瑞士的国家结构、政治制度和中立

根据维克多-莫尼埃的课程改编

Languages

Deutsch English Español Français Italiano

Português

法律入门

法律入门：关键概念和定义 ● 国家：职能、结构和政治制度 ● 法律的不同部门 ● 法律渊源 ● 法律的主要形成传统 ● 法律关系的要素 ● 法律的适用 ● 法律的实施 ● 瑞士从起源到20世纪的发展 ● 瑞士的国内法律框架 ● 瑞士的国家结构、政治制度和中立 ● 19世纪末至20世纪中叶国际关系的演变 ● 世界组织 ● 欧洲组织及其与瑞士的关系 ● 基本权利的类别和世代 ● 基本权利的起源 ● 十八世纪末的权利宣言 ● 二十世纪基本权利普遍概念的构建

联邦宫的圆顶，中央部分刻有 "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno"（人人为我，我为人人）的箴言。

联邦国家以及联邦和各州的主要机构

瑞士联邦国家的历史是一部妥协与平衡的历史，反映了在一个文化和语言极具多样性的国家中协调各种利益的需要。联邦国家的权限虽然很大，但并不完全，因为各州保留了一定程度的主权。联邦制与州政府制之间的矛盾一直是瑞士政治史上的一个特点。

事实证明，两院制是调和这两种不同利益的最理想方案。由国民院和州院组成的联邦议会体现了这一妥协。国民院代表人民，由人民直接选举产生，体现了代议制民主。州议会则代表各州，确保各州的利益在联邦一级也得到考虑。这一制度的另一个关键要素是修改宪法需要双重多数。这一机制不仅要求在国家层面获得大多数选民的批准，还要求获得大多数州的批准。这一要求确保了宪法修改能得到广大民众和全国各地区的广泛支持。

1848年现代瑞士成立之前，瑞士没有中央行政机构。联邦委员会的成立弥补了这一缺陷，为瑞士提供了一个稳定而有效的行政机构。联邦委员会由联邦议会选出的成员组成，成为瑞士治理的重要组成部分，帮助瑞士度过了19世纪的挑战。当时的进步人士希望废除州主权，他们不得不做出妥协。虽然国民院加强了联邦层面的民主代表性，但各州通过州院和立法自主权保留了重要的影响力。这种制度使瑞士能够在国家统一和尊重地区特点之间保持平衡，这种平衡继续决定着瑞士的政治结构。

在联邦一级

联邦议会

联邦议会是瑞士政治体制的核心，代表联邦的最高立法权。这个两院制机构反映了民主代表制和各州平等原则之间的妥协，这对瑞士的政治平衡至关重要。

国民院是联邦议会的第一院，由人民选举产生的200名代表组成。该院议员按照比例制选举产生，即每个州的席位数与其人口成正比。这种分配方式确保了所有州（无论人口是否稠密）的公民利益都能在国家一级得到公平的代表。国民院选举每四年举行一次，所有年满18岁的瑞士公民都有资格投票。联邦院是第二议院，由46名议员组成。除所谓的半州外，瑞士每个州在联邦院中都有两名代表，半州只派一名代表。这种结构确保了每个州，无论其面积大小或人口多少，在议会中都有平等的发言权。因此，联邦院在联邦一级代表各州的利益，确保民意代表与各州平等之间的平衡。

两院之间的互动对瑞士的立法程序至关重要。法案必须经两院批准才能成为法律。这一规定确保联邦法律既能反映瑞士人民的意愿（由国民院代表），也能反映各州的利益（由州议会代表），从而加强联邦内部的共识和政治稳定。

瑞士议会制度是完美两院制的典型范例，议会的两个议院，即国民院和联邦院，拥有平等的权力和权限。两院之间的这种平等是瑞士民主运作的基础。在完美的两院制中，任何一院都不能凌驾于另一院之上。因此，一项法案要想成为联邦法律，必须由两院分别批准。这种相互同意的必要性确保了通过的法律同时得到人民代表（国民院）和各州代表（州议会）的支持。这保证了立法过程的平衡，考虑到了国内不同的观点和利益。两院分别位于伯尔尼联邦宫的不同房间内。这种实际分隔强调了它们的独立性和职能平等。代表人民的国民院和代表各州的州议会按照各自的程序和规则运作，但拥有同等的立法权。这种完美的两院制是瑞士政治结构的关键要素，通过在立法过程中平衡代表不同地区和国家的利益，促进了政治结构的稳定性和有效性。

在瑞士的政治体制中，国民院和联邦院的议员以民兵为基础。这意味着他们的议员身份并不被视为全职职业，而是与他们通常的职业生涯并行的一种职能。这种做法反映了瑞士的公民参与传统，以及让政治贴近公民日常关切的愿望。瑞士国会议员不受 "强制性授权 "的约束，这意味着他们在法律上没有义务按照其政党或选民的指示投票。他们享有投票自由，可以更加灵活和独立地做出决策。这种独立性对于确保议会决策反映不同意见的平衡，而不是严格受制于党派路线至关重要。为了支持议员有效代表选民并独立行使其职权，瑞士议员享有某种形式的议会豁免权。这种豁免权使他们在履行职责时不会因发表意见或投票而受到起诉。但必须注意的是，这种豁免权不是绝对的，不包括在其官方职能之外实施的非法行为。这一民兵职能框架和没有强制性授权的规定与议会豁免权相结合，旨在鼓励普通公民参与政治，确保议员能够为公众利益行事，而不必担心受到不当影响。

在瑞士，议会豁免权是一个重要的法律概念，可确保对议员的保护和立法程序的顺利进行。这种豁免权分为两大类：非问责性和不可侵犯性，每一类都在维护民主完整性方面发挥着特定作用。议会非问责为议员提供保护，使其在履行公务时发表的意见或投出的选票不会受到起诉。这种形式的豁免权对于保障议会内部的言论自由至关重要，它允许议员自由辩论和投票，而不必担心法律报复。一个相关的历史例子可能是围绕有争议的改革展开的激烈辩论，议员们在辩论中可以表达不同意见，而不必担心法律后果。另一方面，"不可侵犯性 "保护议员的人身和思想自由，使他们在任期内免受起诉，除非他们所属的议院另有授权。这一规则旨在防止议员受到法律行动的恐吓或干扰，保障他们充分参与立法活动。在政治局势紧张时期，议会议员可能因其政治活动而成为攻击目标，在这种情况下，可以设想适用这一规则的历史案例。

必须指出的是，这些豁免权并不是抵御所有非法行为的盾牌。它们是专门为保护立法职能而设计的，并不涵盖议员官方职责之外的行为。这些保护措施有严格的规定，以防止滥用，维护人们对民主机构的信心。瑞士引入议员豁免权，体现了对立法者的必要保护与法律面前人人有责之间的微妙平衡。瑞士的制度确保议员在履行职责时不必担心外界的不当干预，同时又要求他们对其官方身份之外的行为负责，从而促进了其民主进程的稳定和完整。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 162

瑞士宪法》第 162 条规定了议会豁免权的基本原则，适用于联邦议会、联邦委员会和联邦总理的成员。该条款的目的是保护这些人士在履行公职时，特别是在议会及其机构发言时，不因其言论而承担任何法律责任。该条第一款规定，这些高级代表在履行公务时发表的意见或言论不承担法律责任。这种形式的豁免权通常被称为 "不承担责任"，对于确保政府机构内的言论自由至关重要。它允许议会和政府成员自由公开地辩论和表达意见，而不必担心被起诉。这种保护对民主的运作至关重要，因为它鼓励坦率、不受审查地讨论事关国家利益的问题。第二款提供了将这种保护扩展到其他形式的豁免的可能性。它允许立法根据国家正常运作的需要，将豁免权扩大到其他人或其他情况。这种灵活性确保了议会豁免框架能够适应不断变化的治理和政治代表要求。第 162 条反映了瑞士对保护其立法者和高级官员的承诺，从而为政治对话提供了一个没有不必要障碍的环境。这种做法对于保持瑞士立法程序的完整性和有效性至关重要。

全国理事会

国民院是瑞士议会的两院之一，其独特的选举制度既体现了比例代表制原则，又尊重地区多样性。瑞士每个州在国民院中至少有一个席位，确保最小的州在国家立法机构中也有代表。国民院选举采用的比例代表制可确保席位分配准确反映各州内不同政党的选票分配情况。这与多数制形成了鲜明对比，在多数制下，一个地区的获胜政党可以赢得所有席位，这可能会导致政治观点的代表性不成比例。

在实践中，每个州的席位数由其人口决定。人口较多的州，如苏黎世，拥有较多的席位，而人口较少的州则至少只有一个席位。这种方法可确保在立法过程中考虑到所有州（无论大小）公民的利益。国民院选举每四年举行一次，所有年满18岁的瑞士公民都有资格投票。这种比例代表制促进了国民院的政治多样性，使各种政治声音和观点都能在国家层面得到倾听和代表。这加强了瑞士政治制度的民主性和包容性。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 149

瑞士宪法》第149条详细规定了国民院的组成和选举程序，确保瑞士公民在联邦一级的民主和比例代表制。根据该条款，国民院由瑞士人民直接选举产生的200名议员组成。这些选举每四年举行一次，体现了更新和民主问责的原则。直选制使所有年满18岁的瑞士公民都能积极参与选择自己的代表，从而加强了公民承诺和立法程序的合法性。正如条款所述，比例制对于确保国民院的席位分配与各政党的选票分配一致至关重要。这种制度有利于均衡代表人口中的各种政治潮流和意见，让小党派在议会中拥有发言权，而不像多数制那样，大党派往往拥有优势。

在国民院选举中，瑞士各州组成一个独立的选区。这确保了在联邦框架内考虑到每个地区的利益和特殊性。各州之间的席位分配以人口为基础，确保人口较多的州拥有与其规模相称的代表权。不过，即使是最小的州也能保证至少有一名代表，这就保持了全国各地区之间的平衡，无论其面积大小或人口比重如何。因此，《瑞士宪法》第 149 条为国民院的民主和公平代表制提供了一个坚实的框架，反映了瑞士社会的多样性和多元化。这种结构有助于政治稳定和包容性代表制，这是瑞士民主的关键要素。

国务委员会

州议会是瑞士议会的第二议院，与国民院有着不同的特点，特别是在其成员的选举方式及其在联邦议会中的作用方面。与国民院按比例制选举议员不同，联邦院议员的选举方式由各州自行决定。在大多数情况下，各州选择两轮多数制。这意味着，如果在第一轮选举中没有候选人获得绝对多数票，则在得票最多的候选人之间进行第二轮选举。这种选举方法往往有利于各州内最受欢迎的候选人，从而直接反映了当地的政治倾向。

州议会在瑞士的政治平衡中发挥着至关重要的作用。每个州，无论其面积大小或人口多少，在这个议院中都有平等的代表权，大多数州有两名议员，半州有一名议员。这种平等的代表权确保了较小地区的利益不会被人口较多的大州的利益所淹没。在某些情况下，由国民院和州院组成的联邦议会会作为一个机构举行会议并进行审议。这些联席会议用于重要决策，如联邦委员会、联邦最高法院和其他高级官员的选举，以及联邦与各州之间关系的决策。这种两院共议的做法有利于两院之间的对话和综合决策，体现了瑞士政治的共识。因此，联邦院以其独特的选举方式和在联邦议会中的平等地位，在保持瑞士政治体制的平衡性和代表性方面发挥着至关重要的作用，有助于联邦治理的稳定和有效。

重要的是，不要将作为瑞士联邦议会组成部分的州议会与州政府混为一谈，后者是瑞士法语各州政府的名称。正如我们所见，联邦院是瑞士议会的上院，各州在其中享有平等的代表权。该院在联邦一级的立法过程中发挥着关键作用，并确保各州的利益在国家治理中得到均衡代表。另一方面，瑞士法语各州的行政法院指的是州一级的行政机构。瑞士各州，无论是否讲法语，都有自己的政府，在瑞士法语区一般称为州政府。这些州政府负责地方行政管理，并在州一级执行法律和政策。它们在管理各州事务（包括教育、公共卫生、警务和交通）方面发挥着重要作用，体现了瑞士联邦内各州的自治和主权。州议会（联邦一级）和州政务委员会（州一级）之间的这种区别体现了瑞士政治体制的复杂性和特殊性，联邦和各州的结构以一体化的方式并存和互动。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 168

瑞士宪法》第 168 条明确规定了联邦议会在某些重要政府和司法职位选举中的作用。该条款强调了联邦议会作为任命国家高级官员的核心决策机构的重要性。

根据第168条第一款，联邦议会负责选举联邦委员会成员，联邦委员会是瑞士的最高行政机构。这一选举程序确保联邦政府成员由人民和各州选出的代表选举产生，从而加强了联邦委员会的民主合法性。联邦议会还选举联邦总理，他在联邦政府的行政管理中发挥着关键作用。除联邦委员会和联邦总理外，联邦议会还负责选举瑞士最高司法机构联邦最高法院的法官。这一由人民和各州代表选举产生的程序确保联邦最高法院的法官是以透明和民主的方式选出的。

第168条还提到了联邦议会在将军选举中的作用，将军是瑞士的一个特殊职位，通常只有在危机或战争时期才会启用。该条第二款允许法律赋予联邦议会选举或确认其他官员当选的权力。这一规定提供了一定程度的灵活性，使瑞士的政治体制能够适应不断变化的治理需要。第168条强调了联邦议会在瑞士治理中的核心地位，赋予该机构任命管理国家的关键人物的重要权力，从而确保这些任命植根于民主进程。

联邦议会的目标和任务

瑞士联邦议会作为联邦的最高立法机构，在国家治理中发挥着多方面的核心作用。其目标和任务多种多样，涵盖了国家运作的重要方面。联邦议会的主要职责之一是管理宪法修正案。联邦议会负责提出和审查瑞士宪法修正案，这一过程需要仔细斟酌，以确保修正案既能反映瑞士社会的需求和愿望，又能维护国家的基本原则。

根据《宪法》第166条，联邦议会在外交政策方面发挥着决定性作用。联邦议会参与制定瑞士外交政策的主旨和批准国际条约。这种参与确保了外交政策决定得到民主支持，并以国家利益为重。联邦议会还负责制定国家预算和批准账目。这项重要的财政任务涉及对公共财政进行负责任的管理，确保国家资源得到高效、透明的使用。

此外，根据《宪法》第 172 条的规定，联邦议会还负责维护联邦国家与各州之间的关系。在瑞士这个高度联邦制和地区自治的国家，这一职责对于确保各级政府之间的团结与合作至关重要。最后，联邦议会对联邦委员会、联邦最高法院和联邦行政机构进行监督。它确保这些机构按照法律和民主原则运作，并有权在必要时进行调查和干预。这些多重职责赋予了联邦议会在瑞士政治结构中的核心地位，确保联邦政府对其公民负责，并以整个国家的利益为重。

瑞士宪法》第166条规定了联邦议会在处理国际关系和批准国际条约方面的作用，而第177条则规定了联邦委员会的运作原则。根据第166条，联邦议会在制定瑞士外交政策和监督对外关系方面发挥着积极作用。这意味着联邦议会参与制定外交政策的大纲，并确保瑞士的国际行动符合其利益和价值观。联邦议会还负责批准国际条约。这一权限对于确保瑞士的国际承诺得到瑞士民选代表的民主认可至关重要。不过，某些条约可在法律或国际条约本身规定的条件下，由联邦委员会独家缔结，无需议会批准。第177条涉及瑞士执行机构联邦委员会的内部运作。联邦委员会按照合议制原则运作，即由其所有成员集体做出决定。这种合议方式鼓励协商一致的决策，反映了瑞士政治制度的多元化和民主性。该条款还明确规定，联邦委员会的事务按部门由其成员分工负责，每个部门负责公共行政的不同领域。此外，上诉权必须得到保障，在确保监督和问责的同时，允许在一定程度上将责任下放给各部门或行政单位。这些条款说明了民主结构和程序是如何融入瑞士的内部和外部事务管理的，反映了瑞士对透明、负责和参与性治理的承诺。

瑞士联邦议会的主要职责之一是在联邦职权范围内的所有领域进行立法。作为国家的最高立法机构，联邦议会负责制定、修改和废除联邦一级的法律。这项立法任务涉及广泛的领域，包括但不限于经济政策、公共卫生、教育、国防、交通、环境和外交政策。联邦议会在这些领域的立法能力对于确保瑞士法律满足社会不断变化的需求和应对当代挑战至关重要。除立法职能外，联邦议会还有其他重要职能，如监督政府（联邦委员会）、处理联邦与各州之间的关系以及批准国际条约。这些多重职责使联邦议会能够在瑞士的治理和稳定中发挥核心作用，确保国家按照民主、联邦制和法制的原则运行。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 163

瑞士宪法》第163条规定了联邦议会制定法律的形式，区分了联邦法律、法令和联邦政令。根据该条第一款，当联邦议会制定规定法律规则的条款时，这些条款采取联邦法律或法令的形式。联邦法律是重要的立法行为，需要联邦议会两院（国民院和联邦院）的批准，在某些情况下，还可以通过全民公决的方式付诸人民表决。另一方面，法令通常是更详细的条例，规定如何实施联邦法律。第二段涉及联邦法令，这是另一种形式的立法行为。联邦法令可用于不需要制定新法律或法令的决定。联邦法令分为两类：需要全民公决的法令和不需要全民公决的法令。须经全民公决的联邦法令可能会受到人民的质疑，而简单的联邦法令则不受这一程序的限制。这种对不同立法形式的区分使联邦议会能够根据各种情况的具体要求调整其立法程序。这也确保了法律法规以适当的方式通过，并具有一定程度的灵活性，以满足瑞士社会和国家不断变化的需求。

瑞士联邦议会将其活动分为不同的会议，在规定的时间内，议员们开会审议并做出决定。这些会议可以是普通会议，也可以是特别会议。普通会议按照既定时间表安排和举行，而特别会议则可能是为了处理需要立即关注的紧急或具体事项。在这些会议上，联邦议会议员有机会发言、表达意见并积极参与决策过程。这种互动对联邦议会的民主运作至关重要，因为它使当选代表能够讨论、辩论和制定联邦的立法和政策。

转介 "一词指的是议员可用来影响立法和制宪进程的手段或工具。这些工具使联邦议会议员能够发起立法倡议、提出修正案、向联邦委员会提出问题并参与其他议会活动。转介是议员作用的重要组成部分，使他们有能力有效代表选民的利益，为国家治理做出重大贡献。在立法领域，转介使议员能够提出新法律或修改现有法律。在宪法领域，它为提出或修改宪法条款提供了可能，根据拟议修改的性质和程度，这一过程可能涉及全民公决。定期会议、举行特别会议的能力和提交权的结合，确保了瑞士联邦议会始终是一个充满活力的立法机构，能够有效地满足瑞士人民的需求。

在瑞士的议会制度下，联邦议会议员可以利用一些立法和程序工具来影响治理和政策。这些工具统称为提案，在瑞士的民主运作中发挥着至关重要的作用。议会倡议是一个强有力的工具，允许议员直接提出法案或关于新立法的一般性建议。历史上的一个相关例子可能是，为改革一项具体的社会或经济政策而提出的议会倡议，反映了公民的迫切关切。而动议则是议员提出法案或具体措施建议的一种手段。这些动议必须得到议会另一院的批准才能生效，从而确保立法提案的平衡和核实。一个具体的例子是，改善国家基础设施的动议需要得到参众两院的同意才能实施。推定是一种工具，允许议员要求联邦委员会审查提出一项法案或采取一项具体措施的可取性。也可以要求就某一主题提交报告。议员质询可以用来要求对一项新政策的环境影响进行评估。质询是议员要求联邦委员会就特定问题提供信息或作出澄清的一种方式。这一程序提高了透明度，并允许议会对行政部门进行有效控制。例如，质询可以用来询问政府对国际危机的应对措施。质询与质询类似，但重点是获取与联邦具体事务有关的信息。这一机制为议员澄清政策或治理问题提供了直接途径。最后，提问时间是联邦委员会成员直接口头回答议员提问的时间。通过这种直接对话，可以进行活跃的交流，并往往能揭示政府在各种问题上的立场和意图。瑞士议员在历史上和现在所使用的这些不同的转介工具，说明了瑞士民主的动态和互动性质，使负责任和顺应民意的治理能够回应民众的需求和关切。

2008年至2012年期间，瑞士议会活动的特点是联邦议会议员的大量发言，反映出他们积极参与治理和立法。共提交了6000多份发言，涉及广泛的领域和主题，显示了瑞士民主的活力和议员对国家事务的参与。其中，400 项为议会倡议。通过让议员直接提出议案，这些倡议体现了议员在制定和修改法律方面的积极作用。提出了约 1 300 项动议。动议需经议会另一院批准方能生效，这表明议员们愿意建议修改立法或推动采取具体措施。议员们还提交了 700 项议案，要求联邦委员会审查就不同主题提出立法建议或采取行动的可取性。这些质询表明，立法决策的基础是对信息的搜索和评估。通过 1700 次质询，议员们积极要求联邦委员会提供信息和说明，这表明了他们在监督和控制行政部门方面的作用。议员们还提出了约 850 个问题，这表明议员们始终需要获得有关联邦各种事务的具体信息，从而有助于开展开明的辩论和做出有理有据的决策。最后，还提交了 200 至 300 个书面问题。这些问题往往更为详细，使议员们能够获得有关政策或行政管理具体方面的信息。2008 年至 2012 年间，这些议会干预措施的规模和多样性表明，瑞士联邦议会议员致力于有效代表其选民，并为国家治理做出重要贡献。在此期间，议员们积极参与立法进程和政府监督的各个方面，体现了瑞士议会民主充满活力、反应迅速的特点。

在瑞士，转介并非联邦议会议员的专属特权；作为国家执行机构的联邦委员会也拥有转介权。这意味着联邦委员会可以主动向议会提交立法草案。这一程序是瑞士政府立法和行政部门之间互动的一个基本方面。当联邦委员会向议会提交法案时，它通过提交政府起草的文本启动立法程序。这些法案可能涉及经济改革、社会政策、环境问题或法律修改等多个领域。议案提交后，先由联邦议会议员进行审议、辩论并可能进行修改，然后再进行表决。向联邦委员会提交法案的权利在瑞士立法过程中发挥着至关重要的作用。它使政府能够积极提出立法改革建议，并对国家行政管理中发现的需求和挑战做出回应。与此同时，议会程序确保这些提案接受民主审查和充分辩论，确保任何新立法都能反映广泛的观点和利益。联邦委员会将立法草案提交议会的能力说明了瑞士行政权与立法权之间的平衡，这种平衡对于维持有效的民主治理至关重要。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 181

瑞士宪法》第 181 条明确规定了联邦委员会的倡议权，强调了其在立法过程中的 积极作用。根据该条款，联邦委员会有权向联邦议会提交立法草案。这一宪法条款确保了国家行政机构联邦委员会能够在制定国家政策和法律方面发挥重要作用。这种主动权是瑞士治理的一个基本要素，因为它允许联邦委员会针对国家的需求和面临的挑战提出新的法律或法律修改建议。这些提案可以涵盖从经济政策到社会立法、从环境到国家安全等广泛领域。联邦委员会提交法案后，联邦议会两院--国民院和州院--将对其进行审查。这一过程包括辩论、委员会讨论以及可能对原始文本进行的修改。法案在成为法律之前必须得到参众两院的批准。第181条反映了瑞士政治体制的合作性质，即行政部门和立法部门共同制定政策和法律。政府各部门之间的这种互动确保了瑞士法律是充分民主进程的结果，同时考虑到行政部门和民选代表的意见。

联邦委员会

瑞士《宪法》第174条明确规定了联邦委员会的作用，肯定了其作为联邦最高领导和执行机构的地位。该条款强调了联邦委员会作为瑞士政府主要机构的地位，负责指导和执行国家事务。

作为行政机关，联邦委员会负责制定政府政策和指导联邦的行政活动。这包括执行联邦议会通过的法律，处理与各州和外国实体的关系，以及监督各联邦部门和机构。作为行政机构，联邦委员会还负责政府的日常行政事务。这包括实施和执行联邦法律、管理联邦的日常事务以及在国际上代表瑞士。

联邦委员会由联邦议会选举产生的七名成员组成，体现了瑞士的合议制管理体制。这种合议制结构保证了决策的一致性以及瑞士不同地区和语言群体的均衡代表性。联邦委员会成员负责不同的政府部门，但根据合议制原则，决策由集体做出。第174条强调了联邦委员会在瑞士国家运作中的核心作用，确保国家以高效、负责和民主的方式运行。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 174

瑞士政府正式名称为联邦委员会，是一个独特的行政机构，其特点是采用合议制结构和选举制度。联邦委员会由七名成员组成，由联邦议会选举产生，任期四年，联邦议会由瑞士议会两院（国民院和联邦院）组成。

联邦主席的任期为一年，他并不比联邦委员会中的同事拥有更大的行政权，而是作为 "平等中的第一人"（prima inter pares）。总统的作用主要是礼仪性和象征性的，包括主持联邦委员会会议和在某些官方活动中代表瑞士。这种做法反映了联邦委员会内部的合议和平等原则，这是瑞士治理的一个独特方面。

另一方面，联邦总理充当政府的主要秘书，协助联邦委员会履行行政和组织职能。虽然联邦总理不是联邦委员会的成员，但这一角色对于行政机构的顺利运作至关重要。作为最高行政机关，联邦委员会负责指导和执行政府政策。它还在立法过程中发挥作用，特别是将立法草案提交联邦议会审议和通过。联邦委员会每四年选举一次，在国民议会完全换届后进行，确保与瑞士人民选出的代表保持一致。这确保了行政机构与立法机构的优先事项和观点保持一致，从而提高了整个联邦治理的一致性和有效性。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 175

瑞士宪法》第 175 条明确规定了联邦行政机构联邦委员会的组成和选举程序。这一立法框架保证了瑞士政府内部的平衡和民主代表性。第一款规定联邦委员会由七名成员组成。这一结构旨在促进共同决策，并确保行政机构内部的多元化代表性。第二款规定，联邦委员会成员由联邦议会在国民议会完成换届后选举产生。这一规定确保了联邦委员会的选举与国民议会的选举周期同步，从而加强了立法和行政部门之间的一致性。第三款规定，联邦委员会成员任期四年，必须从有资格参加国民院选举的瑞士公民中选出。这确保了联邦委员会成员具备承担高级政府职责所需的资格和经验。最后，第四段强调了瑞士不同地区和语言社区在联邦委员会中公平代表的重要性。这一规定反映了瑞士文化和语言的多样性，旨在确保全国各地都有代表参与政府最高层的决策过程。第175条的这些内容共同促成了联邦政府的形成，它不仅是民主选举产生的，而且代表了瑞士社会的丰富多彩。

将瑞士联邦委员会成员与法国政府的行政官员进行比较，有助于了解两国政府结构和行政官员角色的差异。不过，需要注意的是，尽管两种制度都有行政责任，但它们的运作原则不同。在法国，政府由总统领导，由总理和部长协助。总统拥有相当大的权力，在国家事务中发挥领导作用，而总理和部长们则管理具体的部门或部长职位。这种制度等级更分明，权力更集中，每个行政成员都有明确的职责。在瑞士，联邦委员会成员以合议制模式运作，任何成员都不能凌驾于其他成员之上。每位联邦委员领导一个政府部门，但重要决策由集体做出。这种结构体现了联邦主席的 "平等优先"（prima inter pares）原则，即联邦主席主要是代表，不赋予额外的行政权。从这个意义上说，瑞士联邦委员可以被视为 "比部长更重要 "的人，因为他们不仅仅是个别部门的负责人，而是对整个政府集体负责。这与法国的模式形成了鲜明对比，在法国，部长们在总统和总理的领导下主要负责自己的部委。这一差异说明了民主制度中不同的治理方式。法国选择等级分明的中央集权制度，而瑞士则倾向于合议制和平等模式，这反映了瑞士对联邦制和均衡代表制的承诺。

瑞士联邦委员会确实是联合政府的杰出典范，反映了该国的政治多样性。在瑞士，联邦委员会不是由单一政党组成，而是由该国几个主要政治组织的代表组成。这种结构植根于瑞士和谐的政治传统，旨在确保不同政治力量在政府中的均衡代表性。联邦委员会内部的这种联合方式使治理更具包容性和共识性。通过整合不同的政党，瑞士政府力求代表瑞士社会的广泛观点和利益。在一个语言、文化和政治多元化的国家，这种均衡的代表性至关重要。联邦委员会的组成一般反映了议会中政治力量的分布。席位根据各政党的选举实力分配，这确保了国家主要政党在政府中的代表性。不过，需要注意的是，联邦委员会的具体组成以及各政党之间的席位分配可能会因选举和政治谈判而发生变化。这种联合政府形式是瑞士民主制度的独特之处，有助于其政治稳定和有效管理内部多样性的能力。通过鼓励不同党派之间的合作和共识，瑞士联邦委员会制度促进了平衡和深思熟虑的治理，兼顾了社会中的多元化意见和利益。

瑞士的修宪进程是直接民主在行动中的一个突出例子，议会两院和瑞士人民都参与其中。宪法修订提案必须首先获得由国民议会和联邦院组成的联邦议会的批准。然而，这只是整个过程的第一阶段。如果两院无法就修订达成共识，或者如果修订的性质需要更直接的民主决策，那么这一问题将提交瑞士人民进行全民公决。这就是瑞士民主的独特之处。公民有权就包括宪法修正案在内的重要问题做出直接决定。2009 年关于禁止建造新尖塔的宪法修正案就是一个显著的例子，瑞士人民通过全民公决直接做出了这一决定。在瑞士，与其他民主国家不同的是，公投决定后解散议会的做法并不常见。瑞士的议会选举以四年为固定周期，与全民公决或宪法修订的结果无关。这种做法促进了政治稳定，确保人民的决定被纳入现有的制度框架，而不会对立法或行政程序造成重大干扰。这一制度证明了其在治理方面的价值，使瑞士能够有效地将公民直接参与与制度稳定结合起来。它说明了瑞士如何将直接民主原则纳入稳定的议会框架，使公民能够直接影响政策，同时保持政府的连续性和有效性。

根据《宪法》第177条，瑞士联邦委员会是一个合议机构。这一特点对于理解瑞士政府的性质及其决策方式至关重要。在联邦委员会这样的合议机构中，包括联邦总统在内的任何一位成员都不拥有凌驾于其他成员之上的行政权力。理事会的每位成员在决策中都有平等的发言权，决策由所有成员集体投票或协商一致做出。这有利于在协商一致和协作的基础上进行管理，体现了瑞士的民主价值观。

联邦主席从理事会成员中选举产生，任期一年，不是传统意义上的国家元首或政府首脑。相反，他的角色是 "平等中的第一人"。总统主持联邦委员会会议，在国内和国际上代表瑞士。不过，这一职位并不赋予总统额外的行政权力或对政府事务的最高权威。更具象征意义的是，总统代表联邦委员会的团结和连续性。联邦委员会的这种合议制结构是瑞士民主的一个关键要素。它确保政府的决策是集体和平衡审议的结果，反映了意见和利益的多样性。这与总统或总理拥有相当大行政权力的其他政府体制形成鲜明对比。瑞士强调行政部门内部的合作与平等，这符合其协商一致的民主和联邦制传统。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 177

瑞士宪法》第 177 条为联邦委员会的运作奠定了基础，强调了合议制原则和委员 会成员之间的责任分配方式。该条第一款规定，联邦委员会作为一个合议机构做出决定。这意味着，决策不是由某个成员自主做出的，而是通过整个委员会的审议和协商一致做出的。这种集体决策方法是瑞士治理的核心特征，反映了该国对参与式民主和协商一致的承诺。根据第二段，虽然决策是集体做出的，但决策的准备和执行是由联邦委员会成员按部门分工负责的。每位联邦委员领导一个具体部门，负责该部门的行政管理和政策执行。这种任务分工确保了每个管理领域都有专家管理，同时又保持了最终决策的合议方式。第三段规定，日常事务的管理权可以下放给部门或下属行政单位，同时保证上诉权。这意味着，尽管日常工作由各个部门管理，但仍有机制确保监督和问责，并允许对行政决定提出上诉。

联邦委员会的七名成员被认为是平等的，每人在集体决策中拥有一票，这体现了合议制原则。不过，关于在票数相同的情况下，主席的投票权加倍的说法需要澄清。按照瑞士联邦委员会的惯例，联邦主席没有决定性一票，也没有更高的行政权力。总统的作用主要是礼仪性和代表性的，是 "平等中的第一人"。联邦委员会内部的决策以协商一致或出席会议成员的多数票为基础。如果票数相同，主席的投票一般不重复计算。在瑞士的制度中，即使在票数相同的情况下，也强调寻求共识，而不是由单一成员进行决定性投票。这种做法有利于集体和平衡的决策过程，符合瑞士政府特有的参与式民主和合议精神。值得注意的是，联邦委员会内部有关投票和决策程序的具体规则可能会有所不同，并在内部条例中加以规定。不过，成员平等和集体决策的原则仍然是瑞士治理的关键要素。

在瑞士的政治体制中，联邦委员会做出的决定是集体做出的，并以整个委员会的名义公布。这符合合议制原则，也是联邦委员会运作方式的核心。每项决定，无论是涉及国内政策、外交政策还是政府活动的任何其他领域，都是理事会七名成员商议和协商一致的结果。这一程序确保所有决定的做出都考虑到所有成员的观点和专业知识，体现了一种平衡和深思熟虑的方法。一旦联邦委员会做出决定，该决定将作为整个委员会的决定而不是个别成员的决定提交和执行。这凸显了联邦委员会作为行政机构的统一性和团结性，并确保政府的行动被视为代表整个行政机构，而不是某个人或某个部门的观点或利益。这种集体决策制度是瑞士政治结构的基本要素，旨在提高国家事务管理的透明度、问责制和效率。

在瑞士的政府体系中，联邦委员会的每位成员都扮演着双重角色。一方面，他（她）是某个政府部门的负责人，另一方面，他（她）是作为合议机构的联邦委员会成员。作为部门负责人，每位联邦委员负责其特定领域的管理和行政工作。这些部门涉及外交、国防、财政、教育、卫生、环境、交通等多个领域。每位联邦委员负责监督本部门的活动，包括政策执行和日常管理。不过，除了管理各自的部门，每位联邦委员也是联邦委员会作为一个集体实体的平等成员。这意味着，除了部门职责外，他们还参与影响政府和整个国家的问题的共同决策。重要决策，包括那些与他们所在部门没有直接关系的决策，通常由联邦委员会全体成员经过商议并达成共识后集体做出。这种双重角色反映了瑞士的治理体系，即既重视特定领域的专业知识，又重视集体决策，以确保平衡、高效地管理国家事务。这确保了尽管每位联邦委员都有自己的职责范围，但政府的总体决策是合作和共同思考的结果。

瑞士联邦委员会实际上代表了瑞士的主要政党，这一特点源于瑞士的联合政府和和谐传统。这种做法确保了瑞士各主要政治派别在行政机构中都有代表，反映了瑞士的多党制结构。这种代表性是一项被称为 "神奇公式"（德语Zauberformel）的不成文协议的结果。该公式于 1959 年引入，并在此后不断调整，它根据各主要政党的选举实力和在议会中的代表权，决定联邦委员会席位在各政党之间的分配。其目的是确保政府的稳定和平衡，使各政党能够为国家利益共同努力，同时代表瑞士社会广泛的意见和利益。和谐制度和 "神奇公式 "为瑞士营造了稳定和协商一致的政治氛围。通过将不同党派纳入政府，它鼓励合作与妥协，而不是对抗。这也避免了过度的两极分化，并确保政府决策能够反映各种观点。不过，值得注意的是，虽然主要政党都有代表，但瑞士的制度并不保证每个政党在联邦委员会中都有席位。席位的分配受政治谈判和选举结果的影响，并可能随政治动态和选举而变化。

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 175

瑞士宪法》第175条详细规定了联邦委员会的组成和选举程序，强调了瑞士政府中均衡代表性和多样性的重要性。首先，联邦委员会由七名成员组成。这一相对较小的规模有利于形成一个合议和高效的决策过程，每个成员都有重要的影响力。其次，联邦委员会成员由联邦议会在国民院完成换届后选举产生。这意味着联邦委员会选举与国民院选举周期同步，确保政府反映当前的政治格局和瑞士人民的情绪。第三，联邦委员会成员任期四年，必须从有资格竞选国民院议员的瑞士公民中选出。这确保了联邦委员会成员具备承担政府职责所需的政治经验和资格。最后，第四点强调了瑞士不同地区和语言社区在联邦委员会中具有公平代表性的重要性。这一规定旨在确保全国各地都有代表参与决策过程，反映瑞士的文化和语言多样性，加强国家统一。因此，第175条体现了瑞士民主的基本原则：政府的平衡性、代表性和多样性。这些原则确保联邦委员会以民主方式有效运作，在做出决策时考虑到瑞士社会的多元化观点和利益。

选举瑞士联邦主席的做法是基于联邦委员会中的资历原则。根据这一惯例，联邦主席一职一般由已担任过其所有同事主席的联邦委员会成员担任。这一方法旨在确保主席职位的公平轮换，并对联邦委员会中资历最老的成员的经验和服务予以认可。联合会主席任期一年，根据合议原则，其权力不超过理事会其他成员。总统的职责主要是礼仪性和代表性的，领导联邦委员会会议并代表瑞士出席官方活动。不过，他并不享有超越其理事会同事的任何行政权力。按资历选举主席的做法反映了作为瑞士政治制度核心的协商一致的民主和平等价值观。这也确保了理事会的每位成员都有机会担任主席，从而有助于公平轮换和政府内部不同观点的均衡代表。

瑞士联邦主席一职主要是代表国内外的政府学院。联邦主席并不是传统意义上的国家元首或政府首脑，而是联邦委员会的一名成员，担任一年的代表职务。在国内，联邦总统代表联邦委员会出席各种官方活动、仪式和活动。他或她可以代表联邦委员会发言，并代表瑞士联邦政府的统一性和连续性。在国外，联邦主席承担外交角色，代表瑞士进行国事访问、出席国际会议以及其他需要高级代表的场合。虽然瑞士的外交政策主要由联邦外交部负责，但总统在国际舞台上展示瑞士统一协调的形象方面发挥着重要作用。需要强调的是，尽管具有代表性，但与联邦委员会的其他成员相比，联邦主席并没有额外的行政权力。在瑞士的合议制治理体系中，主席首先是一个代表和协调角色。这种独特的结构反映了瑞士对参与式民主和联邦制的承诺，确保即使是总统职位也能与政府内部的平等和协作原则保持一致。

瑞士联邦委员会作为最高行政机构，对国家的运作和稳定起着至关重要的作用。其主要职责是管理对外关系，这项任务包括指导瑞士外交。在这一职责中，联邦委员会历来在国际舞台上保持瑞士的中立地位，其在两次世界大战和冷战期间所做的努力就证明了这一点，当时瑞士在作为国际谈判中心的同时保持中立立场。联邦委员会在制定和提出国际条约方面也发挥着关键作用。这些条约经联邦委员会谈判后，必须由联邦议会批准，从而确保了对国际协议的民主控制。一个显著的例子是瑞士于2002年加入联合国，此举经过了慎重考虑，并最终获得了政府和全民公决的批准。

联邦委员会的另一项重要职责是管理联邦与各州之间的事务，这体现了瑞士的联邦制。这一职能确保了各级政府之间的有效合作与协调，这对于一个语言和文化多样性明显的国家来说至关重要。在国家安全方面，联邦委员会采取对内和对外保护措施。这不仅包括军事防御，还包括应急准备和公民保护管理。瑞士的国防政策以中立和强大的兵役传统为特点，由联邦委员会指导和监督。在立法领域，联邦委员会参与立法程序的初步阶段，在向联邦议会提交立法草案之前的准备工作中发挥着至关重要的作用。立法程序的这一阶段对于确保新法律构思精巧、有效满足国家需求至关重要。最后，联邦的财政管理是一项复杂的任务，需要认真规划和监督。联邦委员会负责编制联邦预算和监督公共开支，确保以负责任的方式使用国家财政资源。通过这些不同的职能，瑞士联邦委员会在维护法律和秩序、促进经济繁荣以及维护瑞士政治稳定方面发挥着至关重要的作用。联邦委员会的行动和决定决定了瑞士在关键历史时刻的走向，并将继续影响瑞士的发展和在世界上的地位。

联邦总理府

Article 179 of the Swiss Constitution defines the Federal Chancellery as the staff of the Federal Council, placing it at the heart of the Swiss government administration. Headed by the Federal Chancellor, the Federal Chancellery plays a crucial role in supporting and coordinating the activities of the Federal Council. The Federal Chancellery acts as a central administrative and organisational support body for the Swiss government. Its responsibilities include preparing Federal Council meetings, managing documentation and official communications, and supporting interdepartmental coordination. By facilitating the efficient and orderly running of the Federal Council, the Chancellery ensures that government decisions are taken in an informed and organised manner. The Chancellor, as head of the Federal Chancellery, plays an essential role in this process. Although the Chancellor is not a member of the Federal Council and has no decision-making power in government affairs, he or she is responsible for the smooth running of administrative operations and logistical support. This position is crucial to ensuring that the Federal Council functions smoothly and efficiently, allowing Council members to concentrate on their political and decision-making responsibilities.

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 179

The Swiss Federal Chancellery, established in 1803, plays a crucial role in Switzerland's system of government. As the staff of the Federal Council, it provides essential administrative and organisational support, contributing to the efficiency and coordination of government activities. A notable aspect of the Federal Chancellery is its participation in the deliberations of the Federal Assembly. Although the Chancellery does not have the power to vote, it does have an advisory vote. This means that the Chancellor and Chancellery staff can provide advice, information and clarification during parliamentary discussions. This contribution is particularly important when it comes to technical or administrative issues relating to the implementation of policies and laws.

The presence of the Federal Chancellery in parliamentary deliberations ensures close liaison between the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly, fostering mutual understanding and effective cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of government. The Chancellery plays a facilitating role, helping to translate political decisions into concrete administrative action and ensuring that government processes run smoothly. Since its creation in the early 19th century, the Federal Chancellery has evolved to meet the changing needs of the Swiss government, but its fundamental role as the nerve centre of the Federal Council and a key partner of the Federal Assembly has remained constant. It is an important pillar in the smooth and efficient functioning of the Swiss political system.

