Staying in neutral? How Swiss and Irish debates compare

Irish peacekeepers serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) at Beirut airport, 2022. Anwar Amro / AFP

European rearmament has put similar pressure on old policies in Ireland and Switzerland – and sparked heated reactions from defenders of “traditional” neutrality in both countries.

Look for similarities between Ireland and Switzerland and you’ll see a pair of small and – at least nowadays – rich states. Tax policies involving big multinational firms may also pop up.

But as Europe confronts new security concerns, marked by Russian militarism and US-NATO strains, another commonality has become clearer. For years – almost a century for one, even longer for the other – Ireland and Switzerland have been neutral. In 2026 they are part of a shrinking club. How are they adapting, and how do they compare?

The impact of neighbours

Historically, at least, the two versions of neutrality share very different origins and motivations. “No country is neutral by coincidence,” says Laurent Goetschel, director of the Basel-based Swisspeace institute. In the Swiss case, its armed neutrality was given the seal of approval from outside, when European powers recognised it at the 1815 Congress of Vienna.

Explore the past and present of Swiss neutrality in our article:

Irish neutrality was less about fitting in among big neighbours and more about getting away from them. After hard-won independence from Britain, culminating in a 1937 constitutional republic, neutrality was above all a way for the new Irish nation to assert sovereignty on the world stage. It was also a way to avoid getting dragged into more conflict. Hundreds of thousands of Irish fought in the British army in the First World War, inspiring the pacifist slogan still used by some neutrality defenders today: “We serve neither King nor Kaiser but Ireland”.

After the policy kept the country out of the Second World War, Ireland’s sovereignty-based approach broadened as the world split into Cold War blocs. Already in the late 1950s, it started sending troops to serve on United Nations peacekeeping missions, laying the foundation for a conception of neutrality as a means of peace and development rather than of defence – a somewhat “woolly” view still widespread in the country, says Kenneth McDonagh, an international relations professor at Dublin City University.

A century staying out of conflict – Irish neutrality in pictures:

Previous Next

Irish revolutionary leader Eamon de Valera, who would become prime minister and president of an independent Ireland, is seen as a chief architect of the country’s early neutrality policy. Getty Images

On December 14, 1955, the flags of 16 new member states of the United Nations, including Ireland, were raised for the first time during a ceremony at UN headquarters in New York. Keystone

Irish soldiers at Elisabethville Airport, in the Congo, during their 1961-1964 deployment to the UN’s peace mission in the newly independent African country. Keystone

Ireland’s first female soldiers deployed on a UN mission are welcomed back home at Dublin Airport after a peacekeeping stint in Lebanon, April 26, 1983. Getty Images

In 2008, Irish voters rejected the EU’s new Lisbon Treaty in a public vote; concerns about the country’s military neutrality were one of several factors behind their reluctance. Citizens approved the treaty in a second referendum in 2009. Christian Lutz / Keystone

The LÉ Samuel Beckett ship on the river Liffey in Dublin, during the 75th anniversary celebrations for the Irish navy, September 1, 2021. In 2026, a new maritime security strategy pledged to boost the country’s under-resourced navy. Brian Lawless / Getty Images

• Picture 1
• Picture 2
• Picture 3
• Picture 4
• Picture 5
• Picture 6

At the same time, inconsistencies arose. For decades, US military aircraft have used Shannon Airport as a refuelling stop on their way to conflicts further afield. This dented the reputation of Irish neutrality’s even-handedness; more recently, it even prompted a (positive) nod to the Swiss stance. “Switzerland’s decision to refuse military flights linked to the war with Iran demonstrates what neutrality means in practice,” parliamentarian Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire from the left-wing Sinn Féin said in MarchExternal link.

Ireland’s membership of the European Union also led to frictions. Towards the turn of the century, as EU states deepened cooperation on foreign affairs, it faced issues which non-EU Switzerland is spared. For example: how can a neutral country fit into a union with a mutual defence clause? In 2009, wary Irish citizens were placated with an opt-out clause: they ratified the EU’s Lisbon Treaty only after a guarantee that neutrality would not be affected (the clause is also applicable to other neutral EU members like Austria).

New realities, old policies?

Since Russia’s 2022 attack on Ukraine, neutrality has not become easier, either for Dublin or Bern. Switzerland has faced charges of freeloading under the security umbrella of its neighbours, while Ireland has been warned by its EU partners not to become a “weak link” in the bloc’s defence. And given that Switzerland and Ireland both apply sanctions on Russia, Moscow says neither is neutral.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke in the Irish parliament on December 2, 2025; he addressed parliamentarians in Bern – by video-link – in June 2023. Tony Maxwell / AFP

The reactions to this have varied. Switzerland has seen hefty debates about weapons exports and sanctions; citizens are also to vote on an initiative aiming to put a strict interpretation of neutrality in the constitution. But overall, even calls by Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis for a more “cooperative” approach to neutrality have not changed the fact that the Swiss model is still based on the Hague Convention’s rules: no participation in armed conflict, no military favours for a warring side (political statements or economic sanctions are allowed, however).

More on the relationship between neutrality and arms exports:

In Ireland, the new situation has above all thrown into light the big difference between its model and Switzerland’s – the word “armed”.

While one of the richest EU states, Ireland spends little on defence and is under no illusions it could ward off a conventional attack. And this is no longer just a thought experiment: Russian spy ships have been spotted in its vast territorial waters, home to nearly 75%External link of the Northern Hemisphere’s subsea telecoms cables. In February 2026 this even prompted the country’s first ever maritime security strategy, pledging closer ties to NATO neighbours and two new bases for its under-resourced navy – for The Economist, a “departure from its long-standing policy of neutrality”.

Whether it is enough to convince European friends that Dublin is doing its part is another matter. It’s also not clear who would come to help if Ireland were to be attacked. According to DCU professor McDonagh, “there is an ‘understanding’ with the UK on air defence, and two new memorandums of understanding with the UK and France on maritime security – but none of these amount to a mutual defence clause”. By contrast, Switzerland – which also avoids military alliances but maintains a working army – is in McDonagh’s view a “good illustration of what a functioning, autonomous neutral state could look like”.

Pushback from traditionalists

Yet whether Ireland could take inspiration from the Swiss model is not something often discussed in Dublin. Mainly, McDonagh adds, debates have been less about concrete defence issues and more about abstract arguments of neutrality in general. And as in Switzerland, these have been driven by vocal groups wary of any dilution of traditional postures.

In Switzerland, reflecting the democratic and political system, this has notably taken the form of the “neutrality initiative”, a text aiming to enshrine “perpetual and armed” neutrality in the federal constitution. Driven by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, the initiative complains that sanctions against Russia mean Switzerland is “abandoning its neutrality, bit by bit”; the proposal would make sanctions impossible unless mandated by the UN Security Council. Voters have their say later this year.

What’s at stake if Swiss voters accept the “neutrality initiative”:

Ireland also hasn’t lacked voices warning of a military “drift” towards NATO or the EU. However, these have mostly come not from the conservative right, but rather the pacifist or populist left. Catherine Connolly, elected to the largely representative role of President last year, is a prominent critic of militarisation. Sinn Féin, the biggest opposition party, is also fiercely committed to traditional neutrality, and even wants something Swiss-like: a public vote to enshrine neutrality in the Irish constitution.

Such a vote is unlikely. Unlike in Switzerland, there are no people’s initiatives in Ireland, and referendums only happen if the ruling majority wants one (in this case, it doesn’t). As such, Sinn Féin is probably “playing the left-populist card” in an effort to score points against the government, reckons David Farrell, a politics professor at University College Dublin. But the party enjoys strong poll numbers, Farrell adds, and “you can’t rule out the possibility that it does manage to get elected to government” in the next years – and implement its agenda.

A protest in Dublin against the use of Shannon Airport by US military aircraft, April 15, 2026. Niall Carson / Getty Images

Broad citizen support for neutrality

And even if the government doesn’t agree with Sinn Féin on neutrality, many in Ireland do. This raises the question of legitimacy: should there be more citizen involvement in debates, given its importance? And if so, in what format?

With no immediate prospect of a referendum, a citizens’ assembly has also been suggested: a randomly selected group of citizens that would meet to discuss defence policy and issue recommendations. However, the format, which became popular in Ireland over the past decade, was dismissed in 2023; an expert-based “Forum on International Security Policy” took place instead. For Farrell, this was part of a trend in which citizen assemblies in Ireland have “gone off the boil”. Others speculated that the government didn’t want to face public opinion.

It’s not only in Ireland that citizens’ assemblies are struggling:

Swisspeace director Goetschel, who was at the 2023 forum to explain the Swiss approach, recalls it as a bit of a “road show” – lots of panels, moving around several Irish cities. It felt quite different to the standard Swiss process, he adds: sober consultations on the official side, public votes on the other. Outcomes were also partly inconclusive: neutrality “clearly means different things to different people”, the final report said.

Goetschel even made it into the Irish media with a remark that “neutrality is not a religion” – a statement in response to what he says were some “deep believer statements” from public attendees. Indeed, as in Switzerland, neutrality is a highly popular idea in Ireland; a February 2026 poll by the Irish Times and IPSOS even showed 71% in favour of enshrining it in the constitution. But while in Switzerland debates are shaping up ahead of a vote on this later in 2026, in Ireland public opinion remains – at least for now – largely confined to surveys.

Edited by Benjamin von Wyl/ts