Summary: The Bilateral Agreements III differ fundamentally from the existing Bilateral Agreements I and II. The most important innovations are the dynamic adoption of law, a parity-based arbitration tribunal for dispute resolution, and the vertical integration of institutional elements into each individual agreement -- rather than a separate framework agreement.
The following table compares the three treaty packages in their key features. The Bilateral Agreements III modernise the existing architecture and introduce new mechanisms to address the institutional gap [1][2].
| Feature | Bilateral I (1999) | Bilateral II (2004) | Bilateral III (2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of agreements | 7 | 9 | 18 (6 updated + new) |
| Adoption of law | Static (status of 1999) | Partially dynamic (Schengen) | Dynamic with opt-out possibility |
| Dispute resolution | Joint Committees (political) | Joint Committees (political) | Parity-based arbitration tribunal (3+3) |
| Role of the CJEU | None | No direct role | Interpretation of EU law in arbitration proceedings |
| Oversight | No uniform oversight | No uniform oversight | Independent oversight |
| Linkage | Guillotine clause (all 7) | None (independent) | Package approach (indivisible) |
| Cohesion contribution | None | Voluntary, one-off | Regular, contractual |
| Wage protection | Flanking measures | Flanking measures | 14 domestic measures |
| Institutional framework | None | None | Vertically integrated into each agreement |
| Popular vote | Yes (FMPA, 2000) | Yes (Schengen, 2005) | Expected 2027/2028 |
Under the Bilateral Agreements I and II (except Schengen), the agreements are "frozen" at the legal status at the time of signature. Under the Bilateral Agreements III, Switzerland adopts developments in EU law in the areas covered by the agreements as a matter of principle. An opt-out is possible but may trigger compensatory measures by the EU [1].
Previously, disputes were handled in political bodies (Joint Committees) where consensus was required. The Bilateral Agreements III introduce a parity-based arbitration tribunal (three judges per side). For questions concerning EU law, the tribunal requests a preliminary ruling from the CJEU [2].
The guillotine clause of the Bilateral Agreements I means: if one agreement falls, they all fall. The package approach of the Bilateral Agreements III is similar but more comprehensive: the 18 agreements form an indivisible whole and were negotiated and signed as a complete package [1].
Unlike the failed InstA (2021), the institutional mechanisms (adoption of law, dispute resolution, oversight) are not regulated in a separate framework agreement but are vertically integrated into each sectoral agreement. This architecture was key to reaching agreement, as it addressed critics of an overarching framework agreement [2][3].
The differences between the treaty packages are evaluated differently by various political actors:
Supporters of the Bilateral Agreements III see the modernisation as a necessary step to halt the erosion and make the bilateral path fit for the future. The institutional elements create legal certainty and predictability for business [4].
Critics see the dynamic adoption of law and the role of the CJEU as a restriction of Swiss sovereignty. The regular cohesion contribution is criticised as a permanent price for market access [5].
A detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages can be found in the chapters Disadvantages and Advantages.
[1] FDFA (2026). Fact sheet: Institutional elements. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. [Open Access]
[2] FDFA (2026). Switzerland-EU package signed. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. [Open Access]
[3] EIZ Publishing (2022). Ambuehl/Scherer: Standpunkte Bilaterale III. Europa Institut Zurich. [Open Access]
[4] economiesuisse (2026). Bilateral III -- The best option. Dossier Politik. [Open Access] Note: Business federation.
[5] UNSER RECHT (2026). Bilateral III -- what is it about? Information platform. [Open Access]
Last updated: March 2026