Unter dem Leitmotiv »Global Britain« versucht die britische Regierung, den Brexit als einzigartige Möglichkeit darzustellen, die eigene Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik neu zu konzipieren, und zwar globaler, einflussreicher und schlagkräftiger. Kernelemente sind eine weltweite Vernetzung und bilateral verhandelte Abkommen, die den Verlust der europäischen Einbettung kompensieren sollen. Doch scheint der anstehende Brexit die britische Außenpolitik bislang eher zu schwächen und dem künftigen Nicht-EU-Staat vor allem die Grenzen seiner Handlungsfähigkeit aufzuzeigen. Für Europa kann ein geschwächter und verunsichert handelnder Nachbar zu einem Risiko werden. Um London auch in Zukunft einzubinden, sollte Deutschland parallel zu den Brexit-Verhandlungen seine bilateralen Beziehungen intensivieren und neue Formate für die außenpolitische Konsultation in Europa vorschlagen.
The 2015 UN High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) stressed two major themes that Secretary-General António Guterres continues to focus on: first, the primacy of politics in peacekeeping, which he raised in his September 2017 remarks at the Security Council open debate on peacekeeping; and second, the core obligation of peacekeepers and the entire UN to protect civilians, a continuous theme of his tenure.
Yet protecting civilians and pursuing political strategies, the defining tasks of modern peacekeeping, have frequently been in tension. Critics argue that peace operations in the last two decades have too often been tools of last resort, deployed to conflicts with no viable political process and serving as stop-gap measures rather than strategic steps toward a political solution. This is particularly evident in missions whose mandate to protect has been prioritized in the absence of a clear political vision to address the conflict.
This issue brief reviews the complementarity and tension between protection of civilians and political strategies. It explores the important role of the Security Council in laying the strategic groundwork for the success of missions, and examines how missions, at their level, can implement protection of civilians mandates through a political strategy.
jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-ecfmaw").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-ecfmaw").fadeIn(1000);});});
Counterterrorism measures are developed to ensure individual and collective security in response to terrorist attacks, but there is growing evidence that counterterrorism measures can infringe upon the protection of civilians by inhibiting the provision of assistance. This tension was the subject of an IPI policy forum on May 23rd, entitled, “The Protection of Civilians in Counterterrorism Contexts: Safeguarding the Space for Principled Humanitarian Action,” and co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Peru to the United Nations.
Marine Buissonnière, a consultant and the former Secretary-General of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without Borders (MSF), said that humanitarian assistance, which follows principles of International Humanitarian Law, faces new challenges to protecting civilians in a post-9/11 international environment. Although former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon promoted a resolution that entitled health workers to provide care in all circumstances without incurring any form of harassment or sanctions, health workers, over two years later, continue to face issues for providing “impartial” care, serving all people regardless of their identity, she said.
The ethical dilemma that humanitarian actors and international lawmakers now face, she said, is that healthcare professionals find themselves “cornered, caught between counterterrorism laws that can criminalize their duties to impartially treat all, and International Humanitarian Law ethics and International Human Rights Law.”
In this context, what is new is not the criminalization of healthcare, she said, “but how counterterrorism frameworks, in a sense, appear to have strengthened the basis–moral and legal–to justify harassment, arrests, and prosecutions” against medical professionals. The “vague and broad” definitions of terrorism and support to terrorists have enabled some people to interpret medical treatment as a form of “illegitimate support,” thereby criminalizing those who offer assistance, even though under International Humanitarian Law such assistance is considered to be principled humanitarian action.
“When ethics and International Humanitarian Law are not prioritized by both those seeking and those providing medical care,” she said, the act of providing impartial medical services “inevitably becomes criminalized, perpetuating a chilling effect on the provision of impartial care that is detrimental not only to those banned or to those listed as terrorists but detrimental, at the end of the day, to us all.”
Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, and chair of the Group of Friends of the Protection of Civilians, described the role of the state in addressing the negative impact that UN sanctions can have on humanitarian activities. His recommendation, from a policymaking perspective, was that “we as states should really try to do everything to address this and to avoid the dilemma between these two sets of measures.” He discussed two steps for this. “We need to raise awareness for the issue,” he said, “and secondly, come down with a set of practical measures.”
Yves Daccord, Director-General of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that criminalization of humanitarian assistance in the past two decades had changed the landscape in which humanitarian organizations operate. The effect of counterterrorism policy on the space for humanitarian action posed two issues aside from criminalization, he said. Lack of impartiality in offering medical assistance or withholding aid to those in need based on their affiliation can “create notions of good victims, who have rights to be helped, and victims who do not deserve to be helped because they are under the control of, or on the territory controlled by, a non-state armed group labeled as terrorist.”
