At the International Pre-Congress on Neutrality, held in Geneva in June this year, experts, academics, diplomats, and activists from 27 countries gathered to explore a pressing question: Is neutrality still possible in today’s world? Together, they examined how the principle of neutrality can be revitalized and reimagined as a tool for peace in the XXIst century.

The International Colloquium on Neutrality was convened under the auspices of the Geneva Centre for Neutrality, in collaboration with World Beyond War, the International Peace Bureau, the Transnational Institute, the Colombia Peace Agreement, the Global Veterans Peace Network (GVPN), and the Inter-University Network for Peace (REDIPAZ). A global call for active neutrality launched from Geneva reassessed and reaffirmed the value of neutrality in an increasingly polarized and militarized world.

The colloquium built upon the foundation laid at the 2024 International Congress on Neutrality in Bogotá and set the stage for the upcoming 2026 Congress. Its central outcome was Modern Neutrality Declaration and an accompanying Action Agenda to Promote Active Neutrality - documents that reflect a collective commitment to advancing neutrality as a dynamic, peace-oriented principle.

Five specialized focus groups explored key dimensions of neutrality: Current Neutrality Practices, Digital Neutrality in the Age of Cyberwarfare and AI Militarization, Neutrality and Media, Neutrality and Common Security in a Militarized World, Building a New Non-Aligned Movement. Moderators from each group collected insights, and formulated forward-looking strategies with practical recommendations, and calls to action.

GROUP 1. CURRENT NEUTRALITY PRACTICE.

Moderator – Katy Cojuhari, Head of International Cooperation Department, Geneva Center for Neutrality.

Global Neutrality in 2025:

● Europe: Neutrality is retreating, though not entirely abandoned, as alliance politics gain ground.

● Post-Soviet Space: Neutrality remains in limbo amid competing internal and external pressures.

● Asia: A nascent neutrality movement is emerging, with countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, ASEAN states, and Mongolia exploring or reaffirming non-alignment.

● South America: Costa Rica continues as a beacon of hope; several states have adopted ad-hoc neutrality during the Ukraine war.

Key Themes and Takeaways:

1.Redefining Neutrality: Neutrality is evolving beyond its legal roots, taking on political, philosophical, economic and strategic dimensions in a multipolar world. It involves a commitment to non-alignment, positive diplomacy, and legal engagement.

2. Global South Perspectives: Countries like Costa Rica exemplify a principled, demilitarized neutrality that contrasts with European models, highlighting the need for decolonizing international discourse.

3. Challenges in Europe: The retreat from neutrality in Europe, especially after the Ukraine conflict, raises concerns about militarization and the loss of alternatives to alliance politics.

4. Role of Civil Society: Grassroots movements across continents (Germany, Colombia, Australia) are advocating for neutrality as a means to prevent war and promote global stability. These efforts represent a form of “neutralism”— a normative commitment to peace without passivity.

5. Legal Complexity: The discussions underscored the legal intricacies of neutrality, especially regarding obligations under international humanitarian law versus unilateral declarations. Costa Rica, Turkmenistan, Austria and Switzerland were identified as states currently possessing internationally binding neutrality.

Key insights:

Rethinking Neutrality:

● Neutrality is not indifference. It represents an active commitment to peace, dialogue, and self-determination.

● Neutrality is not isolation. Neutral states can serve as mediators, conveners, and norm-setters in international affairs.

Diverse Models of Neutrality:

● Costa Rica: A global exemplar of legally binding, unilateral neutrality; no standing army since 1948; strictly non-aligned in moral and economic terms.

● Switzerland: Armed neutrality under pressure due to alignment with EU/U.S. sanctions; national referendum planned regarding its constitutional neutrality clause.

● Moldova: Constitutional neutrality threatened by political elites favoring NATO alignment, despite over 80% public support for neutrality.

● Austria and Ireland: Legal neutrality increasingly diluted by military cooperation with the EU and indirect NATO participation.

● Turkmenistan: UN-recognized neutrality since 1995, illustrating that neutrality is not exclusive to democratic states.

Current Risks:

● Instrumentalization of neutrality for geopolitical ends.

● Undermining neutrality through participation in economic or military sanctions, adopted or not sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

● Erosion of public trust when elite policies contradict constitutions or public sentiment.

● Absence of binding legal mechanisms at the international level to enforce or protect neutrality.

Recommendations.

Call to Action for States:

1.Clarify or codify neutrality in constitutional, legal frameworks and public debates.

2. Develop National Strategies for Peace: Invest in peaceful infrastructure not only security apparatus, including diplomacy, legal institutions, and humanitarian capacity

For Civil Society:

3. Promote neutrality through peace education, public dialogue, cultural nonalignment, conflict prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes.

4. Explain the values and benefits of neutrality through mainstream media, social media and civil society actors.

5. Create independent neutrality observatories to monitor state actions.

6. Support various neutrality initiatives (especially International Neutrality Day on 12th of December and UN resolutions related to neutrality) through grassroots campaigns, referenda, and public discourse.

The creation of an International Neutrality Platform, created at International Pre-Congress on Neutrality:

7. Convene an International Congress for Neutrality bringing together states, experts, and civil society actors.

8. Develop and launch a Global Neutrality Database to benchmark legal, policy, and perception-based aspects of neutrality.

9. Draft and promote a Model Charter of 21st Century Neutrality for voluntary adoption by states, civil society and by the United Nations.

GROUP2. DIGITAL NEUTRALITY IN THE AGE OF CYBER WARFARE AND AI MILITARIZATION

Moderator – Simon Janin, Digital Neutrality Department, Geneva Center for Neutrality.

PART 1. Digital Neutrality and Challenges.

Digital neutrality is defined as a nation’s ability to safeguard its digital infrastructure, data governance, and artificial intelligence (AI) systems from foreign manipulation or influence, ensuring autonomy in digital spaces. This autonomy is critical for maintaining a country's sovereignty, preventing populations from being let into conflicts against their interest, and preserving the democratic ability to determine their future. In today’s world, major corporations frequently function as extensions of geopolitical strategies, with their platforms becoming militarized tools of influence. Examples include: data-driven political manipulation and disinformation campaigns vis social media; surveillance infrastructure and AI-based automated systems that can be weaponized for mass control or conflict escalation. 

Policy Recommendations:

• Advocate for a United Nations Declaration on Active Neutrality including digital and cyber neutrality.
• Develop national and regional frameworks to regulate AI and autonomous weapons systems.
• Launch the Digital Neutrality Label project, which will be proposed as a Geneva standard for countries and organizations seeking a sustainable and secure digital future.
• Establish institutional alliances among civil society and government actors engaged in active neutrality worldwide.

Strategic Alliances. Collaborations should actively involve: universities and research institutes; International think-tanks and NGOs; Technology-focused civil society groups; Relevant international organizations (UN, UNESCO, OECD).

PART 2. Cyberspace and AI.

1.     Active Neutrality:

○      Neutrality must be actively promoted and defended, as cyberspace is dynamic and actors constantly seek to exploit or undermine neutral stances.

○      Passive neutrality is insufficient given the proactive threats in cyberspace.

2.     Attribution Challenges: 

○      Estblishing accountability in cyberspace is inherently difficult due to technological complexity, dual-use nature of tools, and the role of non-state actors.

○      Precise attribution of cyber attacks is often challenging, complicating enforcement and response.

3.     International Norms and Treaties:

Currently, there is no binding international legal framework specifically addressing digital neutrality or AI militarization. Proposal includes clear international norms, legally binding treaties, and diplomatic agreements specific to cyberspace and AI.

4.     Switzerland's Role in International Law:

○      Switzerland should leverage its neutrality tradition and global reputation to lead discussions and possibly establish certification standards and ethical governance guidelines for AI, particularly military applications.

○      Switzerland could serve as a model country for digital neutrality, providing frameworks for technology governance and attracting global partnerships.

5.     Startup and Innovation Ecosystem:

Switzerland should foster Silicon Valley-style ecosystems with strong network effects under special regulatory frameworks or sandboxes. The creation of agile, adaptable legal frameworks can encourage innovation, investment, and technological growth without compromising broader regulatory standards.

6.     Decentralized Systems and Practical Steps:

Encouragement of decentralized payment and information exchange systems as demonstrated by practical, government independent technological innovations (e.g., transactions in space).

7.     Neutrality Advocacy in Big Tech:

○      Promote neutrality through internal advocacy within Big Tech, challenging technological support for militarization or unethical applications of technology.

○      Focus public awareness campaigns on the importance and practicality of active neutrality, peace, and diplomacy as viable alternatives to militarization.

8.     Counteracting Propaganda: Actively counter propaganda from military alliances which seeks to portray militarization as progressive or necessary.

9.  Incremental and Pragmatic Implementation:

○      Adopt an entrepreneurial mindset—implementing quick, pragmatic steps that can adapt rapidly to technological and geopolitical changes.

○      Establish a clear roadmap with small targets and scalable successes that build toward larger neutrality goals.

10.  Interdisciplinary and International Collaboration:

○      Actively facilitate interdisciplinary expert discussions involving legal, technological, ethical, and business perspectives.

○      Prioritize international collaboration to create consensus- driven definitions, norms, and enforcement mechanisms.

Conclusion.

