Switzerland's state structure, political system and neutrality

Based on a course by Victor Monnier

Languages

Deutsch

Español Français Italiano

Português 中文（简体)

Introduction to law

Introduction to the Law : Key Concepts and Definitions ● The State: Functions, Structures and Political Regimes ● The different branches of law ● The sources of law ● The great formative traditions of law ● The elements of the legal relationship ● The application of law ● The implementation of a law ● The evolution of Switzerland from its origins to the 20th century ● Switzerland's domestic legal framework ● Switzerland's state structure, political system and neutrality ● The evolution of international relations from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century ● The universal organizations ● European organisations and their relations with Switzerland ● Categories and generations of fundamental rights ● The origins of fundamental rights ● Declarations of rights at the end of the 18th century ● Towards the construction of a universal conception of fundamental rights in the 20th century

Dome of the Federal Palace, with the motto "Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno" (one for all, all for one) inscribed in the central section.

The Federal State and the main bodies of the Confederation and the Cantons

The history of the Swiss federal state is one of compromise and balance, reflecting the need to reconcile a variety of interests in a country marked by great cultural and linguistic diversity. The competence of the federal state, while substantial, is not total, as the cantons retain a degree of sovereignty. This tension between federalism and cantonalism has been a constant feature of Swiss political history.

Bicameralism has proved to be the least worst solution for reconciling these divergent interests. The Federal Assembly, made up of the National Council and the Council of States, embodies this compromise. The National Council represents the people and is directly elected by them, reflecting representative democracy. The Council of States, on the other hand, represents the cantons, ensuring that their interests are also taken into account at federal level. Another key element of this system is the need for a double majority to make changes to the Constitution. This mechanism requires not only the approval of the majority of voters at national level, but also that of the majority of cantons. This requirement ensures that constitutional changes receive broad support, both from the general population and from the various regions of the country.

Prior to 1848, the year in which modern Switzerland was formed, the country did not have a centralised executive. The creation of the Federal Council was a response to this shortcoming, providing Switzerland with a stable and effective executive body. The Federal Council, made up of members elected by the Federal Assembly, became an essential element of Swiss governance, helping the country to navigate through the challenges of the 19th century. The progressives of the time, who wanted to abolish cantonal sovereignty, had to make compromises. Although the National Council strengthened democratic representation at federal level, the cantons retained significant influence through the Council of States and their legislative autonomy. This system has enabled Switzerland to maintain a balance between national unification and respect for regional particularities, a balance that continues to define the country's political structure.

At federal level

The Federal Assembly

The Federal Assembly, or Federal Parliament, is at the heart of the Swiss political system and represents the supreme legislative authority of the Confederation. This bicameral institution reflects the compromise between the principles of democratic representation and the equality of the cantons, which are essential to Switzerland's political balance.

The National Council, the first chamber of the Federal Assembly, is made up of 200 deputies elected by the people. The members of this chamber are elected according to a proportional system, which means that the number of seats allocated to each canton is proportional to its population. This method of distribution ensures that the interests of the citizens of all the cantons, whether densely populated or not, are fairly represented at national level. Elections to the National Council are held every four years, and all Swiss citizens aged 18 and over are eligible to vote. The Council of States, the second chamber, is made up of 46 deputies. Each Swiss canton is represented in the Council of States by two deputies, with the exception of the so-called half-cantons, which each send a single representative. This structure ensures that each canton, regardless of its size or population, has an equal voice in this chamber. The Council of States therefore represents the interests of the cantons at federal level, ensuring a balance between popular representation and the equality of the cantons.

The interaction between these two chambers is essential to the Swiss legislative process. Bills must be approved by both chambers to become law. This requirement ensures that federal laws reflect both the will of the Swiss people (represented by the National Council) and the interests of the cantons (represented by the Council of States), thereby strengthening consensus and political stability within the Confederation.

The Swiss parliamentary system is a classic example of perfect bicameralism, in which the two chambers of parliament, the National Council and the Council of States, have equal powers and competences. This equality between the two chambers is fundamental to the functioning of Swiss democracy. In a perfect bicameralism, neither chamber has pre-eminence over the other. Thus, for a bill to become a federal law, it must be approved separately by both chambers. This need for mutual agreement ensures that the legislation passed has the support of both the representatives of the people (the National Council) and the representatives of the cantons (the Council of States). This guarantees a balanced legislative process that takes account of the different perspectives and interests within the country. The chambers sit separately in different rooms in the Federal Palace in Berne. This physical separation underlines their independence and functional equality. The National Council, representing the people, and the Council of States, representing the cantons, operate according to their own procedures and rules, but with equivalent legislative powers. This system of perfect bicameralism is a key element of the Swiss political structure, contributing to its stability and effectiveness by allowing a balanced representation of the various regional and national interests in the legislative process.

In the Swiss political system, members of the National Council and the Council of States serve on a militia basis. This means that their role as MPs is not regarded as a full-time profession, but rather as a function exercised alongside their usual professional career. This approach reflects the Swiss tradition of civic participation and the desire to keep politics close to the day-to-day concerns of citizens. Swiss MPs are not subject to an "imperative mandate", which means that they are not legally bound to vote according to the instructions of their party or constituents. They enjoy freedom of vote, allowing for more flexible and independent decision-making. This independence is essential to ensure that decisions taken in Parliament reflect a balance of different opinions and are not strictly dictated by party lines. To support their ability to represent their constituents effectively and exercise their mandate independently, Swiss MPs enjoy a form of parliamentary immunity. This immunity protects them from prosecution for opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of their duties. However, it is important to note that this immunity is not absolute and does not cover illegal acts committed outside their official functions. This framework of the militia function and the absence of an imperative mandate, combined with parliamentary immunity, is designed to encourage political participation by ordinary citizens and ensure that MPs can act in the public interest without fear of undue repercussions.

