Search

You searched for: Content Type Commentary and Analysis Remove constraint Content Type: Commentary and Analysis Publication Year within 10 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 10 Years Topic Treaties and Agreements Remove constraint Topic: Treaties and Agreements
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Miroslav Tuma
  • Publication Date: 01-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: Institute of International Relations Prague
  • Abstract: The New START Treaty, which limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, will expire in February 2021. According to the assessment of most arms control experts and, for example, the former US and Russian Foreign Ministers, the non-extension of the New Start Treaty will have a number of negative effects. What are the possibilities of the subsequent development if the last US-Russian control-arms contract New START is not extended? And what would that mean for strategic use of the universe? The unfavorable security situation in the world in recent years is characterized, among other things, by deepening crisis of the bilateral arms-control system between the USA and Russia, built since the 1970s. The urgency of addressing this situation is underlined by the fact that both countries own about 90% of all nuclear weapons that they modernize, introduce new weapon systems into their equipment, and reduce the explosiveness of nuclear warheads and thus their declared applicability in regional conflicts. The culmination of this crisis may be the expiry of the US-Russian New START treaty which limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads and strategic carriers. Concerns about the consequences of non-prolongation are, among others, raised by the expected disruption of space strategic stability, which could occur as a result of eventual termination of the complex verification system. In addition to notifications, the exchange of telemetry and information, on-the-spot inspections, etc., the termination would relate in particular to the contractual non-interference in the verification work carried out by National Technical Means (NTMs).
  • Topic: Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements
  • Political Geography: Russia, Eurasia, North America, United States of America
  • Author: Joseph de Weck
  • Publication Date: 05-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: Foreign Policy Research Institute
  • Abstract: Do you want to know how Beijing would like Europe to act? Take a look at Switzerland. Switzerland and China have been close for decades. It was the first Western nation to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in January 1950. Bern wanted to protect investments in the new People’s Republic from nationalization and hoped Swiss industry could lend a hand in rebuilding China’s infrastructure after the civil war. Being friendly to China paid off, but only 30 years later, once reformer Deng Xiaoping took the reins of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In 1980, Swiss elevator producer Schindler was the first foreign company to do a joint venture in China. Today, Switzerland is the only continental European country to have a free trade agreement (FTA) with China.
  • Topic: International Relations, Foreign Policy, International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations
  • Political Geography: China, Europe, Asia, Switzerland, Sweden
  • Author: Maximilian Hess
  • Publication Date: 11-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: Foreign Policy Research Institute
  • Abstract: Armenia’s accession to a Russian-mediated settlement with Azerbaijan over their long-running conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, known as Artsakh to Armenians, on November 10 marks a major, perhaps irreversible, loss for Yerevan. But it is not just Armenian forces who stand defeated. It also marks the trouncing of a liberal approach to the region and the supremacy of realist power politics.
  • Topic: Treaties and Agreements, Territorial Disputes, Armed Conflict
  • Political Geography: Eurasia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh
  • Author: Ryoji Tateyama
  • Publication Date: 03-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: Japan Institute Of International Affairs (JIIA)
  • Abstract: At the end of January, US President Trump announced a Middle East peace proposal that he himself lauded as "the deal of the century". The introduction to this peace proposal called "A Vision for Peace" stresses that it would "create a realistic two-state solution" because it addresses "today's realities" surrounding the Palestinian issue. However, the nature of this proposal differs greatly from two-state solutions previously pursued by the US and the international community as a whole. Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed the Oslo Accord in September 1993. The concept underlying that accord was a two-state solution in which an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem would be established in the West Bank of the Jordan River (hereinafter, "the West Bank") and the Gaza Stripboth of which have been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and would co-exist with Israel. Circumstances in the West Bank and Gaza have changed greatly over the past 27 years, however, and the prospects for a two-state solution have mostly perished. In that sense, the Trump peace plan can be said to have struck the final fatal blow that killed the two-state solution.
