On May 23rd, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum event on “The Protection of Civilians in Counterterrorism Contexts: Safeguarding the Space for Principled Humanitarian Action.” The event follows the 2018 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians organized by Poland (#United4Civilians). It is co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Peru to the United Nations.
Over the last decade and a half, terrorism has increased and spread to a number of countries. Counterterrorism measures are key to ensuring our individual and collective security. As states recognized in Security Council Resolution 70/291, it is important that counterterrorism legislation and measures “do not impede humanitarian and medical activities or engagement with all relevant actors as foreseen by international humanitarian law.” However, relevant Security Council resolutions give member states no concrete guidance as to what this implies at the domestic level. Moreover, there is a growing body of evidence that counterterrorism measures can infringe upon the protection of civilians by negatively impacting the provision of assistance and protection in accordance with humanitarian principles.
This policy forum helps to identify better ways and means of ensuring that counterterrorism measures do not adversely affect the protection of civilians, instead safeguarding and ensuring the protection of healthcare and principled humanitarian action. It explores concrete ways for states to implement counterterrorism measures in line with their other international obligations, as provided for by relevant UN resolutions, and take stock of existing initiatives working toward this goal. The event also identifies ways in which member states and relevant institutions can concretely follow up on specific work streams in order to enhance the protection of civilian in the fight against terrorism.
Opening Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the United Nations
Moderator:
Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President, International Peace Institute
Confirmed speakers:
Mr. Yves Daccord, Director-General, International Committee of the Red Cross
Ms. Naz Modirzadeh, Director, Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict
Ms. Marine Buissonnière, Independent Researcher and Consultant working with the UN Special Rapporteur on Health
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.
Maximilian Bach, a DIW PhD candidate and Research Associate at the Education and Family Department, has received the BeNA Innovation Research Award 2018. The prize was awarded for his current paper "Teacher Incentives and Grade Retention" at this year's BeNA Labor Economics Workshop on May 14.
The GC congratulates Max on his success!
On Thursday, May 24th, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations are cohosting a policy forum entitled “The Primacy of Politics and the Protection of Civilians in UN Peacekeeping Operations.” This policy forum will explore the perceived and actual tensions between the pursuit of political solutions and the protection of civilians in peacekeeping contexts. The event will follow the 2018 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians organized by Poland (#United4Civilians).
Remarks will begin at 1:15pm EST*
This event is the first as part of IPI’s recently launched Protection of Civilians Project. While the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) stressed the “primacy of politics,” UN peacekeeping missions are often mandated to protect civilians in challenging environments where the peace process has stalled and political solutions seem out of reach. In these contexts, protecting local populations from physical violence may appear to be an operational imperative for the mission and a priority over engagement in protracted and uncertain political processes.
This policy forum will provide an opportunity to discuss situations where there is a risk of competition between the primacy of politics and the centrality of protection, as well as where they are complementary and mutually reinforcing. While the two objectives are hardly mutually exclusive, in practice pursuing both can raise challenging questions. In South Sudan, Darfur, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN mission’s political role may seem elusive, and its protection goals may appear to detract from its political effectiveness. The political stance of UN missions intervening in support of host states may also be an important limitation for peacekeepers mandated to protect civilians from all threats of physical violence—including from host-state forces.
In these situations, where civilians are clearly at risk, how should peace operations reconcile political strategies and the protection of civilians? In the absence of viable political processes at the strategic level, what political measures and strategies can be used in parallel with military operations to protect civilians on the ground?
Opening Remarks:
H.E. Mr. Karel J. G. van Oosterom, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations
Speakers:
Mr. Ralph Mamiya, Consultant; formerly Protection of Civilians Team Leader, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Mr. Sébastien Lapierre, Chief, Policy and Best Practices Service, UN Department of Peacekeeping operations
Ms. Daniela Kroslak, Leader, Darfur Integrated Operational Team, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Ms. Chloé Marnay-Baszanger, Chief, Peace Mission Support Section, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Alison Giffen, Director, Center for Civilians in Conflict
Moderator:
Dr. Namie Di Razza, Research Fellow, International Peace Institute
*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.