Parliamentary immunity in Switzerland is an essential legal concept that ensures the protection of members of parliament and the smooth running of the legislative process. This immunity is divided into two main categories: non-accountability and inviolability, each of which plays a specific role in maintaining democratic integrity. Parliamentary non-accountability offers MPs protection against prosecution for opinions expressed or votes cast in the course of their official duties. This form of immunity is crucial to guaranteeing freedom of expression within Parliament, allowing MPs to debate and vote freely without fear of legal reprisal. A relevant historical example might be the heated debates surrounding controversial reforms, where MPs were able to express differing opinions without fear of legal consequences. Inviolability, on the other hand, protects the physical and intellectual freedom of parliamentarians by shielding them from prosecution during their term of office, unless otherwise authorised by the chamber to which they belong. This rule is designed to prevent intimidation or disruption of Members of Parliament by legal action, guaranteeing their full participation in legislative activities. A historical case of application of this rule could be envisaged during periods of political tension, when Members of Parliament could have been targeted for their political activity.

It is important to note that these immunities are not shields against all illegal actions. They are specifically designed to protect legislative functions and do not cover acts committed outside parliamentarians' official responsibilities. These protections are framed by strict rules to prevent abuse and maintain confidence in democratic institutions. The introduction of parliamentary immunity in Switzerland reflects the delicate balance between the necessary protection of legislators and accountability before the law. By ensuring that parliamentarians can carry out their duties without fear of inappropriate outside interference, while holding them accountable for their actions outside their official capacity, the Swiss system contributes to the stability and integrity of its democratic process.

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

Article 162 of the Swiss Constitution establishes the fundamental principles of parliamentary immunity, covering members of the Federal Assembly, the Federal Council and the Chancellor of the Confederation. The purpose of this provision is to protect these figures from any legal liability for remarks made in the exercise of their official duties, in particular when speaking before the Councils and their bodies. The first paragraph of this article guarantees that these senior representatives cannot be held legally responsible for opinions or statements they make in the course of their official duties. This form of immunity, often referred to as non-liability, is essential to ensure freedom of expression within government institutions. It allows members of parliament and government to debate and express their opinions freely and openly, without fear of prosecution. This protection is fundamental to the functioning of democracy, as it encourages frank and uncensored discussion of matters of national interest. The second paragraph offers the possibility of extending this protection to include other forms of immunity. It allows legislation to extend immunity to other persons or in other circumstances, according to the needs identified for the proper functioning of the State. This flexibility ensures that the framework of parliamentary immunity can be adapted to meet the changing requirements of governance and political representation. Article 162 reflects Switzerland's commitment to protecting its legislators and senior officials, thereby facilitating an environment where political dialogue can take place without unnecessary impediments. This approach is crucial to maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the Swiss legislative process.

National Council

The National Council, which is one of the two chambers of the Swiss Parliament, operates according to a unique electoral system that reflects both the principle of proportional representation and respect for regional diversity. Each Swiss canton is entitled to at least one seat on the National Council, ensuring that even the smallest cantons are represented in the national legislature. The proportional representation system used for National Council elections ensures that the distribution of seats accurately reflects the distribution of votes among the different political parties within each canton. This contrasts with a majority system, where the winning party in a region can win all the seats, which can lead to a disproportionate representation of political views.

In practice, the number of seats allocated to each canton is determined by its population. More populous cantons, such as Zurich, have a greater number of seats, while less populous cantons have a minimum of one seat. This method ensures that the interests of the citizens of all the cantons, large and small, are taken into account in the legislative process. Elections to the National Council are held every four years, and all Swiss citizens aged 18 and over are eligible to vote. This system of proportional representation contributes to the political diversity of the National Council, allowing a wide range of political voices and perspectives to be heard and represented at national level. This reinforces the democratic and inclusive nature of the Swiss political system.

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

Article 149 of the Swiss Constitution sets out in detail the composition and electoral process of the National Council, ensuring democratic and proportional representation of Swiss citizens at federal level. According to this article, the National Council is made up of 200 deputies, elected directly by the Swiss people. These elections take place every four years, reflecting the principle of renewal and democratic accountability. The use of direct suffrage enables all Swiss citizens aged 18 and over to play an active part in choosing their representatives, thereby strengthening civic commitment and the legitimacy of the legislative process. The proportional system, as the article states, is crucial to ensuring that the distribution of seats on the National Council is in line with the distribution of votes among the various political parties. This system favours a balanced representation of the various political currents and opinions within the population, allowing smaller parties to have a voice in parliament, unlike majority systems where the larger parties often have an advantage.

Each Swiss canton forms a separate electoral constituency for National Council elections. This ensures that the interests and particularities of each region are taken into account within the federal framework. The distribution of seats among the cantons is based on their population, ensuring that the more populous cantons have representation commensurate with their size. Nevertheless, even the smallest cantons are guaranteed at least one representative, which maintains a balance between the different regions of the country, regardless of their size or demographic weight. In this way, Article 149 of the Swiss Constitution provides a solid framework for democratic and fair representation on the National Council, reflecting the diversity and plurality of Swiss society. This structure contributes to political stability and inclusive representation, key elements of Swiss democracy.

Council of States

The Council of States, the second chamber of the Swiss Parliament, has distinct characteristics from the National Council, particularly in terms of how its members are elected and its role within the Federal Assembly. Unlike the National Council, where members are elected according to a proportional system, the method of electing members of the Council of States is left to the discretion of the cantons. In most cases, the cantons opt for a two-round majority system. This means that if no candidate obtains an absolute majority of votes in the first round, a second round is held between the candidates with the most votes. This method of election tends to favour the most popular candidates within each canton, thus directly reflecting local political preferences.

The Council of States plays a crucial role in Switzerland's political balance. Each canton, regardless of its size or population, is equally represented in this chamber, with two members for most cantons and one member for the half-cantons. This equality of representation ensures that the interests of smaller regions are not overwhelmed by those of larger, more populous cantons. In certain circumstances, the Federal Assembly, which comprises both the National Council and the Council of States, sits and deliberates as a single body. These joint sessions are called for important decisions, such as the election of members of the Federal Council, the Federal Supreme Court and other senior officials, as well as for decisions on relations between the Confederation and the cantons. This practice of sitting together allows for dialogue and integrated decision-making between the two chambers, reflecting the consensual approach to Swiss politics. The Council of States, with its unique method of election and its egalitarian role within the Federal Assembly, therefore plays an essential role in maintaining balance and representativeness within the Swiss political system, contributing to the stability and effectiveness of federal governance.

It is important not to confuse the Council of States, which is a component of the Swiss Federal Parliament, with the Council of State, the term used to designate the governments of the French-speaking Swiss cantons. The Council of States, as we have seen, is the upper chamber of the Swiss Parliament, where the cantons are equally represented. This chamber plays a key role in the legislative process at federal level and ensures a balanced representation of the cantons' interests in national governance. On the other hand, the Conseil d'Etat in the French-speaking cantons of Switzerland refers to the executive body at cantonal level. Each Swiss canton, whether French-speaking or not, has its own government, generally known as the Conseil d'État in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. These cantonal governments are responsible for local administration and for implementing laws and policies at cantonal level. They play an essential role in the management of cantonal affairs, including education, public health, police and transport, reflecting the autonomy and sovereignty of the cantons within the Swiss Confederation. This distinction between the Council of States (at federal level) and the Council of State (at cantonal level) is an example of the complexity and specificity of the Swiss political system, where federal and cantonal structures co-exist and interact in an integrated manner.

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

Article 168 of the Swiss Constitution clearly sets out the role of the Federal Assembly in the election of certain key government and judicial posts. This article underlines the importance of the Federal Assembly as the central decision-making body in the appointment of the country's senior officials.

According to the first paragraph of Article 168, it is the Federal Assembly that is responsible for electing the members of the Federal Council, which is Switzerland's supreme executive body. This election procedure ensures that the members of the federal government are chosen by the elected representatives of the people and the cantons, thereby strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the Federal Council. The Federal Assembly also elects the Federal Chancellor, who plays a key role in the administration of the federal government. In addition to the Federal Council and the Chancellor, the Federal Assembly is also responsible for electing judges to the Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland's highest judicial authority. This process of election by the representatives of the people and the cantons ensures that the judges of the Federal Supreme Court are selected in a transparent and democratic manner.

Article 168 also mentions the role of the Federal Assembly in the election of the General, a special position in Switzerland, usually activated only in times of crisis or war. The second paragraph of this article allows the law to give the Federal Assembly the power to elect or confirm the election of other officials. This provision offers a degree of flexibility, enabling the Swiss political system to adapt to the changing needs of governance. Article 168 highlights the centrality of the Federal Assembly in the governance of Switzerland, giving this institution significant power in appointing the key figures who run the country, and thus ensuring that these appointments are rooted in the democratic process.

The aims and tasks of the Federal Assembly

The Swiss Federal Assembly, as the supreme legislative body of the Confederation, plays a central and multifaceted role in the governance of the country. Its aims and tasks are varied and cover essential aspects of the functioning of the State. One of the primary roles of the Federal Assembly is to manage constitutional amendments. It is responsible for initiating and examining amendments to the Swiss Constitution, a process that requires careful attention to ensure that changes reflect the needs and aspirations of Swiss society while preserving the nation's fundamental principles.

In matters of foreign policy, the Federal Assembly plays a decisive role, in accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution. It is involved in formulating the main thrusts of Switzerland's foreign policy and in ratifying international treaties. This involvement ensures that foreign policy decisions enjoy democratic support and are taken with national interests in mind. The Federal Assembly is also responsible for drawing up the State budget and approving the accounts. This crucial financial task involves responsible management of public finances, ensuring that the State's resources are used efficiently and transparently.

In addition, the Federal Assembly ensures that relations between the federal state and the cantons are maintained, as stipulated in Article 172 of the Constitution. This role is essential to ensure cohesion and collaboration between the different levels of government in Switzerland, a country characterised by a high degree of federalism and regional autonomy. Finally, the Federal Assembly supervises the Federal Council, the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal Administration. It ensures that these bodies operate in accordance with the law and democratic principles, and has the power to investigate and intervene if necessary. These multiple responsibilities give the Federal Assembly a central role in Switzerland's political structure, ensuring that the federal government remains accountable to its citizens and operates in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Article 166 of the Swiss Constitution defines the role of the Federal Assembly in the management of international relations and the ratification of international treaties, while Article 177 sets out the operating principles of the Federal Council. According to Article 166, the Federal Assembly plays an active role in defining Switzerland's foreign policy and in overseeing its foreign relations. This means that it participates in the formulation of the broad outlines of foreign policy and ensures that the country's international actions are consistent with its interests and values. The Federal Assembly is also responsible for approving international treaties. This competence is crucial in ensuring that Switzerland's international commitments receive the democratic endorsement of its elected representatives. However, certain treaties may be concluded exclusively by the Federal Council, without requiring the approval of the Assembly, under conditions defined by law or by the international treaties themselves. Article 177 deals with the internal workings of the Federal Council, Switzerland's executive body. The Council operates on the principle of collegiate authority, meaning that decisions are taken collectively by all its members. This collegiate approach encourages consensual decision-making and reflects the pluralist and democratic nature of the Swiss political system. The article also specifies that the business of the Federal Council is divided among its members by department, each responsible for different areas of public administration. In addition, the right of appeal, which must be guaranteed, allows a certain delegation of responsibilities to departments or administrative units, while ensuring supervision and accountability. These articles illustrate how democratic structures and processes are integrated into the management of Switzerland's internal and external affairs, reflecting the country's commitment to transparent, accountable and participatory governance.