  • Topic: Treaties and Agreements, Negotiation, Peace
  • Political Geography: Middle East, Israel, Palestine, United States of America
  • Author: Hirofumi Tosaki
  • Publication Date: 11-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: Japan Institute Of International Affairs (JIIA)
  • Abstract: On October 24, 2020, Hondulas deposited its instrument of ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), bringing the number of countries that have ratified the treaty to over 50. In accordance with Article 15, the Treaty will thus enter into force 90 days later, that is, on January 22, 2021. The TPNW, which was adopted at the UN General Asembly in July 2017 with the approval of 122 countries, is the first treaty on nuclear weapons to prohibit its States Parties to (a) develop, test, produce, manufacture, acquire, possess, or stockpile, (b) transfer, (c) receive, (d) use or threaten to use, (e) assist, encourage, or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party, (f) seek or receive any assistance from anyone, to engage in any activities prohibited to a State Party, and (g) allow any stationing, installation, or deployment of nuclear weapons (Article 1). Considering the enthusiasm of the proponent countries and NGOs, including the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), at the time of the adoption of the TPNW, it looks to have taken some time for the Treaty to come into effect. In addition, at the time of writing, the signatories were limited to 84 countries. Furthermore, Sweden and Switzerland, both of which voted in favor of its adoption, have stated their intentions not to sign the Treaty at present. Nevertheless, given the challenging situation surrounding nuclear disarmament, including the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the difficulty of extending the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), proponents of the TPNW are exploring ways of using this opportunity of its entry into force to increase the number of States Parties and reinvigorate international and domestic public opinion.
  • Topic: Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Disarmament
  • Political Geography: Global Focus
  • Author: Yuko Ido
  • Publication Date: 12-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: Japan Institute Of International Affairs (JIIA)
  • Abstract: On September 15, 2020, a joint statement was issued in Washington concerning Israeli peace agreements with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain (The Abraham Accords Declaration). These agreements brought to four the number of Arab nations that have official diplomatic relations with Israel, the first two being Egypt (since 1979) and Jordan (since 1994)1. US President Trump himself praised these as "historic agreements"; however, there was no Palestinian representative at this celebration. These agreements mainly focus on strengthening economic and security relations among the participating countries, and they have encountered both supporting and opposing views within the international community. In particular, Iran and Turkey, which are at odds with Saudi Arabia and the UAE in the region, have strongly criticized the agreements, saying they run counter to resolving the Palestinian Question. Many readers might recall the Camp David Accords of about 40 years ago that led to the first peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Let us now compare the two peace efforts and consider what the meaning of the 'Arab Cause' has been.
  • Topic: Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements
  • Political Geography: Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, United States of America
  • Author: James M Dorsey
  • Publication Date: 01-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: The Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies (BESA)
  • Abstract: Last week’s inauguration of a new Egyptian military base on the Red Sea was heavy with the symbolism of the rivalries shaping the future of the Middle East as well as north and east Africa.
  • Topic: Treaties and Agreements, United Nations, Geopolitics, Conflict
  • Political Geography: Africa, Middle East, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Red Sea
  • Author: Ophir Falk
  • Publication Date: 11-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: American Diplomacy
  • Abstract: Peace is a universal value, the highest virtue in Jewish tradition, and cherished by anyone longing for a brighter future for his children. Pragmatic Muslim leaders are no exception and with the recently reached “Abraham Accords’, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel have proven that Peace for Peace is possible.
  • Topic: Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Peace
  • Political Geography: Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America
  • Author: Imad K. Harb
  • Publication Date: 11-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: American Diplomacy
  • Abstract: The recent agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Sudan will not help the cause of regional peace.
  • Topic: Conflict Prevention, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Peace
  • Political Geography: Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Arab Countries, United Arab Emirates
  • Author: Jeremy Pressman
  • Publication Date: 09-2020
  • Content Type: Commentary and Analysis
  • Institution: Political Violence @ A Glance
  • Abstract: How do the Bahrain-Israel-UAE agreements signed on September 15 demonstrate a shift in the Arab-Israeli peacemaking paradigm? While the basic differences from past agreements such as the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty (1979) are very significant, the new agreements also suggest a major shift for potential pathways to Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution. Directly trading Arab normalization with Israel for Israeli concessions to the Palestinians is out; alternative pathways include everything from Palestinian surrender to Emirati persuasion to Israeli societal transformation.
  • Topic: Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Peacekeeping, Trade
  • Political Geography: Israel, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates