Suchergebnisse

"UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and the ensuing NATO-led operation in Libya indicate, on the one hand, that the idea of humanitarian invention is still alive. In fact, it was the first instance in which the Security Council authorized the use of force against the will of the acting government of a functioning state. On the other hand, the international reaction to these events shows that the meaning of the underlying concept of a responsibility to protect (R2P) remains contested. This report discusses the impact of the Libya intervention on the perceptions held by regional actors – the European Union and African Union - toward the concept of R2P. The authors warn that these events might reinforce existing normative frictions and argue that the EU should act according to the principle of local ownership." (author's abstract)

"Although prospects for peacekeeping and peacebuilding in Africa have significantly improved since the end of the East-West conflict, creating the conditions for lasting peace nevertheless remains a challenge. While liberal peace as ideological frame and strong regional security organisations (RSOs) account for positive impacts and great potential, their effectiveness remains a hope, rather than a given. This report contributes to the debate on the effectiveness of peacekeeping/ peacebuilding on the African continent by analysing the policies and activities of the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU) as well as some of its member states regarding two global norms: a) Protection of Civilians (POC) as one task of peacekeeping operations and b) Security Sector Reform (SSR). Based on the examples of Darfur, Chad, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe, the report finds that the similar interpretation of doctrines is promising and can be considered an indicator that a layered system of global security governance based on strong and connected RSOs could be both effective and legitimate. However, this alignment of doctrines remains fragile and does not always translate into increased effectiveness at the local level due to three classes of frictions the report identifies." (author's abstract)

"The absence of war between democracies is regarded as one of the few law-like correlations in international relations. The causation of this empirical phenomenon, however, remains contested; and the democratic peace in search of its cause. The project tries to fill this theoretical gap by arguing that inter-democratic institutions are causally responsible for the remarkable stability between democracies. Furthermore, the project contributes to the ongoing debate on the effects of international institutions. While most scholars have recently agreed that some institutions, due to their specific form, are more effective than others, it remains contested which form characteristics contribute to the peace-building effects of institutions. By combining liberal theories on the democratic peace and research on the effects of international institutions, the project is able to identify trans-national and trans-governmental networks as crucial features of inter-democratic institutions. The main hypothesis of the project asserts that a) these characteristics distinguish inter-democratic from traditional institutions between non-democratic states or with a mixed membership, and b) explain their distinct peace-building effect. The project is designed as a controlled case comparison. We analyse the level of stability of five pairs of states. With regard to comparability, we restrict our cases to the group of strategic rivals, i.e. pairs of states which look back to a history of conflict and violence and hence, are more prone to military confrontation than average dyads. From the sample of strategic rivals, we select dyads of endangered states which a) are located in highly institutionalized regional settings, and b) differ with regard to their political regime. We explore the peace-building effect of relevant regional security institutions on the level of stability of the following five dyads: France - Germany; Greece - Turkey; Indonesia - Malaysia and Argentina - Brazil as well as Argentina - Chile. Concerning the South American cases, we also compare the level of stability before and after the wave of democratisation in this region. In addition, we incorporate the relationship between Japan and South Korea into our research. This odd case of a democratic dyad of rivals, whose security relationship is only minimally institutionalized, allows us to assess alternative explanations of the democratic peace. The results of our research confirm our main hypothesis. Firstly, our work demonstrates that inter-democratic institutions differ with regard to their embedment in trans-national and trans-governmental networks. Secondly, we show that these institutional differences are responsible for the observed differences in the level of stability of our dyads. Moreover, our case selection allows us to undermine alternative explanations. The surprisingly low level of stability of the Japanese - South Korean dyad reinforces theoretical doubts concerning the liberal assumption that the democratic peace is caused by state properties. The high level of tensions between Greece and Turkey, both NATO member states, invalidates realist as well as neo-institutional explanations which attribute the effectiveness of institutions to the presence of a hegemonic leader or to their level of institutionalisation." (author's abstract)

'Während der Warenaustausch zwischen Russland und dem Westen in den letzten Jahren immer neue Rekordmarken erreichte, wurde der sicherheitspolitische Dialog zunehmend eisiger. Die Osterweiterung der NATO, das mangelnde Engagement der NATO beim Thema Rüstungskontrolle und die Anerkennung des Kosovo wurden von Russland immer schärfer kommentiert. Vorläufiger Höhepunkt dieser neuen Entfremdung war der Krieg im Kaukasus. Ohne lange Umstände und ohne sich um Völkerrecht oder Proteste zu scheren, erkannte Russland Abchasien und Südossetien an und machte damit unmissverständlich klar, dass es sich nicht länger mit einer Nebenrolle auf der sicherheitspolitischen Bühne Europas begnügen würde. Droht ein neuer Kalter Krieg? Ist Frieden ohne Russland möglich? Waren alle Annäherungsbeteuerungen nach 1989 nur hohle Phrasen? Die Autoren suchen nach Lösungen für die Krise und nach Wegen zu einer europäischen Friedensordnung. Nach einer gründlichen Analyse der Standpunkte Russlands, der EU und der USA zur Kaukasus-Krise diskutieren sie eine Reihe von Instrumenten, um einen konstruktiven Dialog wieder in Gang zu setzen. Als Bausteine hierfür empfehlen die Autoren die Wiederbelebung der Rüstungskontrolle, den Ausbau der europäischen Institutionen und die multilaterale Regelung der Konflikte im Kaukasus. Eine weitere Osterweiterung der NATO lehnen sie ab. Die Autoren plädieren für einen paneuropäischen Annäherungsprozess. Eindringlich warnen sie vor den Gefahren einer erneuten Politik der Einflusssphären und zeigen, dass Sicherheit in Europa ohne Russland nicht möglich ist.' (Autorenreferat)