One of the main roles of the Swiss Federal Assembly is to legislate in all areas within the Confederation's remit. As the country's supreme legislative body, the Federal Assembly is responsible for creating, amending and repealing laws at federal level. This legislative task covers a wide range of areas, including but not limited to economic policy, public health, education, national defence, transport, the environment and foreign policy. The Federal Assembly's ability to legislate in these areas is essential to ensure that Swiss laws meet society's changing needs and contemporary challenges. In addition to its legislative role, the Federal Assembly has other important functions, such as overseeing the government (the Federal Council), managing relations between the Confederation and the cantons, and ratifying international treaties. These multiple responsibilities enable the Federal Assembly to play a central role in the governance and stability of Switzerland, ensuring that the country is run according to the principles of democracy, federalism and legality.

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

Article 163 of the Swiss Constitution sets out the forms in which the Federal Assembly may enact legislation, distinguishing between federal laws, ordinances and federal decrees. According to the first paragraph of this article, when the Federal Assembly establishes provisions that lay down rules of law, these provisions take the form of either a federal law or an ordinance. Federal laws are major legislative acts that require the approval of both chambers of the Federal Assembly (the National Council and the Council of States) and, in certain cases, may be put to the vote of the people by referendum. Ordinances, on the other hand, are generally more detailed regulations that specify how federal laws are to be applied. The second paragraph deals with federal decrees, which are another form of legislative act. A federal decree may be used for decisions that do not require the creation of a new law or ordinance. Federal decrees are divided into two categories: those subject to referendum and those not subject to referendum. Federal decrees subject to referendum may be challenged by the people, while simple federal decrees are not subject to this procedure. This distinction between different forms of legislation enables the Federal Assembly to adapt its legislative process to the specific requirements of each situation. It also ensures that laws and regulations are adopted in an appropriate manner, with a degree of flexibility to meet the changing needs of Swiss society and the State.

The Swiss Federal Assembly organises its activities into different sessions, which are defined periods during which members meet to deliberate and take decisions. These sessions may be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary sessions are scheduled and take place according to an established timetable, while extraordinary sessions may be convened to deal with urgent or specific matters that require immediate attention. During these sessions, the members of the Federal Assembly have the opportunity to speak, express their opinions and participate actively in the decision-making process. This interaction is crucial to the democratic functioning of the Assembly, as it enables elected representatives to discuss, debate and shape the Confederation's legislation and policies.

The term "referral" refers to the means or instruments available to parliamentarians to influence the legislative and constitutional process. These tools enable members of the Federal Assembly to launch legislative initiatives, propose amendments, put questions to the Federal Council and take part in other parliamentary activities. Referral is an essential part of the role of parliamentarians, giving them the ability to represent the interests of their constituents effectively and to make a significant contribution to the governance of the country. In the field of legislation, referral enables parliamentarians to propose new laws or amend existing ones. In the constitutional field, it offers the possibility of initiating or amending constitutional provisions, a process which may involve a popular referendum depending on the nature and extent of the proposed change. This combination of regular sessions, the ability to hold extraordinary sessions and the right of referral ensures that the Swiss Federal Assembly remains a dynamic legislative body, capable of responding effectively to the needs of the Swiss people.

Under the Swiss parliamentary system, members of the Federal Assembly have a number of legislative and procedural tools at their disposal to influence governance and policy. These tools, collectively known as referrals, play an essential role in the democratic functioning of Switzerland. The parliamentary initiative is a powerful tool that allows members of parliament to directly propose bills or general recommendations for new legislation. A relevant historical example might be the introduction of a parliamentary initiative to reform a specific social or economic policy, reflecting the urgent concerns of citizens. A motion, on the other hand, is a means by which parliamentarians can propose bills or suggest specific measures. For these motions to become effective, they must be approved by the other chamber of parliament, thus ensuring a balance and verification of legislative proposals. A concrete example might be a motion to improve national infrastructure, requiring the agreement of both houses for its implementation. The postulate is an instrument that allows parliamentarians to ask the Federal Council to examine the advisability of proposing a bill or taking a specific measure. It can also involve requesting the submission of a report on a given subject. A postulate could be used to request an assessment of the environmental impact of a new policy. An interpellation is a way for members of parliament to request information or clarification from the Federal Council on specific issues. This process enhances transparency and allows effective parliamentary control over the executive. For example, an interpellation could be used to question the government on its response to an international crisis. The question is similar to the interpellation, but focuses on obtaining information relating to specific affairs of the Confederation. This mechanism provides a direct means for parliamentarians to clarify issues of policy or governance. Finally, Question Time is a period during which members of the Federal Council respond directly and orally to questions from parliamentarians. This direct dialogue allows for a dynamic exchange and often sheds light on the government's positions and intentions on various issues. These various instruments of referral, used historically and currently by Swiss parliamentarians, illustrate the dynamic and interactive nature of Swiss democracy, enabling responsible and responsive governance in response to the needs and concerns of the population.

