• EN
  • FR
  • DE
Agenda
Stay Updated on Our Upcoming Events and Activities
Explore our calendar of discussions, conferences, and public forums dedicated to neutrality and diplomacy
Event Calendar
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Research & Insights
Filters
August 5, 2025
International Colloquium on Neutrality: ideas, conclusions, and recommendations
Geneva Center for Neutrality

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 abandonedas 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.

Research and analysis
August 4, 2025
Neutrality for peace and humanity. Irish view
Dr. Edward Horgan, International secretary of the Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance, founder of Veterans For Peace Ireland

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.

Research and analysis
August 2, 2025
Is Costa Rica the only neutral country in the world?
Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños, Lawyer

Although a discomforting header, it’s a true one, if we are talking about international law.

Costa Rica’s neutrality is unique in the world, and, despite the colonial eurocentrism that still remains in the international concert, should be taken as model and threshold.

To clarify the introduction, a few precisions must be made. Ireland, Switzerland and Austria, despite the legal debates, reject any international effect of their neutrality. They all claim their neutrality to be a matter of domestic policy. Neither Switzerland nor Ireland includes any constitutional provision about their neutrality. Austria is constitutionally neutral, but also claims that the provision does not raise any international consequences.

All other currently neutral States have included neutrality in their constitutions, as a matter of domestic law.

Costa Rica is the only State in the world that has established its neutrality as a binding obligation under international law, as it was established through a unilateral act of international law. Moreover, Costa Rica has not neglected this international obligation, unlike its European similes. 

It is to be noted that neutrality in international law had a dramatic change after 1945 when the UN Charter introduced the prohibition on the use of force and the recognition of sovereignty and independence of core attributes of any and every State. Once reserved for Treaty obligations, States began adopting neutrality domestically, as provisions of internal law, mostly constitutionally established.

Of all the States that have adopted neutrality in the UN era, Costa Rica’s neutrality stands on top of the rest, demonstrating dignity and bravery, sovereignty and independence. At this point it is fundamental to briefly review the historical circumstances that led to Costa Rica’s neutrality declaration.

Costa Rica has had a long history of neutrality in foreign affairs. Records go back to independence times, in 1821. In other words, Costa Rica has always been neutral towards conflicts of others. In the late 1970s, the Cold War was heating up in Latin America. Nicaragua became a hotspot due to the pro-communist Sandinista revolution that took control of the country. The American, unwilling to “allow commies in their backyard”, decided to launch a counter-revolutionary operation to overthrow the Sandinista regime.  The operation was led by the “Contras” a paramilitary group funded, supported and trained by the CIA. They settled in El Salvador and Honduras, launching attacks on Nicaragua from the north. In an attempt to also attack the Sandinistas from the south, the US began putting pressure on Costa Rica to allow the CIA-funded Contras to settle on the Costa Rican side of the border with Nicaragua. In an attempt to defend Costa Rica’s independence, sovereignty and dignity, while remaining out of the conflict, on November 16th, 1983, President Luis Alberto Monge issued a unilateral act of international law by which he made Costa Rica neutral under international law, putting the country in a position where it would have been illegal for Costa Rica to accede at the Americans’ request.

Costa Rica made it openly public to the world that it had acquired an international obligation to be and remain perpetually neutral, with some particular characteristics.

1). Costa Rica’s neutrality is part of a broader foreign policy. The policy of Peace.

2). Costa Rica’s neutrality is perpetual and non-interrupted, as we have solemnly renounced war forever.

3). Costa Rica’s neutrality is unarmed. Costa Rica abolish its military in 1948, 45 years prior to the neutrality declaration. Costa Rica reiterated its absolute rejection to the participation in any armed conflict, including its own invasion. We are not waging war. No matter what, we are not fighting. 

4). Costa Rica’s neutrality is fully unilateral, we didn’t request recognition or required such thing. We became neutral because as a sovereign and independent nation we are free to establish our own foreign policy, without any need to ask permission or recognition from any other State. 

5). Costa Rica’s neutrality is an expression of the people’s self-determination.

6). Costa Rica’s neutrality prohibits ANY kind of support or relation to any belligerent, to avoid apparent breaches of the neutrality obligations.

For the rest, Costa Rica’s neutrality also includes the traditional obligations derived from neutrality: impartiality, not to start or participate in any war, the prohibition of transit or stationing of foreign military with hostile intent, and the obligation to defend neutrality itself.

Costa Rica’s neutrality is, by far, the best practice of neutrality in the world. It offers the highest threshold and closer adheres to the global goal of international peace.

By Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños, Lawyer, Costa Rica.

For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025

Research and analysis
August 2, 2025
A world on the brink of conflict: reflections on militarization and peace
Raudemar Ofunshi Hernandez, president of the Colombia Acuerdo de Paz NGO

The current situation of the world is very turbulent and dangerous: the crises in the Middle East, Ukraine, Colombia, Sudan, and other African countries. Instead of doubling efforts to achieve peace through political negotiations and diplomacy, we are assisting the contrary. As it was in the case of Iran, there exists the belief that we can bomb a conflict to halt it. In Ukraine, peace is being delayed by a president clinging to power who counts on support from European governments who, in the past, advocated for peace, and who currently tie themselves to militarism, underestimating the large manifestations, which time and time again are produced against the resurgence of neoliberalism in all its magnitude.

On the 28th of April, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published a concerning report. It was reported that the global military spending reached 2.718 trillion dollars in 2024. This represents a 9.4% increase in real terms compared to 2023, the steepest annual increase since the Cold War. Military spending grew in all regions of the world, with the sharp increase in Europe and the Middle East being particularly noticeable. The five countries with the largest military budgets - The United States, China, Russia, Germany, and India - accounted for 60% of the global total, with a combined expenditure of 1.635 trillion dollars.

The organization adds that “more than 100 countries augmented their military spending in 2024. SIPRI adds that as governments increasingly prioritize military security, at the expense of other social necessities, this will have a negative economic and social impact. They report that “military spending in Europe (including Russia) increased by 17%, reaching $693 billion, and was the main driver of the global increase in 2024”.

At the NATO meeting which gathered 31 countries this week, it was agreed that its members must increase their defense spending by 5% of gross domestic product by 2035; this would mean that “3.5% of GDP should be spent on ‘pure’ defense, with an additional 1.5% of GDP allocated to to security-related infrastructure, such as cyberwarfare and intelligence capabilities”. In 2024, Poland increased its spending by 38%, Germany by 34%, France by 6.1%, and the United Kingdom by 2.8%. Currently, the United Kingdom is the 6th largest defense spender in the world, while France is the 9th. Much of the increase in Europe is related to the fear that Russia will attempt to expand into Europe, and that the United States could withdraw from NATO due to President Trump’s rhetoric.

Governments, politicians, and militarists argue that this has a deterrent effect that prevents or mitigates armed conflict. However, academic studies have shown that the opposite occurs: this can lead to arms competitions between countries that only increase the risk of war. Furthermore, these augmentations increase tensions, create cycles of escalation, and divert resources from essential sectors. Diverting said resources can augment inequality, generate social and political conflicts, leading to tensions and violence that destabilize countries economically, making them more vulnerable to manipulation by external actors and their wars. It can also result in countries falling into debt, which can lead to financial problems for the nations in question. Countries with large defense budgets tend to experience an increase in corruption.

In a world where natural disasters are increasing due to global warming, with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, intensifying droughts and floods, and the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires, which have resulted in increased human migration and food insecurity, it is self-destructive to increase defense spending and elevate the risks of conflict, violence, and war. The UN has warned that Europe is the continent where global warming is increasing most rapidly, and heat waves have increased deaths by 30%.

Alongside the increase of militaristic budgets, we see a deterioration in laws of war, especially humanitarian ones, and the UN’s incapacity to sanction and prevent abuses when it comes to countries that are permanent members of the UN or its allies. The most egregious example has been the violations committed by Israel since the 7th of October against the Palestinian people. It is reported that at least 55,000 Palestinians have died (more than 22,000 men, more than 15,000 children, more than 8,000 women, and more than 3,000 elderly) and more than 129,000 have been injured. The entire population experiences food insecurity, and Israel blocks humanitarian aid. Netanyahu’s strategy, due to his political weakness, has been to attack Iran and involve the U.S. in the stabilization of the Middle East and the world.

Today, there are more than 130 armed conflicts classified by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Grave violations of international humanitarian law by illegal armed groups are being observed in Colombia, the department of the Cauca, and other regions, such as Sudan, where war crimes are being committed. Europe, which played an important role in global peace after the Second World War, now faces warmongering governments. Therefore, we must continue working to expand global support for the concept of neutrality and seek peaceful, negotiated solutions to conflicts.

By Raudemar Ofunshi Hernandez, president of the Colombia Acuerdo de Paz NGO.

For the Intenarional Colloquium on Neutrality: A call to action for active neutrality and world peace, 26th and 27th of June, 2025.

Research and analysis
August 1, 2025
Peace through mediation: a challenge. Is there a room for efficient and sustainable peace agreements?
Jean A. Mirimanoff, Independent Mediator (FSM/SFM), Honorary Magistrate, former ICRC Legal Adviser

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

Research and analysis
July 22, 2025
Moldova’s permanent neutrality: key challenges in a shifting geopolitical landscape
Tsvyatkov Nikolay, PhD (Habil.), Professor of Political Science

The Republic of Moldova is a small European country caught between powerful regional dynamics, that declared itself as a permanently neutral state in 1994, shortly after gaining independence from the Soviet Union. Yet, three decades later, we are still grappling with what this neutrality truly means and how to uphold it in a very unstable world. So far, there are five main challenges that Moldova faces in maintaining and strengthening its neutral status:

1. War on Our Border: Regional Insecurity

Today, Moldova shares a border with a country at war – Ukraine. This war has brought instability, fear, and economic disruption to the entire region. In such a context, neutrality becomes a daily test and it is no longer just a legal term. Neutrality becomes harder to maintain when peace is shattered next door.

2. Foreign Influence and Complex Threats

Modern threats go far beyond tanks and missiles. Moldova is facing foreign political interference, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns from various external actors.

Neutrality must not mean passivity. It must empower us to resist non-military interference and protect the country. But there’s a danger: powerful states may use Moldova’s neutrality as an excuse to keep us in a kind of geopolitical uncertainty, where we’re too weak to choose our own future.

