61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

material. This duty of equal treatment has a formal character, i.e., the same
provisions must apply to both belligerents, and they must be implemented in
an even-handed way. Switzerland violated this obligation on several occasions
during the Second World War: for example, when the Federal authorities,
following the Soviet Union’s attack on Finland on 30 November 1939, actively
encouraged the private export of war material to Finland while prohibiting the
supply of material to the Soviet Union at the same time. A further violation of
neutrality occurred between June and August 1940, when Switzerland
prohibited the supply of war material to Great Britain without treating
Germany in the same way. 67
A further issue which arose in connection with the transit of war material were
the neutral power’s control duties. The obligation imposed on a neutral power
to prevent belligerents from using its territory for military purposes requires
appropriate control mechanisms to be in place. In this respect, a violation of
neutrality arose because the Swiss authorities failed to implement effective
controls on rail freight 68 throughout the Second World War. In practice, it
would have been impossible to subject the 1,200 wagons passing through each
day to stringent controls. However, irregular but frequent random checks
would have established with certainty whether war material was being transported
via Switzerland. 69
Finally, the granting of credits for supplying war material also raises the issue of
possible violations of neutrality. Neutrality law prohibits the granting of loans
by neutral powers to belligerents to support their war efforts. The neutral power
may permit private persons to grant such loans, but may not encourage them to
do so. With the signing of the Swiss-German agreement of 9 August 1940, the
Federal Council granted clearing credits which flowed into Germany’s war chest.
Italy also received substantial credits for Swiss supplies of war material in 1940
and 1942. These credits violated neutrality law in force at the time. 70
As the cases outlined above show, for foreign policy reasons, Switzerland violated
neutrality law in various ways. It is a moot point whether the authorities could
have justified their conduct as a response to the belligerents’ violation of the law
or as an act of self-preservation. On the other hand, throughout the entire
wartime period, Switzerland made reference to its neutral status in order to reject
demands by the belligerents. For example, in March 1945, its authorities
continued to insist that trade with Germany should not cease completely,
claiming that such a move would have violated neutrality law. 71
Looted gold and international law
As described above, the neutrality law in force during the Second World War
did not impose any fundamental obligation on the neutral powers to sever their
402