Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Si nos sociétés pouvaient se résumer à un grand corps numérique, les data centers en seraient le cœur. Véritables « usines à données », ils assurent le stockage, le traitement et la distribution des informations qui irriguent notre quotidien. Sans eux, pas de cloud, pas d’intelligence artificielle, pas de services publics numériques performants. Mais ces […]

African states and regional organizations have increasingly turned to new forms of African-led security arrangements that differ in mandate, composition, and structure from African Union (AU)–led peace support operations. These ad hoc security initiatives (ASIs) and enterprise security arrangements (ESAs) have provided flexible and rapid responses to complex security threats. However, they are heavily militarized and poorly aligned with evolving frameworks for the protection of civilians (POC).  

This issue brief examines how ASIs and ESAs, while offering speed and adaptability, often lack civilian components, rely on external support, and do not consistently draw on a coherent normative framework for POC. As a result, protection frequently becomes secondary to counterinsurgency objectives, creating logistical weaknesses, alienating local populations, and reinforcing perceptions that protection is transactional or secondary to other interests. The brief highlights emerging practices—such as Rwanda’s deployment in Mozambique and the Multinational Joint Task Force’s Civil-Military Cooperation Cell—that suggest the potential for more protection-conscious approaches, though these remain uneven and underdeveloped.  

The brief concludes that ASIs and ESAs are likely to remain features of Africa’s security landscape, but their effectiveness will remain limited unless they systematically integrate AU and UN POC frameworks. Stronger pre-deployment planning, the inclusion of AU civilian cells in the field, and alignment with broader political strategies are essential to ensure that these mechanisms contribute not only to counterinsurgency but also to the protection of civilians. 

Download

The post The Role of Ad Hoc Security Initiatives and Enterprise Security Arrangements in the Protection of Civilians in Africa appeared first on International Peace Institute.

With UN peacekeepers increasingly deployed in areas experiencing local-level conflicts that do not involve state forces, responding to communal violence has become an acute challenge for missions. Such contexts require peace operations to adopt a dialogue-based approach to the protection of civilians (POC), focused specifically on local political solutions. 

This issue brief examines the engagement of the UN mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) in the town of Batangafo, where communal violence between Christian and Muslim communities has been pervasive. It highlights how MINUSCA’s dialogue-based engagement helped reduce violence and strengthen local peace agreements. It identifies four lessons: 

• Protecting civilians in the context of communal conflict requires political solutions—not just military ones.
• Continuous and proactive dialogue helps to prevent escalation and reinforce peace agreements. 
• Economic incentives can be leveraged to encourage armed groups to commit to peace. 
• Sustainable protection depends on aligning local and national peace processes. 

Download

The post Political Solutions to Political Problems: UN Peacekeeping Operations and Dialogue-Based Protection of Civilians in Communal Conflicts appeared first on International Peace Institute.

UN peacekeeping missions are often criticized for failing to act when civilians are under threat. Yet recent empirical evidence suggests that peacekeepers can and do respond to violence by adjusting where and how they deploy forces in the field. This issue brief examines patterns of subnational deployment across African missions from 2012 to 2022, focusing on whether and how missions with protection of civilians (POC) mandates adjust their military presence in response to attacks on civilians. The findings indicate that peacekeeping missions are more likely to strengthen their presence in areas experiencing recent violence—especially violence perpetrated by non-state armed groups—but also respond to state-led violence, albeit less consistently. This responsiveness highlights the operational flexibility some missions can exercise and challenges the assumption that host-state consent fully constrains the implementation of POC mandates. The brief also underscores the need to assess peacekeepers’ behavior not only in terms of mandate design but also in terms of how missions adapt on the ground. 

The brief concludes with important considerations for peacekeeping stakeholders committed to POC: 

• Missions are often actively protecting civilians, with operational flexibility as a key ingredient.
• Host-state consent can constrain action, but missions can still act decisively; sustaining political consensus on POC is crucial. 
• Mandates and planning frameworks must allow dynamic deployments so missions can adapt to evolving threats. 

Download

The post Being Present Where It Counts: Peacekeeping Responsiveness to Violence against Civilians appeared first on International Peace Institute.

Den Eskalationen eines "existenziellen Konflikts" begegnen.

This paper applies the concepts and theories of “policy norms” to the disruptive effects of the second Trump administration on global development cooperation. We argue that recent US actions represent more than a domestic political shift. They signal a tipping point to longstanding norms of the development cooperation system and specifically multilateralism as well as notions of global solidarity. This paper’s objective is to explain how, why and through which political and institutional mechanisms policy norms break down or are reconstituted in global development cooperation. It uses the current moment as a case study of “norm antipreneurship”, potentially even “norm imperialism” illustrating the political and institutional strategies through which policy norms are currently been contested, dismantled or displaced. This paper addresses a set of questions: (i) What are the core mechanisms through which development cooperation norms are formed, contested and fragmented? (ii) How is the second Trump administration seeking to reshape normative regimes in development cooperation? (iii) What research agenda is needed to understand norm change in a multipolar and contested development cooperation landscape?