Between 2008 and 2012, parliamentary activity in Switzerland was marked by a high volume of interventions by members of the Federal Assembly, reflecting their active involvement in governance and legislation. In total, more than 6,000 interventions were tabled, covering a wide range of areas and subjects, demonstrating the vitality of Swiss democracy and the involvement of parliamentarians in the country's affairs. Of these, 400 were parliamentary initiatives. By enabling parliamentarians to propose bills directly, these initiatives demonstrate their proactive role in creating and amending legislation. Around 1,300 motions were tabled. Motions, which require the approval of the other chamber of parliament to become effective, indicate a willingness on the part of parliamentarians to suggest changes to legislation or to push for specific measures. Members of parliament also submitted 700 postulates, asking the Federal Council to examine the advisability of proposing legislation or taking action on various subjects. These postulates are indicative of the search for information and evaluation that underpins legislative decision-making. With 1700 interpellations, the members of Parliament actively sought information and clarification from the Federal Council, demonstrating their role in monitoring and controlling the executive. Around 850 questions were put, underlining the constant need of parliamentarians to obtain specific information on various affairs of the Confederation, thus contributing to an enlightened debate and well-founded decision-making. Finally, between 200 and 300 written questions were submitted. These questions, which are often more detailed, enable parliamentarians to obtain information on specific aspects of policy or administration. The scale and diversity of these parliamentary interventions between 2008 and 2012 illustrate the commitment of the members of the Swiss Federal Assembly to represent their constituents effectively and to make a significant contribution to the governance of the country. This period has been marked by the active involvement of parliamentarians in all aspects of the legislative process and government oversight, reflecting the dynamic and responsive nature of Swiss parliamentary democracy.

Referral is not an exclusive privilege of members of the Federal Assembly in Switzerland; the Federal Council, which is the country's executive body, also holds the right of referral. This means that the Federal Council can take the initiative in submitting draft legislation to Parliament. This process is a fundamental aspect of the interaction between the legislative and executive branches of the Swiss government. When the Federal Council submits a bill to Parliament, it initiates the legislative process by presenting a text drawn up by the government. These bills may concern a wide variety of areas, such as economic reforms, social policies, environmental issues, or changes in legislation. Once a bill has been introduced, it is examined, debated and possibly amended by the members of the Federal Assembly before being voted on. This right of referral to the Federal Council plays a crucial role in the Swiss legislative process. It enables the government to actively propose legislative changes and respond to the needs and challenges identified in the country's administration. At the same time, the parliamentary process ensures that these proposals are subject to democratic scrutiny and thorough debate, ensuring that any new legislation reflects a wide range of perspectives and interests. The ability of the Federal Council to refer draft legislation to Parliament illustrates the balance between the executive and legislative powers in Switzerland, a balance that is essential to maintaining effective and democratic governance.

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

Article 181 of the Swiss Constitution clearly sets out the Federal Council's right of initiative, underlining its active role in the legislative process. Under this article, the Federal Council has the power to submit draft legislation to the Federal Assembly. This constitutional provision ensures that the country's executive body, the Federal Council, can play a significant role in shaping national policy and law. This right of initiative is an essential element of governance in Switzerland, as it allows the Federal Council to propose new laws or changes to legislation in response to the needs and challenges facing the country. These proposals can cover a wide range of areas, from economic policy to social legislation, from the environment to national security. Once a bill is presented by the Federal Council, it is examined by the two chambers of the Federal Assembly - the National Council and the Council of States. This process includes debates, committee discussions and possible amendments to the original text. The bill must be approved by both chambers before it becomes law. Article 181 reflects the collaborative nature of the Swiss political system, where the executive and legislative branches work together to formulate policy and legislation. This interaction between the branches of government ensures that Swiss laws are the result of a full democratic process, taking into account the views of the executive as well as the elected representatives of the people.

The Federal Council

Article 174 of the Swiss Constitution clearly defines the role of the Federal Council, affirming its position as the supreme directorial and executive authority of the Confederation. This provision underlines the Federal Council's status as the principal organ of government in Switzerland, responsible for directing and executing the affairs of state.

As the executive authority, the Federal Council is responsible for formulating government policy and directing the Confederation's administrative activities. This includes implementing laws passed by the Federal Assembly, managing relations with the cantons and foreign entities, and supervising the various federal departments and agencies. As the executive authority, the Federal Council is also responsible for the day-to-day administration of the government. This involves implementing and enforcing federal laws, managing the day-to-day business of the Confederation, and representing Switzerland internationally.

The Federal Council is made up of seven members elected by the Federal Assembly, reflecting Switzerland's collegiate system of governance. This collegiate structure guarantees consensual decision-making and a balanced representation of the country's different regions and language groups. The members of the Federal Council are responsible for different government departments, but decisions are taken collectively, in accordance with the principle of collegiality. Article 174 emphasises the central role of the Federal Council in the functioning of the Swiss state, ensuring that the country is run efficiently, responsibly and democratically.

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

The Swiss government, formally known as the Federal Council, is a unique executive body, characterised by its collegiate structure and election system. Composed of seven members, the Federal Council is elected for a four-year term by the Federal Assembly, which comprises the two chambers of the Swiss parliament (the National Council and the Council of States).

The President of the Confederation, who is elected for a one-year term, does not have greater executive power than his colleagues in the Federal Council, but rather serves as a "prima inter pares", or first among equals. The President's role is primarily ceremonial and symbolic, involving chairing meetings of the Federal Council and representing Switzerland in certain official functions. This approach reflects the principle of collegiality and equality within the Federal Council, a distinctive aspect of Swiss governance.

The Federal Chancellor, on the other hand, acts as a kind of principal secretary to the government, supporting the Federal Council in its administrative and organisational functions. Although the Chancellor is not a member of the Federal Council, this role is essential to the smooth running of the executive. As the supreme executive authority, the Federal Council is responsible for directing and implementing government policy. It also plays a role in the legislative process, notably by submitting draft legislation to the Federal Assembly for consideration and adoption. The election of the Federal Council every four years, following the complete renewal of the National Council, ensures regular alignment with the elected representatives of the Swiss people. This ensures that the executive remains in step with the priorities and perspectives of the legislature, thereby enhancing the coherence and effectiveness of governance across the Confederation.

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

Article 175 of the Swiss Constitution precisely defines the composition and election procedures of the Federal Council, the Confederation's executive body. This legislative framework guarantees balanced and democratic representation within the Swiss government. The first paragraph confirms that the Federal Council is composed of seven members. This structure is designed to promote collegial decision-making and ensure diverse representation within the executive. According to the second paragraph, the members of the Federal Council are elected by the Federal Assembly after each complete renewal of the National Council. This provision ensures that the election of the Federal Council is synchronised with the electoral cycle of the National Council, thereby strengthening coherence between the legislative and executive branches. The third paragraph stipulates that the members of the Federal Council are appointed for a term of four years and must be chosen from among Swiss citizens eligible to stand for election to the National Council. This ensures that the members of the Federal Council have the necessary qualifications and experience to take on high-level government responsibilities. Finally, the fourth paragraph emphasises the importance of equitable representation of Switzerland's different regions and linguistic communities within the Federal Council. This provision reflects Switzerland's cultural and linguistic diversity and aims to ensure that all parts of the country are represented in the decision-making process at the highest level of government. Together, these elements of Article 175 contribute to the formation of a federal government that is not only democratically elected, but also representative of the rich mosaic of Swiss society.

Comparing the members of the Swiss Federal Council with the executive of the French government can be instructive in understanding the differences in government structures and the roles of executive officials in the two countries. However, it is important to note that although both systems have executive responsibilities, they operate according to different principles. In France, the government is headed by the President, assisted by the Prime Minister and ministers. The President has considerable powers and plays a leading role in the affairs of state, while the Prime Minister and ministers manage specific departments or ministerial portfolios. This system is more hierarchical and centralised, with a clearly defined role for each member of the executive. In Switzerland, the members of the Federal Council operate on a collegiate model, where no one member has supremacy over the others. Each Federal Councillor heads a government department, but important decisions are taken collectively. This structure reflects the principle of "prima inter pares" (first among equals) for the President of the Confederation, which is a primarily representative role and confers no additional executive power. In this sense, Swiss federal councillors can be seen as "more than ministers", as they do not simply head individual departments; they are collectively responsible for the government as a whole. This contrasts with the French model, where ministers are primarily responsible for their own ministries, under the direction of the President and Prime Minister. This difference illustrates the varying approaches to governance in democratic systems. Whereas France opts for a more centralised system with clearly hierarchical executive roles, Switzerland favours a collegiate and egalitarian model, reflecting its commitment to federalism and balanced representation.

The Swiss Federal Council is indeed a remarkable example of coalition government, reflecting the country's political diversity. In Switzerland, the Federal Council is not formed by a single political party, but rather by a representation of several of the country's main political formations. This structure is rooted in the Swiss political tradition of concordance, which aims to ensure a balanced representation of the different political forces in government. This coalition approach within the Federal Council allows for more inclusive and consensual governance. By integrating various political parties, the Swiss government seeks to represent a wide range of perspectives and interests within Swiss society. This balanced representation is crucial in a country characterised by linguistic, cultural and political diversity. The composition of the Federal Council generally reflects the distribution of political forces in parliament. Seats are allocated to parties according to their electoral strength, which ensures that the country's main political parties are represented in government. However, it is important to note that the exact composition of the Federal Council and the distribution of seats between parties can vary depending on elections and political negotiations. This form of coalition government is one of the unique features of Swiss democracy, contributing to its political stability and its ability to manage internal diversity effectively. By encouraging collaboration and consensus between the different parties, the Swiss Federal Council system facilitates balanced and considered governance that takes account of the plurality of opinions and interests within society.

The constitutional revision process in Switzerland is a striking example of direct democracy in action, involving both the parliamentary chambers and the Swiss people. When a revision of the Constitution is proposed, it must first be approved by the Federal Assembly, made up of the National Council and the Council of States. However, this is only the first stage of the process. If the two chambers cannot reach a consensus on the revision, or if the nature of the revision requires a more direct democratic decision, the matter is then put to the Swiss people in a referendum. This is where the uniqueness of Swiss democracy comes into its own. Citizens have the power to make direct decisions on important issues, including constitutional amendments. A notable example of this might be the 2009 constitutional revision concerning the ban on building new minarets, a decision that was taken directly by the Swiss people through a referendum. In the Swiss system, unlike in other democracies, the practice of dissolving parliamentary chambers following a referendum decision is not common. Parliamentary elections in Switzerland are held on a fixed four-year cycle, irrespective of the outcome of referendums or constitutional revisions. This approach promotes political stability and ensures that the people's decisions are incorporated into the existing institutional framework, without causing major disruption to the legislative or administrative process. This system has proved its worth in terms of governance, enabling Switzerland to effectively combine direct citizen participation with institutional stability. It illustrates how Switzerland integrates the principles of direct democracy into a stable parliamentary framework, allowing citizens to directly influence policy while maintaining continuous and effective government.

