Suchergebnisse

Burden sharing in security organizations: broadening the burden sharing debate This study argues that burden sharing entails more than defense spending only, covering military capabilities, contributions to missions and soft power issues as well. In this respect, the study broadens the burden sharing debate amongst security organizations from a one-sided input approach concerning the military to a more comprehensive view on security communities. Doing so, a variety of dimensions and parameters to measure states' burden sharing behavior are put forward. By considering burden sharing a process rather than an output, politicians are offered opportunities to conduct more meaningful and in-depth dialogues. Before focusing on the distribution of the burden, instead, such dialogues may start by asking 'How do individual states' contributions aggregate?' As a consequence, mutual understanding of how states perceive and value international public goods may develop, rendering discussions on the distribution of the burdens to bear more constructive.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Original Title Page -- Original Copyright Page -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The historical background -- 3 The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan -- 4 The alliance dilemma -- 5 The Reagan Administration -- 6 Burden-sharing -- 7 Problems and prospects -- Tables -- Notes.

THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE EUROPEAN MEMBERS OF NATO ARE CARRYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE BURDEN OF COMMON DEFENSE HAS A HISTORY ALMOST AS LONG AS THAT OF THE ALLIANCE ITSELF. BUT CURRENT PRESSURES TO REDUCE US TRADE AND BUDGET DEFICITS HAVE GIVEN NEW IMPETUS TO OLD ARGUMENTS.

The authors argue that a reformulated system of refugee protection must proceed using a distributive-developmental framework for fiscal burden sharing. Such a framework would have to appeal to the national security interests of donors, rather than to humanitarian or altruistic motives. The funds provided should be tied to concrete, time-specified goals which will contribute to the well being of refugees. They argue that this approach should be pursued parallel to the existing system of multilateral institutions. The framework envisions resources being channelled to regional institutions rather than national governments. This is a substantially abbreviated version of the authors' original work. Please refer to the notice at the end of this section if you are interested in obtaining a full copy of the paper, which is expected to be published in mid-1996.

This paper analyses the impact of refugee movements on emergency and development aid allocation decisions of bilateral donors in a political economic framework. We investigate two alternative hypotheses about donor motivations: first, an altruistic burden-sharing policy towards recipient countries that serve as hosts for a significant refugee population, and second, a more self-interested migration prevention policy focusing on recipient countries that actually cause refugee movements. We find some evidence that short-term humanitarian aid is predominantly used for burden-sharing purposes towards major refugee havens, while long-term development assistance is rather allocated to the source countries either to prevent further refugee outflows or to facilitate voluntary repatriation. Furthermore, it is evident that the inflow of asylum seekers into donor countries leads to a reallocation of aid funds to the respective countries of origin.

Im Mittelpunkt der Herbsttagung der NATO Anfang Dezember 1988 stand erneut die Diskussion um die Verteilung der Rüstungskosten im Bündnis. Die USA, das Land mit den höchsten Militärausgaben innerhalb der NATO, fordern von den westeuropäischen NATO-Mitgliedern eine stärkere Beteiligung an den Rüstungskosten und die Erhöhung der westeuropäischen Militärhaushalte. Aus unterschiedlichen Gründen sind die europäischen NATO-Staaten dazu jedoch nicht bereit. Es werden die verschiedenen Positionen zum Problem und die sich abzeichnende Kompromißlinie - Effektivierung der Rüstungsausgaben, Standardisierung von Waffensystemen - dargestellt. (AuD-Pls)

In the global humanitarian realm, there is much discussion and concern for the burdens that states endure when it comes to refugee populations. The word "burden" appears in the Preamble of the 1951 Refugee Convention in reference to placing "unduly heavy burdens" on specific host countries and compels the international community to intervene in such situations. While there have been attempts to change the language from burden-sharing to responsibility-sharing, the emphasis on states assuming the "burden" of hosting and providing for refugee populations continues. Even as the 2018 Global Compact for Refugees has brought refugees into the discussions of an international response to refugee situations, the language and concerns about burden-sharing remain relatively unchanged. This is clearly demonstrated by the first ever Global Refugee Forum, which was held in December 2019, through its central theme of burden- and responsibility-sharing. In the forum, refugees advocated for their continued and increased inclusion, but while state delegations and humanitarian organizations acknowledged this as a benefit for all, their statements continued to assert their own concerns about their positions as the donor and host countries. This continued privileging of the state, even amidst the added language and practices of inclusion of all humanitarian actors, still renders invisible the burdens that refugees bear, many of which are exacerbated by the language and logic of burden-sharing applied to states. A prime example of this is Trump's anti-immigration policies and rhetoric, which demonstrate how state attempts to lighten their burden have far-reaching effects, including long-lasting everyday burdens for those who have already been resettled. Long-term ethnographic research in refugee camps and with resettled refugees provides empirical evidence to engage in the critical policy analysis and discourse analysis of burden-sharing in this piece.