Search

You searched for: Content Type Working Paper Remove constraint Content Type: Working Paper Publishing Institution European Union Institute for Security Studies Remove constraint Publishing Institution: European Union Institute for Security Studies Publication Year within 25 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 25 Years Publication Year within 10 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 10 Years Topic International Cooperation Remove constraint Topic: International Cooperation
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Francesco Giumelli
  • Publication Date: 05-2013
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: European Union Institute for Security Studies
  • Abstract: The European Union has devoted growing attention to sanctions since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty.1 In total, the Council has imposed Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) sanctions targeting countries, economic sectors, groups, individuals and entities on 27 different occasions. The novelty in the area of sanctions is that targets are not only states, as in the recent cases of Iran and Syria, but they are also individuals and non-state entities, e.g. anti-terrorist lists, President Robert Mugabe and his associates, and several companies connected with the military junta in Burma/Myanmar. Additionally, the contexts in which sanctions are utilised can be diverse, ranging from the protection of human rights to crisis management and non-proliferation. Despite the fact that the effectiveness of sanctions has been much debated, the EU has developed a sanctioning policy and intensified its adoption of sanctions. Sanctions were traditionally seen as a way to impose economic penalties as a means of extracting political concessions from targets, but EU sanctions do not always impose a cost nor do they always seek to induce behavioural change. To this extent, a new narrative may be needed.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Economics, Human Rights, International Cooperation, International Law, Sanctions
  • Political Geography: Europe, Burma, Myanmar
  • Author: Jean Pascal Zanders, Richard Guthrie, Cindy Vestergaard, Ralf Trapp, Yasemin Balci
  • Publication Date: 03-2013
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: European Union Institute for Security Studies
  • Abstract: At the 17 th Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) held in November 2012, the subject generating the most debate concerned the place of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in CWC meetings and whether their role should be rather passive (i.e. 'attend') or be characterised by more active involvement (i.e. 'participate'). The latter option would allow them to address States Parties at meetings or organise side events within (rather than outside) the conference building. Addressing one of the core functions of the disarmament treaty, Libya, Russia and the United States reported in detail on progress and issues affecting the destruction of their respective chemical weapon (CW) stockpiles. Despite the fact that all three countries had missed the ultimate destruction deadline of April 2012, no state raised its flag to comment, question or protest about the delays. When the negotiators of the CWC concluded their business in September 1992 and decided to forward the treaty text to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for assent, missing the destruction deadlines was universally viewed as one of the worst possible breaches of the CWC. In practice, a robust verification regime combined with permanent in - formation sharing, voluntary transparency beyond the requirements in the Convention, and dialogue over the years yielded commonly approved decisions to extend the destruction deadlines with strict monitoring and reporting requirements. Confident that the holders of the three largest declared CW stockpiles have no malicious intent, States Parties can continue with the implementation of all dimensions of the CWC without recriminations or deadlock.
  • Topic: Arms Control and Proliferation, International Cooperation, International Law, International Organization, Nuclear Weapons
  • Political Geography: Russia, United States, Libya
  • Author: Alistair MacDonald, Gabriel Munuera Viñals
  • Publication Date: 06-2012
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: European Union Institute for Security Studies
  • Abstract: The confrontation between Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Western Mindanao, between the 'Moros' and the Philippine State, belongs to that category of 'forgotten conflicts' of which most international relations practitioners are often only vaguely aware. The conflict has historical roots that reach back centuries and has evolved with many twists and turns, culminating in an equally long and no less convoluted peace process. However, this conflict has important international ramifications and is one in which the international community is today actively involved, with facilitating and monitoring mechanisms involving states as well as non-state actors. In particular the European Union has been playing an increasingly important role, including in relation to diplomatic efforts aimed at finding a lasting solution to the conflict, based on its holistic approach to crises and interaction with European NGOs.
  • Topic: Conflict Resolution, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Islam, Religion
  • Political Geography: Europe, Israel, Philippines, Australia/Pacific
  • Author: Patryk Pawlak (ed)
  • Publication Date: 12-2011
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: European Union Institute for Security Studies
  • Abstract: The development of homeland security policies in the post 9/11 context has given rise to several interesting debates at the transatlantic level, the most important of which has focused on the balance between liberty and security. EU-US cooperation in this domain has resulted in a strengthening of the security dimension of numerous policy areas which in the view of civil liberty organisations and certain EU bodies and institutions has entailed an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of citizens and limitation of their freedoms. The implementation of the commitments to 'work in partnership in a broad coalition to combat the evil of terrorism' and to 'vigorously pursue cooperation' adopted at the Joint EU-US Ministerial of 20 September 2001 has proven particularly difficult. While initial disagreements were mostly caused by the unilateralist approach of the United States and a lack of mutual trust and understanding on both sides of the Atlantic, the discussions have slowly evolved towards increasing consensus on substantive points leading to specific policy choices. Many of the objections expressed by the European Parliament and civil liberties organisations in Europe have concerned the increasing powers of government agencies and the diminishing rights of citizens. The debate has gradually become more heated, fuelled by press reports about the expanding use of personal information collected by private actors for commercial purposes (e.g. PNR, SWIFT) or the application of advanced technologies to protect the homeland (e.g. terrorist profiling and data mining). All this has positioned the transatlantic security dialogue between two poles: security and liberty.
  • Topic: Conflict Prevention, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Terrorism, Bilateral Relations, Counterinsurgency
  • Political Geography: United States, Europe
  • Author: Luis Simón
  • Publication Date: 01-2010
  • Content Type: Working Paper
  • Institution: European Union Institute for Security Studies
  • Abstract: This paper assesses the effectiveness of the European Union's capability for the planning and conduct of military operations. Given the fact that the planning and conduct phases of an operation can never be fully isolated from each other, the paper does include some references to the conduct dimension, i.e. command and control (C2). However, it is with planning issues that this paper is most directly concerned. It argues that the lack of a permanent planning and conduct capability cripples the Union's planning and C2 performance as well as the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) more broadly. This capability, though, need not adopt the form of a fully-fledged Operational Headquarters (OHQ). The paper explains that the nature and evolution of the Union's planning and C2 capability is largely the result of compromises between France, Britain and Germany (the Union's 'Big Three') and argues that a coincidence in British-German objectives – the 'awkward alignment' – is particularly responsible for the continuing absence of a permanent military planning and C2 capability.
  • Topic: International Cooperation, Peacekeeping
  • Political Geography: Britain, Europe, France, Germany