And since building trust among communities in conflict is necessary for the provision of humanitarian assistance, he said, these distinctions are undermining the trust owed to humanitarian actors, making it impossible for them to fulfill their aim of providing assistance. “I think we’ve seen over time people challenging us more,” said Mr. Daccord. “There is a lot of tension, polarization, for an organization like the ICRC…it’s absolutely critical that they are able to demonstrate on a daily basis that they are impartial and neutral.”
Naz Modirzadeh, Director of the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, brought to light the different ways policy makers talk about the conflict between counterterrorism and humanitarian law, and the state of this debate. She highlighted the norms of International Humanitarian Law in contrast to counterterrorism measures, which, she said, “We tend to talk about…as though they are in a relationship with one another…sharing a common purpose.” But, she said, “I’d like to suggest that we avoid this misrecognition. It is not a value judgement to suggest counterterrorism and International Humanitarian Law are distinct and aim at different purposes.”
Counterterrorism, she explained, connotes a sense of urgency and immediacy whereas International Humanitarian Law tends to be decided over time and negotiated through the diplomacy of many different actors. International Humanitarian Law “presumes that there is a distinction that we must maintain between war and peace and is only applicable in situations of armed conflict,” she said. “On the other hand, counterterrorism frameworks often blur the lines between war and peace by combining elements relating to armed conflict with elements connected with the resort to force and law enforcement.”
As such, International Humanitarian Law sees humanitarian assistance and protection for people, including purported enemy civilian populations as “legitimate and indeed mandatory,” Ms. Modirzadeh explained. Under a counterterrorism framework, she said, the same support may be primarily perceived as “dangerous, because it can help free up the resources of terrorist groups.”
However, Ms. Modirzadeh saw hope for a solution in providing legal exemptions for humanitarian workers. “The idea of exemptions merits much closer attention,” she said. “I think there was a time when this was thought politically impractical or so sensitive that it was not worth having a conversation about. What I’m hearing here today is that it is indeed perhaps one of the better solutions to this dilemma and that we have good examples that we can build upon…Every counterterrorism measure from this point further should incorporate an acknowledgment, reaffirmation, and indeed, where appropriate, a very particular exemption related to principled humanitarian access where relevant.”
Ms. Modirzadeh also called for greater discussion that should involve the private sector. In response, Lise Gregoire-van Haaren, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the UN, spoke on how to reconcile the humanitarian action with the due diligence requirements by banks and governments.
“We feel that raising awareness is a very important first step,” she said. “Secondly, governments and national banking associations could provide more guidance to NGOs on how to comply with counterterrorism measures and sanction regimes.”
Closing remarks were made by Reinhard Krapp, Minister, Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN; Juan José Gómez Camacho, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN; and Gustavo Meza-Cuadra, Permanent Representative of Peru to the UN. IPI Vice President Adam Lupel moderated.
Ces rencontres, organisées à tour de rôle en binôme ou en trinôme par les différents think tanks* se déclinent à présent sur tout le territoire. La première édition se tient à Lille, le 26 mai 2018. Accueil à partir de 13h15 14h00 : Ouverture par Philippe Vasseur, président de la mission Rev3, Hauts-de-France 14h15 : Première session […]
The post Comment bâtir l’avenir économique des territoires ? appeared first on Fondapol.
With the current developments in the field of artificial intelligence, the process of digitalisation has reached a new stage. Artificial intelligence makes it possible to analyse the large amounts of data collected today in completely new ways. Companies and countries are spending considerable resources to take advantage of these analytical possibilities. However, artificial intelligence is also dependent on the quality of the underlying data; it is completely unsuited for many tasks and has, so far, largely escaped human control. Germany should therefore use its influence in international forums to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in politically sensitive areas. In addition, the Federal Government should carefully examine on what data basis, for what purposes, and under what conditions artificial intelligence can make a contribution to the planning of foreign policy strategy.
The increase of the turkish challenges in the Aegean sea and the Eastern Mediterranean, coupled with the completion of the grand armed turkish armament program, puts Greece ahead of unprecedented threats to its sovereign rights. At the same time, the changes that have been observed in the way that Turkey’s foreign policy is exercised may bring the two countries in the next few years near a war incident, as forecasted analysts believe. The Hellenic armed forces have been weakened by the ongoing finacial crisis, alongside the policy of avoiding the purchase of new weapons, because of the scandals that have dominated in armament programms in the past. Τhe correlation of power in the Aegean has begun to be overturned, and the present text has to answer, what are the appropriate measures to take in order to organize an effective national defense, taking into account all existing constraints on resources.