Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

The international order is undergoing profound change as rivalry among major powers realigns the global balance. This is also having an impact on European development policy. In many European Union (EU) member states, funding for official development assistance (ODA) is declining. At the same time, EU countries are reforming their development policies and increasingly channelling their remaining resources towards priorities that serve primarily their own interests. So far, these reforms have largely been defined bilaterally, whereas a political debate on the role, added value and joint objectives of EU development policy is largely absent. Yet, without strengthening European cooperation in development policy, Europe will not succeed in providing an adequate response to the current upheavals in global politics.
In this policy brief, we argue that reform efforts in European development policy must strengthen co-operation and complementarity to respond effectively to the changed geopolitical landscape. Our analysis identifies four key policy areas where European actors are pursuing ongoing reforms and where development policy should make significant contributions: 
1) promoting economic cooperation and private-sector engagement, 2) security policy, 3) managing and shaping migration and 4) human development including poverty reduction, particularly in least developed countries (LDCs). So far, a joint European strategic direction in these areas has been lacking. Negotiating these shared priorities requires a revitalisation of the political dialogue between EU institutions and member states, as well as further development of the “Team Europe” approach. “Team Europe 2.0” would then have two functions: to strengthen substantive complementarity “internally” through an understanding of how the various actors individually contribute to jointly defined objectives; and “externally” by making visible what Europe stands for strategically.
A key element of Team Europe 2.0 should be an improved substantive dialogue among member states and within issue-specific, informal groups co-facilitated by individual member states and the European Commission. Such “thematic champions” could initiate the development of joint strategies for larger, transformative initiatives. Improved political dialogue and coordination on substance in key areas of European development policy are prerequisites for a united and more strategic external presence of “Team Europe”, including in multilateral contexts.

 

 

Le projet stratégique reliant le port de Djen Djen à l’autoroute Est-Ouest revient au cœur des priorités. Le ministre des Travaux publics, Abdelkader Djellaoui, a […]

L’article Pénétrante Djen Djen – El Eulma : le gouvernement accélère la cadence est apparu en premier sur .

For nearly thirty years, beginning with the Razali Initiative in 1997, I’ve been in and out of discussions related to UN Security Council reform. Aside from the work undertaken by the Small Five Group (S-5) and later by the ACT Group on working methods (with which I was fortunate to be involved), much of the discussion at the UN has focused on permanent representation and whether the privilege of exercising the veto should be extended to new permanent members. So much so that it is now almost taken for granted that Security Council reform will only be meaningful if it brings about permanent representation for both the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean and the African Group, with the question of the veto remaining in the balance.

While permanent membership is a matter of utmost significance, just changing the composition of the membership (permanent, elected to two-year terms, or elected to longer terms) would not be enough to deliver a fully functional Security Council. This led me to indulge in some thinking on what else would be needed.

The first thought came to me months ago as I was sharing with my law students some of the techniques a multilateral diplomat chairing a complex legal negotiation would use to arrive at a strong outcome. I pointed out that if a delegation was being obstructive, I would suspend the meeting for a period of time and ask that delegation to come up with a solution that would secure widespread support. No multilateral diplomat worth their salt, or with any sense of professional pride, would refuse me, simply because it would be too embarrassing for them to admit before all their peers that they were lacking the skills to do so. If it was the first time a delegation had ever experienced something like this, they would shuffle out of the conference room looking dumbstruck. They would, however, return at some point, beaming with pride at having found a solution. They would be exhausted, too, and the very next day they would be less enthusiastic about raising an objection.

This reflection coincided with an argument I recalled hearing in private repeatedly from Larry Johnson and Mona Khalil of the UN Office of Legal Affairs when I was a permanent representative (PR). They would tell me time and again that the permanent members of the Council were always quick to seize on their veto privileges expressed in Article 27(3) of the UN Charter but not to honor this article’s twin—the “responsibility” conferred on them in Article 24(1). In other words, they were happy to exercise the privilege of blocking actions without bearing the responsibility of ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security.

Fifteen years ago, I remember casually making remarks in this direction in discussions within the ACT Group. Now, I believe this issue needs to be studied more closely.

The problem with the Council is its chronic state of constipation, with obvious and disastrous effects felt around the world. Changing the composition in any direction won’t affect that underlying state. Instead, we can learn from the techniques used to unlock complex negotiations. Would it not be more sensible to make the exercise of the veto contingent on having a permanent member first provide the Council (in informal consultations) with a credible alternative that could secure nine affirmative votes and no vetoes? This would mean that the PR of a permanent member could only block a draft resolution if they were also willing to do the work of imagining another possible solution—and one that would win widespread support. No work, no veto. The work of the Council might then tip from blocking action to ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security.