Andy Sumner is Professor of International Development at King’s College in London and President of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.

This paper applies the concepts and theories of “policy norms” to the disruptive effects of the second Trump administration on global development cooperation. We argue that recent US actions represent more than a domestic political shift. They signal a tipping point to longstanding norms of the development cooperation system and specifically multilateralism as well as notions of global solidarity. This paper’s objective is to explain how, why and through which political and institutional mechanisms policy norms break down or are reconstituted in global development cooperation. It uses the current moment as a case study of “norm antipreneurship”, potentially even “norm imperialism” illustrating the political and institutional strategies through which policy norms are currently been contested, dismantled or displaced. This paper addresses a set of questions: (i) What are the core mechanisms through which development cooperation norms are formed, contested and fragmented? (ii) How is the second Trump administration seeking to reshape normative regimes in development cooperation? (iii) What research agenda is needed to understand norm change in a multipolar and contested development cooperation landscape?

Andy Sumner is Professor of International Development at King’s College in London and President of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.

This paper applies the concepts and theories of “policy norms” to the disruptive effects of the second Trump administration on global development cooperation. We argue that recent US actions represent more than a domestic political shift. They signal a tipping point to longstanding norms of the development cooperation system and specifically multilateralism as well as notions of global solidarity. This paper’s objective is to explain how, why and through which political and institutional mechanisms policy norms break down or are reconstituted in global development cooperation. It uses the current moment as a case study of “norm antipreneurship”, potentially even “norm imperialism” illustrating the political and institutional strategies through which policy norms are currently been contested, dismantled or displaced. This paper addresses a set of questions: (i) What are the core mechanisms through which development cooperation norms are formed, contested and fragmented? (ii) How is the second Trump administration seeking to reshape normative regimes in development cooperation? (iii) What research agenda is needed to understand norm change in a multipolar and contested development cooperation landscape?

Andy Sumner is Professor of International Development at King’s College in London and President of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.

Gemeinsam mit Italien und Griechenland versucht die EU-Kommission, irreguläre Ankünfte von Migranten über Libyen zu reduzieren. Diese Bemühungen kommen zu einem Zeitpunkt, an dem mehrere Komponenten der EU-Migrationspolitik in Libyen als gescheitert gelten müssen. Das gilt besonders für Versuche, die Zustände in den Internierungszentren zu mildern sowie die Lage von Arbeitsmigranten und Geflüch­te­ten im Land insgesamt zu verbessern. Welche Widerstände die europäische Migra­tionspolitik hervorruft, zeigte zuletzt eine Kampagne der libyschen Behörden gegen vermeintliche Bestrebungen der EU, Migranten auf Dauer im Land anzusiedeln. Was bleibt, ist der harte Kern europäischer Politik: Vereinbarungen mit Gewalt­akteuren, um Überfahrten zu verhindern, sowie die Unterstützung für Abfangoperationen auf See und Rückführungen in Herkunftsländer. Diese EU-Politik ist untrennbar mit dem libyschen System willkürlicher Internierung verknüpft, das kriminellen Interessen dient. Europäische Versuche, sich von diesem System zu distanzieren, sind unglaubwürdig und stehen einer Bewertung der politischen Kosten im Wege.

Are climate treaties, like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the Paris Agreement, the only way forward for intergovernmental climate cooperation? By now, there are hundreds of multilateral treaties governing a wide range of environmental issues, including energy, freshwater, oceans, air pollution, biodiversity conservation, hazardous waste, agriculture and fisheries. This policy brief examines whether the 379 multilateral environmental treaties that do not primarily address climate change can nevertheless contribute to advancing climate commitments.
We find that decisions adopted under environmental treaties have increasingly mainstreamed climate considerations since 1990. Today, climate-related decisions account for around 10% of regulatory decisions adopted under environmental treaties across different issue areas. Some treaty regimes are particularly active in addressing climate change, such as those focused on energy, freshwater and habitats, with up to 60% of their decisions addressing climate change. In contrast, treaties regulating agriculture and fisheries demonstrate a notably lower level of engagement in climate mainstreaming.
These findings demonstrate that environmental treaties that do not specifically focus on climate change can still contribute to shaping climate governance, albeit to varying degrees. This policy brief concludes with a set of recommendations for researchers, treaty negotiators, secretariats, governments and climate activists seeking to advance intergovernmental cooperation on climate change through means other than climate treaties.
Key policy messages:
Non-climate-focused treaties can serve as a means for developing climate mitigation and adaptation commitments, notably through decisions adopted by their respective bodies. Yet, there is room for increased climate mainstreaming in those decisions. Various actors can contribute to such mainstreaming:
• Researchers could further investigate why some conferences of the parties (COPs) are more receptive to climate concerns than others and what potential trade-offs are associated with climate mainstreaming in environmental treaties.
• Treaty negotiators can favour cross-cutting mandates that enhance policy coherence across interconnected environmental challenges, enabling a more integrated approach to environmental decision-making. They can also design dynamic collective bodies, able to adopt decisions swiftly when new issues or information arise.
• Governments can appoint climate experts in non-climate COPs and advisory committees and report climate-related aspects of their implementation of non-climate treaties.
• Treaty secretariats can coordinate joint initiatives and promote knowledge exchange across climate and other environmental regimes.
• Climate activists can intensify their engagement with non-climate COPs by participating in consultations, submitting position papers, and collaborating with sympathetic delegates to amplify the climate relevance of treaty decisions.

Annabelle Olivier is a PhD student in Political Science at the University of British Columbia.
Jean-Frédéric Morin is Full Professor at the Political Science Department of Université Laval, Canada

Are climate treaties, like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the Paris Agreement, the only way forward for intergovernmental climate cooperation? By now, there are hundreds of multilateral treaties governing a wide range of environmental issues, including energy, freshwater, oceans, air pollution, biodiversity conservation, hazardous waste, agriculture and fisheries. This policy brief examines whether the 379 multilateral environmental treaties that do not primarily address climate change can nevertheless contribute to advancing climate commitments.
We find that decisions adopted under environmental treaties have increasingly mainstreamed climate considerations since 1990. Today, climate-related decisions account for around 10% of regulatory decisions adopted under environmental treaties across different issue areas. Some treaty regimes are particularly active in addressing climate change, such as those focused on energy, freshwater and habitats, with up to 60% of their decisions addressing climate change. In contrast, treaties regulating agriculture and fisheries demonstrate a notably lower level of engagement in climate mainstreaming.
These findings demonstrate that environmental treaties that do not specifically focus on climate change can still contribute to shaping climate governance, albeit to varying degrees. This policy brief concludes with a set of recommendations for researchers, treaty negotiators, secretariats, governments and climate activists seeking to advance intergovernmental cooperation on climate change through means other than climate treaties.
Key policy messages:
Non-climate-focused treaties can serve as a means for developing climate mitigation and adaptation commitments, notably through decisions adopted by their respective bodies. Yet, there is room for increased climate mainstreaming in those decisions. Various actors can contribute to such mainstreaming:
• Researchers could further investigate why some conferences of the parties (COPs) are more receptive to climate concerns than others and what potential trade-offs are associated with climate mainstreaming in environmental treaties.
• Treaty negotiators can favour cross-cutting mandates that enhance policy coherence across interconnected environmental challenges, enabling a more integrated approach to environmental decision-making. They can also design dynamic collective bodies, able to adopt decisions swiftly when new issues or information arise.
• Governments can appoint climate experts in non-climate COPs and advisory committees and report climate-related aspects of their implementation of non-climate treaties.
• Treaty secretariats can coordinate joint initiatives and promote knowledge exchange across climate and other environmental regimes.
• Climate activists can intensify their engagement with non-climate COPs by participating in consultations, submitting position papers, and collaborating with sympathetic delegates to amplify the climate relevance of treaty decisions.

Annabelle Olivier is a PhD student in Political Science at the University of British Columbia.
Jean-Frédéric Morin is Full Professor at the Political Science Department of Université Laval, Canada