The Chancellor of the Swiss Confederation is appointed by the Federal Assembly. This appointment reflects the importance of this role in the Swiss political system, although the Chancellor does not have the same status or the same powers as a member of the Federal Council. The Chancellor is chosen to work closely with the Federal Council, acting as its administrative staff and providing essential organisational and logistical support. Although the Chancellor is not a full member of the Federal Council and does not participate in the decision-making process with voting rights, his role is nonetheless crucial.

As a participant in Federal Council meetings, the Chancellor has an advisory vote. This means that he or she can offer advice, administrative perspectives and relevant information during discussions, but without participating in the final vote. This contribution is particularly important in ensuring that the Federal Council's decisions and policies are well-informed and administratively feasible. The Chancellor's position, by facilitating communication between the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly and helping to coordinate government activities, is essential to the smooth running of the Swiss executive. Although the Chancellor has no decision-making powers, his role as adviser and organiser within the Swiss government is of great importance for the effective implementation of policies and the management of state affairs.

Swiss Federal Supreme Court

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court occupies a key position in the country's legal system, as the supreme judicial authority of the Confederation. Its creation and development reflect the constitutional and political changes that have shaped modern Switzerland. Originally, the Federal Supreme Court was not a permanent court, its role and structure having evolved over time. It was not until 1874, with the revision of the Federal Constitution, that the Federal Supreme Court was established as a permanent court. This marked an important moment in Swiss judicial history, signifying a strengthening of judicial power at federal level.

The rise of the Federal Supreme Court is closely linked to the increase in the powers of the Swiss Confederation. As powers previously held by the cantons were transferred to the federal level, the need for a supreme judicial authority capable of deciding disputes relating to federal legislation became increasingly apparent. The Federal Supreme Court was given the task of ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of federal law throughout the country.

As the highest judicial body, the Federal Supreme Court deals with civil law, criminal law, public law and disputes between the cantons and the Confederation. It also plays a crucial role in protecting the constitutional rights of Swiss citizens. The creation of a permanent court in 1874 therefore symbolised a turning point in the consolidation of the Swiss federal state and the development of its legal system. This development contributed to the unification of the legal framework in Switzerland and strengthened the rule of law and national cohesion.

Switzerland's federal judicial system is remarkably structured to ensure maximum specialisation and efficiency in the handling of legal cases. At the heart of this system is the Federal Supreme Court, located in Lausanne, which acts as the supreme judicial authority of the Confederation. This supreme court, founded as part of the modernisation of the Swiss state in the 19th century, is the final court of appeal in civil law, criminal law, public law and disputes between the cantons and the Confederation. Its role is crucial to the uniform interpretation of federal legislation and the protection of constitutional rights. In Lucerne, the Federal Insurance Court specialises in social law issues, dealing with cases relating to social security. This court plays an essential role in dealing with legal issues relating to health, accident, disability and old-age insurance, areas that are crucial to the well-being of Swiss citizens. The Federal Criminal Court, located in Bellinzona, specialises in criminal cases under federal criminal law. Inaugurated in the early 2000s, it reflects the need for a centralised and specialised approach to dealing with complex crimes such as terrorism, money laundering and crimes against the state, contemporary challenges that Switzerland, like other nations, must face. Finally, the Federal Patent Court in St. Gallen, established to strengthen the protection of intellectual property in Switzerland, is a key player in the field of patent litigation. This court, which specialises in intellectual property issues, ensures that Switzerland remains a centre of innovation and research by providing a solid legal framework for patent protection.

Each of these courts, with its unique specialisation, contributes to Switzerland's overall judicial structure, ensuring a coherent, fair and efficient approach to justice. This organisation reflects Switzerland's commitment to a robust judicial system that is adapted to the various aspects of modern governance and legal challenges.

Within the Swiss judicial system, the Federal Supreme Court plays a crucial role as the highest judicial authority of the Confederation, particularly in dealing with appeals from cantonal courts. This structure guarantees the highest level of legal scrutiny and control, ensuring uniformity and fairness in the application of Swiss law. When a case is decided in a cantonal court and a party is dissatisfied with the decision, it has the option of appealing to the Federal Supreme Court, subject to certain conditions. Such appeals may concern matters of civil law, criminal law or public law. The Federal Supreme Court then examines the case to ensure that the law has been correctly applied and interpreted by the cantonal courts.

This judicial hierarchy, in which cases can be taken from a cantonal court to the highest federal court, is essential to maintaining the integrity of the Swiss legal system. It not only makes it possible to correct any errors made by the lower courts, but also ensures that the interpretation and application of the law are consistent across the country. By providing this avenue of appeal, the Federal Supreme Court serves as the ultimate guardian of the Swiss law and Constitution, playing a key role in protecting individual rights and maintaining the legal order. This structure reflects Switzerland's deep commitment to the rule of law and fair justice, fundamental values in Swiss society.

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 147

Article 147 of the Swiss Constitution highlights a distinctive feature of the Swiss legislative process, known as the consultation procedure. This procedure is a key element of participatory democracy in Switzerland, allowing broad participation by the various players in society in the development of policies and laws. Under this article, the cantons, political parties and interest groups concerned are invited to give their opinion on important legislative acts, on other significant projects during their preparatory phases, and on major international treaties. This consultation practice ensures that these bodies have the opportunity to express their views and contribute to the shaping of policies before they are finalised and adopted. This consultation procedure reflects Switzerland's commitment to inclusive and transparent governance. By seeking the views of the cantons, which play an important role in the Swiss federal system, as well as those of political parties and interest groups, the federal government ensures that regional and sectoral perspectives and concerns are taken into account. This contributes to better policy-making, greater acceptance of legislation and more effective implementation. In the case of international treaties, the consultation procedure is particularly important, as these agreements can have a considerable impact on different aspects of Swiss society. By involving various stakeholders in the review process, Switzerland ensures that its international commitments best reflect national interests and enjoy broad support. In this way, Article 147 of the Swiss Constitution illustrates Switzerland's collaborative and deliberative approach to formulating its policies and laws, an essential pillar of its democracy and system of governance.

At cantonal level

Article 51 of the Swiss Constitution addresses the issue of cantonal constitutions and emphasises the importance of democracy and autonomy at cantonal level, while ensuring their conformity with federal law. According to the first paragraph of this article, each Swiss canton must have a democratic constitution. This requirement reflects the principle of cantonal sovereignty and respect for direct democracy, which are pillars of the Swiss political structure. These cantonal constitutions must be accepted by the people of the canton concerned, which guarantees that the cantonal laws and government structures reflect the will of their citizens. In addition, each cantonal constitution must be capable of being revised if a majority of the canton's electorate so requests, thus ensuring that cantonal laws are flexible and adaptable to the changing needs and wishes of the population. The second paragraph stipulates that the cantonal constitutions must be guaranteed by the Confederation. This guarantee is granted on condition that the cantonal constitutions do not conflict with federal law. This means that, although the cantons enjoy a high degree of autonomy, their constitutions and laws must respect the principles and regulations established at federal level. This provision ensures national cohesion and unity, while respecting cantonal diversity and autonomy.

Article 51 of the Swiss Constitution strikes a balance between cantonal autonomy and respect for the federal legal framework, reflecting the federalist nature of the Swiss state. It guarantees that political and legal structures at cantonal level operate democratically and are in harmony with federal laws and principles.

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 51

In Switzerland's federalist system, the interaction between federal law and the cantons is defined by a rigorous framework that ensures that federal laws are applied uniformly and effectively across the country, while respecting the autonomy of the cantons. The cantons cannot apply federal law at their own discretion. They are obliged to follow the guidelines and standards established by federal legislation. This ensures that the laws are implemented consistently across all the Swiss cantons, thereby ensuring the uniformity of the legal and judicial framework at national level.

As part of this responsibility, each canton must designate specific bodies to carry out federal tasks. This means that the cantons are responsible for setting up the authorities and institutions needed to apply federal legislation at local level. These bodies may include cantonal courts, public administrations and other regulatory entities. In addition, the cantons are obliged to create these institutions and bodies in accordance with the requirements and standards defined by federal legislation. This means that cantonal structures must be in line with the fundamental principles and technical specifications of federal legislation, thereby ensuring their effectiveness and legitimacy. This structure reflects the federalist nature of Switzerland, where the cantons enjoy significant autonomy, but within the framework of respect for federal law and order. It allows for effective decentralisation and local governance while maintaining national cohesion and unity within the Confederation.

The autonomy of the Swiss cantons is a fundamental element of the country's federalist structure, reflected in their ability to organise themselves and to distribute power within their own institutions. However, this autonomy is exercised within the framework defined by the Swiss Federal Constitution, which sets out the limits and fundamental principles to be respected by the cantons. Each canton in Switzerland has the freedom to define its own cantonal constitution, structure its government and organise its public administrations. This freedom allows them to adapt their political and administrative structures to their specific regional, cultural and linguistic characteristics. For example, the cantons decide how to organise their judicial, educational and administrative systems, which can vary considerably from one canton to another. At the same time, the cantons' actions are limited by the provisions of the Federal Constitution. They must respect the democratic principles, fundamental rights and federal laws established at national level. This limitation ensures that, although the cantons have considerable room for manoeuvre, their policies and laws do not conflict with the fundamental principles and interests of the Confederation as a whole. This interplay between cantonal autonomy and federal directives creates a unique balance that lies at the heart of Switzerland's political stability and unity. It allows for regional diversity and flexibility while maintaining unity and coherence at the national level, reflecting the values of democracy, federalism and pluralism that characterise Swiss society.

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse du 18 avril 1999 — article 3

Article 3 of the Swiss Constitution establishes a fundamental principle of the country's federalist structure, defining the sovereignty of the cantons within the framework of the Confederation. According to this article, the Swiss cantons enjoy substantial sovereignty, provided that this is not limited by the Federal Constitution. This provision underlines the autonomy of the cantons while recognising the existence of a higher federal authority. Cantonal sovereignty means that the cantons have the power to govern and legislate in all areas that are not explicitly delegated to the Confederation. This includes areas such as education, policing, public health and certain economic regulations, where the cantons can establish their own laws and policies tailored to their specific needs and local context.

However, this sovereignty is framed by the Federal Constitution, which defines the Confederation's areas of competence. Areas such as foreign policy, defence, customs and legislation on civil and criminal rights fall under federal jurisdiction. In these areas, legislation and policies are uniform across the country and take precedence over cantonal laws. Article 3 therefore reflects the balance between the autonomy of the cantons and the unity of the Confederation. This system allows for great regional and local diversity while ensuring coherence and unity at national level, a distinctive feature of the Swiss political structure. This federalist approach contributes to political stability and to Switzerland's ability to manage its cultural, linguistic and regional diversity.

The Swiss cantons, as autonomous federated entities, effectively have their own central state organisation, while being subdivided into communes, which are the smallest administrative units in Switzerland. This structure reflects the country's federalist and decentralised system, allowing governance at both local and cantonal level. Each canton has its own government, often called the Council of State, which performs executive functions, and a cantonal parliament, which performs legislative functions. These cantonal institutions are responsible for managing affairs in a variety of areas not delegated to the Confederation, such as education, the police, public health and certain economic regulations. The constitution of each canton defines the structure and operation of its governmental institutions, reflecting the particularities and specific needs of the canton.

The communes play a fundamental role in local governance. They are responsible for many local functions, such as local town planning, maintaining communal infrastructure, organising local social services, and sometimes primary and pre-school education. Swiss communes also have a great deal of autonomy, and may have their own legislation and regulations within the limits defined by cantonal and federal laws. This organisation into cantons and communes allows an approach to governance that is close to the people and can respond flexibly and effectively to local needs and preferences. It illustrates Switzerland's commitment to federalism, local democracy and citizen participation.

In the central state organisation of the Swiss cantons, there are generally three main bodies, reflecting the country's democratic and federalist system.

The Legislative Assembly or Grand Council/Cantonal Parliament

Each Swiss canton has its own legislative assembly, often called the Grand Council or Parliament. The size of these assemblies varies from canton to canton, ranging from 55 members in the smallest cantons to 200 members in the largest, such as the canton of Bern. These cantonal parliaments are responsible for drafting legislation at cantonal level, playing a role similar to that of the Federal Assembly at national level. Members of cantonal parliaments enjoy immunities similar to those of members of the federal parliament. These immunities, in particular immunity from prosecution, enable them to carry out their duties as members of parliament without fear of prosecution for opinions expressed or votes cast in the course of their official duties. This protection is essential to ensure the freedom of expression and independence of MPs in the performance of their legislative duties. Cantonal parliaments are also responsible for important financial matters, such as setting taxes and approving the cantonal budget. Like members of the Federal Assembly, cantonal parliamentarians are not generally regarded as political "professionals". This reflects the country's political "militia" system, where citizens are actively involved in governance at various levels. This structure of cantonal parliaments illustrates Switzerland's commitment to representative democracy and federalism, enabling governance that is both close to the people and adapted to regional specificities.

The Collegiate Executive at Cantonal Level

The executive in the Swiss cantons is generally structured as a collegiate body, similar to the Federal Council at national level. This collegiate executive is made up of members elected by the people of the canton. The size of the executive varies, but generally consists of between 5 and 10 people. The members of the executive are elected by a majority of the canton's citizens. In the cantonal executive, each member is responsible for a specific department, as are the members of the Federal Council. This division of responsibilities allows for specialisation in various areas such as education, health, finance and other important sectors for cantonal governance. Some Swiss cantons still maintain militia governments, where members of the executive perform their governmental duties in addition to their professional careers. This militia system reflects a Swiss tradition of civic participation, where citizens are actively involved in governance at all levels. The existence of a democratically elected collegiate executive in each canton demonstrates Switzerland's commitment to a participatory and decentralised system of governance. By directly electing their cantonal governments, Swiss citizens play an active role in determining the political and administrative direction of their cantons, while ensuring that these governments reflect the interests and concerns of the local population.

Within the framework of the governance of the Swiss cantons, the appointment of the president of the cantonal government varies according to the traditions and political structures specific to each canton. This position, chosen from among the members of the canton's collegiate executive, is crucial to the coordination and representation of the cantonal government. In some cantons, the tradition is for the president of the government to be elected directly by the people. This method, which ensures direct democratic legitimacy, reflects the active participation of citizens in local governance. In the canton of Uri, for example, the Landammann (president of the cantonal government) is chosen by popular vote, a practice that underlines the importance of direct democracy. In other cantons, the president is appointed by the Grand Council, the cantonal parliament. This method places responsibility for the appointment in the hands of the canton's elected representatives, illustrating a more legislative approach to governance. The canton of Vaud, for example, follows this practice, where the Grand Council elects the President of the Council of State. Some cantons, such as Geneva, adopt a different approach, where the president of the government is appointed by the Council of State itself. This internal method of appointment promotes continuity and cohesion within the cantonal executive.

The role of the President of the cantonal government, although varying from canton to canton, is generally representative and coordinating, similar to the role of the President of the Confederation at federal level. The president of the cantonal government chairs meetings of the executive and often represents the canton in official functions, although his powers are generally equivalent to those of the other members of the executive. This diversity in the appointment methods and functions of the president of the cantonal government demonstrates the flexibility and autonomy of the cantons in managing their internal affairs, while remaining aligned with Switzerland's democratic and federalist principles. It reflects the complex and diverse nature of Swiss governance, where each canton adapts its political and administrative structures to its specific regional and historical characteristics.

The cantonal executive in Switzerland, as the governing body at cantonal level, plays a crucial role in the governance and representation of each canton. As the highest executive authority, the cantonal executive is responsible for overseeing the various cantonal administrations, ensuring that policies and laws are implemented effectively and in line with the canton's objectives. This supervision extends to areas such as education, public health and transport, which are vital to the well-being and development of the cantons. The responsibility of the cantonal executive also includes the appointment of cantonal civil servants. This task is essential to ensure that people in key positions within the cantonal administration have the skills and expertise needed to carry out government policies. For example, the appointment of experts in education or public health by the cantonal executive is crucial to the smooth running of these essential services.

In addition to its internal responsibilities, the cantonal executive also plays an important role in representing the canton externally. This includes participation in inter-cantonal negotiations and interaction with the federal government. In some cases, particularly in areas such as natural resource management or economic policy, the cantonal executive may work with other cantons or the federal government to coordinate actions and policies. Swiss history offers many examples where cantonal executives have played key roles in shaping policies that have had a national impact. For example, cantonal initiatives in education or public health have often served as models for reforms at national level. The cantonal executive in Switzerland is a central player in cantonal governance, responsible for overseeing cantonal administrations, appointing civil servants and representing the canton beyond its borders. These functions reflect the autonomy of the cantons within the Swiss federalist system and their important role in implementing policies tailored to their specific needs, while contributing to dialogue and coordination at national level.

Power is exercised collegially, which implies a certain honesty and intellectual probity.

The courts

The Swiss judicial system is characterised by a clear division of powers between the federal and cantonal levels. However, the statement that civil and criminal proceedings fall exclusively within the domain of the federal state requires clarification. In reality, both civil and criminal law in Switzerland are governed by federal legislation, but the cantonal courts play a central role in applying these laws. The Swiss Civil Code and the Swiss Criminal Code are examples of federal legislation that provides a uniform legal framework at national level. However, the majority of civil disputes and criminal cases are heard at first instance by the cantonal courts.

The cantonal courts therefore handle the majority of civil and criminal cases within their respective jurisdictions. This includes the handling of contractual disputes, family matters, inheritance, criminal cases and other civil or criminal law disputes. Decisions taken by the cantonal courts may be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority of the Swiss Confederation. The Federal Supreme Court acts primarily as a court of cassation, examining appeals against decisions of the cantonal courts to ensure that they have correctly applied federal law. This system reflects the balance between cantonal autonomy and the uniformity of federal law in Switzerland. The cantonal courts ensure that federal laws are applied effectively and adapted to local contexts, while the Federal Supreme Court guarantees uniformity and consistency in the interpretation of the law at national level.

Each canton in Switzerland has its own court system, which is organised according to the specific laws and needs of the canton concerned. This organisation reflects the federalist nature of Switzerland, where the cantons enjoy a large degree of autonomy, particularly in the management of their judicial systems. The structure and function of cantonal courts can vary considerably from one canton to another. Some cantons may have more complex judicial systems with several tiers of courts, while others may have a simpler structure. These differences may be influenced by various factors, such as the size of the canton, its population, and its historical and cultural particularities.

The cantonal courts deal with a wide range of cases, including civil disputes, criminal cases and certain matters of public law. Although these courts apply federal law in civil and criminal matters, the way in which they are organised and operate is determined by cantonal legislation. To understand the specific features of the judicial system of a particular canton, it is therefore necessary to refer to the judicial laws of that canton. These laws define aspects such as the composition of the courts, court procedures and the levels of appeal available. They ensure that the cantonal courts are adapted to the specific needs and circumstances of each canton, while respecting the legal framework and principles established by federal legislation.

At local level

The municipality in Switzerland plays a crucial role in the country's administrative and political structure, acting as the level of government closest to its citizens. The division of tasks between the federal, cantonal and municipal levels reflects Switzerland's decentralised, federalist system, where each level of government has specific responsibilities. The commune is often the first point of contact for citizens in terms of administrative identity and local services. It is responsible for various tasks, such as primary education, local planning, social services and municipal infrastructure. However, the capacities and resources of municipalities vary considerably, depending on their size and population. Smaller councils, in particular, may lack the structures and resources to manage all their responsibilities effectively. This has led to a trend towards grouping or merging communes in Switzerland, a process that enables more efficient and cost-effective management of the territory. This makes it easier to manage increasingly complex tasks and deliver services more efficiently.

Historically, many Swiss communes are very old, existing long before the formation of their respective cantons or even before the Swiss federation. For example, the municipality of Berne is older than the canton of Berne or the Swiss Confederation itself. The age of the communes bears witness to the historical depth and importance of communal structures in Swiss society. Today, there are around 2,324 communes in Switzerland, although this figure is falling as a result of mergers. The diversity in size and population of the communes is remarkable, ranging from large cities like Zurich, with over 400,000 inhabitants, to small communities of just a few hundred. This variability is reflected in the financial assistance and resources available, requiring a tailored approach for each commune based on its specific needs and capabilities. The communal structure in Switzerland, with its diversity and adaptability, plays a fundamental role in maintaining governance close to its citizens, while adapting to contemporary challenges and the changing needs of the population.

In Switzerland, municipalities are indeed public authorities, but they operate mainly within the framework of cantonal rather than federal law. This means that each Swiss canton draws up its own laws and regulations governing the operation and administration of its communes. As a result, cantonal legislation takes precedence over the way in which communes are organised and managed. This organisation under cantonal jurisdiction allows for great diversity in the structure and functions of communes across Switzerland. Each canton, depending on its historical, cultural, geographical and economic specificities, may have different approaches to local governance. This may include variations in the management of public services, local administration, urban and rural planning, and the provision of education and social services.

The decentralisation of powers to the communes is a key element of Swiss federalism, allowing adaptation and response to the specific needs and preferences of each community. This ensures that local policies and services are closely aligned with the interests and needs of local residents, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of governance and citizen participation. However, although communes operate largely within the framework of cantonal law, they must still respect the laws and principles established at federal level. This structure ensures that, while enjoying a high degree of local autonomy, communes remain aligned with national standards and objectives, contributing to the unity and coherence of governance across Switzerland.

