Search

Begin New Search Content Type Commentary and Analysis Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

81. Plunder by Paperwork: Land Use and Legal Manipulation in Russian-Occupied Ukrainian Territories

Author:
Kateryna Kyrychenko and Patricia Wiater
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
In war, land is more than terrain — it is power, memory, identity, and future. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, where the battle is being waged not only with weapons but with registries, decrees, and legal manipulation. Russia’s strategy in Ukraine has not merely been to seize land — but to rewrite the law that governs it. Through reclassification, coerced registration, and demographic engineering, the occupying power is attempting to transform occupation into ownership — to fabricate a claim to sovereignty through legal means. Beneath a facade of administrative normalcy lies a systematic campaign of illegal appropriation — one that violates both international humanitarian law and human rights protections. This blog post outlines the legal framework governing land under occupation, examines how Russia has sought to subvert it, and explains why land law is now a frontline of resistance.
Topic:
Sovereignty, Law, Occupation, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

82. Russian Use of Rape as a Weapon of War in Ukraine

Author:
Paul Williams, Gregory P. Noone, and Sindija Beta
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
Numerous investigative reports into the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine since 2022 have documented extensive and shocking use of sexual and gender-based violence (“SGBV”) by Russian nationals against Ukrainian civilians, prisoners of war, and other detainees. Russia has long been responsible for a largely under-discussed and distressing amount of SGBV crimes, including rape. Russian SGBV atrocities have historically been especially brutal during World War II in Germany, as well as Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia. Focus has recently turned to the question of how Russia could be held accountable for its use of SGBV as a weapon of war in Ukraine. Various sources of international law provide prohibitions on the use of SGBV during armed conflict, and there have been successful examples of holding individual perpetrators accountable under international criminal law in past conflicts. As the Russian attacks on Ukraine continue unabated, it is appropriate to appraise the scale of SGBV committed, the international laws being breached, and the possible enforcement mechanisms.
Topic:
Gender Based Violence, Rape, Sexual Violence, Atrocities, Armed Conflict, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

83. Recognizing 2014: The Legal and Moral Imperative for Full Reparations for Russian Aggression

Author:
Kateryna Kyrychenko, Paul D. Williams, and Sindija Beta
Publication Date:
07-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
Why are the earliest victims of Russia’s war in Ukraine — those targeted since 2014 — still excluded from reparations, when it was exactly the failure to respond to that initial aggression that directly enabled the full-scale invasion in 2022?
Topic:
Law, International Crime, Reparations, Russia-Ukraine War, and Aggression
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

84. Remind Me Again Why We Put Together a Neighborhood Party? Recommitting to the Objectives of Special Drawing Rights Issuance

Author:
Betty N. Wainaina
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
Unfair Distribution at the Neighborhood Holiday Party Imagine it’s the holiday season, and your neighborhood decides it would be nice to hold an afternoon party where all the families can come together to celebrate. There’s good music, delicious food, fun and games, and time to bond as a community. A small team is organized as the neighborhood party committee. To show your commitment to the party, every household is asked to contribute a commitment fee. Conscious that not everybody has the same financial circumstances, households contribute according to their household size and income, along with their house’s equity level. As the party draws near, the committee announces that they will use the pooled funds to purchase the drinks. However, they announce a pot-luck style contribution for the food. A list of food requirements is distributed, and households sign up to bring their dishes, with households allowed to bring as much or as little as they are able to bring, as long as their contribution can feed at least one person. The day of the party, everyone is excited! It’s a full house as guests arrive with their contributions, and music is blasting through the venue. The MC takes the microphone and gets the party started. Everyone is excited, some people are dancing, drinks are being served, and everyone is mingling happily. The food station also opens, and the announcer reminds guests to scan the QR code on the wristband they were given upon arrival to use as the ticket to get their portioned food. Nothing more is said. As the line quickly forms, people get to the station, scan their wristbands, and are served their food. Some households walk up to the station: a family of four gets fifty plates of food, a family of eight gets two plates of food, a family of six gets ten plates of food, a family of two gets one plate of food. Everyone soon becomes perplexed. What is happening? “This is a potluck, don’t we just serve ourselves based on what is available, and what we like and want?” At the beginning, everyone is trying to keep the peace. But soon, a small boy breaks the ice as he wants ice cream and his family has only been allocated one burger and nothing else. He begins to cry and is evidently very upset. The mother is flustered by all the commotion and tries to plead with the servers to see if her son can get an ice cream. However, the server remains adamant and says no. The allocation is system-generated and no exceptions can be made at this stage. A few other people join the commotion and begin to demand answers as to why food is being allocated in the way it is. The committee chairperson comes to the microphone and seeks to clarify the food is allocated according to how much each household paid as commitment fee. So, households who paid more get a bigger allocation of food, and those who paid less get less. “This is ridiculous,” most think. “We came together to have a party, to enjoy ourselves as a community. We all agreed to bring food to share, why would the sharing now be based on our contributions?” This notion destroyed the very objective of why the party had been put together, which was to build a sense of community and oneness.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, International Monetary Fund, and Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

85. Unlocking Reform Capacity

Author:
Thibault Camelli
Publication Date:
09-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
What does the UN80 reform initiative reveal about the limits of United Nations (UN) reform, and how can member states, UN staff, and policymakers avoid ritualized repetition while unlocking actionable reform pathways? The 2025 UN80 initiative is the most wide-ranging internal reform plan launched by the UN in over a decade. However, while its initial set of proposals demonstrates real administrative intent (merging departments, relocating offices, and reducing senior staffing), they reflect a reactive posture centered on budgetary triage, not systemic renewal. UN80 responds to a liquidity crisis, but avoids a structural recalibration of its purpose, mandates, and priorities. The result is a cycle of administrative change without political transformation. It is reform without redesign. Although still exploratory, the UN80 initiative is already receiving pushback. Some observers highlight that it recycles long-standing instruments of managerial reform. Others regret that its mapping of mandate addresses implementation and not prioritization or coherence. The most frequent criticism, however, is that member state consultation has been limited, undermining co-ownership and amplifying concerns of proceduralism: member states urge efficiency but resist structural change, while the Secretariat prioritizes viability over vision. The danger is a performative reform that narrows possibilities, repeating familiar templates without confronting foundational questions. To break the cycle, reform must be reconnected to political purpose. This paper proposes 10 recommendations to shift from reactive reform to institutional stewardship and structured intergovernmental engagement. These recommendations build on existing institutional levers, procedural tools, and political strategies, requiring no new mandates but a willingness to realign tools with political direction. The UN80 initiative comes at a pivotal moment. In an increasingly fragmented global order and declining trust in multilateralism, the stakes of UN reform are no longer limited to internal effectiveness: they now shape the UN’s external legitimacy, operational relevance, and political credibility. If reform remains decoupled from political ambition and absorbed procedurally, it risks being yet another empty exercise with little structural impact. UN80 is an opportunity, but only if reform is reclaimed as a political act.
Topic:
United Nations, Reform, Budget, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

86. AI for Justice and Justice for AI: Why Access to Justice Enables Better AI Governance

Author:
Nate Edwards
Publication Date:
09-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
The rapid development of emerging technology and artificial intelligence (AI) offers opportunities to create a more equal, just and inclusive world, but only if governance systems move in concert with innovation. To leverage the positive potential of AI, the multilateral system needs to utilize the tools already at its disposal. These tools include the capacity to set normative frameworks, institutionalize universal values, and facilitate collective action among diverse stakeholders. In particular, years of research, policy frameworks, partnership development, and programming to advance the sustainable development agenda (Agenda 2030) could become an asset to maximize the positive potential of the AI revolution. These longstanding efforts will not only benefit from new technologies, but they also offer tributaries by which the positive potential of AI can flow. One such effort is the international movement to provide equal access to justice for all by reshaping the way we think about justice and promoting a people-centered approach to addressing actual legal needs (SDG16.3). A world where everyone has equal access to justice would naturally complement more equal and inclusive AI governance. In fact, when designing new frameworks to regulate emerging technology, policymakers must use an approach that mitigates power imbalances at the individual and institutional levels, undercutting the risks of elite capture through increased accessibility of technology and its use. At the global level, too often the multilateral system is one step behind the world’s next challenge, and ill-prepared to recover from misaligned incentives, power imbalances, and unfettered capture. Focusing on justice could help the system catch up. This analysis makes a two-pronged argument: Strong, well-designed legal systems, with the principle of equal access to justice for all at the center, could support a more balanced, inclusive, and equitable AI revolution, while increasing access to the benefits of technology to everyone. Therefore, the multilateral system should prioritize equal access to justice for all as a way to facilitate the positive potential of AI. Reciprocally, an inclusive and equitable AI revolution could increase equal access to justice for all.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

