Suchergebnisse

Rule-of-law promotion by the OSCE is a particular contribution to the creation of European security. The OSCE has, since the 1990s, given it a central place as an instrument of stabilization in the European security dialogue and crisis management, while developing appropriate structures for implementation. (...) Rule-of-law promotion is a cross cutting issue that touches upon fields of activity such as the promotion of democracy, respect, protection and guarantee of human rights, civil crisis prevention, the reconstruction of societies destroyed by war and economic and development co-operation. (...) The central responsibility for promoting the rule of law lies with ODIHR's [Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights] Democratization Department. (...) It works together with rule-of-law departments, units or responsible individual staff members in the field operations. (...) The central question has to be: What specific contributions can the OSCE make to rule-of-law promotion in concrete security-relevant situations in specific participating States? (CORE/Pll)

AbstractThe OSCE reality reveals an ambiguous picture of the Organization's field activities. There is significant verbal encouragement, but also hesitation about further field engagements and an alarming actual cutback of existing field missions. During the Corfu Process in 2009-10, the participating States shared with each other opinions on these processes in a friendly tone which was as such a positive signal. At the OSCE Summit in Astana in December 2010, the Heads of State or Government of the 56 OSCE participating States collectively emphasized the value of the OSCE field missions. Beyond the declarations however, the picture is quite disappointing, the reduction of OSCE field activities that started about a decade ago continues on. Reasons include the marginalisation of the OSCE in general and emphasis put on other international organisations, fundamental mistrust and divergences between participating States, the perception of OSCE field operations as vehicles for interfering into internal affairs and traditional zones of interest, budgetary constraints of many participating States, shifts of regional interests and the takeover of various activities and responsibilities by the European Union, especially in South-eastern Europe. Apart from this, it is particularly disquieting that the OSCE is clearly about to lose its position as leading conflict manager. The second Kyrgyz crisis in June 2010 demonstrated once again the deep uncertainties in various participating States about OSCE conflict mediation. Aside from diverse brainstorming activities hosted by the Lithuanian OSCE Chairmanship in 2011, there is currently no fundamental discussion on preventing the Organization's field activities from slowly, but surely losing profile and standing.