3. Weakness that creates Opportunities 

Moldova’s military capacity is small and underfunded, civil protection systems, from emergency response to infrastructure resilience, are not yet strong enough. Without adopting a clear legal framework for neutrality (Strategy for National Security, Permanent neutrality Law, etc.), our status risks being seen not as a strength, but as a weakness that creates opportunity for others to exploit it.

4. Lack of Clear Definition and Strategy

Yes, neutrality is mentioned in our Constitution, 11th article. But what does it actually mean in today’s world? In Moldova, we still lack a solid legal or institutional framework that defines how neutrality should work, especially when facing complex, multidomain threats. This ambiguity creates confusion among policymakers, citizens, and international partners. We urgently need clarity: What is neutrality in practice? And how can it protect us in a world of complex, non-traditional threats? These key points were described into clear, accessible, and engaging language for an international audience not familiar with Moldova within the books “Neutrality: brief manual” and “Sovereignty: brief manual”, published in 2023-2024. 

5. Divided Public Opinion and Political Will

Perhaps the most difficult challenge is the difference between policymakers and the common people. In Moldova, people and politicians are not united in how they understand neutrality. Absolute majority of the population is consolidated to keep neutrality status, but actual ruling party is considering EU defense policy as a basic position.  

A call for neutrality

In this context it is essential to respect sovereignty principle as a shield to keep us in peace. Others question whether it isolates us from much-needed partnerships. That’s why it’s critical to build national consensus: without unity at home, neutrality cannot be credible abroad. To achieve this, we need:

  1. Stronger laws and institutions,
  2. Honest public dialogue and civic education,
  3. Independent research and international support.

Let us remember: neutrality, when done right, is not a retreat from the world. It is a moral and strategic choice to uphold peace in a time of war.

Tsvyatkov Nikolay, PhD (Habil.), Professor of Political Science

For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025

Sources:

  • Tsvyatkov N., Tcaci A., Banari S. Neutrality: brief manual. Chisinau, 2023
  • Tsvyatkov N., Tcaci A., Cojuhari E. Sovereignty: brief manual. Chisinau, 2024
Research and analysis
July 21, 2025
Intranational pre-Congress for Neutrality
Geneva Center for Neutrality

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

 

GCN articles and news
July 21, 2025
Debating neutrality in the new era
Gergely Varga (PhD), security policy expert

Core pillars of neutrality 

The era of geopolitical confrontation and multipolarity has returned — as has the debate about neutrality. As powerful international actors increasingly question the framework and substance of the liberal world order, traditionally neutral countries such as Switzerland are experiencing internal and external pressure to redefine their concept of neutrality. Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Geneva Center for Neutrality held its first major international conference on July 26-27th to initiate a dialogue about the future of neutrality among various civil society stakeholders.

The two-day conference reaffirmed, that fundamental questions of the future of neutrality still revolve around two traditional principles of neutral states: impartiality and the defense of international norms. Tensions between these two principles are nothing new, but with the liberal world order increasingly under pressure, they will be at the forefront of debates on neutrality.  

Since neutrality has always been relational — an impartial stance toward opposing sides in interstate conflicts, major international powers, or alliances — maintaining this feature is paramount to neutrality. Without it, the credibility of neutrality is called into question. However, recognition of neutrality by other countries is also a fundamental condition of this status. This presupposes respect for basic international rules by all parties, particularly those connected to the status of neutral countries. For neutrality to be viable, external powers must not threaten or violate the sovereignty or territorial integrity of a neutral state.

So, what is causing the increasing tension between these core pillars of neutrality?

Progressive vs. traditional neutrality  

Traditional neutrality, especially that of Switzerland, entails two basic international functions: good offices and humanitarian efforts. During the Cold War, these functions of neutral states found common ground with the non-alignment movement on many issues, such as keeping a distance from the two major geopolitical blocs' military and defense affairs, multilateralism, an emphasis on international development and humanitarian aid, and the promotion of arms control and disarmament initiatives.

With wars and great-power competition accelerating, the non-aligned movement is gaining traction again, with some of its old features reappearing in a new form, including anti-Americanism, anti-colonialism, and pro-Palestine sentiment. At the same time, some NGOs involved in peace and mediation activities are expanding the concept of neutrality with objectives related to social justice progressive ideas under the banner of active neutrality. 

Conversely, other supporters of neutrality usually emphasize the importance of maintaining national sovereignty, including the capacity to protect neutrality with armed forces, and at the same time, this approach usually seeks to restrict neutrality to its traditional humanitarian and meditation roles.   

The dilemma 

However, neither approach can avoid being challenged by the fundamental question of neutrality in an increasingly conflict-ridden world: How should one relate to perceived or real aggressors and major violators of fundamental human rights? Should they keep options for mediation and good offices open to help diplomatically resolve conflicts, or should they take punitive measures against violators in defense of international norms? Prioritize upholding universal normative principles, or take a more realist approach, prioritizing mediation and good offices? 

This dilemma also highlights the difficulty of defining clear boundaries between humanitarian efforts and the promotion of second-, third-, or fourth-generation human rights or social justice causes - not to mention the challenge of finding the right neutral approach between such principles and legitimate state security interests regarding armed conflicts.

Without a general answer to these questions, we must be aware that the broader the concept of neutrality is defined, the weaker its ability to exercise its core functions of good offices and impartial humanitarianism will be. This is especially true in a multipolar world, where countries with distinct cultures and value systems will have a greater influence on world affairs, while the appeal of Western liberal democracy and some of its values is declining in many places around the World.

