The Swiss Initiative

  • Marco Boggero


This chapter outlines the significance, main features, and actors around the Swiss initiative, which originated in principles of neutral humanitarianism. Regulatory efforts were antagonized and states’ interests eventually shaped the final legal tool, the Montreux Document. In perspective, policymakers tried to deal with the externality of non-state violence, a mix of both demand and supply sides; on the demand side, the abuses in the use of contractors led US policymakers to be involved in the Swiss process from the start, using it to inform their actions and US regulation; on the supply side, neutral states like Switzerland risked being used as a base for activities in foreign conflicts.


  1. Avant, D. (2005). The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avant, D. (2012). The US and Global Security “Governance”: Networks, Goals, and Power. APSA Paper.Google Scholar
  3. Baudendistel, R. (2006). Between Bombs and Good Intentions: The Red Cross and the Italo-Ethiopian War, 1935–1936. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Balmond, L. (2009). Observations sur le Document de Montreux Relatif Aux Obligations Juridiques Internationals Pertinentes et aux Bonnes Pratiques Pour les États Concernant les activités des sociétés Militaires Privées. 113 R.G.D.I.P., 113.Google Scholar
  5. Borrie, J. (2009). Unacceptable Harm: A History of How the Treaty to Ban Cluster Munitions Was Won. Geneva: United Nations Publications UNIDIR.Google Scholar
  6. Borrie, J., & Randin, V. M. (2006). Disarmament as Humanitarian Action: From Perspective to Practice. Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.Google Scholar
  7. Chandler, D. G. (2001). The Road to Military Humanitarianism: How the Human Rights NGOs Shaped a New Humanitarian Agenda. Human Rights Quarterly, 23(3), 678–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiozza, G. (2010). Anti-Americanism and the American World Order. Baltimore: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  9. CICR. (2003, December). Rapport Pour La XXVIII Conference International de la Croix-ROUGE et du Croissant Rouge. Geneva: RICR.Google Scholar
  10. Cockayne, J. (2008). Regulating Private Military and Security Companies: The Content, Negotiation, Weaknesses and Promise of the Montreux Document. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 13(3), 401–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunigan, M. (2011). Victory for Hire: Private Security Companies’ Impact on Military Effectiveness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Forsythe, D. P. (1977). Humanitarian Politics: The International Committee of the Red Cross. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Forsythe, D. P. (2005). The Humanitarians: The International Committee of the Red Cross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forsythe, D. P. (2011). The Politics of Prisoner Abuse: The United States and Enemy Prisoners After 9/11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franke, M. (2010). Responsible Politics of the Neutral: Rethinking International Humanitarianism in the Red Cross Movement via the Philosophy of Roland Barthes. Journal of International Political Theory, 6(2), 142–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabriel, J. M., & Fischer, T. (2003). Swiss Foreign Policy, 1945–2002. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goetschel, L. (2013). Bound to Be Peaceful? The Changing Approach of Western European Small States to Peace. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (1993). Ideas & Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gómez del Prado, J. L. (2012). A UN Convention to Regulate PMSCs? Criminal Justice Ethics, 31(3), 262–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graf, A., & Lanz, D. (2013). Conclusions: Switzerland as a Paradigmatic Case of Small-State Peace Policy? Swiss Political Science Review, 19(3), 410–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gumedze, S. (2011). Merchants of African Conflict: More than Just a Pound of Flesh. Institute for Security Studies Monographs, 176.Google Scholar
  22. International Review of the Red Cross. (2006). Volume 88, Issue 863, Private Military Companies – 01 September 2006.Google Scholar
  23. Isenberg, D. (2009). Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq. ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, M. M. (2012). The American Red Cross from Clara Barton to the New Deal. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  25. Katzenstein, P. J., & Keohane, R. O. (Eds.). (2007). Anti-Americanisms in World Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kriesi, H., & Trechsel, A. H. (2008). The Politics of Switzerland: Continuity and Change in a Consensus Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melzer, N. (2009). Keeping the Balance Between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. New York University Journal of International Law and Policy, 42, 831.Google Scholar
  28. Montreux Document, Records of the First Meeting of Experts. (2006, January). W. Hays Park, The Perspective of Contracting and “Headquarters” States. Retrieved from
  29. Montreux Document, UN doc. A/63/467-S/2008/636. Retrieved from
  30. Price, R. (1998). Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines. International Organization, 52(3), 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Probst, R. (1989). “Good Offices” in the Light of Swiss International Practice and Experience. London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Reinalda, B. (2009). Routledge History of International Organizations: From 1815 to the Present Day. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Roberts, A. (2006). The Wonga Coup: Guns, Thugs, and a Ruthless Determination to Create Mayhem in an Oil-Rich Corner of Africa. London: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  34. Scharf, M., & Andersen, E. (2010). Is Lawfare Worth Defining-Report of the Cleveland Experts Meeting – September 11, 2010. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43, 11.Google Scholar
  35. Singer, P. (2004). War, Profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 42, 521.Google Scholar
  36. Swiss Federal Council. (2005, December). Report on Private Security and Military Companies. Retrieved April 2014, from
  37. Thomson, J. E. (1996). Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns: State-Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. US Government. (2015). Department of Justice, Press Release, Friday January 30, 2015. Third Defendant Charged with Violating the Neutrality Act by Planning and Participating in a Plot to Overthrow The Gambian Government. Retrieved February 11, 2015, from
  39. Vallaeys, A. (2004). Médecins sans frontières: La biographie. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  40. Voillat, C. (2012). Pushing the Humanitarian Agenda Through Engagement with Business Actors: The ICRC’s Experience. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(887), 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watkin, K. (2009). Opportunity Lost: Organized Armed Groups and the ICRC Direct Participation in Hostilities Interpretive Guidance. New York University Journal of International Law and Policy, 42, 641.Google Scholar
  42. White, N. D. (2011). The Privatisation of Military and Security Functions and Human Rights: Comments on the UN Working Group’s Draft Convention. Human Rights Law Review, 11, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williamson, J. A. (2009). Challenges of Twenty-First Century Conflicts: A Look at Direct Participation in Hostilities. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 20, 457–472.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Boggero
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Advanced International StudiesJohns Hopkins UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations