Search

Begin New Search Topic Conflict Political Geography Europe

361. Hacia un nuevo y diferente «Flanco Sur» en el Gran Magreb-Sahel

Author:
Raquel Barrás and Pablo Rey García
Publication Date:
10-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
La unión de espacios subgobernados, la corrupción, el crimen organizado y terrorismo es la amenaza a la que se enfrenta la UE y sus estados miembros en el Gran Magreb, el cual está recreando un nuevo y diferente Flanco Sur al que existía durante la Guerra Fría. El aumento de la actividad extremista en la región del Sahel-Sáhara a partir de 2005 ha ido en paralelo con el crecimiento de las redes de crimen organizado transnacional a través del área. Aunque hay un intenso debate sobre su relación, intensidad e impacto, es una dinámica innegable en el área. La UE no tiene realmente una política unificada Magreb-Sahel y en términos de crimen organizado y terrorismo, el Sahel no se puede separar del Magreb. Hay una comprensión limitada y parcial del problema tanto en términos de amenazas como en soluciones viables, ampliado irremediablemente por la acción de Boko Haram y desbordando la visión, proyección y estrategia de la UE. A pesar del "Sahel Regional Action Plan 2015-2020", las medidas tomadas son reducidas, muy recientes y probablemente insuficientes y tardías desde el punto de vista de la dinámica y sinergia entre terrorismo-crimen organizado en un contexto de corrupción. La UE sigue manteniendo un enfoque seguridad-desarrollo, básicamente en una concepción de seguridad humana, a pesar de que este enfoque es altamente discutible para enfrentarse a este tipo de amenazas.
Topic:
Terrorism, European Union, Conflict, Hybrid Warfare, and Organized Crime
Political Geography:
Europe, North Africa, Morocco, and Sahel

362. Full Issue: Emerging Domains of Security

Author:
Meg Guliford, Thomas McCarthy, Alison Russell, Michael M. Tsai, Po-Chang Huang, Feng-tai Hwang, Ian Easton, Matthew Testerman, Nikolas Ott, Anthony Gilgis, Todd Diamond, Michael Wackenreuter, Sebastian Bruns, Andrew Mark Spencer, Wendy A. Wayman, and Charles Cleveland
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The theme of this special edition is “Emerging Domains of Security.” Coupled with previously unpublished work developed under a prior “Winning Without War” theme, the articles therein honor Professor Martel’s diverse, yet forward-leaning, research interests. This edition maintains the journal’s four traditional sections of policy, history, interviews, and current affairs. Our authors include established academics and practitioners as well as two Fletcher students, Nikolas Ott and Michael Wackenreuter. Each of the articles analyzes critical issues in the study and practice of international security, and our authors make salient arguments about an array of security-related issues. The articles are borne out of countless hours of work by FSR’s dedicated editorial staff. I deeply appreciate the time and effort they devoted to the publication of this volume. They are full-time graduate students who masterfully balanced a host of responsibilities.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Intelligence, International Cooperation, International Law, History, Military Affairs, Counter-terrorism, Cybersecurity, Navy, Conflict, Space, Interview, Army, Baath Party, and Norms
Political Geography:
China, Iraq, Europe, Middle East, Taiwan, Germany, Asia-Pacific, Global Focus, and United States of America

363. OSCE Principles in Practice: Testing Their Effect on Security Through the Work of Max van der Stoel, First High Commissioner on National Minorities 1993–2001

Author:
Marianna M. Yamamoto
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
Abstract:
This monograph tests the OSCE approach to security. The OSCE approach to security encompasses all areas that can cause tensions and conflict between States, and is the result of a sustained effort by almost all of the world’s democracies on how to achieve both security and individual freedom. An important basis of the OSCE security concept is that international security cannot be achieved without the protection and promotion of individual rights and freedoms. The study first extracts from official OSCE documents a set of principles designed to achieve international security, and then uses the work of the first OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), Max van der Stoel, to test the effectiveness of the principles in practice. From 1993 to 2001, HCNM Max van der Stoel applied OSCE principles in cases involving minority tensions with a high potential for international conflict, and this experience provided the means to assess the practical effects on security when OSCE principles are implemented. The study examined three cases that involved potential conflict: Ukraine and separatism in Crimea; Estonia and tensions regarding the Russian minority; and Macedonia and tensions regarding the Albanian minority. The study found that in each of the three cases, the implementation of OSCE principles reduced national and international tensions involving minority issues, and increased security. The increase in security was seen within each State, between States, and in the region, and reduced the potential for conflict within and between OSCE States. The results were particularly significant in view of the instability, conflicts, and tensions of the post–Cold War period; the OSCE’s ongoing institutionalization during the period; and the limited resources and tools available to the OSCE and the HCNM. The study identified and articulated twenty OSCE security principles that addressed national and international security. The principles addressed the rights and responsibilities of State sovereignty; a comprehensive, cooperative, and common security approach; the prevention of security threats and the peaceful resolution of issues; the protection and promotion of individual rights and freedoms through democracy, the rule of law, and the market economy; rights and responsibilities pertaining to national minorities; the development and advancement of shared values; and processes and mechanisms. The monograph extended the research on the OSCE principles to express an OSCE security concept. The OSCE security concept is a security framework based on the idea that security depends on the development and implementation of principles guiding three areas: how States deal with each other and resolve problems; the protection and promotion of individual rights within States; and the processes and mechanisms to review and advance values, principles, and commitments. The study showed that the implementation of OSCE principles in Ukraine, Estonia, and Macedonia significantly increased security in those three countries and the OSCE region. The study found that the OSCE principles and the OSCE security concept constitute a significant body of thought and practice regarding security, and respect for the individual. The OSCE principles, the OSCE security concept, and the work of the High Commissioner on National Minorities merit further examination, development, and application to national security policy and practice. The application to national security policy and practice is relevant to all security threats and problems.
Topic:
Security, Cold War, International Cooperation, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Estonia, Macedonia, and Crimea

364. Externalizing the Crisis: Buffer Zones Around the EU

Author:
Emma Burström
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Political Trends Center (GPoT)
Abstract:
With the Syrian civil war soon entering its fifth year of armed conflict, the European Union is facing the largest influx of people in its history. Over 710,000 refugees and irregular migrants, of which a majority were Syrians, entered EU territory in the first 3 quarters of 2015 only (FRONTEX, 2015). Despite several informal top-level meetings between the EU member states and a pledge to relocate 160,000 refugees from the two main reception countries Greece and Italy, concrete action has yet to be taken and, as of yet, less than two hundred have been resettled within the EU (European Commission (d), 2015). Attempts to manage the influx of refugees and irregular migrants on a supranational level have been met with resistance from the governments of the member states. As the situation deteriorates and the number of people arriving shows no sign of abating, the member states are desperately looking outside the EU for solutions. Hoping to persuade transit countries to participate in refugee protection, and to contribute to stronger borders, the EU is engaging in various projects and negotiations focusing on its near abroad, with the aim of creating a buffer against the migrants. This policy update will briefly explore the history and implementation of these buffer zones, from the visa restrictions during the Yugoslav wars in the 90’s to the increasing use of ‘safe third countries’ today. Further, the positive and negative aspects of these buffer zones will be examined with the objective of: 1) detecting the possible risks of human rights violations, poverty, and insecurity, that closed border could cause; and 2), highlighting the potential benefits to the refugees and irregular migrants, the host countries, and the refugee sending countries, that could be the result of well-constructed policies.
Topic:
European Union, Refugees, Conflict, and Syrian War
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, and Syria

365. Avrupa Birliği’nin Filistin Politikası | European Union’s Palestine Policy

Author:
Fatma Zehra Toçoğlu
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Sakarya University (SAU)
Abstract:
Bu çalışmada Avrupa Birliği’nin Ortadoğu’ya olan ilgisi ve bu bağlamda Filistin-İsrail meselesine yaklaşımı incelenmektedir. Avrupa Birliği’nin kuruluşuna kısaca değinildikten sonra dış politika konusunda yapmış olduğu çalışmalar ele alınacaktır. AB’nin genişleme sürecinden sonra komşuları ile güçlü ilişkiler kurmak için oluşturduğu Avrupa Komşuluk Politikası birimi ile sınırları dışındaki bölgelere olan ilgisi artmış, Filistinİsrail çatışmasında ortak bir dış politika belirleme çabasında olmuştur. AB kendisi için siyasi, stratejik ve ekonomik nedenlerden dolayı daima önemli bir bölge olarak gördüğü Ortadoğu ve özelde Filistin konusunda özel politikalar geliştirmiştir. Son zamanlarda Avrupa Birliği üye ülkeleri Filistin’i devlet olarak tanımayı gündemlerine aldı. Bu çerçevede makalede Avrupa Birliği’nin Filistin politikasının ekonomik ve siyasi yaklaşımları ortaya konulacaktır. | In this article, the question of how the EU is established and what kind of studies the EU undertook concerning foreign policy so far, is briefly discussed. The interest of the European Union in the Middle East is examined regarding the approach of the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. After the enlargement process, the EU has increased its interest in areas outside the borders of the EU Neighborhood Policy in order to build strong relationships with its neighbors and made efforts to define a common policy for the Palestine-Israel conflict. The EU developed particular policies for the Palestinian issue and the Middle East that are sprung from political, strategic and economic reasons. Recently, some EU member states put the recognition of the state of Palestine on their agenda. In this context, the EU’s approach toward the historical process of Palestine and the Palestinian issue is explored in this article.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, European Union, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

366. Crisis – Order – Europe: Germany Steps Up

Author:
Gary Soroka
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
Germany recently issued the results of a year-long review of foreign policy titled “Crisis – Order - Europe”. The principal conclusions are: crises - unpredictable and dangerous - are the new norm; the multilateral system is unable to meet the demands placed upon it; and Germany’s relationship with Europe has to be factored into every major policy discussion. The German Foreign Ministry will be restructured to improve policy development and delivery in these three areas. The wider context for the review is that the traditional foreign policy heavyweights within Europe - France and Britain - are not able or willing to play the role they used to, while the USA is overstretched in a number of global hot spots and so Germany must assume greater responsibility. The German population, however, fears that deeper engagement on “hard” security issues could drag the country into foreign conflicts, and so a major effort will be made to build public support for a German international role commensurate with its growing economic and political power.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Affairs, Conflict, and Multilateralism
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

367. The Authoritarian Resurgence: Forward to the Past in Russia

Author:
Lilia Shevtsova
Publication Date:
04-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Democracy
Institution:
National Endowment for Democracy
Abstract:
The Russian system of personalized power has demonstrated the ability to reproduce itself by both imitating and containing the West. In its quest for survival, the system has used foreign policy to a) compensate for the Kremlin’s diminishing resources, and b) contain the West’s impact inside and outside of Russia. The Kremlin’s continued experiments with new “technology” to prolong the system’s life include not only repression but also information warfare, as is seen in the development of a pro-Kremlin lobbyist network in the West to support the left-right “International.”
Topic:
Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, Conflict, and Disinformation
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and North America

