Yves Sandoz: “Switzerland’s neutrality is far less absolute than the ICRC’s”
Translated from French and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.
At a glance
- The ICRC is not taking part in Switzerland’s debate over whether to add neutrality to the Constitution after the Sept. 27 federal vote.
- Former ICRC international law director Yves Sandoz says Swiss neutrality and the ICRC’s neutrality remain connected but have different meanings.
- The debate highlights the importance of neutrality to the Geneva-based humanitarian organization.
Switzerland’s neutrality is not as absolute as the neutrality of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Yves Sandoz says. The distinction carries particular weight as Switzerland debates whether to write the principle into its Constitution.
The ICRC is not intervening in the heated campaign over the issue after the federal vote scheduled for Sept. 27. Supporters want neutrality enshrined in the constitutional charter, while opponents reject fixing it there.
The Geneva-based humanitarian organization is nonetheless closely connected to the question. Its emblem reverses the Swiss flag, and its work depends on a form of neutrality that is related to Switzerland’s but does not carry the same meaning.
Sandoz, a former director of international law and doctrine at the ICRC, makes no attempt to hide that connection as the debate grows increasingly contentious. The organization remains outside the political argument, while recognizing that the two principles continue to be discussed together.
Switzerland’s neutrality is far less absolute than the ICRC’s.
Originally published by Le Temps in French. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.