The Capital Markets Union (CMU) – an initiative of the European Commission – aims to unify and deepen capital markets across EU Member States by removing existing barriers to cross-border investment and, in particular, harmonizing financial and business regulations. However, harmonizing institutional frameworks across the EU Member States that historically have different legal traditions is difficult and requires time. This article summarizes important steps to harmonizing business and financial laws in the EU and discusses empirical and theoretical literature on the role of legal harmonization in deepening and better integrating financial markets.
Jonas Jessen, from the Education and Family department, has been granted a scholarship from the German Academic Scholarship Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes) from June 2018 on.
The Dean of the Graduate Center, Prof. Weizsäcker congratulates him on his success!
jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-dfebup").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-dfebup").fadeIn(1000);});});
An evening discussion among peacebuilders was held at IPI, May 16, 2018, on women’s meaningful participation in negotiating peace and the implementation of peace agreements.
The meeting, convened by UN Women and IPI, brought together internationally recognized peacebuilders, officials from the United Nations, diplomats, and representatives of civil society. The event was held as part of an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) convened by UN Women in preparation for the Secretary-General’s annual report on women, peace and security, expected in October.
Teresa Whitfield, Director of the Policy and Mediation Division at the United Nations Department of Political Affairs; said that the meeting built upon the work these stakeholders have undertaken thus far to explore what makes women’s participation “meaningful” in the context of negotiating peace. She reminded participants that the Secretary-General’s report last year unequivocally stated, “inclusive processes should be the rule, not the exception.”
The EGM participants have worked to support joint strategizing to overcome the persistent barriers to inclusion, representation, and meaningful participation. The international community must continue to articulate ways of moving beyond words to action in implementation of women, peace and security commitments, she said.
The conversation was seen as one of the preliminary steps on the “collective road” to 2020, the year in which the landmark Security Council resolution 1325 will observe its 20th anniversary.
Ms. Whitfield moderated a panel discussion between Jean-Marie Guéhenno, President & CEO of the International Crisis Group, and member of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation; and Rosa Emilia Salamanca, Director, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Action. Ms. Salamanca addressed inclusivity in the Colombian peace process and gender-sensitive peace agreements.
Overarching themes that emerged from the discussion included the need for meaningful participation of women in decision-making positions in all efforts to end conflict, including formal peace negotiations, as well as power sharing, disarmament and ceasefire arrangements, humanitarian access agreements and implementation mechanisms; women in leadership roles in negotiation teams; delivering on the commitment to civil society inclusion in mediation processes; the essential role of international community in the transition phase to support the implementation of gender-relevant provisions; and the importance of gender sensitive provisions in agreements for gender responsive implementation.
IPI Vice President Adam Lupel, and Paivi Kannisto, Chief, Peace and Security Section, UN Women delivered the opening remarks.
On May 16th, IPI together with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, cohosted a policy forum to launch the publication of an IPI policy paper on the formulation of peacekeeping policy through intergovernmental bodies at the UN.
Partnerships are critical to effective UN peacekeeping, particularly in New York, where the Security Council, the Secretariat, and member states examine proposed reforms and seek consensus on the direction of peacekeeping. Yet throughout the nearly seventy-year history of UN peacekeeping, relations among key stakeholders have frequently fractured due to their often diverging interests. These differences have often been compounded by member states’ limited access to information on the roles and responsibilities of different UN bodies in taking forward peacekeeping reforms.
As the UN reaches another important junction in peacekeeping reform, this paper examines the intergovernmental processes and partnerships that support and guide the development of UN peacekeeping policy to identify what need to be considered to build consensus on its future direction.
Opening Remarks:
H.E. Ms. Gillian Bird, Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations
Mr. David Haeri, Director, Department for Policy, Evaluation and Training, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Speakers:
Ms. Lisa Sharland, Head of International Program, Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Ms. Inderjit Nijjar, First Secretary Peacekeeping, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations
Mr. Eugene Chen, Office of the Under-Secretary-General, United Nations Department of Field Support
Colonel Sandeep Kapoor, Military Adviser to the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations
Dr. Craig Mills, First Secretary Peacekeeping and Africa, Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations
Moderator:
Dr. Alexandra Novosseloff, Senior Visiting Fellow, International Peace Institute
*If you are not logged into Facebook, times are shown in PST.