Geopolitics and economic neutrality 

Furthermore, the intensifying rivalry between the US and China in geopolitical, military, economic, and technological domains raises another major issue for neutrality: economic and technological neutrality. This presents a challenge not only to countries in the Global South and developed East Asian nations seeking to maintain economic relations with all major economies, but also to members of the European Union. Can geopolitics be detached from geoeconomics? Is technological neutrality possible in the age of AI, advanced robotics, the Internet of Things, or gene engineering? There are no clear answers to these fundamental questions. 

No one size fits all for neutrality 

Ultimately, it is up to each country that aspires to remain or become neutral to define its own concept of neutrality and its role in the international arena based on its geopolitical attributes, its historical experience, its political culture. If the concept of neutrality is defined through a bottom-up, inclusive approach in each relevant country, then there surely is no one-size-fits-all solution. However, the whole international community could benefit from an intensified dialogue and building partnerships among relevant international stakeholders to share ideas and create pathways for neutrality. 

The Geneva Center for Neutrality is an excellent platform for this purpose. 

Gergely Varga (PhD) is a security policy expert with a focus on European security and transatlantic affairs. He is currently a Hungarian diplomat based in Bern.

For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025

Research and analysis
June 29, 2025
A global call for active neutrality launched from Geneva
www.swissinfo.ch

A global call for active neutrality has been launched by several stakeholders in Geneva at a time when major powers are hardening their stance. The city is competing with Vienna to host an international congress on the issue in 2026.


(Keystone-ATS) A public declaration and action plan were endorsed at the end of a two-day meeting that brought together 90 experts in diplomacy, international law and digital technology from 27 countries in Troinex (GE) and online on Friday. The goal is to launch an International Neutrality Network by the end of 2026, which will monitor the practices of various stakeholders.

A UN Declaration on Active Neutrality in the Digital Ecosystem and a label are desirable by 2030. A binding international agreement on neutrality in the digital age should follow in the long term.

Confrontations between major powers are causing growing tensions. Warning of “urgency,” the public statement emphasizes that neutrality does not mean “indifference.” It must promote conflict prevention and resolution, as well as disarmament and a shift from military spending to social and environmental investments. It must also avoid the militarization of artificial intelligence (AI). The request comes as NATO countries decide to increase their military funding to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP).

After Bogotá
Faced with this situation, “we believe that Geneva and neutral spaces in general have an important role to play in promoting dialogue, the search for truth and the protection of common interests,” said Nicolas Ramseier, president of the Geneva Center for Neutrality, in an interview with Keystone-ATS.
We must question “our active Swiss neutrality and, more broadly, the role that other neutral states can play,” he added. He stressed that “the more fragmentation and mistrust grow, the greater the need for neutral, transparent and secure zones, both physical and digital.”

But it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve recognition of a “neutral position,” admits Mr. Ramseier. His center was created precisely in this period of “criticism, misunderstanding and rethinking,” especially with regard to Switzerland. “We must rethink neutrality,” “as a proactive and structured position,” and adapt it to the technological challenges of the 21st century, the president believes.
After Bogotá last year, the International Congress on Neutrality could take place in Geneva in June 2026. Hundreds of leaders, academics and members of civil society are expected to attend.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/

June 7, 2025
GCSP Conference on “The International Dimension of Neutrality”
Geneva Center for Neutrality

The conference “The International Dimension of Neutrality – A Geneva Security Debate”, organized by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) in collaboration with the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan and the Geneva Center for Neutrality, took place on June 5 and generated significant interest among researchers, diplomats, and representatives of international organizations in Geneva.

The high-level panel was opened by Ambassador Thomas Greminger, Executive Director of GCSP, who highlighted the importance of neutrality in an increasingly fragmented world. He spoke about its international dimensions through various perspectives, including non-alignment, multi-alignment, and positive neutrality.

The role of Turkmenistan’s active neutrality was underscored by H.E. Mr. Hajiev, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Turkmenistan, and H.E. Mr. Shiri Shiriyev, Director of Strategic Studies at the Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan.

Panelists included H.E. Mr. Christian Guillermet Fernández, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva; H.E. Mr. Jamal Jama Al Musharakh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates to the United Nations Office at Geneva; H.E. Dr. Anupam Ray, Permanent Representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament; and Jean-Daniel Ruch, President of the Geneva Center for Neutrality. The discussion focused on how states navigate the growing pressure to take sides while striving to maintain strategic autonomy. The panel also reflected on the potential of neutrality to support global stability and dialogue amid escalating geopolitical tensions.

Each of the four countries represented shared its own approach to neutrality:

Costa Rica advocates an unarmed form of neutrality, one that relies on good relations with its neighbours to solve disputes. The country is proud of its active diplomatic service and its contributions to multilateral diplomacy under a neutral status.

The United Arab Emirates, located at the crossroads of East and West, pursues an adaptive foreign policy that reflects a form of “pragmatic neutrality”. Leveraging its resources, the UAE seeks to foster national prosperity through wide-ranging international partnerships. Its participation in the Abraham Accords underscores its commitment to peace.

India, a vast and increasingly influential nation, maintains a distinctive approach to neutrality. Its policy allows for participation in alliances while remaining non-aligned, enabling it to pursue a balanced approach to future global power dynamics.

Switzerland upholds a longstanding tradition of armed neutrality. Renowned for its humanitarian contributions and mediation efforts, Switzerland views neutrality as both a core element of national identity and an instrument of foreign policy. As Jean-Daniel Ruch explained, “Swiss neutrality has two dimensions: internally, it is part of the Swiss identity; externally, it enables Switzerland to act as a mediator and a predictable, non-threatening partner. It is our additional value, which was shown during the recent US-China negotiations. To preserve Swiss neutrality, three elements must be maintained: the law of neutrality, the policy of neutrality, and the perception of neutrality. In today’s polarized world, we must consider forming a coalition of constitutionally neutral, non-aligned, and multi-aligned states.”

All four countries acknowledged that, to varying degrees, they benefit from the security umbrella of Western powers. Nevertheless, they seek to bolster their positions through support for international humanitarian law, resisting external pressure while promoting multilateral diplomacy. Collectively, these states expressed a desire to see the concept of neutrality evolve and expand within the framework of international relations.

GCN articles and news
August 5, 2025
International Colloquium on Neutrality: ideas, conclusions, and recommendations
Geneva Center for Neutrality

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 abandonedas 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.

Research and analysis
August 4, 2025
Neutrality for peace and humanity. Irish view
Dr. Edward Horgan, International secretary of the Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance, founder of Veterans For Peace Ireland

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.

Research and analysis
August 2, 2025
Is Costa Rica the only neutral country in the world?
Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños, Lawyer

Although a discomforting header, it’s a true one, if we are talking about international law.

Costa Rica’s neutrality is unique in the world, and, despite the colonial eurocentrism that still remains in the international concert, should be taken as model and threshold.

To clarify the introduction, a few precisions must be made. Ireland, Switzerland and Austria, despite the legal debates, reject any international effect of their neutrality. They all claim their neutrality to be a matter of domestic policy. Neither Switzerland nor Ireland includes any constitutional provision about their neutrality. Austria is constitutionally neutral, but also claims that the provision does not raise any international consequences.

All other currently neutral States have included neutrality in their constitutions, as a matter of domestic law.

Costa Rica is the only State in the world that has established its neutrality as a binding obligation under international law, as it was established through a unilateral act of international law. Moreover, Costa Rica has not neglected this international obligation, unlike its European similes. 

It is to be noted that neutrality in international law had a dramatic change after 1945 when the UN Charter introduced the prohibition on the use of force and the recognition of sovereignty and independence of core attributes of any and every State. Once reserved for Treaty obligations, States began adopting neutrality domestically, as provisions of internal law, mostly constitutionally established.

Of all the States that have adopted neutrality in the UN era, Costa Rica’s neutrality stands on top of the rest, demonstrating dignity and bravery, sovereignty and independence. At this point it is fundamental to briefly review the historical circumstances that led to Costa Rica’s neutrality declaration.

Costa Rica has had a long history of neutrality in foreign affairs. Records go back to independence times, in 1821. In other words, Costa Rica has always been neutral towards conflicts of others. In the late 1970s, the Cold War was heating up in Latin America. Nicaragua became a hotspot due to the pro-communist Sandinista revolution that took control of the country. The American, unwilling to “allow commies in their backyard”, decided to launch a counter-revolutionary operation to overthrow the Sandinista regime.  The operation was led by the “Contras” a paramilitary group funded, supported and trained by the CIA. They settled in El Salvador and Honduras, launching attacks on Nicaragua from the north. In an attempt to also attack the Sandinistas from the south, the US began putting pressure on Costa Rica to allow the CIA-funded Contras to settle on the Costa Rican side of the border with Nicaragua. In an attempt to defend Costa Rica’s independence, sovereignty and dignity, while remaining out of the conflict, on November 16th, 1983, President Luis Alberto Monge issued a unilateral act of international law by which he made Costa Rica neutral under international law, putting the country in a position where it would have been illegal for Costa Rica to accede at the Americans’ request.

Costa Rica made it openly public to the world that it had acquired an international obligation to be and remain perpetually neutral, with some particular characteristics.

1). Costa Rica’s neutrality is part of a broader foreign policy. The policy of Peace.

2). Costa Rica’s neutrality is perpetual and non-interrupted, as we have solemnly renounced war forever.

3). Costa Rica’s neutrality is unarmed. Costa Rica abolish its military in 1948, 45 years prior to the neutrality declaration. Costa Rica reiterated its absolute rejection to the participation in any armed conflict, including its own invasion. We are not waging war. No matter what, we are not fighting. 

4). Costa Rica’s neutrality is fully unilateral, we didn’t request recognition or required such thing. We became neutral because as a sovereign and independent nation we are free to establish our own foreign policy, without any need to ask permission or recognition from any other State. 

5). Costa Rica’s neutrality is an expression of the people’s self-determination.

6). Costa Rica’s neutrality prohibits ANY kind of support or relation to any belligerent, to avoid apparent breaches of the neutrality obligations.

For the rest, Costa Rica’s neutrality also includes the traditional obligations derived from neutrality: impartiality, not to start or participate in any war, the prohibition of transit or stationing of foreign military with hostile intent, and the obligation to defend neutrality itself.

Costa Rica’s neutrality is, by far, the best practice of neutrality in the world. It offers the highest threshold and closer adheres to the global goal of international peace.

By Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños, Lawyer, Costa Rica.

For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025

Research and analysis
August 2, 2025
A world on the brink of conflict: reflections on militarization and peace
Raudemar Ofunshi Hernandez, president of the Colombia Acuerdo de Paz NGO

The current situation of the world is very turbulent and dangerous: the crises in the Middle East, Ukraine, Colombia, Sudan, and other African countries. Instead of doubling efforts to achieve peace through political negotiations and diplomacy, we are assisting the contrary. As it was in the case of Iran, there exists the belief that we can bomb a conflict to halt it. In Ukraine, peace is being delayed by a president clinging to power who counts on support from European governments who, in the past, advocated for peace, and who currently tie themselves to militarism, underestimating the large manifestations, which time and time again are produced against the resurgence of neoliberalism in all its magnitude.

On the 28th of April, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published a concerning report. It was reported that the global military spending reached 2.718 trillion dollars in 2024. This represents a 9.4% increase in real terms compared to 2023, the steepest annual increase since the Cold War. Military spending grew in all regions of the world, with the sharp increase in Europe and the Middle East being particularly noticeable. The five countries with the largest military budgets - The United States, China, Russia, Germany, and India - accounted for 60% of the global total, with a combined expenditure of 1.635 trillion dollars.

The organization adds that “more than 100 countries augmented their military spending in 2024. SIPRI adds that as governments increasingly prioritize military security, at the expense of other social necessities, this will have a negative economic and social impact. They report that “military spending in Europe (including Russia) increased by 17%, reaching $693 billion, and was the main driver of the global increase in 2024”.

At the NATO meeting which gathered 31 countries this week, it was agreed that its members must increase their defense spending by 5% of gross domestic product by 2035; this would mean that “3.5% of GDP should be spent on ‘pure’ defense, with an additional 1.5% of GDP allocated to to security-related infrastructure, such as cyberwarfare and intelligence capabilities”. In 2024, Poland increased its spending by 38%, Germany by 34%, France by 6.1%, and the United Kingdom by 2.8%. Currently, the United Kingdom is the 6th largest defense spender in the world, while France is the 9th. Much of the increase in Europe is related to the fear that Russia will attempt to expand into Europe, and that the United States could withdraw from NATO due to President Trump’s rhetoric.

Governments, politicians, and militarists argue that this has a deterrent effect that prevents or mitigates armed conflict. However, academic studies have shown that the opposite occurs: this can lead to arms competitions between countries that only increase the risk of war. Furthermore, these augmentations increase tensions, create cycles of escalation, and divert resources from essential sectors. Diverting said resources can augment inequality, generate social and political conflicts, leading to tensions and violence that destabilize countries economically, making them more vulnerable to manipulation by external actors and their wars. It can also result in countries falling into debt, which can lead to financial problems for the nations in question. Countries with large defense budgets tend to experience an increase in corruption.

In a world where natural disasters are increasing due to global warming, with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, intensifying droughts and floods, and the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires, which have resulted in increased human migration and food insecurity, it is self-destructive to increase defense spending and elevate the risks of conflict, violence, and war. The UN has warned that Europe is the continent where global warming is increasing most rapidly, and heat waves have increased deaths by 30%.

Alongside the increase of militaristic budgets, we see a deterioration in laws of war, especially humanitarian ones, and the UN’s incapacity to sanction and prevent abuses when it comes to countries that are permanent members of the UN or its allies. The most egregious example has been the violations committed by Israel since the 7th of October against the Palestinian people. It is reported that at least 55,000 Palestinians have died (more than 22,000 men, more than 15,000 children, more than 8,000 women, and more than 3,000 elderly) and more than 129,000 have been injured. The entire population experiences food insecurity, and Israel blocks humanitarian aid. Netanyahu’s strategy, due to his political weakness, has been to attack Iran and involve the U.S. in the stabilization of the Middle East and the world.

Today, there are more than 130 armed conflicts classified by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Grave violations of international humanitarian law by illegal armed groups are being observed in Colombia, the department of the Cauca, and other regions, such as Sudan, where war crimes are being committed. Europe, which played an important role in global peace after the Second World War, now faces warmongering governments. Therefore, we must continue working to expand global support for the concept of neutrality and seek peaceful, negotiated solutions to conflicts.

By Raudemar Ofunshi Hernandez, president of the Colombia Acuerdo de Paz NGO.

For the Intenarional Colloquium on Neutrality: A call to action for active neutrality and world peace, 26th and 27th of June, 2025.

Research and analysis
August 1, 2025
Peace through mediation: a challenge. Is there a room for efficient and sustainable peace agreements?
Jean A. Mirimanoff, Independent Mediator (FSM/SFM), Honorary Magistrate, former ICRC Legal Adviser

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

Research and analysis
July 22, 2025
Moldova’s permanent neutrality: key challenges in a shifting geopolitical landscape
Tsvyatkov Nikolay, PhD (Habil.), Professor of Political Science

The Republic of Moldova is a small European country caught between powerful regional dynamics, that declared itself as a permanently neutral state in 1994, shortly after gaining independence from the Soviet Union. Yet, three decades later, we are still grappling with what this neutrality truly means and how to uphold it in a very unstable world. So far, there are five main challenges that Moldova faces in maintaining and strengthening its neutral status:

1. War on Our Border: Regional Insecurity

Today, Moldova shares a border with a country at war – Ukraine. This war has brought instability, fear, and economic disruption to the entire region. In such a context, neutrality becomes a daily test and it is no longer just a legal term. Neutrality becomes harder to maintain when peace is shattered next door.

2. Foreign Influence and Complex Threats

Modern threats go far beyond tanks and missiles. Moldova is facing foreign political interference, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns from various external actors.

Neutrality must not mean passivity. It must empower us to resist non-military interference and protect the country. But there’s a danger: powerful states may use Moldova’s neutrality as an excuse to keep us in a kind of geopolitical uncertainty, where we’re too weak to choose our own future.

3. Weakness that creates Opportunities 

Moldova’s military capacity is small and underfunded, civil protection systems, from emergency response to infrastructure resilience, are not yet strong enough. Without adopting a clear legal framework for neutrality (Strategy for National Security, Permanent neutrality Law, etc.), our status risks being seen not as a strength, but as a weakness that creates opportunity for others to exploit it.

4. Lack of Clear Definition and Strategy

Yes, neutrality is mentioned in our Constitution, 11th article. But what does it actually mean in today’s world? In Moldova, we still lack a solid legal or institutional framework that defines how neutrality should work, especially when facing complex, multidomain threats. This ambiguity creates confusion among policymakers, citizens, and international partners. We urgently need clarity: What is neutrality in practice? And how can it protect us in a world of complex, non-traditional threats? These key points were described into clear, accessible, and engaging language for an international audience not familiar with Moldova within the books “Neutrality: brief manual” and “Sovereignty: brief manual”, published in 2023-2024. 

5. Divided Public Opinion and Political Will

Perhaps the most difficult challenge is the difference between policymakers and the common people. In Moldova, people and politicians are not united in how they understand neutrality. Absolute majority of the population is consolidated to keep neutrality status, but actual ruling party is considering EU defense policy as a basic position.  

A call for neutrality

In this context it is essential to respect sovereignty principle as a shield to keep us in peace. Others question whether it isolates us from much-needed partnerships. That’s why it’s critical to build national consensus: without unity at home, neutrality cannot be credible abroad. To achieve this, we need:

  1. Stronger laws and institutions,
  2. Honest public dialogue and civic education,
  3. Independent research and international support.

Let us remember: neutrality, when done right, is not a retreat from the world. It is a moral and strategic choice to uphold peace in a time of war.

Tsvyatkov Nikolay, PhD (Habil.), Professor of Political Science

For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025

Sources:

  • Tsvyatkov N., Tcaci A., Banari S. Neutrality: brief manual. Chisinau, 2023
  • Tsvyatkov N., Tcaci A., Cojuhari E. Sovereignty: brief manual. Chisinau, 2024
Research and analysis
July 21, 2025
Debating neutrality in the new era
Gergely Varga (PhD), security policy expert

Core pillars of neutrality 

The era of geopolitical confrontation and multipolarity has returned — as has the debate about neutrality. As powerful international actors increasingly question the framework and substance of the liberal world order, traditionally neutral countries such as Switzerland are experiencing internal and external pressure to redefine their concept of neutrality. Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Geneva Center for Neutrality held its first major international conference on July 26-27th to initiate a dialogue about the future of neutrality among various civil society stakeholders.

The two-day conference reaffirmed, that fundamental questions of the future of neutrality still revolve around two traditional principles of neutral states: impartiality and the defense of international norms. Tensions between these two principles are nothing new, but with the liberal world order increasingly under pressure, they will be at the forefront of debates on neutrality.  

Since neutrality has always been relational — an impartial stance toward opposing sides in interstate conflicts, major international powers, or alliances — maintaining this feature is paramount to neutrality. Without it, the credibility of neutrality is called into question. However, recognition of neutrality by other countries is also a fundamental condition of this status. This presupposes respect for basic international rules by all parties, particularly those connected to the status of neutral countries. For neutrality to be viable, external powers must not threaten or violate the sovereignty or territorial integrity of a neutral state.

So, what is causing the increasing tension between these core pillars of neutrality?

Progressive vs. traditional neutrality  

Traditional neutrality, especially that of Switzerland, entails two basic international functions: good offices and humanitarian efforts. During the Cold War, these functions of neutral states found common ground with the non-alignment movement on many issues, such as keeping a distance from the two major geopolitical blocs' military and defense affairs, multilateralism, an emphasis on international development and humanitarian aid, and the promotion of arms control and disarmament initiatives.

With wars and great-power competition accelerating, the non-aligned movement is gaining traction again, with some of its old features reappearing in a new form, including anti-Americanism, anti-colonialism, and pro-Palestine sentiment. At the same time, some NGOs involved in peace and mediation activities are expanding the concept of neutrality with objectives related to social justice progressive ideas under the banner of active neutrality. 

Conversely, other supporters of neutrality usually emphasize the importance of maintaining national sovereignty, including the capacity to protect neutrality with armed forces, and at the same time, this approach usually seeks to restrict neutrality to its traditional humanitarian and meditation roles.   

