Executive Summary
On 13 May 2026, the Federal Council took note of its 10th activity report on the implementation of the Federal Act on Private Security Services Abroad (BPS). In 2025, the competent section Export Control and Private Security Services (SEPS) of the FDFA registered a total of 82 notifications from companies wishing to provide security services abroad. No prohibitions were issued, but two criminal complaints were filed with the Federal Prosecutor's Office. No activities were identified that could lead to direct participation in hostilities or serious human rights violations.
Persons
- FDFA – Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (Lead responsibility)
Topics
- Private security services
- Export control
- International regulation
- Human rights protection
Clarus Lead
After a decade of implementation, the BPS regime demonstrates stable control density: with over 80 annual notifications, the rate of criminal complaints remains low, suggesting either effective prevention or compliance deficiencies in early detection. Switzerland is intensifying its international coordination through the Montreux Document Forum and UN working groups – a signal that private security companies are increasingly perceived as a geopolitical risk. The absence of identified high-risk activities in 2025 raises questions about the depth of scrutiny in review procedures, some of which had not yet been completed.
Detailed Summary
The BPS Act requires Swiss companies to notify authorities of private security services provided abroad before they are rendered. SEPS performs this control function and can prohibit activities that lead to direct participation in combat operations or serious human rights violations – a prohibition that did not need to be applied in 2025.
In 2025, the authority expanded its networking at the national and international level. An anniversary event in September 2026 in Bern brought together representatives from the judiciary, police, administration, and politics to exchange findings from ten years of law enforcement. Internationally, SEPS supported the UN working group on private security and military companies (PMSCs), conducted bilateral discussions with foreign regulatory authorities, and strengthened the Montreux Document Forum – an established professional network for standards in the security sector.
Key Findings
- 82 notifications from security companies in 2025; no prohibitions, but two criminal complaints
- No high-risk activities identified that would violate Articles 8 and 9 BPS
- Switzerland intensifies international cooperation through UN working groups and Montreux Forum
Critical Questions
Evidence/Data Quality: How complete is the recording of the 82 notifications? Which activity categories dominate, and how is the dark figure of unreported activities estimated?
Conflicts of Interest: What criteria led to the two criminal complaints in 2025, and how is it ensured that economic interests do not influence the intensity of controls?
Causality/Alternatives: Does the absence of identified high-risk activities indicate effective prevention or insufficient depth of review? Are the incomplete procedures an indication of resource constraints?
Feasibility/Risks: How are companies sanctioned that fail to fulfill their notification obligation? What enforcement mechanisms exist for companies operating abroad?
Transparency: Are the names of notified companies and their deployment countries published, or does the list remain confidential?
International Coherence: How does Swiss regulation coordinate with EU and US regimes for private security companies?
Sources
Primary Source: 10th BPS Activity Report 2025 – FDFA, 13.05.2026
Verification Status: ✓ 13.05.2026
This text was created with the support of an AI model. Editorial responsibility: clarus.news | Fact-checking: 13.05.2026