Debating Security Plus (DS+) is a unique global online brainstorm that aims to yield concrete recommendations in the area of peace, security and defence. Gathering several thousand participants from around the world, it is the only platform that permits a truly global whole-of-society consultation providing innovative recommendations for some of the world’s most pressing security challenges.
For the sixth time, the 2018 brainstorm will bring together senior international participants from the military, national governments, international organisations and agencies, along with voices from NGOs and civil society, business and industry, the media, think-tanks and academia. Their involvement in our security policy brainstorm will help bridge the gaps between experts and citizens, and their recommendations will aim to inform the implementation of the EU Global Strategy, as well as the policies of national governments and other international institutions as they shape their approaches to peace, security and defence.
From 19 June, 09:00 CEST to 20 June 20:00 CEST, the international security community will debate challenges and policy solutions relating to six different themes. The discussions will be moderated by leading international think-tanks and organisations that will steer discussions towards concrete recommendations.
Follow DS+ in Twitter and Facebook.
DIW-Studie untersucht studentische Erwerbstätigkeit mit Blick auf Studienleistungen und Dauer des Studiums – Bei einem Erwerbsumfang von 20 Prozent der Regelstudienzeit ist die Studiendauer rund zwei Monate länger – Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten sowie Vereinbarkeit von Studium und Nebenjob sollten verbessert werden
Bachelor-Studierende mit einem Nebenjob haben im Durchschnitt kaum schlechtere Abschlussnoten als nicht erwerbstätige Studierende, brauchen für ihr Studium aber etwas mehr Zeit. Das geht aus einer aktuellen Analyse des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) hervor. Auf Basis des Nationalen Bildungspanels (NEPS) ist die DIW-Bildungssoziologin Mila Staneva der Frage nachgegangen, wie sich ein Studentenjob auf die Studienleistungen und die Dauer des Studiums auswirkt. Dafür hat sie Daten von knapp 8 000 Studierenden untersucht, die im Herbst 2010 ein Bachelor-Studium aufnahmen. Die Analysen zeigen, dass Bachelor-Studierende, deren Erwerbstätigkeit gemessen an der Regelstudienzeit einen Anteil von 20 Prozent ausmacht, am Ende im Durchschnitt eine um 0,06 Punkte schlechtere Abschlussnote erreichen und circa zwei Monate länger für ihr Studium brauchen als Studierende, die nicht neben dem Studium arbeiten.
DIW-Studie untersucht relative und absolute soziale Mobilität im Berufsstatus der Jahrgänge 1939 bis 1971 in Westdeutschland – Vor allem für untere Statusgruppe verringert sich die soziale Durchlässigkeit hinsichtlich des Berufsstatus – In allen untersuchten Geburtsjahrgängen stiegen absolut betrachtet mehr Personen auf als ab – Männer steigen öfter ab als früher, Frauen steigen öfter auf
Von starker sozialer Durchlässigkeit mit Blick auf den Berufsstatus ist Deutschland immer noch weit entfernt. Das ist das Fazit einer Studie des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), die die soziale Mobilität in Deutschland seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg auf Basis der Langzeitstudie Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP) untersucht hat. Dabei haben Autorin Sandra Bohmann und Autor Nicolas Legewie nicht nur die absolute soziale Mobilität unter die Lupe genommen, also inwieweit sich die tatsächliche soziale Stellung im Vergleich zu den Eltern verändert hat. Sie betrachteten auch die relative soziale Mobilität, also inwiefern Kinder im Vergleich zu anderen aus der gleichen Generation besser gestellt sind, als dies bei ihren Eltern der Fall war. So können die verhältnismäßigen Aufstiegswahrscheinlichkeiten in einer Gesellschaft untersucht werden.
Herr Legewie, Sie haben die soziale Mobilität im Berufsstatus untersucht. Was versteht man unter dem Begriff soziale Mobilität?