368. A Look Back at NATO’s 1999 Kosovo Campaign: A Questionably "Legal" but Justifiable Exception?

Author:
Ralph R. Steinke
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
It was the last European war in a bloody century of European wars. Less than ten years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the 1999 Kosovo War—Operation Allied Force, as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) referred to it—was unique in many respects. From the perspectives of both international law and the law of armed conflict, it significantly challenged the limits of jus ad bellum, the international laws of war governing the circumstances under which nations are permitted to use force, as well as jus in bello, the laws of war relating to proper conduct in war.[1] After decades of a NATO-Warsaw Pact standoff in Europe and proxy wars elsewhere it was not self-defense, but rather humanitarian considerations, that drew the NATO Alliance, with the United States in the forefront, into this conflict. While the seventy-eight-day NATO bombing campaign captured the world’s attention, not long after its conclusion this military operation began to fade from the public memory. Beyond the Balkans, a little more than two years after the Kosovo War’s conclusion, the traumatic events of September 11, 2001, would virtually remove global examination and recollections of the Kosovo conflict from the agenda. The United States and much of the world embarked on an entirely new, 21st century ideological and combative struggle: fighting the scourge of terrorism. Nevertheless, the Kosovo War has alternatively been referred to as a reference point by Americans who have sought a response to the Syrian conflict as well as by Vladimir Putin as justification for his claims to Crimea and the “protection” of Russian nationals. Some sixteen years after the Kosovo conflict and Operation Allied Force, it is worth asking: are there any insights to be recalled and gained from this conflict? What has been the war’s effect on the law of international armed conflict to date? Is Mr. Putin right to refer to the Kosovo campaign as his justification for the use of force, either implied or explicit, in Crimea or greater Ukraine? It will be argued here that in spite of significant concern and warnings then that the Kosovo campaign would provide a dangerous precedent for international law and even global stability,[2] it has had a nominal if not negligible effect on the body of international law as informed by jus ad bellum. In spite of Mr. Putin’s attempts to try to identify it as a precedent, the Kosovo campaign was indeed an exception. While it was characterized as a messy and “ugly” affair,[3] it did accomplish what it intended to do: stop the killing of potentially tens of thousands of Kosovar Albanians and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands more from Kosovo, ultimately providing them with a better and more secure life than was possible in the pre-Kosovo campaign period.
Topic:
NATO, War, Conflict, and Collective Defense
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Kosovo, and Syria

369. Kosovo 1999 and Crimea 2014: Similarities and Differences

Author:
Pál Dunay
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
Since the so-called Kosovo conflict of 1999 the views of states, including those of major players, have been divided as to whether it was a humanitarian intervention or the collective aggression of NATO member states. In 2014 the Russian Federation annexed Crimea and Sevastopol (formally separate entities) to its territory. Since then the argument has shifted and the current disagreement centers around how we should assess these two changes of territorial status quo (Kosovo and Crimea) in Europe. The situation is further complicated as states wish to present their actions as moral and legal (the general expectation is that they do so). This results in a situation where the dominant discourse is supposed to support the aspirations of states both in the east and in the west. The main effort of each party goes in countering the other’s position. It is difficult to get hold of a reliable set of facts, as these are presented selectively by the different parties. A further challenge arises in that different fields are not kept distinct from one another, and hence the legal and political analyses are often used interchangeably and with insufficient differentiation. This is aggravated by the fact that the so-called normative approach to international (and domestic) politics prevails in the analysis. Every state feels compelled to prove that it acts in full accordance with international norms, including legal rules and moral predicaments. However, any attempt to correctly analyze the change of the territorial status quo in the two cases mentioned above requires the contrary: keeping the different aspects strictly separate and only synthesizing the results in the conclusions. In this article I endeavor to keep the legal analysis separate from the political and moral assessment and wish to state in advance that they do not necessarily manifest in the same direction. Moreover, when the topic of analysis is as politically heavy-loaded as the change of territorial status quo in Europe, the international legal assessment must be disaggregated further. Namely, there is the positive international law as it exists, de lege lata, as adopted by the states or as it appears as jus cogens. There is also international law that does not exist, yet about which we speak as de lege ferenda with a view to its future evolution. Such differentiation will be particularly relevant in this case due to the swift evolution of norms in the area of humanitarian intervention relevant as point of reference in the case of Kosovo and the ambiguous content of the right to self-determination in the case of Crimea. International law has a further characteristic feature. Namely, its development cannot flexibly follow historical changes. This is particularly noticeable when major historical changes occur at a rapid pace. This was the case before and during World War II and more recently as the Cold War came to an end. The international system changed and international law in some areas did not follow. The gap between the international system and international law, where the latter forms part and parcel of the former, has widened. Furthermore, universal international law most often requires the consent of states in various regions of the world. This presents a challenge as states often profess different values and their value judgment serves different interests. It is the purpose of this article to present the legal situation that underlies the two cases, the position of the main actors, and attempt to draw separate conclusions as regards the assessment de lege lata and de lege ferenda.
Topic:
NATO, Imperialism, Conflict, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Kosovo, and Crimea