Switzerland has a unique opportunity to lead in shaping active digital neutrality and ethical AI governance by leveraging its historical neutrality, technological expertise, and robust legal frameworks. The creation of specialized innovation ecosystems and international treaties is essential to navigate the complexities of modern cyberspace effectively.

GROUP 3. NEUTRALITY AND THE MEDIA

Moderator – Tim Pluta, Global Veterans Peace Network.

Current Challenges and Observations:

1.  Political Bias in Media.

Media often aligns with existing imbalances in power structures, reinforcing political agendas and deepening social divisions.

2. Manipulation of Public Sentiment.

There is a growing disconnect between political actions and the will of the people. Media is frequently used to manipulate emotions by spreading fear, hatred, and polarising narratives.

3. Monopoly on Truth.

Mainstream media tends to present itself as the sole authority on truth, marginalising alternative perspectives and voices.

Proposals and Recommendations:

1.  Awareness & Culture.

•  Create awareness and foster a culture of curiosity around active neutrality and its societal benefits.

•  Promote the use of the term “active neutrality” in public and private conversations to normalize and expand understanding.

2.  Education & Guidelines.

•  Develop a neutrality vocabulary and curriculum tailored to various audiences (politicians, activists, educators, general public etc.).

•  Create an educational program that defines active neutrality in political, legal, social, and even spiritual terms.

•  Provide recommendations to media professionals to encourage pluralism and eliminate dehumanizing language, fear-mongering, and hate speech.

3.  Platforms & Engagement.

•  Launch an open, decentralized platform or news channel focused on active neutrality.

•  Establish citizen journalism initiatives and online communities centered on neutral reporting and civic media literacy.

•  Include media representatives in dialogue circles on active neutrality.

•  Conduct public surveys to explore how people perceive active neutrality and whether they value it.

Institutional Strategy:

We propose forming an Active Neutrality Media Expert Team under the Geneva Center for Neutrality, composed of: social media specialists, psychologists and neuro-linguists, youth representatives, journalists, IT-specialists, etc.

This interdisciplinary team would interact to:

•  Develop a strategic media campaign around active neutrality;

•  Design and implement educational initiatives;

•  Foster youth engagement in the media and peace narrative.

To paraphrase Barbara Marx Hubbard, we believe: “We need a neutral media room as sophisticated as the war media room.” This report is a collective call to bring active neutrality to the table — not only as a principle but as a practice embedded in how we inform, educate, and engage society.

GROUP 4. NEUTRALITY AND COMMON SECURITY IN A MILITARIZED WORLD.

Moderator – Emily Molinari, Deputy Executive Director at the International Peace Bureau.

Introduction

This focus group explored the relevance and application of neutrality and common security in today’s increasingly militarized geopolitical landscape. 

Key Themes:

1. Redefining Neutrality

Neutrality should not mean silence or inaction. Participants emphasized the need for a new model of engaged neutrality; it must uphold peace, human rights, and international law. Switzerland was often cited, though its model of “armed neutrality” was challenged as contradictory.

2. Legal Dimensions

Neutrality is rooted in customary international law, but remains fragile in the context of the UN’s collective security system. Key legal principles include: non-participation in conflict and impartiality; maintenance of economic relations (excluding arms trade); obligation to avoid escalation and allow humanitarian aid; engagement in diplomacy, mediation, and good offices. Participants discussed whether a binding treaty on neutrality could strengthen these norms.

3. Common Security Framework

Common security — mutual, cooperative security — was reaffirmed as an alternative to deterrence and arms races. It relies on disarmament, trust, and diplomacy. The group stressed links between common security, social justice, and climate resilience.

4. Economic Neutrality, Militarization, and Sovereignty

Neutrality must extend beyond military alliances to economic structures: reduce dependence on arms industries and extractive economies; oppose coercive trade practices by great powers; strengthen economic sovereignty, especially in the Global South. Militarization undermines national and community sovereignty. Neutral states are often pressured into alliances or bloc politics, eroding their impartial roles. Some participants criticized NATO expansion, hybrid threats, and economic coercion.

5. Private Sector & Media

Participants noted that militarism is often supported by business and media, while peace work remains under-resourced. Proposals included: fostering a peace economy and ethical business practices; promoting peace-oriented journalism; countering disinformation and propaganda.

Illustrative Cases and Proposals:

• Costa Rica: A key example of successful demilitarization — post-military investment in education and healthcare helped anchor its neutral, peaceful stance. 
• Switzerland: Raised internal tensions around armed neutrality and civil disobedience (e.g. CO debates, TPNW campaign).
• Non-state actors: Movements like MINGA and ISM illustrate the role of grassroots solidarity in peacebuilding.
• New ideas: Proposals included the creation of a “Neutrality Observatory” to monitor violations and a business-peacebuilding network to promote ethical alternatives.

