Magistrate, former ICRC Legal Adviser
For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025
What is the key to a secure and peaceful future? Like its neighbor, Moldova and the breakaway region of Transnistria are ethnically diverse, complicating questions of national sentiment and strategic alignment... Moldova's best option at this critical juncture in the world's geopolitical evolution would be to formally declare its intention to remain neutral. With tensions between East and West resurfacing, it makes sense to expand the buffer zone...
https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/moldavie-eviter-de-devenir-une-nouvelle-ukraine
On June 26 and 27, an International Colloquium was held in Geneva on the theme “A Call for Action for Active Neutrality for World Peace.”
The symposium brought together nearly 90 participants, from 27 countries representing all continents. Held under the auspices of the Geneva Center for Neutrality (GCN), the symposium marked a pivotal step in the global effort to redefine the role of neutrality in the 21st century. It followed the 2024 International Congress on Neutrality in Bogotá and served as the International pre-Congress for Neutrlaity for the next Congress planned for 2026 — with Geneva among the potential host cities.
The participants agreed on a declaration listing the current challenges to world peace, as well as an action plan that includes
- Promoting the principle of neutrality as a form of active peacebuilding.
- Building global platforms of action to stop war, reclaiming the important role of neutrality. In this context, we are launching an international network of actors committed to neutrality, acting also as a permanent observatory of global neutrality practices.
- Drafting a United Nations declaration on active neutrality in the digital and cybersphere, with the goal of achieving international treaty on neutrality in the digital age, ensuring a lasting normative framework for digital peace.
- Launching a Swiss Digital Neutrality Label, a new benchmark for nations and organizations striving for trusted, secure, and resilient digital ecosystems.
- Claiming sovereignty and non-alignment as referents of neutrality
This ambitious agenda was shaped with the contribution of leading experts in diplomacy, cybersecurity, international law, and digital governance, who were specifically invited to explore innovative pathways toward technological neutrality and sovereign digital infrastructure.
The participants see neutrality as the cornerstone of a global governance framework that harmonizes the imperatives of peace, climate, and development.
Modern Neutrality Final Declaration
Action Agenda to Promote Active Neutrality
What is the key to a secure and peaceful future? Like its neighbor, Moldova and the breakaway region of Transnistria are ethnically diverse, complicating questions of national sentiment and strategic alignment... Moldova's best option at this critical juncture in the world's geopolitical evolution would be to formally declare its intention to remain neutral. With tensions between East and West resurfacing, it makes sense to expand the buffer zone...
https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/moldavie-eviter-de-devenir-une-nouvelle-ukraine