370. Prospects of Ukrainian-Russian Relations

Author:
Hanna Pashkova
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
National Security and Defence
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
The “hybrid” war of Russia against Ukraine has continued since February 2014. To date, the multiple efforts of international diplomacy, unfortunately, have not resulted either in settlement or even in a “freeze” of the situation in eastern Ukraine. The previous Minsk Agreements adopted in September 2014 (Minsk Protocol and Minsk Memorandum) were disrupted and Russian aggression in Donbas continued. On 12 February 2015, the presidents of Ukraine, France, Germany, and Russia agreed on a new document, “Package of Measures for Implementation of the Minsk Agreements”, which envisaged conflict settlement by the end of 2015. However, implementation of these measures was postponed to 2016 and, given the course of events, has actually become a process which is difficult to forecast and which is indefinite in time.1 It should be noted that on the one hand, the situation in eastern Ukraine has not undergone significant changes for the better – hostilities are ongoing. There are persistent fundamental differences in the positions of the two sides, Ukraine and Russia, on conflict resolution. (In particular, implementation of the Minsk Agreements in line with the Russian scenario threatens to destabilise the internal situation in Ukraine and destroy its statehood.) On the other hand, the international situation is rapidly changing; we see further escalation of international terrorism (the terrorist attacks in Paris), the “migration crisis” in the EU, Russia’s military intervention in Syria, and the gaining momentum of the acute conflict of Moscow and Ankara. This dulls the perception of events in Donbas on the part of the international community, renders these events a somewhat “background” nature in the West, and urges attempts to “freeze” the situation there at any cost, including at the expense of Ukraine’s own interests. Meanwhile, Russia proceeds with military expansion in Donbas, aimed at the destruction of Ukrainian statehood, and now there is no reason to expect a change for the better in the Kremlin’s policy. Thus, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict (which has a regional and global dimension) acquires a long-term nature with recurrent escalation and unpredictable consequences. Russian aggression – the annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine – has entailed profound changes in bilateral relations: (а) the legal framework of Kyiv and Moscow relations has been destroyed; (b) institutional mechanisms of state-to-state relations have been destroyed; (c) contacts at the highest level have become impossible, political and diplomatic relations have become confrontational; (d) Ukraine has suffered huge human, economic, and territorial losses; (e) an unprecedented curtailment of economic cooperation has taken place; (f) deep alienation between the peoples of Ukraine and Russia has emerged. The previous official ideology of “strategic partnership”, “fraternal peoples”, and “neighbourliness”, embedded in many joint agreements, has lost its sense.2 A new political-ideological reality has emerged in the relations between Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, a new assessment and review of the nature, ideology, and general institutional system of relations with Russia in key areas (politics, security, economy, energy, humanitarian sphere, etc.) is required, given that the main threat to Ukrainian statehood is the current government in place in the Russian Federation. There is a need to design a new conceptual model of coexistence with Putin’s Russia, which would reflect current realities and prospects of bilateral relations and would take into account the position of Western partner countries and international organisations. However, it is important to keep in mind at least two things. First, one should clearly distinguish the current Putin’s regime and the country of Russia as it is and its society. Second, in rebuffing Russian aggression, a strategic goal should be seen – to restore confidence and interest of the societies of both countries in peaceful coexistence and respect the right of each state to determine the state system in the country and its civilisation development vector.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Economics, Energy Policy, Bilateral Relations, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine