Search

Begin New Search Topic International Cooperation Political Geography Africa

21. Journal of Public and International Affairs 2018

Author:
Andi Zhou, Sam Kanson-Benanav, Collin Smith, Yi Xu, Amn Nasir, Sameer Anwar, Saim Rashid, Muqueet Shahzad, Lauren Eades, William O'Connell, Caper Gooden, Paige KW Gasser, Laurie Georges, Seleeke Flingai, and Erika Parks
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Woodrow Wilson School Journal of Public and International Affairs
Institution:
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Abstract:
These are critical times for those who work to further the public interest. Across the globe, divisions and distrust erode the clarity required to tackle the great challenges of our day. Those who advocate for truth find themselves under attack from those who fear what they might lose if the status quo is changed. There is exceptional need today for powerful voices speaking on behalf of sound policy. The 10 articles in this 29th edition of the Journal of Public and International Affairs all reflect a dogged determination among young policy professionals around the world to press ahead in spite of the headwinds. These pages contain fresh ideas on electrifying rural Myanmar, reforming the U.S. banking system, strengthening the Jordanian labor market, and preventing recidivism among convicted sex offenders in Texas, to name just a few. The JPIA was born from the conviction that graduate students have a unique and invaluable voice in key policy debates. The authors of these articles, together with the 45 editors from 13 graduate programs around the world who selected and reviewed them, will shape the future of economic, international, domestic, and development policy in the decades to come. We strive continually, especially at this moment, to amplify their voices.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, International Affairs, Bilateral Relations, Labor Issues, Business, Mental Health, Accountability, Public Sector, Hezbollah, Services, Electricity, Pollution, and Waste
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Africa, South Asia, Middle East, Canada, Brazil, South America, Central America, Lebanon, Mozambique, North America, Mexico, Jordan, Southeast Asia, Myanmar, and United States of America

22. Rise and Fall of Jacob Zuma

Author:
Vladimir Shubin
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
In May 2014 I suddenly received a telephone call from the South African Embassy in Moscow, then an official invitation signed by Jacob Zuma followed: he wanted me to be present at his second inauguration. Unfortunately I failed to do it, I was still recovering from a surgical operation, but the very fact was significant, not because I had been involved, but because it symbolized friendly relations that existed between the South African president and those in Russia who took part in supporting the long struggle against the apartheid regime.
Topic:
Apartheid, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, and Race
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, Europe, and South Africa

23. Islamists and Rights Activists in Egypt: The Potential for Convergence

Author:
Heba Raoul Ezzat
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
Abstract:
Animosity has been the keyword in the relationship between Islamists and rights advocates for most of the past few years in Egypt. Islamists turned a blind eye to many crimes committed by the regime and its security agencies between 25 January 2011 and mid-2013. On the other hand, some rights advocates took part in mobilizing and supporting the opposition movement that led to the June 2013 demonstrations and the military seizing power. However, the killings, executions, and other egregious rights violations, then the direct confrontation between the regime and rights groups culminating in a more restrictive NGO law, led rights defenders to take a firmer position, by condemning the regime, and monitoring and documenting its violations. More Islamists are expected to see an opportunity in resorting to human rights advocacy. As such, this would mean accepting more cooperation, especially in terms of monitoring and documentation through various initiatives and institutions established after 2013. Led by a new generation of actors, will this cooperation be free from ideological conflicts? The paper seeks to review, in broad brushstrokes, the contours and important turning points of the relationship between the two groups of actors and outline a possible future trajectory.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Islam, NGOs, and Repression
Political Geography:
Africa, United Nations, North Africa, Egypt, and Mediterranean

24. Dilemmas and Experiences of International Support for Inclusive Peacebuilding

Author:
Clare Castillejo
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution
Abstract:
The issue of inclusive peacebuilding has moved up the international agenda in recent years. There is now unprecedented policy-level commitment among the international community to promote inclusion in conflict-affected contexts; growing evidence of the importance of inclusion for sustainable peace and development; emerging lessons on best approaches for promoting inclusion; and a recognition among international actors of the need to learn from past weaknesses in this area. This report examines the current policy context for providing international support to inclusive peacebuilding. It identifies how international actors can strengthen their efforts to promote inclusion by learning from previous experience and drawing on new knowledge and approaches. It goes on to look at how international actors have supported inclusion in three very different conflict-affected contexts, Afghanistan, Somalia and Nepal, and asks how international actors have engaged on issues of inclusion in these contexts, what factors shaped this engagement, and what the results have been.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Africa, Middle East, Asia, Nepal, and Somalia

25. The EU Migration Partnership Framework: Time for a Rethink?

Author:
Clare Castillejo
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
German Development Institute (DIE)
Abstract:
The European Union’s (EU) Migration Partnership Framework (MPF) was established in June 2016 and seeks to mobilise the instruments, resources and influence of both the EU and member states to establish cooperation with partner countries in order to “sustainably manage migration flows” (European Commission, 2017a, p. 2). Its strong focus on EU interests and positive and negative incentives mark a departure from previous EU migration initiatives and have generated significant controversy. This Discussion Paper examines the politics, implementation and impact of the MPF more than one year on from its establishment, asking what lessons it offers for the future direction of EU migration policy. The paper begins by introducing the MPF and examining the different perspectives of EU actors on the framework. It finds that there is significant disagreement both among EU member states and within EU institutions over the MPF’s approach and priorities. The paper explores the political and ethical controversies that the MPF has generated, including regarding its ambition to subordinate other areas of external action to migration goals; its use of incentives; and its undermining of EU development and human rights principles. The paper assesses the implementation and impact of the MPF in its five priority countries – Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal. It argues that the concrete achievements of the migration partnerships have been limited; that the MPF has largely failed to incentivise the cooperation that the EU was seeking; and that the EU’s migration programming in MPF partner countries has suffered from serious flaws. The paper takes an in-depth look at the Ethiopia partnership, which has been the most challenging. It describes how the interests and goals of the EU and Ethiopia have not aligned themselves, how the issue of returns has come to entirely overshadow engagement, and how the relationship between the partners has been soured. The paper goes on to examine how the MPF relates to African interests and how it has affected EU-Africa relations, arguing that the MPF approach is seen by many African actors as imposing EU interests and undermining African unity and continental ambitions. Finally, it explores how the EU can develop engagement with Africa on migration issues that is more realistic, constructive, and sustainable, with the aim of fostering intra-African movement and economic opportunities; ensuring protection for refugees and vulnerable migrants; and allowing both continents to benefit from large-scale, safe and orderly African labour migration to Europe. However, it warns that any such shift will require a change in mindset by European leaders and populations.
Topic:
Development, International Cooperation, Migration, Labor Issues, Refugees, and Economy
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, Ethiopia, Senegal, Nigeria, Mali, Niger, and European Union

26. The “Right to Remain Here” as an Evolving Component of Global Refugee Protection: Current Initiatives and Critical Questions

Author:
Daniel Kanstroom
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This article considers the relationship between two human rights discourses (and two specific legal regimes): refugee and asylum protection and the evolving body of international law that regulates expulsions and deportations. Legal protections for refugees and asylum seekers are, of course, venerable, well-known, and in many respects still cherished, if challenged and perhaps a bit frail. Anti-deportation discourse is much newer, multifaceted, and evolving. It is in many respects a young work in progress. It has arisen in response to a rising tide of deportations, and the worrisome development of massive, harsh deportation machinery in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Mexico, Australia, and South Africa, among others. This article’s main goal is to consider how these two discourses do and might relate to each other. More specifically, it suggests that the development of procedural and substantive rights against removal — as well as rights during and after removal — aids our understanding of the current state and possible future of the refugee protection regime. The article’s basic thesis is this: The global refugee regime, though challenged both theoretically and in practice, must be maintained and strengthened. Its historical focus on developing criteria for admission into safe states, on protections against expulsion (i.e., non-refoulement), and on regimes of temporary protection all remain critically important. However, a focus on other protections for all noncitizens facing deportation is equally important. Deportation has become a major international system that transcends the power of any single nation-state. Its methods have migrated from one regime to another; its size and scope are substantial and expanding; its costs are enormous; and its effects frequently constitute major human rights violations against millions who do not qualify as refugees. In recent years there has been increasing reliance by states on generally applicable deportation systems, led in large measure by the United States’ radical 25 year-plus experiment with large-scale deportation. Europe has also witnessed a rising tide of deportation, some of which has developed in reaction to European asylum practices. Deportation has been facilitated globally (e.g., in Australia) by well-funded, efficient (but relatively little known) intergovernmental idea sharing, training, and cooperation. This global expansion, standardization, and increasing intergovernmental cooperation on deportation has been met by powerful — if in some respects still nascent — human rights responses by activists, courts, some political actors, and scholars. It might seem counterintuitive to think that emerging ideas about deportation protections could help refugees and asylum seekers, as those people by definition often have greater rights protections both in admission and expulsion. However, the emerging anti-deportation discourses should be systematically studied by those interested in the global refugee regime for three basic reasons. First, what Matthew Gibney has described as “the deportation turn” has historically been deeply connected to anxiety about asylum seekers. Although we lack exact figures of the number of asylum seekers who have been subsequently expelled worldwide, there seems little doubt that it has been a significant phenomenon and will be an increasingly important challenge in the future. The two phenomena of refugee/asylum protections and deportation, in short, are now and have long been linked. What has sometimes been gained through the front door, so to speak, may be lost through the back door. Second, current deportation human rights discourses embody creative framing models that might aid constructive critique and reform of the existing refugee protection regime. They tend to be more functionally oriented, less definitional in terms of who warrants protection, and more fluid and transnational. Third, these discourses offer important specific rights protections that could strengthen the refugee and asylum regime, even as we continue to see weakening state support for the basic 1951/1967 protection regime. This is especially true in regard to the extraterritorial scope of the (deporting) state’s obligations post-deportation. This article particularly examines two initiatives in this emerging field: The International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens and the draft Declaration on the Rights of Expelled and Deported Persons developed through the Boston College Post-Deportation Human Rights Project (of which the author is a co-director). It compares their provisions to the existing corpus of substantive and procedural protections for refugees relating to expulsion and removal. It concludes with consideration of how these discourses may strengthen protections for refugees while also helping to develop more capacious and protective systems in the future.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Border Control, Refugees, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Africa, United States, Europe, France, South Africa, Germany, Australia, Mexico, and Global Focus

27. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Domestic Processes and Foreign Assistance

Author:
Cecilia Jacob
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian National University Department of International Relations
Abstract:
On 28–29 October 2016, the Department of International Relations at The Australian National University, along with the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect at the University of Queensland, and with support from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, hosted the conference Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Domestic Processes and Foreign Assistance. The conference was attended by academics, including leading experts in the field, and members and representatives of a wide range of government agencies, the diplomatic community, international organisations, and civil society organisations. Two distinguished keynotes were delivered by the Honorable Gareth Evans, ANU Chancellor and co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), and Ivan Šimonović, Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect to the UN Secretary-General (SASG). The purpose of the conference was to bring together policymakers, practitioners, and scholars working on areas related to the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), primarily in the areas of state-level responsibility to prevent mass atrocities and protect civilian populations (what we call Pillar One of the R2P), and international assistance to states to fulfil this responsibility (Pillar Two). Recognising that the principle of R2P has gained significant traction within the international community since it was first introduced in the 2001 report The Responsibility to Protect, the conference sought to transcend longstanding debates over acceptance and legitimacy of R2P as a norm. Rather, it sought to clarify what the implementation of R2P entails for the policy and practitioner community, and to push forward new lines of academic inquiry and research that could support the implementation agenda. At its heart, R2P implementation is about strengthening the capacity of states to prevent atrocities from occurring in the first place. Prevention requires enhancing the resilience of societies that face the risk of atrocities through improved access to security, justice, and the rule of law. Effective mass atrocity prevention requires going local – understanding the dynamics of mass atrocities in their specific historical and social contexts; and going international – ensuring that international actors effectively align their priorities, strategies, and resourcing on atrocity prevention in ways that support local and national needs. This is an ambitious agenda, and experts from a range of fields were invited to address the practical implications of implementing R2P across numerous sites. The central themes included atrocity prevention, international accountability, human rights, international humanitarian law, justice for legacies of violence, foreign policy, development cooperation, peacekeeping, and civil–military assistance. The conference brought together different communities working on aspects that support the goals of R2P in order to enhance knowledge across thematic divides, and contributed to clarifying the practical implications that commitment to R2P implementation entails for these communities across the spectrum. This report contains the text of the keynote speeches, and condensed summaries of the panel discussions. These can be read together to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the debates occurring across the spectrum, or can be read as stand-alone sections for those with specific interest in a particular aspect of the R2P implementation.
Topic:
Genocide, Human Rights, International Cooperation, and United Nations
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, Asia, North Korea, Philippines, Syria, and Congo