Are climate treaties, like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the Paris Agreement, the only way forward for intergovernmental climate cooperation? By now, there are hundreds of multilateral treaties governing a wide range of environmental issues, including energy, freshwater, oceans, air pollution, biodiversity conservation, hazardous waste, agriculture and fisheries. This policy brief examines whether the 379 multilateral environmental treaties that do not primarily address climate change can nevertheless contribute to advancing climate commitments.
We find that decisions adopted under environmental treaties have increasingly mainstreamed climate considerations since 1990. Today, climate-related decisions account for around 10% of regulatory decisions adopted under environmental treaties across different issue areas. Some treaty regimes are particularly active in addressing climate change, such as those focused on energy, freshwater and habitats, with up to 60% of their decisions addressing climate change. In contrast, treaties regulating agriculture and fisheries demonstrate a notably lower level of engagement in climate mainstreaming.
These findings demonstrate that environmental treaties that do not specifically focus on climate change can still contribute to shaping climate governance, albeit to varying degrees. This policy brief concludes with a set of recommendations for researchers, treaty negotiators, secretariats, governments and climate activists seeking to advance intergovernmental cooperation on climate change through means other than climate treaties.
Key policy messages:
Non-climate-focused treaties can serve as a means for developing climate mitigation and adaptation commitments, notably through decisions adopted by their respective bodies. Yet, there is room for increased climate mainstreaming in those decisions. Various actors can contribute to such mainstreaming:
• Researchers could further investigate why some conferences of the parties (COPs) are more receptive to climate concerns than others and what potential trade-offs are associated with climate mainstreaming in environmental treaties.
• Treaty negotiators can favour cross-cutting mandates that enhance policy coherence across interconnected environmental challenges, enabling a more integrated approach to environmental decision-making. They can also design dynamic collective bodies, able to adopt decisions swiftly when new issues or information arise.
• Governments can appoint climate experts in non-climate COPs and advisory committees and report climate-related aspects of their implementation of non-climate treaties.
• Treaty secretariats can coordinate joint initiatives and promote knowledge exchange across climate and other environmental regimes.
• Climate activists can intensify their engagement with non-climate COPs by participating in consultations, submitting position papers, and collaborating with sympathetic delegates to amplify the climate relevance of treaty decisions.

Annabelle Olivier is a PhD student in Political Science at the University of British Columbia.
Jean-Frédéric Morin is Full Professor at the Political Science Department of Université Laval, Canada

Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-nbpvcs").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-nbpvcs").fadeIn(300);});});

On September 16th, IPI in partnership with the Asia Society, hosted a reception to open the exhibit of the global WISH TREE project by Yoko Ono.

Since 1996, Yoko Ono has invited people from around the world to write their personal wishes and tie them to a tree branch as WISH TREE.

WISH TREE is an interactive art installation by the artist Yoko Ono where participants write wishes for peace on tags and tie them to a tree’s branches. These wishes become a visual testament to collective hope and continue on in connection with Ono’s IMAGINE PEACE TOWER in Reykjavík, Iceland.

The project invites people to reflect on peace and unity, transforming the tree into a symbol of global aspiration.

Welcoming Remarks:
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, President and CEO, International Peace Institute (IPI)
Debra Eisenman, Executive Vice President & COO, of The Asia Society; Founding Director & Senior Fellow, Asia Society Policy Institute

Opening Remarks:
Katia Mead, Representative of IPI’s Art for Peace Committee; and Director of the US Nominating Committee, Praemium Imperiale

The post Art for Peace: IPI’s Exhibit of the “WISH TREE” by Yoko Ono appeared first on International Peace Institute.

Barbara Stacherl hat am 9. September ihre Dissertation mit dem Titel „‚Spatial Healthcare Access: Measurement, Health-Related Outcomes, and Healthcare Utilization“ mit summa cum laude erfolgreich an der Universität Bielefeld abgeschlossen. Die Dissertation hat Barbara im Rahmen des ...

The number of Indian migrants in Germany has risen sharply in recent years. In particular, they are helping alleviate the shortage of skilled workers in STEM professions. For Germany, India is the most important country of origin for labour and education migration. Currently, the profile of migration to Germany is changing: fewer experts are entering on the EU Blue Card (which, until recently, was the most important residence permit for skilled workers), while more students, trainees and professionally qualified people are coming to look for jobs or have their qualifications recognised by the Ger­man authorities. The Migration and Mobility Partnership Agreement (MMPA) concluded by Berlin and New Delhi in 2022 does not expand the German legal frame­work for recruiting skilled workers through the provision of new access routes. However, it does improve the practical implementation of self-organised migration from India – for example, by speeding up visa procedures. The MMPA Joint Working Group offers the opportunity not only to en­gage in a dialogue with the Indian government aimed at harnessing the full potential of increasing migration but also to address the challenges that have arisen from that trend, including the inadequate regulation of private recruitment agencies. The example of India shows that Germany’s external infrastructure and migration-related development cooperation must be used much more effectively in countries of origin in order to develop new approaches to the fair and successful recruitment of skilled workers for the German labour market. Migration cooperation is a bridge builder in German-Indian relations, which are becoming increasingly important. Key areas of bilateral col­laboration – such as digitisation, artificial intelligence and climate pro­tection – should be systematically linked to knowledge exchange and the mobility of skilled professionals in these sectors.

Klimawandel, soziale Spaltung, psychische Belastung: Viele junge Menschen in Deutschland fühlen sich nicht gesehen. Wer ihre Zukunft sichern will, muss jetzt handeln. , Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar – so beginnt unser Grundgesetz. Doch viele junge Menschen in Deutschland zweifeln, ob dieses Versprechen für sie noch gilt. Selten zuvor stand eine Generation in unserem Land vor so vielen gleichzeitigen Krisen: Klimawandel, geopolitische Konflikte, wachsende ...