The same principle applies to other multilateral bodies. It is high time we dispense with references to a “consensus rule” in multilateral negotiations and call it what it is: a “veto rule.” I have been saying this for many months now. It is hypocritical for member states to weigh in against the use of the veto in the Security Council when they are only too happy to themselves block agreement in the climate negotiations or the negotiations on a pathogen access and benefit sharing system for the Pandemic Treaty. If we are serious about wanting to do something about the veto in the Council, we must address it in all multilateral bodies and stick to the intent behind Article 18 and its provisions on majoritarian voting in the General Assembly.

If Article 27(3) were to be amended, what might it look like? It might require the concurrence of permanent members “provided those members can first assure the Security Council of there being an accepted alternative.”

There would also have to be an additional subparagraph (4): “The Secretary-General will provide the first draft of every resolution (carrying a decision) to the Security Council but will not subsequently negotiate over it; that will be the prerogative of the Council.” More on this point in my next post.

“From pillar to post” is an English expression denoting frenetic activity—an accurate representation of a functioning multilateral system.

The post From Pillar to Post: No Work, No Veto appeared first on International Peace Institute.

Photos

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

IPI and the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the UN, in partnership with the UN Department of Peace Operations, cohosted a high-level, closed-door roundtable on “Looking to the Future of Action for Peacekeeping Plus,” on April 16th.

Since it was established in 2021, Action for Peacekeeping Plus (A4P+) has helped mobilize action on critical issues affecting UN peacekeeping operations, including peacekeeper capabilities and mindsets, strategic and operational integration, and cooperation with host countries. To ensure the framework is aligned to the current context, builds on achievements and challenges implementing A4P thus far, and in response to a request from the General Assembly’s Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C34), DPO has developed an updated A4P implementation framework. It establishes a strategic, focused, and streamlined set of priorities to improve the impact, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of UN peacekeeping. This renewed framework will continue to mobilize action across critical priorities in UN peacekeeping operations, taking into account changing political, security, and resource imperatives. This includes recent reform efforts to ensure the UN remains “effective, cost-efficient and responsive,” as part of the UN80 initiative.

Member states participating in this ambassadorial roundtable heard from Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, on the new A4P implementation strategy. Following a briefing by the USG, member states engaged in an interactive dialogue on the future of A4P and A4P+.

The post Looking to the Future of Action for Peacekeeping Plus: A discussion with Under-Secretary-General Jean-Pierre Lacroix appeared first on International Peace Institute.

Europe’s dependence on critical raw materials, deriving mainly from the green and digital transition, is best understood as a problem of asymmetric interdependence rather than a simple trade deficit. The principal vulnerabilities are located in specific chokepoints of the supply chain (refining and conversion, intermediates, logistics corridors, finance, and standards). In the context of an intensifying geopolitical competition and a competitive EU-China relationship, such chokepoints can become instruments of leverage, often exercised through selective trade restrictions.

• Demand is rising for structural reasons. Europe’s energy transition and industrial policies increase mineral demand. International Energy Agency underlines that demand for minerals used in clean energy technologies will more than double by 2040.
• Processing is often the weakest link. Europe is often most exposed not at the mine extraction level, but in processing, conversion, and intermediate products needed for manufacturing.
• China’s leverage derives from scale and policy tools. China’s position is strongest in several processing and intermediate segments. China weaponises tools such as export controls to slow or reshape flows.
• The EU has moved from elaboration to implementation. The Critical Raw Materials Act entered into force on 23 May 2024, and the EU has started to implement it through “Strategic Projects”, including 47 projects inside the EU and 13 in third countries. Further initiatives were developed by late 2025 in the context of RESourceEU.
• Rules can improve resilience, but timing matters. Compared with China’s faster, more coordinated model, Europe risks turning regulatory credibility into a liability.

Read here in pdf the Policy paper by Panagiotis Moumtsakis, DPhil student in Politics, University of Oxford.

8. Oktober 1936 – † 4. April 2026 , Prof. Dr. Richard Hauser ist Anfang April im Alter von 89 Jahren verstorben. Mit ihm verliert die Längsschnittstudie SOEP einen ihrer Gründungsväter, langjährigen Förderer und stets verlässlichen Unterstützer. Richard Hauser hat das SOEP in den frühen 1980er Jahren gemeinsam mit seinen Kolleginnen ...

More than a year ago US President Donald Trump effectively dissolved the national development agency USAID by executive order on his first day in office. Since then, other Western countries have also implemented significant cuts to their development budgets, albeit less drastically than the US. This includes Germany, whose budget for development cooperation (DC) has been shrinking since 2024. The budget of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) does not cover the entirety of DC, but it does reflect the general trend. It stands at just over 10 billion euros for the current year, 2026 – in 2024, it was still 11.1 billion euros.

More than a year ago US President Donald Trump effectively dissolved the national development agency USAID by executive order on his first day in office. Since then, other Western countries have also implemented significant cuts to their development budgets, albeit less drastically than the US. This includes Germany, whose budget for development cooperation (DC) has been shrinking since 2024. The budget of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) does not cover the entirety of DC, but it does reflect the general trend. It stands at just over 10 billion euros for the current year, 2026 – in 2024, it was still 11.1 billion euros.

More than a year ago US President Donald Trump effectively dissolved the national development agency USAID by executive order on his first day in office. Since then, other Western countries have also implemented significant cuts to their development budgets, albeit less drastically than the US. This includes Germany, whose budget for development cooperation (DC) has been shrinking since 2024. The budget of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) does not cover the entirety of DC, but it does reflect the general trend. It stands at just over 10 billion euros for the current year, 2026 – in 2024, it was still 11.1 billion euros.

Welche Möglichkeiten haben Regierungen in Ländern niedrigen oder mittleren Einkommens, den aktuellen Ausfall von Mittelzuflüssen aus der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu kompensieren? Der Artikel zeigt: Nachhaltig wirksame Steuerreformen sind schwierig, aber nicht unmöglich. Es gibt durchaus Möglichkeiten, Steuersysteme aufkommensstärker und gerechter zu gestalten. Häufig können bereits Investitionen in die Modernisierung der Steuerverwaltungen positive Resultate hervorbringen, etwa bei der Grundsteuer. In anderen Fällen sind steuerpolitische Maßnahmen erforderlich, zum Beispiel bei der Besteuerung digitaler Dienstleistungen (einschließlich von Finanzdienstleistungen). Auch über Steuervergünstigungen wäre zu reden. Sie werden z.B. für Investitionsförderung oder Armutsbekämpfung eingesetzt, verfehlen jedoch häufig ihre Ziele und verringern das Steueraufkommen erheblich. Für die Umsetzung von Reformen gilt: Mehr als Belehrungen von außen wirkt häufig der horizontale Austausch mit Nachbarländern auf regionaler Ebene. International wäre eine gerechtere Verteilung von Besteuerungsrechten wichtig, damit Staaten weltweit die Leistungsfähigkeit ihrer Fiskalsysteme weiter erhöhen können. Darauf zu warten, macht aber keinen Sinn. Besser ist es, die Spielräume zu nutzen, die sich bereits heute bieten.

Welche Möglichkeiten haben Regierungen in Ländern niedrigen oder mittleren Einkommens, den aktuellen Ausfall von Mittelzuflüssen aus der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu kompensieren? Der Artikel zeigt: Nachhaltig wirksame Steuerreformen sind schwierig, aber nicht unmöglich. Es gibt durchaus Möglichkeiten, Steuersysteme aufkommensstärker und gerechter zu gestalten. Häufig können bereits Investitionen in die Modernisierung der Steuerverwaltungen positive Resultate hervorbringen, etwa bei der Grundsteuer. In anderen Fällen sind steuerpolitische Maßnahmen erforderlich, zum Beispiel bei der Besteuerung digitaler Dienstleistungen (einschließlich von Finanzdienstleistungen). Auch über Steuervergünstigungen wäre zu reden. Sie werden z.B. für Investitionsförderung oder Armutsbekämpfung eingesetzt, verfehlen jedoch häufig ihre Ziele und verringern das Steueraufkommen erheblich. Für die Umsetzung von Reformen gilt: Mehr als Belehrungen von außen wirkt häufig der horizontale Austausch mit Nachbarländern auf regionaler Ebene. International wäre eine gerechtere Verteilung von Besteuerungsrechten wichtig, damit Staaten weltweit die Leistungsfähigkeit ihrer Fiskalsysteme weiter erhöhen können. Darauf zu warten, macht aber keinen Sinn. Besser ist es, die Spielräume zu nutzen, die sich bereits heute bieten.