In Switzerland, the organisation of communes varies according to their size and specific characteristics, reflecting the country's democratic and federalist system. In small communes, a two-party structure is often adopted for local governance. This structure comprises two main bodies: the municipal assembly and the elected executive council. The municipal assembly, which functions as a legislative body, is a unique feature of Swiss direct democracy. Under this system, every citizen with the right to vote is a member of the assembly and can actively participate in decision-making on local issues. Residents meet periodically to vote on important issues such as the municipal budget, infrastructure initiatives and local policies. This form of governance is effective in small municipalities where the size of the population allows for direct and meaningful interaction. A historical example of this practice can be seen in communes such as Appenzell, where the communal assembly has played a central role in decision-making for centuries. Alongside the municipal assembly is the elected executive council, which is responsible for the day-to-day running of the municipality. This council is made up of elected members who oversee various administrative areas. Their role is to ensure that the decisions taken by the municipal assembly are implemented and that the day-to-day business of the municipality is managed efficiently. In larger communes and towns, this two-party structure would be less practical due to the size of the population. In these cases, more formal representative structures, such as communal councils or local parliaments, are often put in place. These bodies enable effective governance even in municipalities with large populations, ensuring that decisions are taken in a representative and organised manner. This diversity in the way Swiss communes are organised shows how the country adapts its governance structures to meet the needs and specific characteristics of each community, while maintaining the principles of democracy and citizen participation at the heart of its political system.

In many Swiss cantons and major cities, the organisation of municipalities adopts a tripartite structure, adapted to the more complex governance needs of these more densely populated regions. The distinguishing feature of this structure is the addition of an elected level of representation, allowing for more efficient and democratic management. At the heart of this organisation is the municipal executive, known by various names such as municipal council, administrative council or municipality, depending on the locality. This body, elected directly by the citizens, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the municipality. In cities such as Geneva or Lausanne, for example, the administrative council, made up of elected members, plays a key role in decision-making and the implementation of local policies. This model of municipal executive is similar to that used in small municipalities, but adapted to meet the challenges of urban areas.

In addition to the executive, larger communes and towns have a communal parliament, which may be called a general council, communal council or municipal council. This parliament acts as the commune's legislative body, replacing the communal assembly in two-party systems. Elected by the electorate, the municipal parliament is responsible for drafting local legislation, including the budget, urban planning and other important regulations. In Zurich, for example, the municipal council plays a central role in defining policy and managing the city's affairs. This tripartite organisation, which developed in response to the needs of more densely populated areas, provides an effective and democratic governance structure. It ensures that decisions affecting local life are taken in a representative way, while enabling professional and responsive management of council services and policies. This approach illustrates the adaptability and flexibility of the Swiss political system, capable of responding to the varied needs of its different communities.

The diversity in the nomenclature of the executive and legislative bodies within Swiss municipalities illustrates the way in which the country's federalist system adapts to specific regional and cantonal characteristics. The names given to these bodies vary considerably from canton to canton, reflecting local traditions, languages and administrative cultures. For example, in the canton of Valais or in the canton of Fribourg, the term "conseil communal" refers to the executive body of the municipality. This council is responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the municipality, overseeing areas such as local administration, policy implementation and the management of public services. The members of this council are generally elected by the citizens of the municipality and work together to ensure the smooth running of local services and the implementation of decisions taken at municipal level. In the canton of Vaud, on the other hand, the "conseil communal" refers to the commune's legislative body. In this context, the communal council is responsible for developing local policy and legislation, dealing with issues such as the communal budget, town planning and local regulations. The council is also made up of elected members who represent the citizens in the legislative process at municipal level. These differences in the appointment and functions of the executive and legislative bodies at municipal level demonstrate the flexibility of the Swiss political system. They allow communes to structure their governance in a way that best suits their historical traditions, size, demographic structure and specific needs. This adaptability is one of the strengths of Swiss federalism, offering local governance that is both efficient and close to the people.

In the Swiss system of governance, there is no judiciary at municipal level. Unlike the executive and legislative bodies, which are present at all levels of government (federal, cantonal and communal), the judiciary is organised solely at cantonal and federal level. At cantonal level, courts are established to handle a wide range of disputes and legal matters, including civil and criminal cases. These cantonal courts apply cantonal and federal law and serve as the first instance for the majority of legal cases in Switzerland. Decisions of the cantonal courts can be appealed to higher courts, such as the cantonal courts of appeal and, ultimately, the Federal Supreme Court, which is Switzerland's highest judicial authority. The Federal Supreme Court, located in Lausanne, is responsible for the uniform interpretation and application of federal law throughout the country. It serves as the court of cassation for cases originating in the cantonal courts and plays a crucial role in the protection of constitutional rights. The Swiss judicial structure reflects the division of powers and the principles of federalism. While the municipalities are primarily concerned with local governance and policy implementation at the level closest to the citizen, legal and judicial matters are dealt with at cantonal and federal level, ensuring consistent and uniform application of the law throughout the country.

The communal executive council in Switzerland, as a collegiate body, plays an essential role in governance at local level. Elected by the municipality's electorate, the council reflects the fundamental democratic principle of direct participation by citizens in the management of their local affairs. The executive council is usually headed by a president, often called the mayor, who plays a leadership and representative role for the municipality. In many municipalities, particularly cities and large towns, the mayor's role is full-time, reflecting the breadth and complexity of the responsibilities associated with running a local community. The mayor's role often includes chairing meetings of the executive council, representing the municipality at official functions and public events, and overseeing the municipal administration. Local government varies considerably depending on the size and specific needs of the municipality. In small towns, the administration can be relatively simple, with a limited number of staff and departments. In larger towns, on the other hand, local government is often a complex structure with numerous departments and public services, ranging from town planning and public works to education and social services. This organisational structure enables Swiss municipalities to respond effectively to the needs and concerns of their residents, while adapting to the size and specific characteristics of each community. It also illustrates Switzerland's commitment to strong and accountable local governance, which is a fundamental pillar of its federalist system.

In Switzerland's system of communal governance, the communal executive plays a central role in formulating policy and legislation at local level. This involves drafting legislation, which is then submitted to the municipal parliament or assembly for consideration and approval, depending on the specific organisation of the municipality. The municipal executive, made up of members elected by the municipality's citizens, works to draft laws and regulations that meet the specific needs and challenges of the municipality. These proposals can cover a wide range of subjects, from urban planning and economic development to the management of public services and environmental protection. Once drafted, these legislative proposals are presented to the local parliament or assembly for debate. The municipal parliament, if it exists, functions as a representative legislative body where the elected members debate, amend and vote on the executive's proposals. In small communes where there is a communal assembly, all citizens with voting rights can participate directly in the discussion and decision-making on these bills. This process of municipal legislation illustrates how direct and representative democracy works in Switzerland at local level. It enables citizens to participate actively in the governance of their community, either directly through the municipal assembly or through elected representatives in the municipal parliament. This approach ensures that local policies and laws reflect the needs and preferences of local residents, thereby strengthening local autonomy and democratic accountability in Switzerland's federalist system.

Democracy

What is a democracy? Democracy is a political system or regime in which power is exercised by the people, either directly or through elected representatives. The concept is based on the principles of popular participation, equality and freedom. In a direct democracy, citizens participate actively in political decision-making. They vote directly on laws or policies, rather than delegating this power to elected representatives. Switzerland is a notable example of direct democracy, particularly at the communal and cantonal level, where citizens regularly vote on local and regional issues. In a representative democracy, by contrast, the people elect representatives to take political decisions on their behalf. These representatives are accountable to their electors and must act in accordance with their interests and wishes. Most modern democracies are representative, including parliamentary democracies where legislative power is held by an elected parliament. A fundamental aspect of democracy is majority rule, while respecting the rights and freedoms of minorities. This means that, although decisions are taken on the basis of what the majority of people want, the fundamental rights of all citizens, including those of minorities, must be protected. Democracy also implies principles of transparency, accountability and the rule of law, where laws apply equally to all, including those in power. It is often associated with the protection of human rights, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and an independent judiciary.

The political system of a state refers to the structure and methods of governance by which power is exercised and administered. This political structure determines how leaders are elected or appointed, how power is distributed within the state, and how laws and policies are formulated and implemented. Historically, political systems have varied considerably, reflecting cultural traditions, historical contexts and people's aspirations. Democracies, where power is exercised by the people either directly or through elected representatives, have evolved over the centuries. Historical examples include the Athenian democracy of antiquity, where citizens participated directly in decision-making, and modern democracies such as the United States and Switzerland, where representatives are elected to govern on behalf of the people. Other forms of government include authoritarian regimes and dictatorships, where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual or a small group. For example, under Franco's dictatorship in Spain (1939-1975), power was firmly controlled by a single leader. Similarly, the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, such as Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin, exercised absolute control over society and often imposed a dominant ideology. Monarchies represent another form of political regime. Historically, many societies were ruled by kings or queens with absolute power, as in the France of Louis XIV. However, many contemporary monarchies, such as in the UK, have become constitutional, where the role of the monarch is primarily ceremonial and symbolic, and real power is exercised through democratic institutions. These different political regimes have significantly shaped human history, influencing not only the governance of societies, but also their cultural, economic and social development. The form of political regime adopted by a state can have a profound impact on the rights and freedoms of its citizens, as well as on its long-term stability and development.

Direct democracy, where citizens participate directly in making political decisions and passing laws, is a relatively rare form of governance in the modern world, but it is still present in some Swiss cantons, notably Glarus (Glarus) and Appenzell Innerrhoden (Appenzell Innerrhoden). In these cantons, the tradition of the Landsgemeinde, an open-air assembly of the people, has been maintained. Citizens gather once a year to vote by show of hands on important laws and decisions. This practice enables citizens to participate actively and directly in legislation and decision-making at cantonal level. The Landsgemeinde in Glarus and Appenzell Innerrhoden are fascinating examples of direct democracy in action. Unlike systems of representative democracy, where citizens elect representatives to take decisions on their behalf, in these cantons the citizens themselves act as legislators. They have the opportunity to debate, propose amendments and vote directly on laws and policies. In addition, at these assemblies, the citizens of these cantons also elect some of their executive officers, including the members of their cantonal government. This ensures that those elected are directly accountable to the citizens they serve. The Landsgemeinde is a vestige of the old democratic tradition and underlines Switzerland's commitment to participatory democracy. Although this model of direct democracy is less common because of its practical requirements (such as the need to physically bring together a large proportion of the population), it remains an important part of Switzerland's political and cultural heritage, particularly in these cantons.

Indirect or representative democracy is a system in which citizens exercise their political power primarily by electing representatives to take decisions on their behalf. This model contrasts with direct democracy, where citizens participate actively and directly in political decision-making. At federal level in Switzerland, the system is effectively a representative democracy. Swiss citizens elect their representatives to the National Council and the Council of States, which are the two chambers of the Swiss Federal Parliament. These elected representatives are responsible for formulating laws and taking political decisions at national level. At cantonal level, Switzerland offers a mixture of direct and representative democracy. Some cantons, such as Glarus (Glarus) and Appenzell Innerrhoden (Appenzell Innerrhoden), maintain the tradition of the Landsgemeinde, a form of direct democracy where citizens meet in an open assembly to vote directly on important laws and decisions. This practice enables citizens to participate directly in cantonal governance, although it is less common. Direct democracy is also present at municipal level, notably through municipal assemblies. In many small Swiss communes, citizens meet regularly in communal assemblies to take decisions on local issues. This approach allows citizens to be directly involved in the running of their community and in decisions affecting their daily lives. Switzerland, with its combination of direct and representative democracy at different levels of government, illustrates a unique approach to democratic governance. This structure allows for the active participation of citizens in politics, whether directly or through elected representatives, and reflects the country's commitment to democratic principles.

The semi-direct democracy political system

Semi-direct democracy is a form of governance that combines the principles of representative democracy with elements of direct citizen participation. In this system, while most political decisions are taken by elected representatives, citizens also have the ability to directly influence legislation through mechanisms such as referendums and popular initiatives.

A referendum is a process whereby laws or decisions taken by the government or parliament can be put to a popular vote. This practice allows citizens to express their approval or rejection of specific legislative measures directly. Referendums can be called in different ways, depending on the political system. In Switzerland, for example, a referendum can be triggered if a certain number of citizens' signatures are collected, giving citizens a direct means of controlling the decisions taken by their representatives. The popular initiative is another important tool of semi-direct democracy. It allows citizens to propose new laws or constitutional changes. If a popular initiative gathers enough signatures, it is put to a national vote. This process is an example of how semi-direct democracy allows citizens to play an active role in shaping their country's legislation and policies.

Switzerland is renowned for its practice of semi-direct democracy, particularly at federal level. The Swiss system allows citizens to launch popular initiatives and vote on referendums concerning legislative and constitutional issues. This approach ensures that the population has a say in important decisions that affect the nation, going beyond the mere election of representatives. Historically, semi-direct democracy in Switzerland has led to a number of important legislative and constitutional changes initiated directly by the people. This demonstrates the effectiveness of this system in enabling meaningful popular participation while maintaining stable and representative governance.

The political system of direct democracy

Direct democracy is a political system in which the people exercise the power of governance without intermediaries. In this system, citizens actively participate in political decision-making by passing laws themselves and directly choosing the agents who carry them out, rather than delegating these tasks to elected representatives.

In a direct democracy, citizens have the opportunity to vote on important laws, policies and initiatives in referendums or assemblies. They can propose changes, debate and decide on the adoption or rejection of specific measures. This form of governance allows direct and tangible participation in politics, giving citizens more direct control over the decisions that affect their lives. A classic example of direct democracy can be found in some Swiss cantons, where open assemblies such as the Landsgemeinde allow citizens to vote directly on legislative issues and choose their government representatives. In these assemblies, citizens meet in the open air to vote by show of hands on legislative proposals and to elect public officials.

Although direct democracy offers a high degree of citizen participation, it is more common in smaller communities where citizens can be brought together effectively to make decisions. In large societies, the complexity and logistics of setting up such a system for millions of people make direct democracy less practical, hence the predominance of representative democracy systems. Direct democracy is a model of governance that emphasises citizen engagement and direct participation in the political process, enabling citizens to have an immediate and meaningful influence on the laws and policies of their community or country.

In Switzerland, democracy is effectively a political system in which the people are sovereign. This principle of popular sovereignty is at the heart of the Swiss political system and is manifested through various forms of democratic participation, both direct and representative. Switzerland is recognised worldwide for its system of direct democracy, particularly at federal level, where citizens have the right to participate in referendums and popular initiatives. These tools enable citizens to play an active role in the formulation of federal laws and in major political decisions. For example, mandatory referendums are required for any amendment to the Federal Constitution, and popular initiatives allow citizens to propose new constitutional or legislative changes. Direct democracy is also practised in a variety of ways at cantonal and communal level. In some cantons, popular assemblies such as the Landsgemeinde allow citizens to vote directly on legislative and administrative matters. In other cantons and most communes, although representative democracy predominates, citizens retain the right to participate in referendums and initiatives on local issues. This combination of direct and representative democracy makes Switzerland a unique example of citizen participation in governance. It ensures that the Swiss people play a central role in political decision-making, in accordance with the principle of popular sovereignty. The Swiss political system is thus designed to reflect the will of the people, while guaranteeing stable and effective governance at all levels of the State.

In Switzerland, democracy is exercised through various mechanisms that reflect the sovereignty of the people at both legislative and constitutional levels. This multi-level approach enables citizens to participate actively in the governance of their country.

• Popular election: The foundation of Swiss democracy is the popular election, in which citizens elect their representatives. Whether at federal, cantonal or communal level, Swiss citizens regularly vote to choose those who will represent them in the various legislative and executive bodies. This popular election ensures that political decision-makers are accountable to the people and reflect their interests and concerns.
• Popular referendum: In Switzerland, popular referendums allow citizens to vote on legislative or constitutional acts adopted by the authorities, often parliament. Such referendums may concern constitutional amendments, membership of supranational organisations, or urgent federal legislation with no constitutional basis. Popular referendums are a key tool of direct democracy in Switzerland, giving citizens a direct means of influencing legislation.
• Compulsory referendum: Certain issues, particularly those with a significant impact on Switzerland's constitutional or international structure, are subject to a compulsory referendum. For example, membership of supranational or collective security organisations must be approved by a popular vote after adoption by parliament, in accordance with Article 140 of the Federal Constitution.
• Optional referendum: Swiss citizens may also hold an optional referendum on federal laws, federal decrees or international treaties if 50,000 voters or eight cantons so request within 100 days of the official publication of the act. This mechanism, defined in Article 141 of the Constitution, enables citizens to challenge legislative decisions and put them to a popular vote.
• Popular initiative: The popular initiative allows a fraction of the electorate, typically 100,000 citizens, to propose constitutional amendments. This procedure provides a direct means for citizens to initiate changes to the Constitution.

These various tools of direct and representative democracy ensure that the Swiss people play an active and central role in political decision-making at all levels of government. This system reflects Switzerland's commitment to a model of governance in which the people are truly sovereign.

The Landsgemeinde, an institution unique to certain Swiss cantons, is a remarkable example of direct democracy in action. This sovereign assembly, made up of the canton's eligible citizens, traditionally meets in spring on a public square in the canton's capital. Presided over by a Landamman, the Landsgemeinde embodies a living democratic tradition in which citizens directly exercise political power. In cantons such as Glarus (Glarus) and Appenzell Innerrhoden (Appenzell Innerrhoden), the Landsgemeinde is held in the open air, where citizens gather to make important decisions for their canton. These decisions include the appointment of senior cantonal officials and the election of court magistrates, ensuring that these key positions are held by individuals chosen directly by the people. In addition to nominations and elections, the Landsgemeinde plays a significant role in the canton's budgetary policy. Participants have the power to decide on major expenditure, giving citizens direct control over the canton's finances. The assembly is also responsible for voting on treaties, affirming its role in the canton's external affairs.

The legislative power of the Landsgemeinde is particularly noteworthy. Citizens vote directly on laws, thus actively shaping cantonal legislation. This practice ensures that laws reflect the will of the people and meet their needs and expectations. Finally, the Landsgemeinde takes important administrative decisions, directly influencing the management and organisation of the canton. This direct involvement in administrative matters demonstrates the depth of citizen participation in cantonal governance. Historically, the Landsgemeinde dates back several centuries, reflecting the long tradition of direct democracy in Switzerland. Its continued existence in some Swiss cantons is a testament to Switzerland's commitment to participatory and transparent governance. This democratic heritage, in which every citizen has a voice and an active role in politics, is a distinctive and valued feature of the Swiss political system.

The Landsgemeinde, an open-air popular assembly, is a unique and historic form of direct democracy that allows citizens to play an active part in the decisions of their canton in Switzerland. This tradition, which dates back several centuries, is an emblematic example of the direct participation of citizens in local governance. At present, this form of direct democracy is maintained in just two Swiss cantons: Glarus (Glarus) and Appenzell Innerrhoden (Appenzell Innerrhoden). In these cantons, the Landsgemeinde meets once a year, usually in the spring, and brings together eligible citizens in a public square to vote by show of hands on important legislative and administrative matters, as well as to elect cantonal officials. In Glarus, for example, the Landsgemeinde is a well-established tradition, symbolising the community's commitment to democracy. Similarly, in Appenzell Innerrhoden, this assembly is a key event in the canton's political and social calendar, reflecting the values of transparency, participation and local autonomy. The persistence of the Landsgemeinde in these two cantons testifies to the diversity of democratic forms in Switzerland and the importance attached to direct democracy. Although the majority of Swiss cantons have moved towards forms of representative democracy, Glarus and Appenzell Innerrhoden retain this historic tradition, allowing citizens to play a central role in the affairs of their canton. This unique practice is not only an important cultural heritage, but also a living manifestation of direct democracy within the modern Swiss political system.

In a large proportion of Swiss communes, the system of direct democracy is actually in force, particularly in those that adopt the two-party system of governance. Under this system, the Communal Assembly, which is the legislative body of the municipality, plays a central role, enabling citizens to participate directly in local decision-making. The municipal assembly is a public meeting where the citizens of the municipality, as members of the assembly, deliberate and vote on various important issues. These issues may include the communal budget, town planning projects, local by-laws, and other matters relevant to the community. Unlike a representative system where citizens elect representatives to make these decisions on their behalf, in the two-party system, the citizens themselves are directly involved in the decision-making process. In small communities, where the size of the population makes this manageable, community assemblies are an effective way of ensuring citizen participation and engagement in local governance. These assemblies provide a space where residents can speak out, discuss local issues and have a direct impact on the policies and decisions that affect their daily lives. This practice of direct democracy at municipal level is an essential part of the Swiss political tradition. It underlines the importance attached to citizen participation and transparency in local governance. Although this model is more common in smaller municipalities, it reflects Switzerland's general commitment to forms of governance that encourage the active involvement of citizens in public affairs.

The election

Election, as a fundamental mechanism of democracy, effectively implies a process where one body of a community, usually all eligible citizens, chooses one or more members to represent another body of that same community. In this process, the number of elected representatives is effectively less than the total number of people taking part in the vote. This principle is at the heart of representative democracy, where citizens exercise their political power primarily by electing representatives to act and take decisions on their behalf. Elections enable citizens to choose those who will govern them, whether at local, regional or national level. Elected representatives are responsible for making decisions and implementing public policy, and their number is always much smaller than the total number of voters. For example, in a parliamentary election, millions of citizens may vote to elect a few hundred MPs. These MPs then represent the population in parliament, deliberating and voting on the laws and policies that will affect society as a whole. Similarly, in municipal elections, the residents of a municipality elect a relatively small number of councillors to represent them on the municipal council. In this way, elections reconcile the need for effective representation with the need for democratic participation. By electing representatives, citizens delegate the power to make complex decisions and manage public affairs to a smaller group of people, while retaining the ability to hold those representatives accountable for their actions. This allows for more organised and effective governance, while ensuring that citizens' voices are heard and taken into account.

The principle of representation is a central pillar of representative democracy, where those elected represent the electorate that chose them. In Switzerland, this principle is evident in the way the various government bodies are elected and operate. In most cases in Switzerland, the electorate consists of the people. This means that Swiss citizens vote directly to elect their representatives to various legislative and executive bodies, whether at federal, cantonal or communal level. These elected representatives are supposed to represent the interests and wishes of the people, and their mandate is to reflect the concerns and aspirations of those who elected them. However, there are situations where the electorate is not directly the people. A notable example in Switzerland is the election of the members of the Federal Council, Switzerland's executive government. Unlike the members of parliament, who are elected directly by the people, the members of the Federal Council are elected by the Federal Assembly, a body made up of the two chambers of the Swiss parliament. In this case, the electorate is the Federal Assembly, not the people themselves. This procedure reflects a particular approach to democratic representation. Although the people do not vote directly for the members of the Federal Council, they do elect the members of parliament, who in turn choose the government. This creates a chain of representation in which citizens delegate responsibility for electing the government to their elected representatives, thereby ensuring a form of indirect democratic accountability.

In elections and decision-making processes, different types of electoral majority are used to determine winners or to validate decisions. These methods vary according to the importance of the decision and the level of consensus required. Relative majority, also known as simple majority, is a system in which the candidate or party with the most votes wins, even if it does not exceed half of the votes cast. This type of majority is commonly used in single-round electoral systems, such as in some legislative or local elections. For example, in many parliamentary democracies, MPs are often elected by relative majority in their constituencies. By contrast, an absolute majority, which requires more than 50% of the votes plus one additional vote, is often used in two-round electoral systems or for positions requiring greater legitimacy. If no candidate achieves this majority in the first round, a second round is organised between the best-placed candidates. This system is frequently applied in presidential elections, as in France, where a second round determines the president if no candidate achieves an absolute majority in the first round. Qualified majority voting, which requires a higher percentage of votes (for example, three quarters), is generally reserved for decisions of great importance, such as constitutional amendments. This requirement for broad approval ensures a significant consensus among voters or members of an assembly before a major decision is taken. In Switzerland, for example, qualified majorities are required for certain federal decisions, including amendments to the Constitution. These different forms of majority ensure that electoral and decision-making systems are adapted to the specific requirements of each situation. They reflect a balance between effective decision-making and the need to faithfully represent the will of the electorate or the members of an assembly. Depending on the context, these different types of majority help to ensure that the decisions taken are legitimate and representative of the electorate or members concerned.

Neutrality

William Rappard.

William Emmanuel Rappard

William Emmanuel Rappard, an emblematic figure of twentieth-century Switzerland, played a significant role as professor, rector and diplomat. Born in New York in 1883, Rappard established a distinguished career that brought him recognition not only in Switzerland but also on the international stage. His academic career was marked by a notable contribution to teaching and research. As a professor, he devoted himself to the education and training of several generations of students, sharing his knowledge and expertise, particularly in the fields of political science and economics. As rector, he directed and influenced educational policy, contributing to academic development in Switzerland. In addition to his academic contributions, Rappard has distinguished himself in diplomacy. His skills and expertise earned him recognition as a Swiss diplomat, where he played a crucial role in representing and defending Swiss interests abroad. His defence of Swiss neutrality was particularly important in the context of the international tensions of the twentieth century. As a neutral country, Switzerland needed diplomats who could navigate a complex political landscape, and Rappard was a key figure in this field. William Emmanuel Rappard died in Geneva in 1958, leaving behind a legacy of public service, education and diplomacy. His life and career exemplify a commitment to the principles of education, neutrality and diplomacy, values that are deeply rooted in Swiss tradition. His work has not only had an impact on Switzerland, but has also helped to shape international policy and practice on neutrality and international relations.

William Emmanuel Rappard, who comes from a Thurgau family based in New York, had a childhood and adolescence marked by a diversity of cultural and educational influences. Born to a father who was an embroidery merchant and a mother who worked in the family pharmaceutical business, Rappard spent his early years in the United States, an environment that undoubtedly shaped his initial outlook. The Rappard family then moved from the US to Geneva, a move that marked a turning point in William's life. In Geneva, he completed his schooling before embarking on an impressive academic career, attending several renowned universities and being influenced by eminent professors. His academic path led him to study in Paris, where he was a pupil of Adolphe Landry, a French economist and demographer who probably had a considerable impact on his thinking. In Berlin, he studied under influential figures such as Wagner and Schmoller, who helped shape his understanding of economics and politics. His time at Harvard allowed him to benefit from the teaching of Taussig, another renowned economist. A significant stage in his academic career was his time in Vienna, where he was influenced by Philippovich. Philippovich encouraged Rappard to take an interest in the International Labour Organisation, an interest that was to prove decisive in his future career. This rich educational background, spanning several countries and different academic traditions, not only provided Rappard with a solid intellectual training, but also laid the foundations for his career as a teacher, diplomat and defender of Swiss neutrality. His ability to integrate diverse perspectives and knowledge was crucial to his later contributions to politics and academia, both in Switzerland and internationally.

William Emmanuel Rappard began his academic career as an assistant professor at Harvard from 1911 to 1912, and quickly rose through the ranks to become professor of economic history at the University of Geneva in 1913. His professional career was marked by meetings and collaborations with influential figures of his time.

Rappard's friendship with Abbott Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard University from 1909 to 1933, and his acquaintanceships with figures such as Colonel Edward M. House and the journalist and writer Walter Lippmann, illustrate the breadth and depth of his international network. These relationships were crucial to his role as a diplomat and adviser on international affairs. Rappard played an important role in the allocation of the headquarters of the League of Nations to Geneva, a decision that strengthened Switzerland's position as a centre of international diplomacy. His chairmanship of the League of Nations Mandates Committee is testimony to his commitment and significant contribution to international politics. His work as a lawyer also reflects his multidisciplinary background. Rappard was not only an economist and historian, but also a legal expert, a skill that undoubtedly enriched his analysis and understanding of international affairs and diplomacy. This combination of academic, legal and diplomatic roles, supported by an extensive international network, enabled William Emmanuel Rappard to exert considerable influence not only in the academic field, but also in the world of international politics. His career illustrates how an interdisciplinary background and strong international relations can play a key role in an individual's contribution to important global issues.

In 1927, William Emmanuel Rappard made a significant contribution to higher education and international studies by founding the Institut Universitaire de Hautes Études Internationales (IUHEI) in Geneva. This institute, dedicated to the study of international relations and diplomatic issues, has become an important centre for research and teaching in these fields. Rappard's commitment to humanitarianism and education is particularly evident in his role in welcoming many refugees fleeing totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s. His willingness to offer refuge and academic opportunities to intellectuals and academics in danger demonstrates his deep belief in the value of academic freedom and his opposition to oppressive regimes. As a member of the "International Committee for the Placement of Refugee Intellectuals" in the 1930s, Rappard played a key role in helping intellectuals and scientists fleeing persecution. The aim of this committee was to find academic positions and research opportunities for these refugee intellectuals, thereby contributing to their safety and the continuation of their important work. Rappard also served twice as Rector of the University of Geneva, a position that testifies to his leadership and influence in Swiss academia. As rector, he contributed to the development and reputation of the university, strengthening its position as a centre of excellence in education and research. The founding of the IUHEI, his commitment to refugees and his leadership role at the University of Geneva make William Emmanuel Rappard a key figure in Swiss academic and humanitarian history. His legacy continues to inspire the international community, particularly in the fields of international studies, law and diplomacy.

In 1942, against the tense backdrop of the Second World War, William Emmanuel Rappard was appointed by the Swiss Federal Council to play a crucial role as an interlocutor in important international negotiations. This was a remarkable appointment, as Rappard was not a federal civil servant at the time, but rather a professor at the University of Geneva. His appointment underlined the trust and respect he enjoyed as an expert in international relations and diplomacy. Rappard's role in these negotiations was to renew Switzerland's relations with the Allied countries. At a time of global conflict, Switzerland's neutral position was both vital and delicate. Rappard, with his diplomatic experience and commitment to Swiss neutrality, was ideally placed to navigate these complex waters. His work helped to maintain and strengthen Switzerland's ties with other nations, while preserving its neutral position. At the same time, Rappard advocated the return of international organisations to Geneva after the war. Before the war, Geneva had been a major centre of international diplomacy, largely due to the presence of the League of Nations. Rappard recognised Geneva's importance as an international hub and worked for the city to resume this role after the conflict. His efforts helped re-establish Geneva as a key centre for world affairs, including the return of international organisations and the creation of new ones, such as the United Nations and its specialised agencies. Rappard's involvement in these negotiations and his advocacy for Geneva demonstrated his ability to influence international policy and contribute to Switzerland's role on the world stage. His work during this critical period reinforced Switzerland's reputation as a neutral nation and solidified Geneva's position as a city of diplomacy and international cooperation.

In the late 1930s, William Emmanuel Rappard distinguished himself by defending the academic independence of the Graduate Institute of International Studies (GIIS) in Geneva against the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter wanted to steer the IUHEI towards exclusively economic studies, as the Brookings Institution had done in the United States. Rappard, a firm believer in the importance of a broader, multidisciplinary approach to teaching, opposed this idea. His opposition to the Rockefeller Foundation's proposal underlined his belief that teaching and research should not be limited to a single field, but should embrace a variety of disciplines for a more comprehensive understanding of international issues. This vision was supported by Lionel Robbins, a renowned British economist, who held Rappard in high esteem. Robbins' support strengthened Rappard's position and helped maintain IUHEI's diversity and academic integrity. In addition to his role at the IUHEI, Rappard was a member of the Swiss delegation to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) from 1945 to 1956. His involvement with the ILO coincided with a crucial period of international reconstruction and reorganisation after the Second World War. In this role, he contributed to efforts to promote decent work, social equity and workers' rights at a time when these issues were particularly relevant. William Emmanuel Rappard was also one of the founders of the Mont Pelerin Society, an organisation dedicated to the debate and exchange of ideas on classical liberalism, economics and politics. The founding of this society in 1947 marked a milestone in the development of economic liberalism, bringing together influential intellectuals and thinkers from diverse backgrounds to discuss the principles of liberty and free markets. Through his various roles and contributions, William Emmanuel Rappard demonstrated a deep commitment to the principles of academic freedom, intellectual exchange and economic and social development. His career was marked by a significant impact in the fields of education, diplomacy and economic policy, reflecting his role as a leader and influential thinker in the international context of the time.

William Emmanuel Rappard left behind an impressive bibliography that testifies to his expertise and interest in a variety of academic fields. His work covered a wide range of subjects, from law and history to statistics and international relations. This diversity reflects his multidisciplinary approach and deep understanding of the complex issues at the intersection of these fields. One of the central subjects of Rappard's work has been neutrality, a subject he has explored both as a researcher and as an actor on the international scene. As a researcher, he analysed neutrality in a historical and legal context, providing an informed perspective on its evolution and application, particularly in relation to Switzerland. His research on Swiss neutrality has not only contributed to the academic understanding of this principle, but has also influenced the way it is perceived and applied in international politics. As an actor, Rappard has applied this knowledge in his diplomatic practice and in his roles in various international organisations. His expertise in neutrality was particularly relevant in the context of rising international tensions before and during the Second World War. Navigating these delicate waters, Rappard used his understanding of the concept to help shape Swiss foreign policy and maintain Switzerland's neutral position in an increasingly polarised world. Rappard's academic legacy, with its significant contributions in a variety of fields and his active role in applying that knowledge, places him as an outstanding figure of the 20th century. His writings and actions continue to influence the fields of international law, international relations, and neutrality studies, testifying to his lasting impact on these crucial areas.

Switzerland's neutrality, from its origins to the 20th century

Rappard is not enthusiastic about the term neutrality. He points out that "in French, the adjective neutre rhymes too well with the epithet pleutre with which it is often paired not to be depreciated from the outset; moreover, it is used by biologists to define asexual organs and by chemists to define tasteless substances. Neutrality is the attitude of a country that refuses or refrains from intervening in conflicts between third countries.

William Emmanuel Rappard had a nuanced view of neutrality, a central principle of Swiss policy. His reflections on neutrality reveal an acute awareness of the connotations and implications of the term, both in language and in political practice. Rappard noted that the term 'neutralité' in French can give rise to a certain reticence, partly because of its linguistic associations. He observed that "neutral" rhymes with "pleutre", a pejorative term meaning cowardly, which can lead to an immediate depreciation of the notion. Furthermore, he pointed out that in other fields such as biology and chemistry, 'neutral' is used to describe things with no distinguishing features, such as asexual organs or tasteless substances, which reinforces a connotation of passivity or lack of identity. However, in the political and international context, Rappard has defined neutrality as the attitude of a country that chooses not to intervene in conflicts between other states. This definition emphasises that neutrality is a deliberate and active policy, rather than a simple absence of action or a weak position. For Rappard, Swiss neutrality was a principled position, actively chosen and maintained, which allowed Switzerland to play a unique role in international affairs, including as a mediator and host of international dialogues. Rappard's perspective on neutrality thus reveals a deep understanding of its complexities and strategic importance. It also shows how a term can be loaded with a variety of meanings, influencing the perception and practice of foreign policy. In the case of Switzerland, neutrality, far from being a "cowardly" or tasteless position, is a carefully cultivated policy of non-intervention and an integral part of the Swiss national identity.

Neutrality, as defined in the international context, is the policy of a country that chooses not to participate in military conflicts between other countries. This position implies a refusal or self-imposed prohibition to engage in hostilities with other states, as well as an attitude of impartiality towards the parties in conflict. Neutrality is often adopted in order to promote peace, maintain the independence of a state, and protect against the implications and risks of international conflict. A neutral country does not take sides in international conflicts and endeavours to avoid any action that could be interpreted as support for one or other of the parties to the conflict. This policy also implies a commitment not to allow its territory to be used by belligerent powers for military activities. In addition, a neutral state can offer its good offices for mediation and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Switzerland is a notable example of a country that has long adopted a policy of neutrality. This policy, which is rooted in Swiss history and the Swiss constitution, has enabled Switzerland to stay out of armed conflicts, particularly during the two world wars, and to become a privileged location for international negotiations and the headquarters of international organisations. As a foreign policy, neutrality requires constant vigilance and skilful diplomacy to maintain the balance between impartiality and commitment to the international community. It enables a state to focus on peace, international cooperation and human development, while navigating an often complex and changing international environment.

François Ier ordonne à ses troupes de cesser de poursuivre les Suisses, œuvre romantique du XIXe siècle d'Alexandre-Évariste Fragonard (Galerie des Batailles, château de Versailles)

As a historian, William Emmanuel Rappard has effectively highlighted the historical origins of Switzerland's policy of neutrality, dating back to the defeat of the Swiss at the Battle of Marignano in 1515. This battle, in which Swiss troops were defeated by French forces under the command of François I, marked a decisive turning point in Swiss history and foreign policy. Prior to the Battle of Marignano, the Swiss Confederation had been actively involved in European military conflicts, often as mercenaries. However, the crushing defeat at Marignano led Swiss leaders to reconsider this bellicose approach. They recognised that involvement in foreign wars was not in the long-term interests of the Confederation, which was made up of relatively small and independent cantons. As a result, Switzerland began to adopt a policy of neutrality, choosing not to participate in military conflicts between other European powers. This policy has been formalised and strengthened over the centuries, notably through treaties such as the Treaty of Perpetual Peace with France in 1516, and later through its official recognition at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Neutrality became the guiding principle of Swiss foreign policy, characterised by non-participation in armed conflicts and a position of impartiality. This policy has enabled Switzerland to concentrate on its internal development, maintain its independence and become a place of diplomacy and international mediation. It has become an integral part of Switzerland's national identity, profoundly influencing its position and role in the world.

After its defeat at the Battle of Marignano in 1515, Switzerland found itself at a historic turning point, faced with choices that were crucial to its future. Two strategies were available to ensure its existence as an independent political entity in the tumultuous European context of the time. The first option was to form an alliance with one of the great powers of the time, either France under the Bourbon dynasty or Austria under the House of Habsburg. These two powers were major players in European affairs and sought to extend their influence. However, an alliance with either of these powers presented a considerable risk for Switzerland: it risked becoming a satellite state or losing its autonomy to its powerful ally. This dependence could have compromised the sovereignty of the Swiss cantons and placed them under foreign influence.

Faced with this risk, Switzerland opted for a second strategy: to adopt a policy of neutrality. This decision to refrain from intervening in the ongoing conflicts between France and Austria enabled Switzerland to maintain its independence and concentrate on its own internal stability and development. Neutrality offered a means of protection against external interference and conflict, while preserving the unity and autonomy of the individual cantons. This historic decision marked a turning point in Swiss foreign policy. Over the centuries, neutrality has become a guiding principle for Switzerland, enabling it to navigate the complex landscape of European politics without being drawn into the wars and rivalries of the great powers. Neutrality has not only helped preserve Switzerland's independence, it has also shaped its role as a mediator in international affairs and as the seat of numerous international organisations. The Swiss policy of neutrality, initiated in response to specific historical circumstances, has become a defining feature of the Swiss national identity and its approach to international relations.

The Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century brought new challenges for the Swiss Confederation, exacerbating internal religious tensions and threatening its cohesion. In this complex context, neutrality, initially adopted as a political strategy in the face of conflicts between the great European powers, took on a new dimension and a crucial role in maintaining Switzerland's internal unity. The Reformation divided Switzerland into Protestant and Catholic cantons, creating fertile ground for potential internal conflict. If Switzerland had chosen to ally itself closely with foreign co-religionists, this could have exacerbated these internal divisions and risked the break-up of the Confederation. Protestant cantons might have been tempted to form alliances with other Protestant states, such as parts of Germany or England, while Catholic cantons might have sought closer ties with Catholic states such as France or Spain.

To avoid this scenario, Switzerland applied the principle of neutrality in religious matters, refraining from taking part in European religious conflicts and avoiding alliances based on religion. This approach helped preserve internal peace and maintain unity between the cantons despite their religious differences. Religious neutrality became an essential means of navigating the tumultuous period of the Reformation and its aftermath, allowing Switzerland to remain united as a confederation of cantons with diverse beliefs. This extension of the policy of neutrality to the religious sphere illustrates the flexibility and effectiveness of neutrality as a domestic and foreign policy tool for Switzerland. By avoiding alliances that might have exacerbated internal divisions, Switzerland has not only maintained its internal cohesion, but has also consolidated its reputation as a neutral state, capable of managing its internal affairs without outside intervention. Neutrality, both political and religious, has thus become a key element of Swiss identity and stability down the centuries.

Swiss neutrality, initially established as a principle of foreign policy to preserve the country's independence and external security in the face of conflicts between the great European powers, has taken on greater importance as a means of protecting internal security, particularly in the context of religious tensions. This dual function of neutrality has been essential in maintaining Switzerland's cohesion and unity in troubled historical periods. During the Reformation and in the centuries that followed, Switzerland was made up of cantons with different religious affiliations, making it particularly vulnerable to denominational conflict. The danger was that tensions between Catholic and Protestant cantons could degenerate into internal conflicts, threatening the stability and unity of the Confederation. By adopting a policy of neutrality both externally and internally, Switzerland sought to prevent such denominational conflicts from undermining its unity.

Externally, neutrality meant avoiding involvement in religious wars and confessional alliances in Europe, which could have drawn Switzerland into external conflicts and exacerbated internal tensions. Internally, it meant managing relations between the cantons in such a way as to preserve peace and cooperation, despite their religious differences. As a result, neutrality became a cornerstone of Swiss policy, ensuring not only external security by avoiding wars, but also internal security by preventing denominational conflicts. This approach has contributed to Switzerland's long-term stability, enabling a country divided into autonomous and religiously diverse cantons to remain united and peaceful. Neutrality, in this sense, has become more than just a foreign policy strategy; it has become a key element of Switzerland's national identity and an essential factor in its internal cohesion.

The Swiss policy of neutrality, although guided by the desire to ensure internal security and unity, also proved to be in line with the interests of the European belligerent powers, particularly during periods of intense conflict such as the War of the League of Augsburg involving the Habsburgs. During this war, which took place at the end of the 17th century, the Swiss Confederation found itself in a geopolitically delicate position, with its borders threatened by conflicts between major European powers. The threats to its borders led Louis XIV of France and Leopold I of the Holy Roman Empire to encourage Switzerland to defend its territory against possible enemy incursions. This request reflected recognition of Switzerland's strategic importance and its potential to influence regional balances of power. Faced with this situation, the Swiss authorities took a pragmatic decision: while preparing to defend their territory, they asked the French and Austrians to contribute to the costs of mobilisation. This request was based on the principle that, if Switzerland were to play a role in defending its neutrality and, by extension, in stabilising the region, the powers benefiting from that stability should share the financial burden. The French and Austrians, recognising the importance of maintaining Swiss neutrality and securing this central European region, agreed to contribute to the costs. This interaction underlined the recognition by the major European powers of the value of Swiss neutrality, not only for Switzerland itself, but also for the overall balance of power in Europe. By requesting compensation for mobilisation costs, Switzerland demonstrated its ability to navigate European diplomacy skilfully, preserving its autonomy while actively engaging with neighbouring powers. This episode in Swiss history illustrates how neutrality, far from being a sign of passivity, was actively used and defended by Switzerland as a strategy for survival and for preserving its independence in a complex international context.

Neutrality, which began as a political and military strategy following the defeat at Marignano in 1515, gradually evolved into a key element of Switzerland's institutional heritage, playing a crucial role in the Confederation's politics and identity until the end of the 18th century and beyond. Over the centuries, Swiss neutrality has evolved from a pragmatic response to geopolitical challenges to a fundamental characteristic of the state. This evolution was influenced by a variety of factors, including internal religious conflicts due to the Reformation, European wars involving major powers such as France and Austria, and threats to Switzerland's borders. Neutrality became a response to these challenges, enabling Switzerland to maintain its territorial integrity and political independence. In the 18th century, neutrality was firmly established as a guiding principle of Swiss foreign policy. It helped Switzerland navigate the complex landscape of European politics, marked by frequent wars and shifting alliances. Neutrality enabled Switzerland not only to protect itself against external interference, but also to preserve its internal cohesion in the face of denominational and regional divisions. The adoption of neutrality as part of Switzerland's institutional heritage also laid the foundations for Switzerland's national identity and its future role on the international stage. It has enabled Switzerland to position itself as a credible mediator in international affairs and a safe haven for diplomatic negotiations. Swiss neutrality, firmly anchored in the 18th century, continues to influence Swiss politics and diplomacy, demonstrating its enduring importance in the nation's history and politics.

The fall of Napoleon Bonaparte and the redrawing of the political map of Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 were decisive moments in the consolidation of Swiss neutrality. On 20 November 1815, following the decisions of the Congress, Switzerland's neutrality, inviolability and independence were formally recognised and guaranteed by an international treaty. This act, signed by the major European powers of the day, officially recognised that Swiss neutrality was in the interests of Europe as a whole. The Act of 20 November 1815 marked a milestone in the history of Swiss foreign policy. By declaring that "the neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland and its independence from all foreign influence are in the true interests of the whole of Europe", the treaty recognised Switzerland's unique position as a neutral state and its important role in regional stability. This international recognition not only strengthened Switzerland's position as a sovereign and neutral state, but also underlined its strategic importance in the European context. The guarantee of neutrality conferred by this treaty offered Switzerland diplomatic protection against foreign invasion and influence, enabling the country to maintain its territorial integrity and political independence. It also solidified Switzerland's role as an impartial mediator in international conflicts and as a seat for international negotiations and organisations. The formal recognition of Swiss neutrality at the Congress of Vienna therefore had lasting implications for Switzerland and for Europe. It set a precedent for the recognition and respect of a state's neutrality in international affairs, and shaped Switzerland's role in world diplomacy for centuries to come.

Throughout the 19th century, Switzerland rigorously maintained and strengthened its policy of neutrality, which became a fundamental element of its national identity and foreign policy. Following the formal recognition of this neutrality at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Switzerland faced a number of challenges and political developments in Europe, but remained firmly committed to its neutral status. Throughout this century of political upheavals, revolutions and wars in Europe, Switzerland has managed to navigate these troubled waters without becoming militarily involved in conflicts between the great powers. This position has not only enabled Switzerland to preserve its independence and sovereignty, but has also contributed to regional stability. Switzerland's commitment to neutrality was also linked to its own internal challenges, notably the need to maintain unity and peace between its various cantons, which had different political and religious orientations. Switzerland's external neutrality helped to consolidate internal peace by preventing foreign influences from interfering in its internal affairs. Switzerland's neutrality in the 19th century also laid the foundations for its future role as a centre of international diplomacy. Its reputation as a neutral and stable country made it a preferred venue for diplomatic negotiations and the headquarters of international organisations in the centuries that followed. During the 19th century, Switzerland not only maintained its policy of neutrality, but also cultivated and strengthened this principle, transforming it into an essential aspect of its politics and national identity. This period laid the foundations for Switzerland's continued commitment to neutrality in world politics and helped shape its image and role on the international stage.

The war of 1914 - 1918

The First World War (1914-1918) presented a major challenge for Switzerland and its policy of neutrality, particularly given the internal divisions between the country's linguistic and cultural regions. This period highlighted the internal tensions linked to divergent cultural and political affinities within the Confederation. On the one hand, the German-speaking community, which spoke German and shared cultural links with Germany, often felt sympathy for the German Empire and Kaiser Wilhelm II. This sympathy was partly rooted in linguistic and cultural proximity, and was reinforced by the perception of Germany as a powerful neighbour and an important economic partner. On the other hand, Switzerland's French-speaking community, the Romands, were deeply outraged by Germany's actions, particularly the violation of Belgium's neutrality by German troops. Belgium, like Switzerland, was a neutral country, and its invasion by Germany was seen as a serious transgression of international law. This action aroused strong sympathy for the Allies within the French-speaking Swiss community, particularly towards France. These internal divisions posed a significant challenge to the Swiss government, which struggled to maintain a strict policy of neutrality despite internal and external pressures. The task was to balance these divergent views while preserving national unity and avoiding involvement in the conflict. The First World War was therefore a period of internal tension for Switzerland, where its ability to maintain neutrality while managing internal divisions was put to the test. Despite these challenges, Switzerland managed to remain neutral throughout the war, asserting its role as a peaceful and neutral state in a Europe otherwise torn apart by conflict. This period also highlighted the importance of neutrality not only as a foreign policy, but also as a means of preserving internal cohesion in a multilingual and multicultural country.

During the First World War, William Emmanuel Rappard played a crucial role in defending and promoting Swiss neutrality in the face of internal and external challenges. At a time when Switzerland was deeply divided due to cultural and linguistic affinities with the belligerents in the conflict, Rappard intervened in the political debate to stress the crucial importance of maintaining Swiss neutrality. Rappard, as a leading figure in the academic and political spheres, publicly denounced the dangers threatening Switzerland's neutrality. He warned against pressures that could lead the country to depart from its long tradition of non-participation in military conflicts. His main concern was that involvement, even indirectly, in the conflict could not only expose Switzerland to military risks, but also compromise its integrity and unity as a nation.

Rappard worked to ensure that the Swiss, despite their internal divisions, remained united in their desire to remain aloof from the external conflict. He stressed the importance of national solidarity and preparedness to defend the nation against any aggressor, while maintaining the tradition of neutrality. His advocacy of neutrality was rooted in the conviction that Switzerland's peace and independence were best served by remaining outside alliances and hostilities. Rappard's actions during this turbulent period were a key factor in maintaining Swiss neutrality. By mobilising public opinion and influencing policy, he helped guide Switzerland through a perilous period in its history, preserving its status as a neutral and independent country. His work during the First World War is an example of how individual efforts can have a significant impact on politics and national unity in times of crisis.

In 1917, against the backdrop of the First World War, William Emmanuel Rappard was sent on a diplomatic mission to the United States, a crucial role for neutral Switzerland at a time when international relations were tense and complex. His mission was twofold: on the one hand, to make the voice of neutral Switzerland heard and, on the other, to ensure vital supplies for the country, which was affected by the blockade imposed by the belligerent powers. In the United States, Rappard conducted a series of interviews with journalists and influential members of President Woodrow Wilson's entourage. These interactions enabled him to present Switzerland's interests effectively and to argue in favour of the country's principle of neutrality. In his discussions, Rappard stressed that Switzerland, as a neutral country, needed support not only politically to maintain its neutrality, but also economically, particularly in terms of supplies and trade.

Through his efforts, Rappard succeeded in rallying American public and political opinion in favour of Switzerland. His work helped to raise awareness of the challenges Switzerland faced because of its geographical location and its policy of neutrality in the context of a European war. By highlighting Switzerland's specific needs and the role the United States could play in helping, he helped secure the necessary political and economic support. Rappard's mission to the United States during the First World War illustrates the importance of diplomacy and communication in preserving national interests in times of crisis. His success in America not only helped Switzerland to overcome some of the immediate challenges of the war, but also strengthened Switzerland's position as a neutral and independent state on the international stage.

William Emmanuel Rappard's meeting with President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 was a decisive moment in the affirmation of Swiss neutrality during the First World War. At this meeting, Rappard demonstrated great diplomatic skill by referring to a book written by Wilson himself, in which he discussed principles such as mutual aid, respect for individual freedoms and mutual tolerance - values deeply rooted in Swiss tradition. By reminding Wilson of his own writings on Switzerland, Rappard skilfully positioned the discussion on favourable ground, in relation to Wilson's vision for a new world order. This approach allowed Rappard to emphasise the importance of Switzerland in the European and global context and to highlight the role that the United States could play in preserving Swiss neutrality. Rappard suggested that the US should make a formal declaration recognising Switzerland's neutrality. This was crucial for Switzerland, as official recognition by a major power such as the United States would strengthen its neutral position and facilitate its wartime supplies. On 5 December 1917, Rappard's suggestion bore fruit: the United States officially recognised Switzerland's neutrality and undertook to supply the country with wheat, which was essential for Switzerland, which was suffering the effects of the food blockade imposed by the belligerent powers. This recognition and commitment were of vital importance to Switzerland, not only for its immediate needs but also for its international position. Rappard's meeting with Wilson and the outcome of their discussions illustrate the importance of personal diplomacy and mutual understanding in international relations. Thanks to his insight and diplomatic skill, Rappard played a key role in safeguarding Switzerland's neutrality and independence during a critical period in its history.

In 1918, William Emmanuel Rappard had another significant meeting with President Woodrow Wilson, during which they discussed the League of Nations, an international organisation then being conceived to maintain world peace after the First World War. This discussion was particularly important for Switzerland, given its policy of neutrality and its role in international affairs. At this meeting, Rappard and Wilson agreed that the League of Nations should emerge from the peace process and that only those nations that had participated in the war and contributed to the establishment of peace would initially be admitted to the negotiating table for its creation. This decision meant that Switzerland, as a non-belligerent and neutral state, could not be a founder member of the League of Nations. It could only join the organisation once it had been officially founded. This situation reflected Switzerland's unique dilemma: while its neutral status allowed it to stay out of conflicts and mediate in certain situations, it also prevented it from participating fully in the early stages of the formation of new global governance structures. Switzerland's position vis-à-vis the League of Nations was complex. On the one hand, its membership of an international organisation aimed at preventing future conflicts was consistent with its commitment to peace and international cooperation. On the other hand, his neutral status had to be carefully preserved, as it was a fundamental element of his national identity and foreign policy. Rappard's commitment to Switzerland's inclusion in the League of Nations after its creation demonstrates his concern to keep Switzerland engaged and relevant in international affairs, while preserving its principles of neutrality. This period marked an important moment in the history of Swiss diplomacy, illustrating the challenges and opportunities facing Switzerland as a neutral state in a rapidly changing world.

The peace conference

In 1919, when the work to create the League of Nations began in Paris, Switzerland was in a unique position because of its neutral status. Although it was not in a position to participate officially in the negotiations to establish the charter of the League of Nations, due to its lack of involvement in the conflict of the First World War, Switzerland nevertheless had a keen interest in the developments of these discussions, which were crucial for the future international order. To ensure that Switzerland was informed and, to some extent, involved in these debates, William Emmanuel Rappard was sent to Paris as an unofficial emissary. His presence in Paris was not that of an official delegate participating in the negotiations, but rather that of an attentive observer, ensuring that Swiss interests and perspectives were taken into account, as far as possible, in the formulation of the new international organisation.

Rappard's mission in Paris was a delicate one. He had to navigate the post-war environment, where anti-German sentiment was strong and Switzerland, because of its linguistic and cultural links with Germany, was viewed with some suspicion. Rappard also had to ensure that Switzerland's actions and positions remained consistent with its principle of neutrality, while seeking to influence deliberations in a way that favoured his country's interests. Rappard's presence and efforts in Paris illustrate Switzerland's commitment to remaining actively involved in international affairs, even in situations where its neutrality limited its official participation. This episode underlined the importance of indirect diplomacy and communication in maintaining Switzerland's international relevance, and demonstrated Rappard's skill and finesse as a diplomat and advocate of Swiss interests.

The representations made by William Emmanuel Rappard and other Swiss representatives to the delegations of the Allied countries, and particularly to the American delegation, during the negotiations for the creation of the League of Nations played a crucial role in the designation of Geneva as the headquarters of this international organisation. These efforts also helped to facilitate Switzerland's entry into the League of Nations, while preserving its neutral status. The talks with the Allied delegations, in particular the interactions with the American representatives, were strategic for Switzerland. Rappard and his colleagues emphasised the advantages of choosing Geneva, a city in a neutral country, as the headquarters of the League of Nations. They highlighted the atmosphere of peace and political stability that Switzerland could offer, as well as its central geographical location in Europe. Geneva, with its history of hosting international conferences and its multilingual environment, was an ideal choice for an organisation promoting peace and international cooperation.

Switzerland's membership of the League of Nations, while preserving its neutral status, was another significant achievement. Swiss diplomatic efforts convinced other nations of the importance of including Switzerland, a neutral country, in the League of Nations, recognising that its neutrality could make a significant contribution to the organisation's objectives of peace and stability. The designation of Geneva as the headquarters of the League of Nations and Switzerland's entry into the organisation, while maintaining its neutral status, were key moments in Swiss diplomacy. These events not only strengthened Switzerland's international position, but also confirmed Geneva as a major centre of diplomacy and international governance. These achievements testify to the importance of skilful diplomacy and international relations in consolidating a country's position on the world stage.

The Allies' position on neutrality within the League of Nations reflected the complexities and tensions inherent in establishing a new international order after the First World War. The Allies, having fought together during the war, had developed a vision of the post-war world based on principles of international cooperation and solidarity. In this context, the concept of neutrality, as embodied by Switzerland, gave rise to debate and misgivings. For the Allies, a status of neutrality such as that maintained by Switzerland seemed incompatible with the principles on which they wished to found the League of Nations. They saw neutrality as an obstacle to the global solidarity needed to prevent future conflicts. Their reasoning was that, in an international system based on cooperation and international law, each member state should be prepared to commit itself actively to the maintenance of collective peace and security. From their perspective, neutrality could be interpreted as a refusal to participate fully in collective efforts for peace and security, and therefore as a potential threat to the effectiveness of the League of Nations. They feared that if a country could claim neutrality and exempt itself from certain international responsibilities or commitments, this could weaken the cohesion and effectiveness of the organisation.

For Switzerland, however, neutrality was a long-established policy and a central element of its national identity. For the Swiss, neutrality was not a withdrawal from international affairs, but rather a way of contributing to world peace in a different way, by providing neutral ground for diplomacy and acting as an impartial mediator. The final recognition of Swiss neutrality by the League of Nations, and Switzerland's membership of the organisation while preserving its neutral status, was the result of negotiation and compromise. This inclusion demonstrated the flexibility of the League of Nations and its ability to accommodate different national approaches to foreign policy, while pursuing its overall objective of maintaining international peace and security.

Faced with the Allies' reluctance to accept Swiss neutrality within the framework of the League of Nations, William Emmanuel Rappard adopted a strategic approach by advising the Swiss Federal Council. He proposed that Switzerland argue that maintaining its neutrality was not only in its national interest, but also beneficial to the international community as a whole. Rappard suggested that Swiss neutrality, far from being an obstacle to international solidarity, could in fact serve the League of Nations' objectives of peace and stability. As a neutral country, Switzerland could provide neutral ground for international diplomacy and negotiations, act as an impartial mediator in conflicts, and contribute to an atmosphere of international trust and cooperation. However, Rappard also advised the Federal Council against making Switzerland's membership of the League of Nations conditional on formal recognition of its neutrality. He realised that linking membership to such a condition could be seen as excessive and could jeopardise Switzerland's chances of joining the organisation. Instead, Rappard recommended a more nuanced and flexible approach, seeking to convince other League of Nations members of the added value of Swiss neutrality, without making it a strict precondition for membership. This strategy sought to balance the preservation of the principle of neutrality, dear to Switzerland, with the need to engage actively in the new international order represented by the League of Nations. Rappard's approach reflected his diplomatic skill and deep understanding of post-war international dynamics, as well as his commitment to Switzerland's long-term interests.

In January 1919, as discussions on the creation of the League of Nations (League) were progressing in Paris, rumours began to circulate that Geneva would be chosen as the headquarters of this new international organisation. The idea that Geneva, a city in a neutral country like Switzerland, could host the headquarters of the League was appealing, as it symbolised the League's commitment to peace and neutrality. This decision, if taken, would have given Switzerland a special status as host country, embodying a de facto role of neutrality, even if this status was not explicitly named as such. However, by April 1919, it had become clear that the Allies were reluctant to create a special status for Switzerland in connection with its role as host country to the League of Nations. The Allies, mainly the victorious Great Powers of the First World War, were concerned with establishing a world order based on cooperation and solidarity between states. They saw neutrality, particularly in its institutionalised and special form, as potentially contrary to the principles of the League of Nations, which aimed to promote the active involvement of its members in conflict resolution and peacekeeping.

This position of the Allies reflected the tensions between the ideals of neutrality, as defended by Switzerland, and the objectives of the League of Nations. Whereas Swiss neutrality focused on non-participation in conflicts and impartiality, the League of Nations sought to establish a system of collective security in which each member would play an active role in peacekeeping. The reluctance of the Allies to grant Switzerland special status posed diplomatic challenges for the country as it sought to maintain its neutral identity while engaging in the new international order. Resolving this issue required skilful diplomacy and delicate negotiations, underlining the complexity of reconciling Switzerland's tradition of neutrality with the demands and expectations of the post-war international system.

Max Huber
(Source: www.redcross.int)

Max Huber, an eminent Swiss jurist working for the Swiss Federal Political Department (now the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs), played a key role in the negotiations surrounding Swiss neutrality in the context of the creation of the League of Nations. By travelling to Paris, Huber brought a strategic legal perspective to bear on the question of Swiss neutrality within the new international system. Huber arrived in Paris with an innovative idea for reconciling Swiss neutrality with the principles of the League of Nations. He suggested that Switzerland's guarantee of neutrality could be interpreted in the light of Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This article stipulated that international commitments, such as arbitration treaties and regional agreements, which contribute to the maintenance of peace, would not be considered incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.

Huber's argument was that Swiss neutrality, as a long-established policy contributing to stability and peace in Europe, could be seen as an international commitment consistent with the aims of the League of Nations. In other words, Swiss neutrality should not be seen as an obstacle to the international solidarity and cooperation promoted by the League of Nations, but rather as a compatible and valuable contribution to these objectives. This skilful interpretation offered a way for Switzerland to maintain its tradition of neutrality while joining the League of Nations. It made it possible to navigate between Switzerland's desire to preserve its neutral status and the requirements of active involvement in the new international order. Max Huber's approach thus played a crucial role in resolving one of the most sensitive diplomatic issues facing Switzerland in the post-war period, demonstrating the importance of legal expertise and negotiation in international diplomacy.

Obtaining special status for Switzerland within the League of Nations was seen as essential to ensuring that Switzerland's membership of the organisation was accepted by the Swiss people. William Emmanuel Rappard, aware of this imperative, held strategic talks with President Woodrow Wilson to address this crucial issue. Rappard stressed to Wilson the importance of direct democracy in Switzerland and the fact that any decision on membership of the League of Nations would require the approval of the Swiss people and the cantons via a referendum. This requirement reflected the Swiss political system, where decisions of national importance are often subject to popular vote. Rappard's argument was based on the idea that, without the recognition of Swiss neutrality as a special status within the League of Nations, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the support of the Swiss people for membership of the organisation. The Swiss valued their tradition of neutrality as an essential part of their national identity and foreign policy.

In his discussions with Wilson, Rappard therefore stressed the importance of recognising Swiss neutrality within the framework of the League of Nations, while respecting the Swiss democratic process. Rappard's approach was designed to ensure that Switzerland could retain its principle of neutrality while engaging with the new international order represented by the League of Nations. This diplomatic strategy aimed not only to protect Switzerland's national interests, but also to ensure that membership of the League of Nations would be legitimate and accepted by the Swiss people. The emphasis on the need for a popular vote demonstrated Switzerland's commitment to its democratic principles and neutrality, while seeking to play an active and meaningful role in the international community.

On 28 April, in a historic decision taken at the Peace Conference held at the Quai d'Orsay in Paris, Geneva was chosen as the headquarters of the League of Nations (League). This decision marked an important turning point both for Switzerland and for international diplomacy. The designation of Geneva as the headquarters of the League of Nations was the result of a meticulous selection process, in which several cities, including Brussels and The Hague, were also in the running. Each of these cities had its own advantages and support, but Geneva was ultimately preferred for several key reasons. Firstly, the choice of Geneva, located in a neutral country like Switzerland, was symbolically important for the League of Nations, whose aim was to promote peace and international cooperation. Switzerland, with its long tradition of neutrality and its history as a place of international diplomacy, offered a favourable and impartial environment for the organisation. Secondly, Geneva's central geographical location in Europe facilitated access for delegates from different countries, which was an important logistical asset for an international organisation. The designation of Geneva as the headquarters of the League of Nations not only strengthened Switzerland's international position, but also had a significant impact on the city itself. Geneva became a major centre for international diplomacy and international organisations, a reputation that continues to this day. The choice of Geneva was also a recognition of the role that Switzerland, as a neutral country, could play in international peace and cooperation efforts.