The dilemma 

However, neither approach can avoid being challenged by the fundamental question of neutrality in an increasingly conflict-ridden world: How should one relate to perceived or real aggressors and major violators of fundamental human rights? Should they keep options for mediation and good offices open to help diplomatically resolve conflicts, or should they take punitive measures against violators in defense of international norms? Prioritize upholding universal normative principles, or take a more realist approach, prioritizing mediation and good offices? 

This dilemma also highlights the difficulty of defining clear boundaries between humanitarian efforts and the promotion of second-, third-, or fourth-generation human rights or social justice causes - not to mention the challenge of finding the right neutral approach between such principles and legitimate state security interests regarding armed conflicts.

Without a general answer to these questions, we must be aware that the broader the concept of neutrality is defined, the weaker its ability to exercise its core functions of good offices and impartial humanitarianism will be. This is especially true in a multipolar world, where countries with distinct cultures and value systems will have a greater influence on world affairs, while the appeal of Western liberal democracy and some of its values is declining in many places around the World.

Geopolitics and economic neutrality 

Furthermore, the intensifying rivalry between the US and China in geopolitical, military, economic, and technological domains raises another major issue for neutrality: economic and technological neutrality. This presents a challenge not only to countries in the Global South and developed East Asian nations seeking to maintain economic relations with all major economies, but also to members of the European Union. Can geopolitics be detached from geoeconomics? Is technological neutrality possible in the age of AI, advanced robotics, the Internet of Things, or gene engineering? There are no clear answers to these fundamental questions. 

No one size fits all for neutrality 

Ultimately, it is up to each country that aspires to remain or become neutral to define its own concept of neutrality and its role in the international arena based on its geopolitical attributes, its historical experience, its political culture. If the concept of neutrality is defined through a bottom-up, inclusive approach in each relevant country, then there surely is no one-size-fits-all solution. However, the whole international community could benefit from an intensified dialogue and building partnerships among relevant international stakeholders to share ideas and create pathways for neutrality. 

The Geneva Center for Neutrality is an excellent platform for this purpose. 

Gergely Varga (PhD) is a security policy expert with a focus on European security and transatlantic affairs. He is currently a Hungarian diplomat based in Bern.

For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025

Research and analysis
July 21, 2025
Intranational pre-Congress for Neutrality
Geneva Center for Neutrality

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

 

GCN articles and news
June 7, 2025
GCSP Conference on “The International Dimension of Neutrality”
Geneva Center for Neutrality

The conference “The International Dimension of Neutrality – A Geneva Security Debate”, organized by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) in collaboration with the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan and the Geneva Center for Neutrality, took place on June 5 and generated significant interest among researchers, diplomats, and representatives of international organizations in Geneva.

The high-level panel was opened by Ambassador Thomas Greminger, Executive Director of GCSP, who highlighted the importance of neutrality in an increasingly fragmented world. He spoke about its international dimensions through various perspectives, including non-alignment, multi-alignment, and positive neutrality.

The role of Turkmenistan’s active neutrality was underscored by H.E. Mr. Hajiev, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Turkmenistan, and H.E. Mr. Shiri Shiriyev, Director of Strategic Studies at the Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan.

Panelists included H.E. Mr. Christian Guillermet Fernández, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva; H.E. Mr. Jamal Jama Al Musharakh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates to the United Nations Office at Geneva; H.E. Dr. Anupam Ray, Permanent Representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament; and Jean-Daniel Ruch, President of the Geneva Center for Neutrality. The discussion focused on how states navigate the growing pressure to take sides while striving to maintain strategic autonomy. The panel also reflected on the potential of neutrality to support global stability and dialogue amid escalating geopolitical tensions.

Each of the four countries represented shared its own approach to neutrality:

Costa Rica advocates an unarmed form of neutrality, one that relies on good relations with its neighbours to solve disputes. The country is proud of its active diplomatic service and its contributions to multilateral diplomacy under a neutral status.

The United Arab Emirates, located at the crossroads of East and West, pursues an adaptive foreign policy that reflects a form of “pragmatic neutrality”. Leveraging its resources, the UAE seeks to foster national prosperity through wide-ranging international partnerships. Its participation in the Abraham Accords underscores its commitment to peace.

India, a vast and increasingly influential nation, maintains a distinctive approach to neutrality. Its policy allows for participation in alliances while remaining non-aligned, enabling it to pursue a balanced approach to future global power dynamics.

Switzerland upholds a longstanding tradition of armed neutrality. Renowned for its humanitarian contributions and mediation efforts, Switzerland views neutrality as both a core element of national identity and an instrument of foreign policy. As Jean-Daniel Ruch explained, “Swiss neutrality has two dimensions: internally, it is part of the Swiss identity; externally, it enables Switzerland to act as a mediator and a predictable, non-threatening partner. It is our additional value, which was shown during the recent US-China negotiations. To preserve Swiss neutrality, three elements must be maintained: the law of neutrality, the policy of neutrality, and the perception of neutrality. In today’s polarized world, we must consider forming a coalition of constitutionally neutral, non-aligned, and multi-aligned states.”

All four countries acknowledged that, to varying degrees, they benefit from the security umbrella of Western powers. Nevertheless, they seek to bolster their positions through support for international humanitarian law, resisting external pressure while promoting multilateral diplomacy. Collectively, these states expressed a desire to see the concept of neutrality evolve and expand within the framework of international relations.

GCN articles and news