87. Who’s Telling the Story on Inequality?

Author:
Raquel Jesse
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
A look at how rising inequality has been reframed by anti-rights movements—and why reclaiming the narrative is essential to building a just future The past four decades have witnessed an unprecedented surge in wealth inequality and left us buffeted by one financial crisis after another. As we stand on the brink of yet another recession, a historic realignment in the global order, unfolding in real time, has made the world more unpredictable and transactional than ever. One consequence of this larger trend of instability has been the emergence of a ‘new’ wave of anti-rights leaders and movements in the aftermath of the 2007–2009 global financial crash. These movements defy easy categorization—often labeled as ‘populist right-wing,’ ‘autocratic,’ ‘fascist,’ ‘illiberal democracy,’ or ‘far-right’— but what they share is a common playbook; a willingness to offer answers to the widespread fear, anxiety, and grievances people are experiencing. Yes, they wield significant economic, social, and cultural capital, and despite often inconsistent messaging, they’re often the loudest (and often the only) voices addressing these concerns, albeit through distorted narratives of inequality, class struggle, and identity politics. They frame society as a struggle against a corrupt elite that is more invested in “woke” agendas than ordinary families. As a result, division and polarization have become the dominant response to rising precarity and distrust, and indeed, inequality. This new CIC perspectives piece explores the following themes: When Policy Fails: The Strategic Rise of (Not So) Reactionary Economics; The Vicious Cycle of Inequality and Division; Pattern Recognition: People Know When They Are Being Left Behind; When the System Really Works—But Only for the Few; Inequality by Design: The Policies that Transferred Wealth to the Top; The Crisis in Multilateralism Didn’t Start Today; Reclaiming the Fight Against Inequality.
Topic:
Economics, Inequality, Multilateralism, and Exclusion
Political Geography:
Global Focus

88. It Is Time for Delegations to Unite on Tackling Inequality: Addressing Structural Challenges in Financing for Development Negotiations

Author:
Fernando Marani and Betty N. Wainaina
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
As the international community prepares for the upcoming Fourth Financing for Development (FfD4) conference in Sevilla, Spain, the issue of inequality continues to stand out. Since 2020, the global economic landscape has undergone profound shifts, marked by the growth of extreme wealth concentration, heightened geopolitical competition, and a crisis of multilateralism. In this context, inequality has not merely become a social concern but a structural impediment to sustainable development and global economic stability. Extreme wealth inequality is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. In just the past year, billionaires’ wealth grew by USD 1 trillion—three times faster than in previous years. That did not happen by accident; it is the outcome of policy choices that have systematically favored capital accumulation over equitable growth. The colonial legacy has continued as USD 30 million is extracted per hour from the Global South to the Global North, further entrenching economic disparities between countries. As a multifaceted issue that ranges from material inequalities at the domestic level to the unequal distribution of decision-making power in multilateral organizations, inequality shapes the very foundations of the global economy. Addressing these disparities is therefore not just a matter of fairness but a prerequisite for effective and inclusive solutions in any framework for Financing for Development.
Topic:
Development, Inequality, Exclusion, and Development Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

89. Hashtag Feminism or the Illusion of Progress

Author:
Alice Viollet
Publication Date:
08-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
Gender equality has gone corporate. Empowerment is trending, and institutions are fluent in the language of inclusion—but when feminism becomes a marketing strategy, what happens to real power, policy, and progress? Behind the glossy branding lies a troubling truth: institutional inaction, stalled reforms, and a persistent refusal to confront structural inequality. Despite gender equality marketing and feel-good narratives being louder than ever, the situation for women has not seen significant improvement in the past 15 years. This is not genuine progress; this disconnect between visibility and substance is a form of genderwashing —a superficial promotion of women’s rights through marketing and virtue signaling without meaningful, long-term material changes in policies, workforce structures, or decision-making representation. Genderwashing follows the same rhetorical pattern as “greenwashing” or “whitewashing:” it describes the practice of promoting an image of support for gender equality—for instance through public relations (PR) campaigns, social media posts, or branding—without enacting meaningful structural change. Genderwashing is about optics over action; it occurs when companies, organizations, institutions or public figures express support for women’s rights or gender equality, particularly on high-profile occasions such as International Women’s Day, without implementing real, substantive changes to correct gender imbalances, not even within their own structures.
Topic:
Women, Media, Inequality, Leadership, and Feminism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

90. Safeguarding U.S. interests in a Ukraine war settlement

Author:
Jennifer Kavanagh
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
The United States should pursue a peace deal in Ukraine that serves America’s best interests, even when these diverge from its European partners. The primary U.S. objective should be to achieve a “lasting peace” that endures over the long term. A final settlement of the Ukraine war should address five key issues: territory; ceasefire terms; arrangements for Ukraine’s future security; stabilizing relationships between Russia and NATO and Russia and the United States; and mutual assurances between Russia and Ukraine. Full resolution of all five dimensions would not be required to end a “hot war,” however. Issues of territory will be determined on the battlefield, and any ceasefire should be maintained with a demilitarized zone and some combination of a neutral, international monitoring force and remote and autonomous technologies, lke drones and sensors. Offering Ukraine a binding security commitment is not in U.S. interests, whether through NATO or otherwise. Instead, the best option is “armed neutrality,” which would leave Ukraine without external guarantees but help it build a credible, self-sufficient deterrent—with Europe leading the provision of military aid. Mutual security assurances between Ukraine and Russia, including restrictions on locations of forces and weapons, can reduce the risk of renewed conflict. The Trump administration should use willingness to talk about the future U.S. role in Europe’s security as a bargaining chip to get Russia to make necessary concessions. The United States gives up little by discussing these issues of high political value to Russia. Some changes in U.S. posture in Europe may also advance U.S. efforts to shift defense burdens to allies and partners.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Strategic Interests, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and United States of America

91. Grand strategy: The limits of military force

Author:
Christopher McCallion
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Since the Cold War, the United States has engaged in a number of military conflicts abroad, yet despite its preponderant military power, it has been unable to translate force into political success, especially when it comes to nation-building. In the absence of another great power to constrain it, the United States initiated regime change wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but by the same token it lacked an external imperative to devote the resources needed to achieve its ambitious nation-building goals. As costs and casualties mounted, public opinion soured. Policymakers thought U.S. technological superiority would keep casualties in these conflicts low and the attractiveness of liberal values would make nation-building easier. They underestimated how much coercive power would be needed on the ground to maintain order and the popular consent necessary for legitimate governments to emerge. Later attempts to intervene abroad with limited or no boots on the ground, as in Libya and Syria, were similarly unsuccessful, leaving vacuums of power, failed states, and long-term civil wars. Policymakers need to become more sober about the limits of military power. The United States’ abundant security means that it would benefit from more diplomacy and deal-making with adversaries, rather than threatening to overthrow or sanction their regimes.
Topic:
Security, Cold War, Regime Change, Grand Strategy, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

92. Achieving burden-sharing: Retrenchment vs. conditionality

Author:
Brian Blankenship
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Observers and practitioners are frequently frustrated at the level of defense burden-sharing in U.S. alliances—alliance members’ contributions to collective defense objectives—and particularly at allies’ low level of investment in their own defense. This paper compares two approaches to soliciting burden-sharing in U.S. alliances: retrenchment and conditionality. Retrenchment refers to reductions in the amount or timing of wartime assistance the United States will provide to allies, including troop withdrawals. Conditionality, in turn, relies on threats to abandon allies unless they increase their defense efforts and does not necessarily entail reducing protection. Retrenchment may offer the greatest chance of success, particularly in cases where allies doubt the credibility of the United States’ threats to abandon them. Conditionality is likely to be nearly as effective as retrenchment in many other cases, particularly those in which allies take the U.S. threat of abandonment seriously and there is a compelling external threat. Retrenchment and conditionality can be complementary strategies. Retrenchment is effective in cases where conditionality is likely to fail, while conditionality is effective in cases where the United States might be unwilling to retrench due to fears that a revisionist power might seek regional hegemony. Burden-sharing is not without its downsides, including allies potentially desiring nuclear weapons. These risks might be greater if the United States retrenches but may not materialize in practice and are not necessarily insurmountable.
Topic:
NATO, Alliance, Defense Spending, and Burden Sharing
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

93. Military policy toward China: The case against overreaction

Author:
John Mueller
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
It is often argued that the policies of containment and military deterrence worked against the Soviet threat during the Cold War, and many have urged applying these same policies to China today. However, it is not clear that containment was all that successful during the Cold War nor is it clear that it should now be applied to China. Should it pursue the “hegemonic” ambitions often attributed to it, China, like the USSR, may prove its own worst enemy by overstretching its resources and provoking its neighbors. In any case, China does not seem to harbor hegemonic ambitions. Its existing gestures at global influence, like the Belt and Road Initiative, are in disarray and unlikely to work. Rather than rushing to more forcefully contain or balance China, the United States should let China make its own mistakes. Doing nothing or next to nothing against a perceived threat isn’t always wise or politically popular but in this case it’s the most rational choice. The U.S. can wait for China to mellow while warily profiting from China’s economic size and problems to the degree possible and expanding mutually beneficial exchange. The U.S. can also help Taiwan prepare to defend itself while maintaining that the island is independent so long as it doesn’t say so.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Hegemony, Deterrence, and Containment
Political Geography:
China and Asia

94. Target Taiwan: Limits of allied support

Author:
Lyle Goldstein
Publication Date:
10-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
The United States is counting on its allies for assistance in defending Taiwan, but alliances are hardly a cure-all for Taiwan’s defense. Australia has fought alongside America in every war for the last century, but there is little reason to think Canberra’s participation in a Taiwan scenario would make a serious difference, even taking into account the much-heralded AUKUS deal of 2021. South Korea is a powerful U.S. ally, and India is a growing and important partner, but neither is likely to meaningfully participate in a prospective Taiwan war. While certain East Asian countries, such as the Philippines, can offer access to advantageous locations, they will add no genuine military capability. Nor will European forces be involved at any more than a symbolic level. Japan is far and away the most important of America’s allies with respect to Taiwan, and Tokyo has been pushing hard for Washington to more fully embrace Taiwan’s defense. However, it’s unlikely Tokyo is ready to pull its weight in a war with China over Taiwan. Instead, Japan would likely opt for a middle way, refraining from dispatching military forces while allowing U.S. forces to use its bases.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Partnerships, Alliance, and AUKUS
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, South Korea, Philippines, and United States of America

95. Target Taiwan: One China and cross-strait stability

Author:
Lyle Goldstein
Publication Date:
10-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Washington should not move away from the One China policy, as doing so would increase the risk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” remains appropriate to the volatile cross-strait situation, but some policymakers overestimate the U.S. defense commitment to Taiwan. Recent administrations have taken steps to undermine the One China policy as part of an American strategy to counter China across the board, but this has had the deleterious effect of causing the U.S. and China to come to the brink of war over Taiwan. A realist approach to the Taiwan issue accepts and even seeks to strengthen both strategic ambiguity and the One China policy. In doing so, it increases the odds of negotiated solutions to disagreements while ensuring U.S. military forces are in a less vulnerable and volatile defense posture in the Asia-Pacific region.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Armed Forces, Invasion, and Strategic Ambiguity
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, and Asia

96. Preparing for a Fourth Year of War: Military Spending in Russia’s Budget for 2025

Author:
Julian Cooper
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
The Russian government has been devoting an ever-increasing volume of resources to the war with Ukraine, while attempting to maintain normality for its citizens. Russia has maintained an almost balanced budget because the economy has been growing at a rapid pace, despite tough international sanctions. The challenge in preparing the budget for 2025–27 was to continue this balance as the economy showed signs of overheating and the Central Bank attempted to cool it, creating problems for businesses. Despite diminished budget transparency, Russia’s total planned military expenditure in 2025 can be estimated at 15.5 trillion roubles, a real-terms increase of 3.4 per cent over 2024 and equivalent to 7.2 per cent of gross domestic product. This level of spending should be manageable, but budgetary pressures could mount. A growing share of total military spending lies outside the budget chapter ‘National defence’, including spending on social support. This is rendering ‘National defence’ an ever more unreliable proxy for Russian military spending. In addition to military expenditure, the budget includes war-related spending on territory occupied in Ukraine and its own border regions.
Topic:
Budget, Military Spending, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia and Eurasia

97. Impact of Military Artificial Intelligence on Nuclear Escalation Risk

Author:
Vladislav Chernavskikh and Jules Palayer
Publication Date:
06-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
Increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into military systems has the potential to influence nuclear escalation even when that integration occurs outside nuclear weapon systems. Non-nuclear applications of military AI may compress decision-making timelines, potentially increasing miscalculation risks during a crisis. Opaque recommendations from an AI-powered decision-support system can bias a decision maker towards acting, while autonomy in a system with counterforce potential may undermine strategic stability by threatening the integrity of second-strike capabilities. Such uses of AI raise the fundamental question of whether they introduce new risks, exacerbate existing ones or fundamentally alter the nature of nuclear escalation. Contextual and socio-technical factors that might affect nuclear escalation pathways can help to answer this question. Understanding these dynamics is essential for using current risk-reduction measures or developing new strategies to address nuclear escalation risks posed by military AI.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Artificial Intelligence, Military, Armament, and Nuclear Security
Political Geography:
Global Focus

98. Clearing the Path for Nuclear Disarmament: Confidence-building in the Korean Peninsula

Author:
Tytti Erästö
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
This paper explores possibilities for building confidence in the Korean peninsula to address the conflict dynamics and militarization in the region. It argues that a key reason for the failure of past diplomatic efforts has been the coercive approach in pursuit of immediate nuclear disarmament in North Korea. In addition to a more incremental approach to North Korean–United States nuclear diplomacy focused on arms control, the paper highlights the need for reciprocity in terms of sanctions relief, as well as more robust confidence-building measures aimed at reducing instability and addressing the security rationales behind North Korea’s nuclear policy. At the same time, it proposes embedding nuclear diplomacy into a broader framework of cooperative risk reduction and arms control that also includes South Korea and possibly other regional actors. If sustained over time, such a framework could ultimately also promote nuclear disarmament alongside the normalization of political relations between key conflict parties.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Disarmament, and Confidence Building Measures
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

99. Advancing Governance at the Nexus of Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear Weapons

Author:
Fei Su, Vladislav Chernavskikh, and Wilfred Wan
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
The rapid advancement of military artificial intelligence (AI), especially its potential integration into nuclear systems, presents significant risks to strategic stability and established deterrence practices. Despite these concerns, no dedicated governance framework currently exists to address the specific challenges of the AI–nuclear nexus. Existing initiatives have primarily focused on ensuring human control over nuclear decision-making. There are a number of state-led initiatives on the governance of military AI more broadly. They can be adapted to address the use of AI in nuclear weapons, but applying them will not be straightforward. There is thus a need to extend the conversation beyond the ‘human in the loop’ concept and develop targeted governance measures. Future discussions could investigate the precise level and degree of required human control and set clear red lines for both the extent and the type of AI integration in nuclear and related systems.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Governance, Disarmament, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

100. Azerbaijan Gets Bolder: How It Won Back Its lands, the Lesssons for Others, and What Comes Next for the South Caucasus

Author:
Zaur Shiriyev
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency has accelerated the fraying of the old world order, causing headaches for many states. But a confident Azerbaijan seems less affected by such uncertainty - for now. It sees itself as outside rival camps: neither east nor west, neither global north nor south. It is not strongly beholden to any major power and, for the first time, it is territorially complete. Azerbaijan, flush from its military victory in 2023, when it won back its long-cherished Nagorno-Karabakh region from Armenian separatists, now wields power not just in the South Caucasus, but in the wider region, including Central Asia. It got here slowly, by carefully pursuing balancing acts for three decades, primarily to avoid full alignment with either the West or its former colonial master, Russia – unlike most of its neighbors. Staying aloof, Baku sought to maximize support from major powers in its conflict with Armenia as they competed to woo it into their spheres of influence. Taking back former Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent territories that the Armenians had long occupied was Azerbaijan’s overriding national security objective since independence from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.1 The return of the last of this territory — in a one-day offensive in September 2023— healed the wound that had festered as the core of a long-standing conflict with Armenia, and boosted Azerbaijan’s regional position. It has also triggered a search for a post-Karabakh identity for Azerbaijan, which is redefining its foreign-policy priorities and national identity. The conflict’s resolution has also sparked debate about what lessons, if any, other countries might learn from Azerbaijan’s strategy. However, some misguided assumptions – such as the belief that Baku had won Russia’s covert approval for its military actions – have led to flawed conclusions. In Georgia, for example, some politicians argue that the lesson from the Karabakh war is that an agreement over breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia could be reached if Tbilisi pursues closer ties with the Kremlin.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Territorial Disputes, Armed Conflict, and Regional Politics
Political Geography:
Caucasus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, South Caucasus, and Nagorno-Karabakh