Unter sozialer Mobilität verstehen wir den Unterschied zwischen dem beruflichen Status von Personen und dem beruflichen Status ihrer Eltern. Wir haben untersucht, inwieweit sich der berufliche Status von Personen in Deutschland zum beruflichen Status ihrer Eltern unterscheidet. Dabei interessiert uns zum Beispiel die absolute soziale Mobilität, das heißt, wie viele Personen im Vergleich zu ihren Eltern einen höheren oder einen niedrigeren oder den gleichen beruflichen Status erreichen. Uns interessiert aber auch die relative soziale Mobilität, das heißt, inwiefern sich die Wahrscheinlichkeiten einen bestimmten beruflichen Status zu erreichen unterscheiden, je nachdem welchen beruflichen Status die Eltern innehatten.
Das Interview mit Nicolas Legewie wurde im DIW Wochenbericht 20/2018 veröffentlicht. Hier gibt es das Interview als PDF-Dokument und als Podcast
Die US-Regierung hat entschieden, die EU zumindest bis Ende Mai von Schutzzöllen auf Aluminium und Stahl auszunehmen. Entspannung will sich aber trotzdem nicht einstellen, weil in der EU unterschiedliche Politikstile kollidieren: Die deutsche Regierung will darauf setzen, Trump durch das Angebot gegenseitiger Zollsenkungen von seinem Plan abzubringen. Dagegen sehen andere Länder und die EU-Kommission offensichtlich nicht ein, dass man der US-Politik jetzt durch Zollgeschenke entgegenkomme, wo doch die USA die Regeln der Welthandelsorganisation WTO missachtet hätten; vielmehr sollten Gegenzölle in Erwägung gezogen werden. [...]
Der vollständige Kommentar von Ferdinand Fichtner aus dem DIW Wochenbericht 20/2018
Partnerships are critical to effective UN peacekeeping, particularly in New York, where the Security Council, the Secretariat, and member states examine proposed reforms and seek consensus on the direction of peacekeeping. Yet throughout the nearly seventy-year history of UN peacekeeping, relations among key stakeholders have frequently fractured due to their often diverging interests. These differences have been compounded by member states’ limited access to information on the roles and responsibilities of different UN bodies in taking forward peacekeeping reforms.
This paper examines the intergovernmental processes and partnerships that support and guide the development of UN peacekeeping policy to identify what needs to be considered to build consensus on its future direction. The paper offers several recommendations for the Secretariat, member states, and other stakeholders to strengthen the value and outcomes of intergovernmental processes, as well as the partnerships that guide the formulation of UN peacekeeping policy:
jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-xmxcqw").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-xmxcqw").fadeIn(1000);});});
On May 15th, an IPI policy forum invited participants to discuss how social contracts are developed and adapted to different contexts to transform what are often unsustainable, short-lived elite bargains into more inclusive and durable arrangements for sustaining peace.
Hosted in collaboration with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), the University of Witwatersrand, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN, this conversation allowed member states and other key national stakeholders to engage with the findings of the research project Forging Resilient National Social Contracts. Using case studies from South Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Tunisia to explore the creation of social contracts within contexts of conflict and fragility, the discussion highlighted the mechanisms through which agreements are struck that support prevention and sustaining peace.
In welcoming remarks, Endre Stiansen, Senior Research and Policy Advisor at the Oslo Governance Centre of UNDP, said that the subject of the event was “very opportune” for development organizations such as UNDP “because there is something about bringing the whole of society approach to the challenges that we face in the field now.”
Introducing the study, Bettina Luise Rürup, Executive Director of FES New York, explained that it “highlights the need for inclusive peace agreements and the importance of vibrant societal relations” in sustaining peace. Considering the 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, she asserted that social contracts can be “the much-needed mechanism for inclusiveness and national ownership for peace sustaining processes.”
The specific challenges that the study sought to address, said Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant Secretary General for Strategic Coordination, were how to create political settlements and institutions that deliver results inclusively, as well as drive social cohesion. “Inclusion is in essence about non-discrimination,” he said, “It is about bringing in those who are otherwise being excluded socially, excluded economically, excluded politically and often persecuted; it’s about upholding rights.”
Erin McCandless is an Associate Professor at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa and Research and Project Director of Forging Resilient Social Contracts. Her aim was to propose durable solutions to recurring conflict in fragile environments. Introducing her research, she defined the concept of social contract, as it is understood in the classical western tradition, as “forfeiting some rights for the achievement of others.”