In accordance with Article 177 of the Constitution, the Swiss Federal Council operates as a collegiate body. This characteristic is fundamental to understanding the nature of the Swiss government and the way in which it takes decisions. In a collegiate body such as the Federal Council, no single member, including the President of the Confederation, has superior executive power over the others. Each member of the Council has an equal voice in decision-making, and decisions are taken collectively by vote or consensus among all members. This favours an approach to governance based on consensus and collaboration, reflecting Switzerland's democratic values.

The President of the Confederation, elected for a one-year term from among the members of the Council, is not a head of state or head of government in the traditional sense. Rather, his role is that of a "prima inter pares" or first among equals. The President chairs the meetings of the Federal Council and performs representative functions for Switzerland, both nationally and internationally. However, this position does not confer additional executive powers or superior authority over government affairs. More symbolically, the President represents the unity and continuity of the Federal Council. This collegiate structure of the Federal Council is a key element of Swiss democracy. It ensures that government decisions are the result of collective and balanced deliberation, reflecting a diversity of opinions and interests. This contrasts with other systems of government where a president or prime minister has considerable executive powers. In Switzerland, the emphasis is on collaboration and equality within the executive, in line with its traditions of consensual democracy and federalism.

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

Article 177 of the Swiss Constitution lays the foundations for the operation of the Federal Council, emphasising the principle of collegial authority and the way in which responsibilities are distributed among its members. The first paragraph of this article stipulates that the Federal Council takes its decisions as a collegial authority. This means that decisions are not taken by a single member acting autonomously, but rather through a process of deliberation and consensus within the Council as a whole. This method of collective decision-making is a central feature of Swiss governance, reflecting the country's commitment to participatory democracy and consensus. According to the second paragraph, although decisions are taken collectively, the preparation and execution of these decisions are divided among the members of the Federal Council by department. Each Federal Councillor heads a specific department and is responsible for its administration and policy implementation. This division of tasks ensures that each area of governance is managed by an expert, while maintaining the collegiate approach to final decision-making. The third paragraph states that the management of day-to-day affairs may be delegated to departments or subordinate administrative units, while guaranteeing the right of appeal. This means that although day-to-day tasks are managed by individual departments, there are mechanisms to ensure supervision and accountability, as well as to allow appeals against administrative decisions.

The seven members of the Federal Council are considered equal, with each having one vote in collective decisions, reflecting the principle of collegiality. However, the statement that the President's vote counts double in the event of a tie requires clarification. In the usual practice of the Swiss Federal Council, the President of the Confederation does not have a casting vote or superior executive power. The President's role is primarily ceremonial and representational, acting as "prima inter pares" or first among equals. Decisions within the Federal Council are taken on the basis of consensus or a majority of the votes of the members present. If there is a tie, the President's vote does not generally count double. In the Swiss system, the emphasis is on seeking consensus rather than a decisive vote by a single member, even in situations where votes are tied. This approach favours a collective and balanced decision-making process, in keeping with the spirit of participative democracy and collegiality that characterises the Swiss government. It is important to note that the specific rules governing voting and decision-making procedures within the Federal Council may vary and are defined in internal regulations. However, the principle of equal membership and collective decision-making remains a key element of Swiss governance.

In the Swiss political system, decisions taken by the Federal Council are taken collectively and bear the name of the Council as a whole. This is in line with the principle of collegial authority, which is at the heart of the way the Federal Council operates. Every decision, whether it concerns domestic policy, foreign policy or any other sphere of government activity, is the result of deliberation and consensus among the seven members of the Council. This process ensures that all decisions are taken taking into account the perspectives and expertise of all members, reflecting a balanced and considered approach. Once a decision is taken by the Federal Council, it is presented and implemented as a decision of the Council as a whole, not as that of an individual member. This underlines the unity and solidarity of the Federal Council as an executive body, and ensures that the government's actions are seen to represent the executive as a whole, not the views or interests of a single person or department. This system of collective decision-making is a fundamental element of the Swiss political structure, designed to promote transparency, accountability and efficiency in the management of state affairs.

In the Swiss system of government, each member of the Federal Council plays a dual role. On the one hand, he or she is head of a specific government department, and on the other, he or she is a member of the Federal Council as a collegiate body. As head of department, each Federal Councillor is responsible for the management and administration of his or her particular area. The departments cover various sectors such as foreign affairs, defence, finance, education, health, the environment, transport, etc. Each federal councillor oversees the activities of his or her department, including policy implementation and day-to-day management. However, beyond managing their individual departments, each Federal Councillor is also an equal member of the Federal Council as a collective entity. This means that, in addition to their departmental responsibilities, they participate in collegial decision-making on issues that affect the government and the state as a whole. Important decisions, including those that do not directly concern their department, are taken collectively by all members of the Federal Council, often after deliberation and consensus-building. This duality of roles reflects the Swiss system of governance, which values both specialist expertise in particular areas and collective decision-making to ensure the balanced and efficient management of the state's affairs. This ensures that, although each Federal Councillor has his or her own sphere of responsibility, overall government decisions are the result of collaboration and joint reflection.

