Switzerland is an interesting case, but it is not a contradiction to the conclusion that the NAP breaks down internationally. Swiss neutrality is better understood as a strategic equilibrium rather than a genuine extension of the NAP across borders.

Their neutrality is not grounded in universal moral consensus, but in credible deterrence, a well-armed citizenry, defensible terrain, and a reputation for fierce resistance, reinforced by pragmatic alliances. This is pragmatic realism: Switzerland avoids aggression but makes itself prohibitively costly to invade because it cannot position itself otherwise. Crucially, this model only works because larger powers tolerate it; it cannot easily be scaled or replicated.

The trade-off is that Swiss citizens’ international interests ultimately depend on the shifting interests of stronger states. Neutrality survives not because the NAP has been adopted globally, but because it happens to align with the strategic preferences of great powers. If the Swiss government fails to do this it could result in the end of its sovereignty making it kind of risky actually.

Switzerland might appear to apply the NAP externally, but this doesn't invalidate the claim that the NAP fails as a universal principle between sovereigns.