While she contended that this “utilitarian decision of citizens” may not look the same everywhere, in her research she found “enduring themes that have kind of cut across different civilizations and across the globe.” Her research posed questions on the establishment of a governing body including, “what is the purpose of such agreements, who are they between, what mechanisms drive social contracts, and how do people address, with their leaders, questions of moral obligation and conflicting interests?”
Among the key findings were that “elite political settlements are just not sustainable. There is an emerging consensus in the policy realm around the importance of inclusion for sustaining peace,” she said. Inclusivity is necessary for a strong consensus among citizens to create a sustainable agreement.
Dr. McCandless said that the research findings pointed in particular to two compelling reasons why political settlements fail to become more inclusive and resilient social contracts. The first was the fact that core conflict issues are not effectively addressed over time through appropriate political settlements, allowing social conflict to become protracted and unresolvable. The second was that social contract-making mechanisms are “not effectively treated in coherent ways in the peace process.” She concluded that there was a need for greater focus on strengthening state-society relations and creating more accountable, durable policy.
Luka Kuol, Professor of Practice at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies of National Defense University in Washington, DC and Associate Professor at the University of Juba, South Sudan, called his country “the most fragile country in the world.” Even with its three peace agreements signed in 1972, 2005, and 2015, he said, the country is still in conflict.
“Such fragility is definitely a result of misrule by the elites,” he said, “But I think equally important was despite the good intention of the international actors, that they, to a certain degree, I could say, were less informed about the political marketplace and the drivers of social contracts.”
The peace processes failed from the lack of inclusivity in the country’s transition to statehood, including the constitution-making process, he said. “The process itself was so exclusive, it was led by one political party in isolation of the rest.” Uniquely for South Sudan, amid other African countries that emerged out of colonialism, “this idea of ‘common enemy,’” he said, “Is not glue for forging a social cohesion. South Sudan was anchoring its unity to how much they hate North Sudan. But once that common enemy is gone, then these tensions start surfacing.”
Dr. Kuol said he still believed there was hope for peace in South Sudan if it is built nationally. Ultimately, he said, it should be the role of the state and the citizens to create a social contract that focuses on inclusivity. “South Sudan stands a better chance of putting itself on the path of social contract and addressing the core driver of conflict,” he said. “What is lacking is the political leadership and visionary leadership.”
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, an “elite social contract maintains the status quo,” said Jasmin Ramović, Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manchester. Such a contract “exploits communal fears that existed…during the war and are persisting after,” he said. “Through patronage, they also maintain a control of their respective communities. But the underlying reason behind this elite social contract is mismanagement of economic resources to the advantage of a very small clique of people,” he said.
Dr. Ramović explained that the peace agreement ending the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, signed in Dayton, Ohio, “unfortunately, and paradoxically, actually preserved the unity of the country and also divided the country in the same time.” This political settlement perpetuated the core conflict issue which was competing conceptions of territorial boundaries and loyalties, and the Dayton Peace Agreement created a hybrid government comprised of actors of each major ethnic group. This “bloated” administrative structure, though, ended up helping nationalist elites control employment and the public sector.
Instead, he said, “international actors should encourage initiatives, especially grassroots initiatives, which can expose the links between political, business, and judiciary elites.” This would, he argued, “unravel the elite social contract and provide channels so that the voice of a majority of the population could be heard.”
Youssef Mahmoud, IPI Senior Adviser and the event’s moderator, suggested three lessons for cultivating successful peace agreements based on the situation in Tunisia, his own country. The first was that “when the broad-based constitution was adopted in 2014, it became the social contract in post-revolution Tunisia.” The second, he explained, was that, “as you anxiously look for ways to strengthen the state, ensure that this does not put the onus on the state as the sole penholder of the social contract.”
The third was, “In attempts to keep at bay all kinds of isms, do not sacrifice on the altar of stability and security the oxygen that keeps voice alive and free, a voice that Tunisians have wrenched out of the jaws of the state. Without the oxygen, a resilient social contract is atrophied.”