International law professor Evelyne Schmid on the Lex Ukraine
“Not tenable under the law of neutrality”
The Security Policy Commission of the National Council wants to allow other states to deliver Swiss weapons to Ukraine. But that would damage the country’s neutrality, says international law expert Evelyne Schmid.
Published: 4 minutes ago
1/6
Denmark was not allowed to transfer Swiss-made Piranha wheeled armored personnel carriers to Ukraine.
Switzerland should not stand aside, but should allow other states to supply Swiss arms to Ukraine. The Federal Council has so far rejected this, because the War Material Act prohibits Switzerland from allowing other countries to pass on weapons to third parties – in this case Ukraine. Denmark was not allowed to pass on Swiss Piranha wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, Germany was not allowed to pass on tank ammunition and Spain was not allowed to pass on anti-aircraft guns.
That should change, according to the Security Policy Commission of the National Council. On Tuesday, with 14 votes to 11, she called for a “Lex Ukraine”: Switzerland should waive the non-re-export declaration if “the war material is re-exported to Ukraine in connection with the Russian-Ukrainian war”. If the Commission has its way, the change in the law will come into force on May 1st and would initially be limited to the end of 2025.
“Not tenable under the law of neutrality”
The majority of security politicians are convinced that this will not violate Swiss neutrality: Switzerland itself would not supply weapons directly to Ukraine. Experts see it very differently. “This proposal does not seem tenable to me in terms of neutrality law,” says international law professor Evelyne Schmid from the University of Lausanne to Radio SRF. “A neutral state may export war material, but it must treat all warring parties equally.” That’s what the Hague Agreement says. This means that Switzerland would then also have to allow weapons to be supplied to Russia.
A second commission motion, which was penned by the SP, has its pitfalls for Schmid. The proposal is that the Federal Council can revoke the non-re-export declaration at the request of a foreign government if a situation is involved that the United Nations Security Council has declared to be in conflict with the international prohibition on the use of force.
Uncomfortable situation for the Federal Council
“This second proposal does not as such violate the law of neutrality,” said Schmid. It gives the Federal Council the opportunity to apply it to all warring parties at the same time. But in use, this suggestion could also cause headaches. “The problem could be that another country that owns Swiss war material wants to pass this material on to Russia. And then the Federal Council is in an uncomfortable position. He must then either agree to very undesirable disclosures or argue acrobatically under the law of neutrality.”
Schmid shouldn’t be the only one who sees it that way – the proposals should still be discussed in Parliament. (sf)