To Uphold Neutrality, Switzerland Considers Extending Trade Restrictions on Ukraine

After four years of navigating the geopolitical minefield through emergency decrees, the Swiss government is moving to cement its controversial trade restrictions on Ukraine into permanent law. While the Federal Council has swiftly adopted European Union sanctions against Russia, it simultaneously grapples with a self-imposed mandate to restrict exports to the victim of the aggression. This move seeks to enshrine a rigid interpretation of neutrality that penalizes Kyiv under the guise of "equal treatment."

Currently, Switzerland sanctions Russia under the established embargo law. However, lacking a parallel legal mechanism for Ukraine, the government has exercised emergency constitutional powers to block specific exports. Now, the Federal Council intends to formalize these emergency measures, submitting a draft law that would legally bind Switzerland to restrict trade with Ukraine just as it does with Russia. This legislative push highlights a stark paradox in Swiss foreign policy: the aggressor is sanctioned for violating international law, while the defender is restricted to satisfy domestic neutrality dogmas.

The scope of these restrictions extends far beyond lethal weaponry, cutting off Ukraine's access to critical defensive and logistical supplies. The ban targets a wide array of "dual-use" goods—items that serve both civilian and military purposes. This list includes essential protective gear such as body armor, helmets, and camouflage nets, as well as industrial necessities like aviation fuel and specific chemicals.

According to the Federal Council, there is "no other choice." They argue that the neutrality law's principle of equal treatment creates a binding obligation to restrict the export and transit of war-related goods to all parties in an international armed conflict. By equating the trade needs of the invader with those of the invaded, Bern maintains a strict blockade on materials that could aid Ukraine's defense. This bureaucratic rigidness ensures that while Russian tanks are sanctioned, Ukrainian soldiers are denied Swiss-made helmets, leaving a significant gap in the humanitarian and defensive aid pipeline.

Prominent legal scholars are tearing apart the government's justification, labeling the "equal treatment" argument as a choice rather than a necessity. Jörg Künzli, a constitutional and international law professor at the University of Bern, asserts that the government is refusing to make any concessions, resulting in a policy that operates "to the detriment of Ukraine."

Künzli argues that the Federal Council's interpretation ignores the context of a clear war of aggression. He suggests that Switzerland could—and should—interpret neutrality through the lens of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. A justifiable path exists: limit sanctions strictly to weapons exports under the War Materiel Act, while allowing the free trade of other goods. "That would certainly be justifiable with the core principle of neutrality," Künzli states. By refusing this flexibility, the government is opting for a maximum-restriction approach that treats the aggressor, Russia, and the defender, Ukraine, as moral and legal equivalents.