Welche Möglichkeiten haben Regierungen in Ländern niedrigen oder mittleren Einkommens, den aktuellen Ausfall von Mittelzuflüssen aus der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zu kompensieren? Der Artikel zeigt: Nachhaltig wirksame Steuerreformen sind schwierig, aber nicht unmöglich. Es gibt durchaus Möglichkeiten, Steuersysteme aufkommensstärker und gerechter zu gestalten. Häufig können bereits Investitionen in die Modernisierung der Steuerverwaltungen positive Resultate hervorbringen, etwa bei der Grundsteuer. In anderen Fällen sind steuerpolitische Maßnahmen erforderlich, zum Beispiel bei der Besteuerung digitaler Dienstleistungen (einschließlich von Finanzdienstleistungen). Auch über Steuervergünstigungen wäre zu reden. Sie werden z.B. für Investitionsförderung oder Armutsbekämpfung eingesetzt, verfehlen jedoch häufig ihre Ziele und verringern das Steueraufkommen erheblich. Für die Umsetzung von Reformen gilt: Mehr als Belehrungen von außen wirkt häufig der horizontale Austausch mit Nachbarländern auf regionaler Ebene. International wäre eine gerechtere Verteilung von Besteuerungsrechten wichtig, damit Staaten weltweit die Leistungsfähigkeit ihrer Fiskalsysteme weiter erhöhen können. Darauf zu warten, macht aber keinen Sinn. Besser ist es, die Spielräume zu nutzen, die sich bereits heute bieten.

The construction and use of datasets have become an important practice in Earth system governance research. By systematically cataloguing various outcomes, policy issues, actors, sites, and processes, datasets enhance the reliability, transparency, and replicability of research. Yet, despite growing interest, efforts to share data, integrate datasets, and develop common standards remain fragmented. This Perspective surveys various scholarly efforts to create datasets and provides a classification of the emerging dataset landscape in the field of Earth system governance. Drawing on examples from our own research and group discussions, we identify current best practices and lessons learned regarding data collection, management, and integration, as well as data usability and sharing. We argue that the design of datasets is not a neutral technical exercise, but has implications for how global environmental governance is theorized and studied. We also highlight how greater attention to data infrastructures can strengthen the relevance of research for policy practitioners and other stakeholders beyond academia.

The construction and use of datasets have become an important practice in Earth system governance research. By systematically cataloguing various outcomes, policy issues, actors, sites, and processes, datasets enhance the reliability, transparency, and replicability of research. Yet, despite growing interest, efforts to share data, integrate datasets, and develop common standards remain fragmented. This Perspective surveys various scholarly efforts to create datasets and provides a classification of the emerging dataset landscape in the field of Earth system governance. Drawing on examples from our own research and group discussions, we identify current best practices and lessons learned regarding data collection, management, and integration, as well as data usability and sharing. We argue that the design of datasets is not a neutral technical exercise, but has implications for how global environmental governance is theorized and studied. We also highlight how greater attention to data infrastructures can strengthen the relevance of research for policy practitioners and other stakeholders beyond academia.

The construction and use of datasets have become an important practice in Earth system governance research. By systematically cataloguing various outcomes, policy issues, actors, sites, and processes, datasets enhance the reliability, transparency, and replicability of research. Yet, despite growing interest, efforts to share data, integrate datasets, and develop common standards remain fragmented. This Perspective surveys various scholarly efforts to create datasets and provides a classification of the emerging dataset landscape in the field of Earth system governance. Drawing on examples from our own research and group discussions, we identify current best practices and lessons learned regarding data collection, management, and integration, as well as data usability and sharing. We argue that the design of datasets is not a neutral technical exercise, but has implications for how global environmental governance is theorized and studied. We also highlight how greater attention to data infrastructures can strengthen the relevance of research for policy practitioners and other stakeholders beyond academia.

Neue SOEP-Auswertung zur Altersvorsorge: Private Vorsorge wenig verbreitet und ungleich verteilt – Neues Altersvorsorgedepot soll Riester-Rente ablösen, zentrale Probleme bleiben aber bestehen – Auch bei betrieblicher Vorsorge deutliche Unterschiede – Mehrheit der Bevölkerung sieht Staat in der ...

Avec un diplôme en poche et bien des rêves en tête, de nombreux jeunes en Afrique font face à une réalité brutale, la difficulté de trouver leur place sur le marché du travail. Malgré les portes closes, beaucoup se tournent vers la débrouille pour survivre, révélant ainsi un profond décalage entre les circuits de formation et les marchés de l’emploi.