The question of Switzerland's special status as host country to the League of Nations (League) was a complex one, and gave rise to much debate during the negotiations at the Peace Conference. Initially, the Allies were reluctant to make any positive assurances about a special status for Switzerland, reflecting their concerns about the compatibility of Swiss neutrality with the principles of the League of Nations. William Emmanuel Rappard, aware of these difficulties, assessed that the best possible outcome for Switzerland would be to be accepted into the League of Nations without having to abandon its traditional policy of neutrality. He felt that this could be achieved by interpreting Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in such a way as to include Swiss neutrality as an international commitment compatible with the aims of the organisation. In the end, against all expectations, Swiss neutrality was recognised by the members of the League of Nations. This recognition came at a time when many thought that Swiss neutrality, in the context of the League of Nations, was a lost cause. The official recognition of Swiss neutrality was a major success for Swiss diplomacy and demonstrated the possibility of reconciling neutrality with participation in a system of collective security. The recognition of Swiss neutrality by the League of Nations not only strengthened Switzerland's international position, but also confirmed its role as an impartial mediator and centre of international diplomacy. This enabled Switzerland to maintain its neutral identity while actively participating in international efforts for peace and cooperation. The resolution of this issue underlined the importance of negotiation, perseverance and flexibility in international diplomacy.

The Treaty of 1815, signed as part of the Congress of Vienna after the fall of Napoleon, played a crucial role in establishing Swiss neutrality on the international stage. This treaty not only recognised Switzerland's neutrality, but also included provisions concerning Northern Savoy. At the time the treaty was signed in 1815, Northern Savoy was part of the territories governed by the Duke of Savoy, who was also the King of Sardinia. The treaty stipulated that, in the event of a conflict involving the Swiss Confederation's neighbours, neutrality was to extend to Northern Savoy. This provision was intended to guarantee a neutral buffer zone around Switzerland, thereby contributing to its security and stability. However, the situation in Savoy changed in 1860, when, following the Treaty of Turin, the region was annexed to France. Despite this change in sovereignty, the provision of the 1815 Treaty concerning the neutrality of Northern Savoy remained in force, although its practical relevance was called into question after the annexation. In 1919, during the negotiations surrounding the League of Nations and after the end of the First World War, the question of the neutrality of Northern Savoy, as well as the general recognition of Swiss neutrality, were subjects of discussion. The singular historical situation of Savoy, linked both to the Treaty of 1815 and to its subsequent annexation by France, reflected the complexity of territorial arrangements and neutrality agreements in Europe. The case of Northern Savoy illustrates how historic treaties can have lasting and sometimes complex implications, requiring reinterpretation or adjustment in the face of political and territorial developments. For Switzerland, maintaining its neutrality and gaining international recognition for it remained key priorities in the context of the post-First World War upheavals and the formation of the League of Nations.

The question of Switzerland's extended neutrality to Northern Savoy, as stipulated in the Treaty of 1815, raised concerns in France, particularly with regard to the principle of dual sovereignty in the event of war. The French authorities were reluctant to accept a situation where a French territory, Northern Savoy, would be subject to a status of neutrality imposed by an international treaty dating from before its annexation by France in 1860. Faced with this delicate situation, Max Huber, a Swiss jurist and diplomat, proposed a pragmatic plan to resolve the dilemma. He suggested that Switzerland renounce its right to the neutral status of Northern Savoy in exchange for explicit and formal recognition of its own neutrality by other nations, notably within the framework of the League of Nations. The aim of this proposal was to make a concession to France by abandoning the neutrality status of Northern Savoy, while guaranteeing that Swiss neutrality would be clearly recognised and respected on the international stage. Huber understood that for Switzerland to join the League of Nations, it was essential to obtain formal recognition of its neutrality that would be clear enough to be accepted by the Swiss people and cantons in a referendum. Huber's plan therefore aimed to ensure that Switzerland could maintain its neutral status, a central element of its national identity and foreign policy, while facilitating its integration into the emerging international community. At the same time, he was responding to French concerns about sovereignty over Northern Savoy. This pragmatic and strategic approach demonstrated Huber's diplomatic skill and ability to negotiate solutions that respected the interests of all concerned.

The agreement between the French and Swiss governments led to the inclusion of Article 435 in the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919. This article specifically addressed the question of the neutralised zone of Savoy, a question inherited from the treaties of 1815 which, at the time of the First World War, no longer corresponded to political and territorial realities. Article 435 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that the High Contracting Parties recognised the guarantees in favour of Switzerland established by the Treaties of 1815, in particular the Act of 20 November 1815, which were regarded as international commitments for the maintenance of peace. However, the article also recognised that the provisions relating to the neutralised zone of Savoy, as defined in the documents of the Congress of Vienna and the Treaty of Paris of 1815, were no longer appropriate in view of the changes that had occurred since then, in particular the annexation of Savoy by France in 1860. Accordingly, Article 435 took note of the agreement between France and Switzerland to repeal the stipulations relating to this neutralised zone. This agreement represented an important compromise: it abolished the neutralisation of Savoy, thereby meeting French sovereignty concerns, while recognising and preserving international commitments concerning Swiss neutrality. This agreement was a significant milestone in post-First World War diplomacy and illustrated the ability of nations to adapt historic treaties to contemporary political realities. For Switzerland, the abrogation of the stipulations concerning Savoy was a necessary adjustment, enabling the country to maintain its recognised neutrality while adapting to territorial and political changes in Europe.

Georges Clemenceau, who was President of the French Council (equivalent to Prime Minister) during the Treaty of Versailles negotiations and at the end of the First World War, played a crucial role in supporting Swiss neutrality, although his position towards the League of Nations was more complex. Clemenceau, as head of the French government at this crucial time, was primarily focused on rebuilding France after the war and ensuring his country's future security. His priorities included negotiating war reparations, redefining European borders, and strengthening France against future German aggression. Although the League of Nations was a major initiative to emerge from the Treaty of Versailles, with US President Woodrow Wilson as one of its main promoters, Clemenceau took a more pragmatic view of the organisation. His priority was less focused on the creation of a new global governance structure and more on France's immediate interests and security. However, as far as Switzerland was concerned, Clemenceau supported the country's neutral status. He recognised the importance of Swiss neutrality in the European context and understood that supporting Switzerland in this role could contribute to the stability of the region. Clemenceau's stance in favour of Swiss neutrality helped to facilitate the acceptance of Swiss neutrality in the peace agreements and ensured that Swiss interests were taken into account in the post-war negotiations. Clemenceau's support for Swiss neutrality was an example of European leaders recognising the importance of Swiss neutrality for regional peace and stability, even in the context of a changing international order after the First World War.

William Emmanuel Rappard played a key role in the campaign to secure Swiss membership of the League of Nations (League). Convinced of the importance of membership for Switzerland's international role and security, Rappard was actively involved in persuading the Swiss people and cantons of the benefits of joining the League.

His campaign highlighted the potential benefits of membership for Switzerland, while respecting its traditional status of neutrality. Rappard had to navigate a complex landscape, where attachment to neutrality was deeply rooted in the Swiss national consciousness, and where the idea of joining an international organisation could be seen as contradictory to this principle. To convince the Swiss, Rappard pointed to the guarantees obtained regarding the recognition of Swiss neutrality in the context of the League of Nations, as well as the advantages of being involved in discussions and decisions affecting international peace and stability. He argued that membership of the League would provide Switzerland with a platform to promote its interests and values on the international stage, while maintaining its commitment to neutrality.

On 16 May 1920, the results of Rappard's campaign bore fruit: in a referendum, a majority of Swiss citizens and cantons voted in favour of joining the League of Nations. This vote marked a turning point in Swiss foreign policy, illustrating the country's ability to adapt to a new international order while preserving its fundamental principles. Switzerland's membership of the League of Nations, achieved through the efforts of Rappard and others, enabled the country to participate actively in early efforts at global governance while reinforcing and formalising its neutral status. It also underlined Switzerland's commitment to direct democracy, where important foreign policy decisions were taken with the explicit consent of its population.

Switzerland's membership of the League of Nations (League) in 1920 marked an important milestone in its international commitment, while presenting challenges in terms of reconciling its status of neutrality with the responsibilities arising from its membership of the League. As a member of the League, Switzerland was obliged to participate in international solidarity, in particular by supporting the measures taken by the organisation against countries that violated international principles or agreements. This meant that, although Switzerland's military neutrality was maintained, it was nonetheless obliged to comply with the financial and economic sanctions imposed by the League against countries considered outlawed or in breach of the organisation's charter. This situation created a kind of duality in Swiss foreign policy. On the one hand, Switzerland maintained its traditional principle of military non-commitment and neutrality in armed conflicts. On the other hand, its membership of the League of Nations implied a form of cooperation and solidarity with the other members of the organisation, particularly in terms of non-military sanctions.

Switzerland therefore adopted an approach that enabled it to maintain its neutral status while at the same time being an active member of the international community. It sought to balance its obligations as a member of the League of Nations with its historical commitment to neutrality, by participating in non-military measures such as economic or financial sanctions, while avoiding direct involvement in armed conflicts. This approach illustrated Switzerland's ability to adapt to a changing international environment, while remaining true to its fundamental foreign policy principles. Switzerland's participation in the League of Nations, with the formal recognition of its neutrality, has also strengthened its role as a credible mediator and seat of international diplomacy.

The thirties

During the 1930s, the League of Nations (League) faced growing challenges and a series of events that ultimately called into question its effectiveness and its initial hopes of maintaining international peace and stability. William Emmanuel Rappard, as an influential figure and knowledgeable observer within the League, was a privileged witness to these developments. At the time, the world was in the grip of growing tensions and the rise of authoritarian and expansionist regimes, notably in Germany with the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, in Italy with Benito Mussolini, and in Japan. These developments severely tested the framework of the League of Nations, which proved insufficient to effectively counter the aggressiveness and treaty violations of these powers.

Rappard, as a diplomat, academic and active member of the international community, observed these worrying developments at close hand. He saw how the principles and mechanisms of the League of Nations were gradually undermined by non-compliance with treaties, territorial aggression, and the organisation's inability to impose effective sanctions or mobilise collective support to keep the peace. The context of the 1930s also highlighted Switzerland's delicate position as a neutral country. Switzerland had to navigate an increasingly dangerous international environment while trying to maintain its neutral status, which often involved difficult decisions and compromises. For Rappard, this period was marked by a growing awareness of the limits of international governance as embodied by the League of Nations and the challenges inherent in preserving world peace. His observations and experience within the League provided him with unique insights into international dynamics and the role Switzerland could play in this changing context. Rappard continued to be an influential voice in discussions on international law, diplomacy and the policy of neutrality, helping to shape Switzerland's understanding of and responses to the international events of this turbulent era.

William Emmanuel Rappard was acutely aware of the dangers that totalitarian regimes posed to individual freedoms and international stability, particularly during the 1930s. This period was marked by the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe, notably Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini. Rappard publicly denounced the threat that these authoritarian and totalitarian regimes posed to the fundamental principles of human rights and democracy. He was particularly concerned by the way in which these governments suppressed civil and political liberties, imposed rigorous censorship, repressed dissenting opinions and persecuted various ethnic and political groups. As a defender of democracy and human rights, Rappard stressed the need to protect individual freedoms against the abuse of power by these regimes. He also warned of the dangers that such regimes posed not only to their own citizens, but also to international peace and security. Rappard's advocacy against totalitarian regimes and in favour of human rights and democracy was an important aspect of his work. His warnings and analyses were particularly relevant at a time when the world was on the brink of the Second World War, a conflict that would largely be triggered by the aggressiveness and expansionist ambitions of these same totalitarian regimes. Through his writings and speeches, Rappard sought to make the public and political leaders aware of the risks posed by these authoritarian regimes, asserting the need to defend democratic values and maintain constant vigilance in the face of threats to freedom and international peace.

William Emmanuel Rappard, in his criticisms of the totalitarian regimes emerging in the 1930s, highlighted a crucial common feature of these systems: their rejection of liberal individualism and democracy. In these regimes, notably Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy, the primacy of the nation and the state was placed above individual rights and freedoms. In these totalitarian states, the individual was subordinated to the interests and objectives of the nation or state. This was manifested in the extreme centralisation of power, strict state control over all aspects of public and private life, and the absence of fundamental civil liberties. Totalitarian regimes imposed on their citizens not only a strict set of rules and behaviours, but also an official ideology, often based on nationalism, militarism and autocratic control.

Rappard and other observers of the time noted that, in these systems, everything was imposed on individuals, with the exception of what was explicitly forbidden. This inversion of traditional democratic and liberal principles led to widespread suppression of human rights, censorship of the press, repression of dissenting opinions, and persecution of specific ethnic, religious or political groups. The rise of these regimes has posed a fundamental challenge not only to the societies directly affected, but also to the international order. It has raised profound questions about how to protect individual freedoms and promote democracy in a global context increasingly dominated by authoritarian forces. Rappard's observations on these totalitarian regimes were therefore highly relevant, warning of the dangers of abandoning liberal and democratic values in favour of narrow, authoritarian nationalism.

The international situation favours these dictatorial regimes, which do not have to take public opinion into account. "How can a regime that denies everyone the freedom to think, to write, to speak, to form groups, to eat, to travel, to love, to hate, to be indignant, to be enthusiastic, to work and to relax as they please, be expected to produce a race of men as energetic, as intelligent, as inventive, as genuinely productive and creative as a regime that is more respectful of the rights of the individual?

William Rappard's quote highlights a fundamental criticism of the totalitarian and dictatorial regimes that came to power in the 1930s. Rappard underlines the deleterious impact of these regimes on the human spirit and society in general. In his view, by denying individuals the fundamental freedom to think, write, speak, associate, eat, travel, love, hate, resent, enthuse, work and relax as they saw fit, these regimes stifled the energy, intelligence, inventiveness and productivity that characterise a free society that respects individual rights. Rappard thus questions the idea that an oppressive regime can be more effective or beneficial for human development than one that respects and values individual rights and freedoms. His critique is based on the observation that oppression and authoritarian control limit human potential and inhibit innovation and creativity.

This perspective was particularly relevant in the context of the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe, which often claimed to justify their authoritarianism on the grounds of efficiency, stability or national greatness. Rappard, however, highlights the human costs of such regimes: the loss of individual freedom, the repression of diversity of thought and ideas, and the erosion of democratic principles. Rappard's reflection on totalitarian regimes reflects his commitment to liberal democracy and his concern about the dangers these authoritarian regimes pose to society and to the international order. His words remain a poignant reminder of the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms and resisting the forces that seek to limit them.

William Emmanuel Rappard, in his observations on the League of Nations (League), expressed concern about its lack of universality and its ability to effectively maintain international peace. Rappard, as a committed intellectual and keen observer of international affairs, noted that the League had fundamental flaws that hindered its mission to guarantee the territorial integrity and independence of all its members. One of the main problems Rappard raised was the lack of universality of the League. Several major world powers, including the United States, were not members of the organisation, which severely limited its reach and influence. The absence of the United States, in particular, was a blow to the League, as it had been one of the main architects of the organisation after the First World War. Rappard also criticised the League's ability to apply the principle of collective security. This principle was at the heart of the League's mission: in the event of aggression against a member, the other members were supposed to react collectively to defend the aggressed state and maintain peace. In practice, however, the application of collective security was hampered by divergent national interests, a lack of political will and the absence of effective mechanisms to compel member states to act. Rappard regretted that these weaknesses undermined the effectiveness of the League as an instrument of peace and international stability. His criticisms reflected a deep understanding of the challenges facing global governance at the time, and underlined the need for stronger and more committed international cooperation to prevent conflict and promote peace. Rappard's observations on the League of Nations were prescient, anticipating some of the reasons for its eventual failure to prevent the Second World War.

In the 1930s, the League of Nations (League) faced major challenges that undermined its credibility and effectiveness. Two events in particular illustrated the organisation's limitations in managing international conflicts and preventing aggression: Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and Italy's attack on Ethiopia in 1935. Japanese aggression in Manchuria began in September 1931, marking a turning point in international relations at the time. Japan, in flagrant violation of the principles of the League of Nations, invaded this region of north-eastern China, seeking to extend its empire. The reaction of the League of Nations was deemed insufficient; despite the condemnation of Japan's action by the Lytton Report in 1932, no effective measures were taken to force Japan to withdraw. In response to the SDN's inaction, Japan left the organisation in 1933, illustrating the SDN's inability to maintain peace and order. In October 1935, another major challenge arose with the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy, led by Benito Mussolini. This aggression against an independent member state of the League of Nations was aimed at expanding Italy's colonial empire. The League responded by imposing economic sanctions on Italy, but these proved ineffective. Many countries did not fully implement the sanctions, and critical resources such as oil were not included in the embargo. Ethiopia was finally defeated in May 1936, and this defeat was a major blow to the League of Nations, revealing its inability to protect its members from external aggression. These incidents not only undermined confidence in the ability of the League to act as an effective guarantor of international peace, but also highlighted the divisions and conflicting interests within the organisation. The manifest weakness of the League in the face of these aggressions not only diminished its prestige but also contributed to a climate of international insecurity, paving the way for further conflicts that would culminate in the Second World War. These historical events demonstrate the complexity and challenges of international governance in a world where national interests and power politics often take precedence over the principles of cooperation and collective security.

During the 1930s, the League of Nations (League), initially conceived as an institution to guarantee international peace and security, gradually lost its effectiveness and prestige. This decline was particularly marked by the organisation's inability to counter Japan's aggression in Manchuria and Italy's aggression in Ethiopia. This situation was a great disappointment, particularly for advocates of peace and international cooperation, who had seen in the League a hope for a more stable and peaceful world. Swiss neutrality, a fundamental principle of the country's foreign policy, was threatened by this growing instability. Faced with this situation, Switzerland refused to become involved in the economic, financial and commercial measures taken against Italy by the League of Nations. This decision reflected Switzerland's concern to preserve its neutral status in an increasingly volatile international context.

William Rappard, observing the evolution of events, concluded that a return to full neutrality was now the only viable option for Switzerland to protect itself against what he called the "gangsterism" of totalitarian nations. He felt that in a climate where the principles of the League of Nations were constantly being flouted and the aggressive actions of totalitarian regimes threatened the international order, Switzerland should distance itself from these conflicts and reassert its traditional policy of neutrality. Rappard's vision reflected a profound understanding of the geopolitical realities of the time, and emphasised the need for Switzerland to remain aloof from alliances and conflicts in order to safeguard its independence and security. In this context, full neutrality was seen not only as a strategic choice for Switzerland, but also as a pragmatic response to an international environment increasingly dominated by force and coercion, rather than cooperation and international law.

In February 1938, Neville Chamberlain, then British Prime Minister, expressed a bleak and realistic view of the League of Nations (League) and its ability to guarantee collective security. His words reflected the growing sense of disillusionment among European leaders about the effectiveness of the League in a rapidly changing geopolitical context. Chamberlain declared: "The League of Nations in its present form cannot guarantee the security of the collective, we cannot abandon ourselves to an illusion and mislead the small nations it is supposed to protect, when we know perfectly well that we can expect no recourse from Geneva". This declaration openly acknowledged the inability of the League of Nations to provide an effective framework for collective security, especially in the face of aggression from totalitarian powers.

Chamberlain's acknowledgement of the ineffectiveness of the League was significant because it came from the leader of one of the major European powers and an influential member of the organisation. It signalled a realisation among the European powers that the League, as it was then structured and operated, could not respond effectively to the security challenges of the time, particularly in the face of the rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan. Chamberlain's comment on the illusion of expecting recourse from Geneva, where the League was based, reflected a growing disillusionment with the organisation's ability to act as a protective shield, particularly for smaller nations. This perception contributed to the weakening of the League's credibility and underlined the need to seek other means of maintaining international peace and security. In this context, the Chamberlain Declaration also had implications for Switzerland's policy of neutrality, underlining the complexity of maintaining a neutral position in an international environment increasingly dominated by aggressive and uncooperative powers. Switzerland, along with other small nations, had to navigate this turbulent geopolitical environment carefully, while reassessing the international mechanisms and alliances on which they could rely for their security and independence.

As the international situation deteriorated in the 1930s, several of Switzerland's neighbours decided to leave the League of Nations (League). This wave of withdrawals underlined the weakening of the organisation and the growing inability of international institutions to maintain peace and stability. Among Switzerland's neighbours, only France remained a member of the League, while others, such as Germany and Italy, had left the organisation. In this context, William Rappard, a staunch defender of Swiss neutrality, likened neutrality to a "parachute", underlining its crucial importance for Switzerland's security and sovereignty in an increasingly unstable and dangerous international environment. The parachute metaphor symbolises the protection and security that neutrality offers Switzerland, especially at a time when the "airspace" - in other words, the international geopolitical context - was full of threats and uncertainties.

Rappard's insistence on the importance of neutrality reflects the understanding that in times of international tension and conflict, neutrality offers Switzerland a means of protecting itself from the direct implications of wars and conflicts between great powers. Thanks to its policy of neutrality, Switzerland has been able to avoid aligning itself with specific power blocs, thereby maintaining a certain distance from international rivalries and preserving its autonomy. Switzerland's approach to neutrality, as articulated by Rappard, has been a long-standing strategy for navigating a world marked by conflict and rapid change, enabling the country to maintain domestic stability and focus on its development and prosperity. Neutrality, in this sense, has become an integral part of Switzerland's national identity and a fundamental principle of its foreign policy, particularly valuable in times of international turbulence.

In the spring of 1938, against an increasingly tense and uncertain international backdrop, Switzerland took the strategic decision to return to its traditional policy of complete neutrality. This choice marked a return to the historical foundations of Swiss foreign policy, in which the country undertook to remain impartial and not to take part in international conflicts, while avoiding any form of sanctions against other nations. This decision to reaffirm full neutrality was in response to the geopolitical developments of the time, notably the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe, the failures of the League of Nations to prevent conflict, and the growing instability on the continent. By adopting a position of complete neutrality, Switzerland sought to protect itself from the potentially disastrous consequences of international tensions and to maintain its sovereignty and independence. Interestingly, Switzerland's neutrality was recognised not only by the remaining members of the League of Nations, but also by key countries such as Italy and Germany, which at the time were ruled by totalitarian regimes. This recognition reflected international acceptance of Switzerland's special status and its role as a neutral state. Swiss neutrality, while exempting it from participating in sanctions against other nations, also imposed on it the responsibility of maintaining a balanced and prudent policy in its international relations. Switzerland had to navigate carefully to ensure that its neutrality was not perceived as tacit support for the actions of aggressive regimes, while at the same time protecting its own national interests. The return to full neutrality in 1938 therefore marked a key moment in the history of Swiss foreign policy, reflecting a pragmatic adaptation to the changing realities of the time and a continuing commitment to the principles of neutrality and independence.

After Russia's aggression against Finland and the inaction of the League of Nations, Switzerland distanced itself from its obligations to the League of Nations. "If in my eyes neutrality is never glorious, it is because it is the negation of the active solidarity that responds to a true organisation of peace. In fact, it is obvious that the neutrality we practise in Switzerland does not inspire any pretext for intervention by our neighbours to the north and south. The Soviet Union's aggression against Finland in November 1939, during the Winter War, was another critical moment that revealed the limitations of the League of Nations (League) in maintaining international peace and security. Faced with this act of aggression and the subsequent inaction of the League, Switzerland began to distance itself from its obligations to the organisation, reaffirming its policy of neutrality. This was of particular concern to Switzerland, as the Soviet aggression against Finland demonstrated the inability of the League to protect small states against larger powers. The response of the League to this crisis reinforced the view that the organisation was no longer an effective guarantor of collective security, prompting Switzerland to re-evaluate its commitment to the League.

This quote, attributed to William Rappard, highlights the tension between neutrality and international solidarity. On the one hand, neutrality is seen as a pragmatic necessity, especially in a context where an effective peace organisation is lacking. On the other, it is recognised as a form of non-participation, even a denial of the active solidarity necessary for genuine peace. The practice of neutrality in Switzerland is described as being motivated by the desire not to give any pretext for intervention by neighbouring countries, notably Nazi Germany to the north and Fascist Italy to the south. This approach reflected Switzerland's desire to preserve its independence and security in an increasingly threatening European context, while recognising the limits and compromises of neutrality in an ideal world where peace would be organised more effectively and collectively. Switzerland's position in these tumultuous years thus reflects a complex balance between political pragmatism, the need for security and recognition of the limits of existing international structures for guaranteeing peace and international solidarity.

The Second World War

In the years leading up to the Second World War, Switzerland found itself in a particularly difficult position, isolated and surrounded by three dictatorships - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and, following Germany's annexation of Austria in 1938, an even more threatening neighbourhood. These regimes demanded that Switzerland strictly adhere to its policy of complete neutrality, which placed the country in a delicate situation. Against this backdrop, William Rappard expressed a nuanced view of Swiss neutrality. Although he acknowledged that neutrality was essential for the preservation of Switzerland's independence and security, he also stressed that this neutrality was not without moral compromise. His quote, "it is less than ever in a conflict where all the rights and all the truth are on one side and all the wrongs and lies are on the other", reflects this ambivalence. Rappard emphasises here that, although neutrality may be necessary and strategically judicious, it also obliges Switzerland to refrain from taking a position in a conflict where the moral and ethical stakes are clearly asymmetrical. In the context of the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe, this neutral stance may have been perceived as a lack of solidarity with the nations and peoples suffering oppression and aggression. Rappard's perspective illustrates the complex dilemma Switzerland faced: how to maintain its neutrality, a pillar of its foreign policy and national security, while navigating an international landscape where democratic values and human rights were under serious threat. Neutrality, in this sense, was a survival strategy for Switzerland, but it also had moral and ethical implications that could not be ignored.

In the tumultuous run-up to and during the Second World War, William Rappard took a pragmatic view of the position Switzerland should take. Convinced of the limits of diplomatic action in an international context marked by aggression and violations of the principles of international law, Rappard advocated a policy of silence for Switzerland. This approach aimed to preserve Swiss neutrality while avoiding attracting attention or provoking the bellicose powers around him. At the same time, Rappard recognised the importance of helping those suffering the consequences of the conflict. This duality - maintaining a policy of silence while providing humanitarian assistance - reflected the complexity of Swiss neutrality in a world at war. For Switzerland, it was a question of striking a balance between preserving its own security and responding to the urgent humanitarian needs resulting from the conflict. The Second World War was characterised by its total nature, involving not only military operations on vast fronts, but also economic warfare. One of the main strategies used in this economic warfare was the economic blockade, in which the belligerents sought to restrict their enemies' access to essential resources. For a neutral country like Switzerland, heavily dependent on international trade and imports for its resources, navigating these troubled waters was a considerable challenge. Switzerland's position in this context was delicate. On the one hand, it had to adhere to its principles of neutrality and avoid taking sides in the conflict. On the other, Switzerland had to manage the impact of the economic blockade and other restrictive measures while trying to respond to humanitarian needs, both within its borders and in Europe in general. Rappard, with his far-sighted vision, helped guide Swiss foreign policy through this difficult period, seeking to maintain the balance between security and humanitarian imperatives in an extremely complex and dangerous context.

During the Second World War, Switzerland, as a neutral country surrounded by the Axis powers, found itself in a delicate position and faced considerable challenges in preserving its neutrality while ensuring its economic survival. The country was heavily dependent on imports of vital raw materials, which necessitated complex negotiations with both the Allies and the Axis powers. To counter the economic blockade imposed by the belligerents and guarantee its supplies, Switzerland had to conduct delicate and often difficult negotiations. These negotiations were inevitably influenced by developments in the conflict, making the situation even more complex for Switzerland as it sought to maintain a balance between the contradictory demands of the various warring parties. Nazi Germany, in particular, put significant pressure on Switzerland for economic aid. Switzerland, seeking to preserve its national interests and avoid a potential occupation, was forced to make economic concessions to Germany, which included commercial transactions that supported the German war economy. These concessions aroused the distrust and anger of the Allies, who saw these actions as contrary to Swiss neutrality. In response, the Allies imposed their own blockade against Switzerland, further exacerbating the economic challenges facing the country. The blockade put Switzerland in an even more precarious position, forcing the country to navigate an increasingly hostile international environment while trying to preserve its autonomy and neutrality. Switzerland's position during the Second World War illustrates the complexities and dilemmas inherent in the policy of neutrality in a context of total war. The decisions taken by Switzerland to ensure its economic and political survival were difficult choices, made in extremely difficult circumstances, and had a significant impact on the perception of Swiss neutrality at the time.

During the Second World War, Switzerland was in a unique geopolitical position, being the only country in Europe surrounded by a single belligerent - the Axis, led by Nazi Germany - that managed to avoid occupation. This situation highlighted the challenges inherent in preserving neutrality under extremely difficult conditions. William Rappard, an astute observer of international politics, pointed out that Swiss neutrality depended greatly on the balance of power surrounding the country. He noted that neutrality could only be effectively maintained in a context where none of Switzerland's neighbours was sufficiently dominant to impose its will or disproportionately influence Swiss policy. During the war, however, this balance was seriously upset by the dominance of Nazi Germany in Europe, placing Switzerland in a vulnerable position.

Rappard was also critical of the Swiss Federal Council's economic and trade policy, which he saw as too conciliatory towards Nazi Germany. He was concerned that economic and trade concessions to Germany could be interpreted as a breach of Swiss neutrality and damage the country's image and independence. His concern was that Switzerland, in seeking to preserve its neutrality and territorial integrity, might become too dependent or too accommodating towards Nazi Germany, which could compromise its neutral and independent position. Rappard's effort to defend a firmer position towards Germany reflected the internal tensions within Switzerland over how to navigate the complex political landscape of the war. These internal debates were representative of the difficulties faced by a small neutral state in maintaining its autonomy and principles in an international context dominated by a large-scale conflict and aggressive powers.

In 1942, William Rappard was sent to London on a mission to ease the Allied blockade of Switzerland. During this mission, he found that the British were very sympathetic towards Switzerland, despite the difficult circumstances and Switzerland's complex position during the war. Rappard had the opportunity to meet Charles de Gaulle, leader of Free France, who expressed his support for Switzerland, acknowledging that the country had succeeded in resisting the dictates of the Axis powers. This recognition was significant, as it reflected an understanding of Switzerland's efforts to maintain its independence and neutrality in an extremely difficult environment. However, despite this sympathy and recognition, the Allies were determined to prevent Switzerland from supplying goods and resources to the Axis powers. This policy was part of their wider strategy to weaken the Axis countries' war economies by limiting their access to essential materials and resources. The Allies were particularly concerned that Swiss products, particularly machine tools and precision equipment, could be used by Nazi Germany and its allies to support their war effort. Rappard's mission to London was therefore a delicate attempt to navigate the divergent interests of Switzerland and the Allies. On the one hand, it was a question of defending Switzerland's economic interests and ensuring its survival in the context of the blockade, and on the other of maintaining the country's neutrality and not being perceived as supporting the Axis powers. Switzerland's situation during the Second World War and the efforts of diplomats like Rappard illustrate the challenges that small neutral states can face in times of major international conflict, when maintaining a balance between neutrality, national interests and external pressures becomes a complex and difficult exercise.

The situation in Switzerland during the Second World War, as illustrated by the words of Professor William Rappard in his communication of 1 June 1942 to the Head of the Department of Economic Affairs, W. Stampf, reveals the complexity and challenges of maintaining neutrality in a context of total war. Rappard clearly expresses the tensions facing Switzerland in its negotiations with the Allies, who sought to limit Swiss economic aid to the Axis powers. Rappard writes: "This is why, while agreeing to supply us to the extent, perhaps reduced, of what is necessary and possible, they want to tighten the economic blockade at our expense. "If you want raw materials to feed your industries and prevent unemployment," we are constantly told, "reduce your exports of foodstuffs, machinery and, in particular, arms and munitions to our enemies. We understand the necessities of your own national defence and we are not unaware of the needs of your labour market, but we do not intend to deprive ourselves of our increasingly limited resources in terms of tonnage, raw materials and above all metals, in order to make it easier for you to collaborate indirectly in the destruction of our aircraft, our tanks, our cities and the loss of our soldiers".

In this communication, Rappard highlights Switzerland's difficult position, caught between the needs of its national economy, particularly in terms of supplies and job preservation, and the Allies' demands to restrict indirect economic assistance to the Axis powers. The Allies, aware of Swiss exports to Germany and Italy, particularly of foodstuffs, machinery, arms and munitions, exerted considerable pressure on Switzerland to limit these exports. Their argument was that any economic support for the Axis, however indirect, contributed to the prolongation of the conflict and the loss of Allied lives. The dilemma for Switzerland was that reducing exports to Germany and Italy could have serious repercussions for its domestic economy, particularly in terms of unemployment and lower industrial production. The Allies recognised the need for Switzerland to defend its own national security and maintain its labour market, but insisted that its resources should not facilitate Axis war efforts. This situation illustrates the complex challenge of maintaining economic neutrality in the context of total war, where the boundaries between economic cooperation and indirect military support can become blurred. Switzerland's position was particularly precarious, as it not only had to manage the restrictions imposed by the Allies, but also face pressure and threats from the Axis powers. Rappard's statement highlights the diplomatic efforts made by Switzerland to navigate this difficult environment, while trying to preserve its autonomy and principles of neutrality.

William Rappard, in his analysis of Switzerland's complex situation during the Second World War, recognised the difficulties inherent in the Allied position regarding the economic blockade imposed on Switzerland. Despite the challenges this position imposed on Switzerland, Rappard expressed an understanding of the motivations of the Allies and stressed the importance of recognising and respecting their commitment to the conflict.

Rappard stressed that it was difficult to fault the Allies for their attitude, given the extraordinary circumstances of the war and the importance of their struggle against the Axis powers. For him, the Allies' commitment to the war, their fight against totalitarian regimes and their efforts to maintain international security and stability justified the measures taken, even if they had a negative impact on Switzerland. This perspective testifies to Rappard's ability to grasp global geopolitical issues beyond Switzerland's immediate interests. He recognised that, in the context of total war, the decisions and actions of the belligerents were dictated by wider strategic and security considerations. As a result, he felt that criticism of the Allies had to be tempered by an understanding of the scale and complexity of the situation. Rappard, in encouraging an understanding and respectful approach to the Allies' position, underlined the importance of maintaining strong and empathetic diplomatic relations, even in difficult circumstances. This approach reflects a pragmatic and realistic view of international politics, recognising that decisions taken in wartime are often the result of a delicate balance between conflicting interests and security imperatives.

In 1945, as the Second World War drew to a close, the Allies intensified their efforts to further isolate Nazi Germany. As part of this, an Allied delegation was sent to Bern, the Swiss capital, with the aim of convincing the Swiss government to break off relations with Germany. Switzerland, because of its policy of neutrality throughout the war, had maintained diplomatic and commercial relations with Germany, which had raised concerns among the Allies. William Rappard, who was present at these crucial negotiations, played a key role in winning the confidence of both sides. On the one hand, he defended the interests of the Allies by recognising the strategic importance of cutting Germany's last links with the outside world. On the other, he pleaded Switzerland's cause, seeking to explain and justify the country's position of neutrality throughout the conflict. Rappard skilfully navigated these delicate discussions, highlighting the need for Switzerland to regain the credibility and trust of the Allies, while preserving its national interests. He stressed that, although Switzerland had maintained relations with Germany for reasons of economic survival and national security, it had not supported the ideology or aggressive ambitions of the Nazi regime. Rappard's diplomatic skill in these negotiations was an example of how a small neutral country like Switzerland could manoeuvre in the complex landscape of international politics at the time. Ultimately, his efforts helped facilitate an agreement between Switzerland and the Allies, allowing Switzerland to gradually emerge from international isolation and begin rebuilding its relations with the rest of the world in the post-war context.

Following negotiations between Switzerland and the Allied delegation in Bern in 1945, it became clear to the Allied representatives that the Swiss people had not been willing accomplices of the Axis powers during the Second World War. On the contrary, it was recognised that the Swiss population was rather sympathetic to the Allied cause. This realisation was significant, as it helped to dispel some of the suspicion and criticism directed against Switzerland during the war. Switzerland's policy of neutrality, although leading to trade and diplomatic interactions with Axis countries, was based on the preservation of Swiss independence and national security, not on ideological or military support for the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Recognition by the Allies of the delicate position Switzerland had found itself in during the war and of its general sympathy for the Allied cause helped to restore relations between Switzerland and the victorious countries. This was important for Switzerland's reintegration into the post-war international system and for the rebuilding of its reputation on the world stage. In addition, this mutual understanding laid the foundations for future cooperation between Switzerland and other nations in the post-war context, enabling Switzerland to play an active role in the reconstruction of Europe and in the new international security and economic arrangements.

The post-war period

At the end of the Second World War, with the creation of the United Nations (UN) and the redefinition of the international order, Switzerland's traditional position of neutrality was called into question. William Rappard, as an influential thinker and key player in Swiss foreign policy, wondered how this neutrality would fit in with the new international architecture.

Rappard was sceptical about the ability of the UN, in its original form, to provide effective security for the new international order. He feared that UN membership, with its commitments to collective security, might be incompatible with Switzerland's policy of neutrality. This concern was based on the conviction that neutrality had historically served Switzerland well by enabling it to remain aloof from international conflicts and preserve its independence and sovereignty. To avoid international isolation while maintaining its neutrality, Rappard advocated close collaboration with the UN's technical bodies. This included active participation in initiatives and programmes in the economic, social and legal fields. This approach would allow Switzerland to contribute to international cooperation and development efforts, while avoiding the direct political and military implications of UN membership.

The path proposed by Rappard was eventually adopted by the Swiss authorities. Switzerland chose to cooperate with the UN in non-military areas, while preserving its neutral status. This decision enabled Switzerland to become involved in the international community, to contribute to important multilateral efforts and to play a role in the new world order, while remaining faithful to its principles of neutrality. The strategy adopted by Switzerland after the Second World War reflects a pragmatic adaptation to the realities of a changing world, underlining the importance of striking a balance between national values and the requirements of international cooperation.

William Rappard's vision of Swiss neutrality evolved significantly between the post-First World War and post-Second World War periods, reflecting changes in the international geopolitical landscape and Switzerland's experience during these tumultuous times. After the First World War, Rappard was initially convinced that the differences between the Allies, and the creation of the League of Nations (League), could strengthen Switzerland's position of neutrality. He hoped that the League of Nations would bring about a new world order that would guarantee security and stability, thereby making complete neutrality less necessary for Switzerland. This is why he favoured the idea of Switzerland joining the League of Nations with a form of "differential" neutrality, a neutrality that would be adapted to the requirements of the new world order while preserving Swiss interests. After the Second World War, however, the experience of the League of Nations and the realities of the new war led Rappard to reconsider his position. With the rise of the Soviet threat and the creation of the United Nations (UN), Rappard became more cautious about Switzerland joining international organisations that might compromise its neutrality. He concluded that the best course for Switzerland was to maintain its regime of neutrality, a policy that had served the country well for decades, preserving its independence and security in a world beset by major conflicts. This evolution in Rappard's thinking reflected an awareness of the limitations of international organisations in guaranteeing peace and security, as well as a recognition of the unique role that Swiss neutrality could play in a world divided by ideological and military blocs. Rappard's final position, favouring the maintenance of Swiss neutrality and avoiding UN membership, illustrated a pragmatic approach, aiming to navigate a balance between international engagement and the preservation of Swiss national interests.

William Rappard's perspective on Swiss neutrality and the country's obligations reveals a nuanced understanding of Swiss foreign policy, as well as an awareness of the country's domestic perceptions, particularly among young people. Rappard acknowledges that while Switzerland must respect its international commitments, this does not mean abandoning its policy of neutrality, a fundamental principle of Swiss national identity. He notes that some young Swiss may perceive neutrality as a form of cowardice, a sentiment that could be fuelled by a desire for solidarity and active participation in international efforts for peace and justice. This attitude can be seen as reflecting a generosity of spirit and a desire to engage in world affairs in a more direct way. However, Rappard also points out that this view may be due to a lack of understanding of the historical and political issues at stake. Swiss neutrality, as it has been practised over the decades, is not simply a policy of non-intervention; it is also a strategy for preserving independence, sovereignty and stability in an often turbulent international context. In other words, Swiss neutrality has been a pragmatic and considered response to the unique geopolitical challenges the country has faced, enabling Switzerland to maintain its national integrity and to play a constructive role in international affairs, notably as a mediator and host of international dialogues. Rappard's comment highlights the importance of education and historical understanding in shaping political opinion, particularly among younger generations. It underlines the need to recognise the complexities of foreign policy and the compromises sometimes required to navigate a world where national interests and ideal principles often have to be balanced.

The history of Swiss neutrality is deeply rooted in the European geopolitical context of past centuries. Originally, Swiss neutrality was not simply a chosen policy of non-intervention, but rather a security measure imposed by and beneficial to the great European powers of the time. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Europe was marked by rivalries and wars between great powers, particularly between France and Austria. For France, Switzerland's neutrality offered a strategic barrier against the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire. At the same time, for Austria and other European powers, Swiss neutrality ensured that France could not use Swiss territory as a springboard for attacks to the east. This geopolitical situation led to international recognition of Swiss neutrality at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, a key moment in the formalisation of Swiss neutrality. The major European powers recognised Switzerland's strategic importance as a neutral state, and Swiss neutrality was guaranteed under international law. This guarantee served to stabilise relations between the European powers and to create a buffer zone at the heart of Europe. For Switzerland, this recognition offered an opportunity to preserve its sovereignty and develop without the constant threat of invasion or internal conflict exacerbated by foreign influences. Thus, Swiss neutrality, as established and recognised in the 19th century, was as much a product of European power dynamics as it was a deliberate strategy on Switzerland's part. Over time, this neutrality became a fundamental principle of Swiss foreign policy, shaping its role and identity on the international stage.

Annexes

• ForumPolitique.com : La politique en Suisse
• Traité de Versailles
• Le dernier mot au peuple (1874)
• Quel est le contenu du droit de neutralité ?
• Monnet, Vincent. Willliam Rappard, l’homme de l’Atlantique. Université de Genève, Campus N°96. Url: http://www.unige.ch/communication/Campus/campus96/tetechercheuse/0tete.pdf