A decade after the adoption of the ‘Concept on Strengthening EU Mediation and Dialogue Capacities’, the EU presented the new ‘Concept on EU Peace Mediation’ in December 2020. Despite the 2009 concept’s importance for strengthening EU mediation capacities, there had been a persistent plea for updating the mediation concept in order to better outline the EU’s priorities and objectives in peace mediation and adapting them to a new geopolitical context. The new concept clearly delivers on these points.
The birth of the EU’s new concept on mediation and its enhanced ambition sensibly align with the EU’s unveiled ambition for a greater ‘geopolitical’ role. As the new concept underlines, the EU’s peace mediation efforts add to its geopolitical power and should not be seen as opposed to a vision of the EU becoming a more assertive global actor. Although the new framework is a positive step towards a politically and operationally more coherent EU mediation practice, open questions remain regarding the political and institutional conditions of an effective practical implementation of the new concept.
Going forward, the EU should further invest in institutionalising cooperation with member states in mediation, improve communication practices regarding its mediation activities and mainstream the mediation concept into its strategic and programming documents.
A decade after the adoption of the ‘Concept on Strengthening EU Mediation and Dialogue Capacities’, the EU presented the new ‘Concept on EU Peace Mediation’ in December 2020. Despite the 2009 concept’s importance for strengthening EU mediation capacities, there had been a persistent plea for updating the mediation concept in order to better outline the EU’s priorities and objectives in peace mediation and adapting them to a new geopolitical context. The new concept clearly delivers on these points.
The birth of the EU’s new concept on mediation and its enhanced ambition sensibly align with the EU’s unveiled ambition for a greater ‘geopolitical’ role. As the new concept underlines, the EU’s peace mediation efforts add to its geopolitical power and should not be seen as opposed to a vision of the EU becoming a more assertive global actor. Although the new framework is a positive step towards a politically and operationally more coherent EU mediation practice, open questions remain regarding the political and institutional conditions of an effective practical implementation of the new concept.
Going forward, the EU should further invest in institutionalising cooperation with member states in mediation, improve communication practices regarding its mediation activities and mainstream the mediation concept into its strategic and programming documents.
A decade after the adoption of the ‘Concept on Strengthening EU Mediation and Dialogue Capacities’, the EU presented the new ‘Concept on EU Peace Mediation’ in December 2020. Despite the 2009 concept’s importance for strengthening EU mediation capacities, there had been a persistent plea for updating the mediation concept in order to better outline the EU’s priorities and objectives in peace mediation and adapting them to a new geopolitical context. The new concept clearly delivers on these points.
The birth of the EU’s new concept on mediation and its enhanced ambition sensibly align with the EU’s unveiled ambition for a greater ‘geopolitical’ role. As the new concept underlines, the EU’s peace mediation efforts add to its geopolitical power and should not be seen as opposed to a vision of the EU becoming a more assertive global actor. Although the new framework is a positive step towards a politically and operationally more coherent EU mediation practice, open questions remain regarding the political and institutional conditions of an effective practical implementation of the new concept.
Going forward, the EU should further invest in institutionalising cooperation with member states in mediation, improve communication practices regarding its mediation activities and mainstream the mediation concept into its strategic and programming documents.
¿Qué causas y consecuencias tiene y puede tener la creciente presencia de tropas rusas en la frontera con Ucrania?
“At the IMF we recognize that the climate actions we take in our institution and globally are paramount for our future. We have embraced climate in everything we do.” — Kristalina Georgieva, December 2020
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has only recently started to acknowledge that climate change may be a “macro-critical” factor, that is, crucial to the achievement of macroeconomic and financial stability, which is at the core of the Fund’s mandate. In 2015, the IMF identified climate change as an “emerging structural issue”. In November 2015, then Managing Director Christine Lagarde recog-nized that “[t]he Fund has a role to play in helping its members address those challenges of climate change for which fiscal and macroeconomic policies are an important component of the appropriate policy response” (Lagarde 2015: 1). Upon assuming office in October 2019, the IMF’s new Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, acknowledged the centrality of climate change for the Fund’s work: “The criticality of addressing climate change for financial stability, for making sure that we can have sustainable growth, is so very clear and proven today, that no institution, no individual can step from the responsibility to act. For the IMF, we always look at risks. And this is now a category of risk that absolutely has to be front and center in our work” (IMF 2019). Since then, she has reiterated the importance of climate change for the IMF’s mandate countless times.
“At the IMF we recognize that the climate actions we take in our institution and globally are paramount for our future. We have embraced climate in everything we do.” — Kristalina Georgieva, December 2020
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has only recently started to acknowledge that climate change may be a “macro-critical” factor, that is, crucial to the achievement of macroeconomic and financial stability, which is at the core of the Fund’s mandate. In 2015, the IMF identified climate change as an “emerging structural issue”. In November 2015, then Managing Director Christine Lagarde recog-nized that “[t]he Fund has a role to play in helping its members address those challenges of climate change for which fiscal and macroeconomic policies are an important component of the appropriate policy response” (Lagarde 2015: 1). Upon assuming office in October 2019, the IMF’s new Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, acknowledged the centrality of climate change for the Fund’s work: “The criticality of addressing climate change for financial stability, for making sure that we can have sustainable growth, is so very clear and proven today, that no institution, no individual can step from the responsibility to act. For the IMF, we always look at risks. And this is now a category of risk that absolutely has to be front and center in our work” (IMF 2019). Since then, she has reiterated the importance of climate change for the IMF’s mandate countless times.
“At the IMF we recognize that the climate actions we take in our institution and globally are paramount for our future. We have embraced climate in everything we do.” — Kristalina Georgieva, December 2020
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has only recently started to acknowledge that climate change may be a “macro-critical” factor, that is, crucial to the achievement of macroeconomic and financial stability, which is at the core of the Fund’s mandate. In 2015, the IMF identified climate change as an “emerging structural issue”. In November 2015, then Managing Director Christine Lagarde recog-nized that “[t]he Fund has a role to play in helping its members address those challenges of climate change for which fiscal and macroeconomic policies are an important component of the appropriate policy response” (Lagarde 2015: 1). Upon assuming office in October 2019, the IMF’s new Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, acknowledged the centrality of climate change for the Fund’s work: “The criticality of addressing climate change for financial stability, for making sure that we can have sustainable growth, is so very clear and proven today, that no institution, no individual can step from the responsibility to act. For the IMF, we always look at risks. And this is now a category of risk that absolutely has to be front and center in our work” (IMF 2019). Since then, she has reiterated the importance of climate change for the IMF’s mandate countless times.
En la Cuba de hoy existen dos perspectivas claramente diferenciadas sobre el racismo y la desigualdad racial. Este análisis permite destacar las formas en que distintos datos pueden mostrar un panorama completamente diferente sobre la desigualdad racial en un contexto dado.
Este análisis aborda los últimos acontecimientos políticos de Brasil: el juicio por la parcialidad de Sergio Moro, la situación descontrolada de la pandemia, la reforma ministerial de Bolsonaro y su crisis con las fuerzas armadas.
Since the parliamentary elections in October 2020, Georgia’s government and opposition have found themselves in a political deadlock. This is evidenced above all by the fact that the majority of elected opposition parties have boycotted entering parliament. The country is not only facing domestic political challenges. The war over Nagorno-Karabakh has also changed the regional constellation. While Russia and Turkey have positioned themselves as influential actors in the region, the EU has been barely visible. For Georgia, which is the only country in the South Caucasus to have clear EU and NATO ambitions, this change is a potential threat to its pro-Western course. Tbilisi continues to have high expectations of the EU, which claims to be a geopolitical actor. Both the new regional context and the Georgian domestic political crisis should be an inducement for the EU to engage more with its eastern neighbourhood, and especially to give new impetus to its relations with Euro-Atlantic orientated Georgia.