Recommendations:

• Promote engaged neutrality as a proactive and legitimate framework for peace and diplomacy across all actors.
• Open discussion on neutrality concerning autonomous groups, territories, and minority populations, recognizing their unique positions and challenges.
• Highlight the benefits of neutrality for States:
• Not being involved in conflict, being protected from it, and maintaining economic relations with all parties involved in a conflict.
• Credibly exercise the duty of impartiality, meaning treating all conflict parties equally and refraining from influencing the conflict’s outcome.
• Encourage neutrals to actively engage in humanitarian aid, diplomacy, mediation, and good offices, leveraging their impartial status for constructive involvement.
• Support initiatives calling for reductions in global military spending, strengthening arms control and disarmament treaties, and reinvesting those resources into social welfare, climate action, and peace infrastructure.
• Advance economic neutrality, encouraging states to divest from the military-industrial complex, invest in human security, and prioritize economic sovereignty, especially in the Global South.
• Invest in nonviolent civilian defense strategies, such as: civil resistance training; peace education programs; support for conscientious objectors; development of national institutions dedicated to disarmament and peacebuilding.
• Possibility to foster cooperation between peace organizations and some actors of the private sector, including the creation of a peace economy network and incentives for ethical business practices aligned with peace and sustainability goals.
• Establish a Neutrality Observatory to: monitor violations of neutrality and international law; produce independent reports; support advocacy at the UN, EU, and regional bodies.
• Strengthen critical journalism and media literacy by supporting disinformation monitoring initiatives, promoting independent, peace-oriented reporting, and raising public awareness on the links between militarization, media, and public opinion.

GROUP 5. BUILDING A NEW NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT.

Moderator – Gabriel Aguirre, coordinator of the international Congress for Neutrality (Colombia), South American branch of the World Beyond War.

1.    Purpose of the Meeting

This focus group was convened to explore the possibility of a new Non-Aligned Movement beyond the traditional state-based model. A global civil society-centred approach was proposed, with a view to building tools for peace and social justice in the context of current conflicts and systemic crises.

2.    Criticisms of the Traditional Model of Non-Alignment.

a.    The term "non-aligned" is seen by many participants as obsolete, inherited from the Cold War, so we suggest not speaking of Non-Aligned, but of Active Neutrality.

b.    Its usefulness is questioned in the face of a contemporary multipolar world, where conflicts are no longer explained solely in terms of East vs. West.

c.     It is proposed to replace the notion of “state neutrality” with people’s diplomacy.

3.     Emerging Key Themes.

a.  People's Diplomacy:

●      A form of diplomacy is promoted that does not depend on governments or state interests.

●      An international network is being sought that brings together social organizations, communities, indigenous peoples, and grassroots movements to address militarization, colonialism, and the climate crisis.

b.  Criticisms of Global Militarization:

●      Military spending is denounced as the most polluting activity on the planet.

●      Multiple conflicts, especially in Palestine and Ukraine, are identified as examples of the failure of the current international system and the urgent need for a global ceasefire.

c.  Rights of Future Generations:

●      defence of future generations is incorporated as a new axis of international political thought.

●      It is mentioned that this approach must include ecological, climate and intergenerational justice rights.

●      Defending plurality is understood as an important value, in order to respect the views of others, not just those of a particular individual, and thus respect diversity, in order to overcome racism and xenophobia.

d.  Reparations and historical justice

Participants from Africa and Latin America spoke about the need for reparations for the historical damage caused by colonialism, wars, and unilateral economic sanctions that continue to affect entire populations.

4.     Cases Analysed.

Palestine: Considered a symbol of modern genocide and the moral failure of the international community. It is argued that a simple ceasefire is not sufficient if there is no active pressure for lasting justice.

Colombia: The armed conflict and peace agreements are analyzed from a structural perspective. It is emphasized that without social justice, the end of armed violence will not be sustainable.

Venezuela: Economic sanctions are denounced as a form of indirect warfare, with devastating effects on the civilian population, especially on health and nutrition.

5.     Strategic Proposals.

a. Promote modern neutrality as defender of sovereignty and uphold the principle of non-alignment.

b. Reshape the international system, beyond the UN and the States.

c. Create a decentralized, non-hierarchical and plural movement.

d. Focus on peace, demilitarization, decolonization and self-determination.

e. Develop a proactive narrative of neutrality as action for peace, not passivity.

f.  Defend Active Neutrality to build bridges between peoples, with the fundamental role of civil society.

Conclusion

The group proposed building a new international paradigm from below, where neutrality is not indifference, but an ethical stance in the face of injustice. It aims to articulate a grassroots transnational movement focused on nonviolent action, global justice, environmental sustainability, and the self-determination of peoples. Neutrality should not be understood under a double standard; it should be applied equally to all countries, social movements, communities, etc.

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