Suchergebnisse

For over six decades, the US military has shaped international economic development, notably by way of nearly 31 million US troop-year deployments since 1950. Worldwide, life expectancy increased by 10 years between 1970 and the present. The mortality rate of children dropped from 132 per 1,000 live births to 55. The number of telephone lines per capita quadrupled from 48 to 196 per thousand. In each case, the improvement was faster in countries with a heavy US troop presence and slower in countries with zero US troop presence. These relationships stem from a data set on US deployments across all countries and years from 1950 to the present matched with World Bank data on indicators of social well-being since 1970 across 148 countries. The positive relationship between American forces and social development holds in econometric regressions even when controlling for initial income levels and initial social indicator levels. Adapted from the source document.

This article maps the key findings from research on public sector response in policy and practice as seen in service delivery to survivors of conflict in Northern Ireland and Bosnia-Herzegovina. It examines whether the experience of the seriously injured in the Northern Ireland conflict and female victims of sexual violence during the Bosnian war has been recognised by successive governments in post-conflict times, and if the public sector response has been appropriate and effective in meeting their needs; or simply subverted by political expediency and 'reconciliation'. It poses the question whether in post-conflict times some will necessarily be marginalised to ensure the success of the greater peace-building project and, if this is the case, are more constructive answers not both imaginable and a viable alternative?

How can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The EU Commission's proposal for a reformed Common Fisheries Policy calls for more self-management for the fishing industry by increasing fishers' involvement in the planning and execution of policies and boosting the role of fishers' organisations. One way of higher transparency and improved participation is to include stakeholders in the modelling process itself. The JAKFISH project (Judgment And Knowledge in Fisheries Involving StakeHolders) invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. Here, a synthesis is presented of the participatory work carried out in four European fishery case studies (Western Baltic herring, North Sea Nephrops, Central Baltic Herring and Mediterranean swordfish), focussing on the uncertainty tools used, the stakeholders' responses to these, and the lessons learnt. It is concluded that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. However, when approaching real-life situations, modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. Rather, the crucial step in a science–stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing in an open, transparent way

Sub-Saharan Africa is faced with crises and conflicts that also pose a threat to the security of Europe, the United States and the world at large.Africa seeks to ensure its own security and calls on the aid of foreign partners including Europe. But questions arise concerning the strengths and realities of that partnership and the prospects for peace it offers.The European Union is indeed a partner whose effectiveness - guaranteed by the comprehensive approach embodied in its multifaceted ACP/EEC-EU and ESDP/CSDP instruments - was demonstrated in Togo from 1993 to 2005, in the DRC with "Artemis" and EUFOR RD CONGO, in Darfur with EUFOR Chad-CAR and off the coast of Somalia with EUNAVFOR. Yet the need to highlight its strengths and play down its weaknesses leads it to promote the concepts of complementarity and ownership in the construction of the African Peace and Security Architecture through operations and civilian missions, in particular EUSEC and EUPOL in the DRC, EUTM "Somalia", EUAVSEC in Southern Sudan and Niger Sahel EUCAP and EUCAP Nestor for the training of national forces in the fight against Islamist terrorism and maritime piracy.What adjustments and improvements to European, pan-African and international law are required, with a view, in particular, to more innovative forms of funding and better coordination, as well as a pooling of African resources and the various forms of assistance from foreign contributors attracted by the resources and the economic opportunities of sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century? This opens up a whole new and wide-ranging debate. ; L'Afrique subsaharienne connait des crises et conflits qui menacent aussi la sécurité de l'Europe, des Etats-Unis et du reste du monde.Elle cherche à se sécuriser par elle-même et sollicite l'aide extérieure notamment celle européenne dont on s'interroge quant aux atouts, réalités et perspectives de paix avec l'UE. L'Union Européenne est un partenaire dont l'efficacité garantie par son approche globale et permise par ses instruments ...

The effectiveness of reconstruction programs in post-conflict contexts Abstract The thesis aims at assessing the effectiveness of reconstruction programs intended to ensure for the economic recovery of countries emerging from civil war since the end of the Cold War. From the standpoint of the method used, this effectiveness is both evaluated through the relevance of the content and the organization of these programs with regard to the characteristics of the post-conflict economies, and through an assessment of their performances according to recovery indicators which are specific to this context. The economic causes of conflicts and the functioning of a wartime economy are analyzed because they influence the transition to an economy in the context of peace (chapters 1 to 4). An approach in terms of political economy (Stewart, Fitzgerald) comparing both horizontal and vertical inequalities and completed by Amartya Sen's approach contributes to the account of the specific characteristics of this type of context which the neoclassical theory is not enabled to grasp. The approach in terms of sustainable livelihoods (Chambers and Conways), of the vulnerability due to the context and of the institutional economy, provides a coherent theoretical framework in order to identify the economic features of post-conflict societies (chapters 5 to 7) and enables for the identification of the factors which block or slow down the process of economic recovery. The study of the configuration of reconstruction programs reveals the multiplication of actors which have different approaches, a lack of coordination in their work, and the formation of a substitute administration non-aligned to the fragile state (chapter 8). Closer ties between the programs and the observed characteristics enable for the evaluation of their effectiveness (chapter 9). The quantitative evaluation arrives at the conclusion that these programs are relative failures, especially due to their sluggishness. From the data available, the significance of some ...

"International Organizations and Preventing War" published on by Oxford University Press.

ResumenLa Mesa de Negociación y Acuerdos (noviembre 8, 2002-mayo 29, 2003) constituyó la materialización de una iniciativa hemisférica de gestión de crisis en el marco del conflicto interno venezolano. Dicha gestión tuvo lugar mediante la facilitación (a cargo del secretario general de la Organización de Estados Americanos–OEA–, César Gaviria, y la representación del Centro Carter) de un proceso de negociación entre los dos principales grupos de actores que conformaban el conflicto venezolano (gobierno y oposición), facilitación que además contó con el apoyo de la diplomacia preventiva ejercida por un Grupo de Países Amigos, liderado por Brasil. El presente artículo tiene la finalidad de presentar una descripción global de dicha facilitación y de las negociaciones, mediante la caracterización de los actores primordiales, sus intereses,valores y estrategias de negociación. Igualmente, se señalan algunas de las repercusiones más importantes del proceso. Se concluye que dicha facilitación, aunque logró una cierta pacificación, no logró modificar el origen del conflicto: el enfrentamiento entre dos formas casi incompatibles de democracia.The Table for Negotiation and Agreement (2002-2003) and the facilitation processby the OAS and the Carter CenterAbstractThe Table for Negotiation and Agreement (November8, 2002 – May 29, 2003) was a hemispheric initiative of crisis management during a Venezuelan internal conflict. This enterprise took place through the facilitation of a negotiation process (headed by the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States, César Gaviria, and representatives from the Carter Center) between the Venezuelan government and the opposition. The facilitation was also supported by preventive diplomacy as exerted by a "Groups of Friends", led by Brazil. This article offers a global description of the facilitation and negotiations, by characterizing the main actors involved, as well as their interests, values and negotiation strategies. The main consequences of this process are also accounted for. It is concluded that such a facilitation process, although achieving somepacification in the country, did not change the root of conflict: the confrontation between two different, almost incompatible, concepts of democracy.