Between 1984 and 1989, the European Coordination Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Science in Vienna organized seminars on the 1975 Helsinki Final Act for analysis in a semiotic key. The aim of this international treaty was to foster cooperation among signatory states to prevent conflict and war, even among non-signatory states. According to Augusto Ponzio, the Final Act was grounded in two logics: one of identity and one of alterity. However, the logic of identity prevailed, rendering the Final Act ineffective in achieving lasting peace. In contemporary conflict discourses, such as the war in Ukraine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the logic of identity emerges prominently, manifest through oppositional categories like “friend/foe” or rhetoric such as “with us or against us”. Consequently, the categorization of “peace” remains problematic.The concept of “Neutral”, as elucidated by Roland Barthes, serves as a valuable tool for the semiotic analysis of “peace” as a category. According to Barthes, “Neutral” does not imply passivity or acquiescence; rather, it signifies a desire to evade paradigms and coercive choices. Thus, “Neutral” can be interpreted as rejection of the identity logic inherent in all conflicts, and as resistance to the linguistic violence of power. In this context, “Neutral” implies acknowledgment of “otherness” and the necessity for “passive solidarity”– embracing the inevitability of welcoming the other in a framework of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect.