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