28. The peace process between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP guerrilla has provided a unique opportunity not only to reunite a society torn apart by conflict, but also to build a more just peace that responds to the needs and rights of both men and women. The establishment of the Sub-commission on Gender as part of the formal peace architecture has turned out to be an effective instrument for gender inclusion in the peace process. The peace agreement signed in September 2016 was by far the most inclusive peace agreement in history. When a narrow majority rejected it in a plebiscite the following October many feared that gender would be sacrificed to accommodate those who voted no. However, in the renegotiated peace agreement that was ratified by Congress and entered into force in December the gender focus is not weakened. Rather, the language is clarified and has become more precise. Experiences from Colombia offer valuable insights for other peace processes on opportunities for and challenges affecting inclusion.

Author:
Clare Castillejo
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution
Abstract:
The issue of inclusive peacebuilding has moved up the international agenda in recent years. There is now unprecedented policy-level commitment among the international community to promote inclusion in conflict-affected contexts; growing evidence of the importance of inclusion for sustainable peace and development; emerging lessons on best approaches for promoting inclusion; and a recognition among international actors of the need to learn from past weaknesses in this area. This report examines the current policy context for providing international support to inclusive peacebuilding. It identifies how international actors can strengthen their efforts to promote inclusion by learning from previous experience and drawing on new knowledge and approaches. It goes on to look at how international actors have supported inclusion in three very different conflict-affected contexts, Afghanistan, Somalia and Nepal, and asks how international actors have engaged on issues of inclusion in these contexts, what factors shaped this engagement, and what the results have been.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Africa, Middle East, Asia, Nepal, and Somalia

29. The Security Sector’s Role in Responding to Health Crises: Lessons from the 2014–2015 Ebola Epidemic and Recommendations for the Mano River Union and Its Member States

Author:
Jonathan Sandy, Albrecht Schnabel, Haja Sovula, and Raphael Zumsteg
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
This report is informed by the two-day roundtable-style workshop entitled "The Security Sector and Global Health Crises: Lessons from the 2014 Ebola Epidemic in West Africa" in Freetown, Sierra Leone. The workshop's main discussions, outcomes and recommendations are expected to facilitate better preparedness to mitigate future epidemics through collaborative and coordinated efforts between health and security sector communities, and directed at local, national and regional actors as well as the international donor community engaged in West Africa.
Topic:
Security, Health, International Cooperation, Regional Cooperation, and Health Care Policy
Political Geography:
Africa, Liberia, West Africa, Sierra Leone, and Guinea

30. The African Union's Peace and Security Partnership with China

Author:
Asebe Regassa Debelo
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Social Science Research Council
Abstract:
The China-African Union (AU) peace and security partnership can be positively harnessed in support of peacebuilding processes on the continent. This policy brief urges African policymakers to look beyond the familiar narratives of Sino- African relations as “resource diplomacy.” It notes some of the challenges facing China’s engagement with peace and security issues in Africa, and considers several options for addressing them. The brief also offers recommendations to the AU and African sub-regional organizations on how to optimize the opportunities presented by China’s engagement with Africa to consolidate sustainable peace on the continent.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, Peace, and African Union
Political Geography:
Africa, China, and Asia