Some states declare neutrality in conflicts of two or more countries. States that take a neutral position are entitled to some rights on the one hand, and obligated to some duties on the other. Given the increased use of sanctions and their effects on the human rights of the people of the target country, this study sought to answer whether a neutral state is legally allowed, based on international law, to impose sanctions against a belligerent country. Accordingly, the main question of this study was how neutrality can be explained in relation with sanctions against a belligerent side in a conflict. This descriptive-analytical study focused on Switzerland, a state with permanent neutrality, as a case study to examine the hypothesis that in the current era, the neutrality paradigm is mostly influenced by political, security, and economic necessities and interests of states, reducing the legal aspects of neutrality to a topic of secondary concern. Furthermore, international and regional pressures inevitably force even permanently neutral states to participate in enforcing sanctions. Therefore, with the continuation of this trend, neutrality can be expected to distance itself from its traditional description in the future, arriving at a more extensive domain of definition.