The Swiss Federal Council is effectively representative of the country's main political parties, a feature that stems from the Swiss tradition of coalition government and concordance. This practice ensures that Switzerland's various major political currents are represented within the executive, reflecting the country's multi-party structure. This representation is the result of an unwritten agreement known as the "magic formula" (Zauberformel in German). Introduced in 1959 and adjusted since then, this formula determines the distribution of seats on the Federal Council between the main political parties, according to their electoral strength and representation in parliament. The aim is to ensure a stable and balanced government, in which the various political parties can work together in the national interest, while representing a broad spectrum of opinions and interests within Swiss society. The concordance system and the magic formula have fostered a stable and consensual political climate in Switzerland. By integrating various parties into the government, it encourages collaboration and compromise rather than confrontation. This also avoids excessive polarisation and ensures that government decisions reflect a variety of perspectives. However, it is important to note that, although the main parties are represented, the Swiss system does not guarantee each party a seat on the Federal Council. The distribution of seats is influenced by political negotiations and election results, and can vary according to political dynamics and elections.

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

Article 175 of the Swiss Constitution details the composition and election procedures of the Federal Council, underlining the importance of balanced representation and diversity in the Swiss government. Firstly, the Federal Council is made up of seven members. This relatively small size facilitates a collegial and efficient decision-making process, where each member has a significant influence. Secondly, these members are elected by the Federal Assembly after each complete renewal of the National Council. This means that Federal Council elections are synchronised with National Council electoral cycles, ensuring that the government reflects current political configurations and the sentiments of the Swiss people. Thirdly, the members of the Federal Council are appointed for a four-year term and must be chosen from among Swiss citizens eligible to stand for election to the National Council. This ensures that members of the Federal Council have the necessary political experience and qualifications to take on government responsibilities. Finally, the fourth point underlines the importance of equitable representation of Switzerland's different regions and linguistic communities within the Federal Council. This provision aims to ensure that all parts of the country are represented in the decision-making process, reflecting Switzerland's cultural and linguistic diversity and strengthening national unity. Article 175 therefore reflects the fundamental principles of Swiss democracy: balance, representativeness and diversity in government. These principles ensure that the Federal Council functions effectively and democratically, making decisions that take account of the plurality of perspectives and interests in Swiss society.

The practice of electing the President of the Swiss Confederation is based on the principle of seniority in the Federal Council. According to this custom, the role of President of the Confederation is generally assigned to a member of the Federal Council who has already served under the presidency of all his or her colleagues. This method is intended to ensure a fair rotation of the presidency and to recognise the experience and service of the most senior members of the Council. The President of the Confederation is elected for a one-year term and, in accordance with the principle of collegiality, holds no more power than the other members of the Council. The President's role is mainly ceremonial and representational, leading meetings of the Federal Council and representing Switzerland at official events. However, he does not enjoy any executive authority over and above that of his colleagues on the Council. The practice of electing the President on the basis of seniority reflects the values of consensual democracy and equality that lie at the heart of the Swiss political system. It also ensures that every member of the Council has the opportunity to serve as President, thus contributing to fair rotation and a balanced representation of different perspectives within the government.

The Presidency of the Swiss Confederation is primarily a function of representation of the government college, both inside and outside the country. The President of the Confederation is not a head of state or head of government in the traditional sense, but rather a member of the Federal Council who assumes a representative role for a period of one year. Within the country, the President of the Confederation represents the Federal Council at various official events, ceremonies and functions. He or she may speak on behalf of the Federal Council and represents the unity and continuity of the Swiss federal government. Abroad, the President assumes a diplomatic role, representing Switzerland on state visits, at international meetings, and in other contexts where high-level representation is required. Although Swiss foreign policy is primarily the responsibility of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, the President plays an important role in presenting a unified and coherent image of Switzerland on the international stage. It is important to emphasise that, despite this representative role, the President of the Confederation has no additional executive powers compared with the other members of the Federal Council. The Presidency is above all a representative and coordinating role within Switzerland's collegiate system of governance. This unique structure reflects Switzerland's commitment to participatory democracy and federalism, ensuring that even the Presidency remains aligned with the principles of equality and collaboration within government.

The Swiss Federal Council, as the supreme executive authority, has a number of crucial roles that are fundamental to the functioning and stability of the state. Its primary responsibility is the management of foreign relations, a task that encompasses the direction of Swiss diplomacy. In this role, the Federal Council has historically navigated Switzerland's neutrality on the international stage, as evidenced by its efforts during both World Wars and during the Cold War, when Switzerland maintained a neutral position while being a centre for international negotiations. The Federal Council also plays a key role in formulating and proposing international treaties. These treaties, after being negotiated by the Federal Council, must be approved by the Federal Assembly, thus ensuring democratic control over international agreements. A notable example is Switzerland's accession to the United Nations in 2002, a move that was carefully considered and finally approved both by the government and by popular referendum.

The management of affairs between the Confederation and the cantons is another key responsibility of the Federal Council, reflecting Switzerland's federalist system. This function ensures effective collaboration and coordination between the different levels of government, which is vital for a country with pronounced linguistic and cultural diversity. With regard to the country's security, the Federal Council takes measures for internal and external protection. This includes not only military defence, but also emergency preparedness and civil protection management. Swiss defence policy, characterised by neutrality and a strong tradition of military service, is directed and supervised by the Federal Council. In the legislative sphere, the Federal Council is involved in the preliminary phase of the legislative process, playing a crucial role in preparing draft legislation before it is presented to the Federal Assembly. This stage of the legislative process is essential to ensure that new laws are well conceived and respond effectively to the country's needs. Finally, managing the Confederation's finances is a complex task that requires careful planning and supervision. The Federal Council is responsible for preparing the federal budget and overseeing public spending, ensuring that the State's financial resources are used responsibly. Through these various functions, the Swiss Federal Council demonstrates its vital role in maintaining law and order, promoting economic prosperity, and preserving political stability in Switzerland. Its actions and decisions have shaped the country's course through crucial historical moments and continue to influence its development and place in the world.

The Federal Chancellery

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