Number of results to display per page
Search Results
72. The Sino-Russian and US-Russian relationships: Current developments and future trends
- Author:
- Marcin Kaczmarski, Mark Katz, and Teija Tiilikainen
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- The great-power system has been in constant change since the end of the Cold War. The US became the hegemonic power, and under its shelter, the European Union was able to transform into a European-wide political body. Soon, a group of leading regional powers started to question the universalist aspirations of the Western-led international order. Two members of this club in particular were not satisfied with the role of a regional hegemon and had more global ambitions. China has already become the largest trading nation globally, and Chinese foreign policy has assumed an assertive tone. China has both the potential to challenge US hegemony, as well as the political will to use it. Russia’s project to achieve a global great-power status, on the other hand, is inspired by its historical identity and its alleged humiliation by the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia longs for recognition of its great-power status in particular from the US. This report focuses on relations between China and Russia on the one hand and the US and Russia on the other. It analyses the current developments and future trends in these relationships, as well as their implications for the EU.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Hegemony
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, China, Europe, Asia, and North America
73. Finland's defence cooperation: The ‘no a priori limits’ approach with Sweden should be a model for other cooperation efforts
- Author:
- Charly Salonius-Pasternak and Henri Vanahanen
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- Finland’s efforts to weave a web of bi- and multilateral defence cooperation have developed faster than anticipated. Yet cooperation with Sweden is unique, partially because limits have not been set a priori on what cooperation could entail. Finland should formally adopt this ‘no a priori limits’ approach throughout its other defence cooperation relationships.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Multilateralism
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Finland
74. UK Aid Quality Indicators
- Author:
- Caitlin McKee, Ian Mitchell, and Arthur Baker
- Publication Date:
- 12-2018
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Global Development
- Abstract:
- This paper discusses the United Kingdom’s foreign aid quality based on an updated assessment of the Quality of Official Development Assistance (QuODA) published by the Center for Global Development. QuODA uses 24 quantitative indicators based on how aid is given, grouped into four themes: maximizing efficiency, fostering institutions, reducing the burden on recipient countries, and transparency and learning. These are based on principles which donor and recipient countries agreed to in a series of high-level meetings on aid effectiveness. We find UK aid quality has decreased from 2012 to 2016 and now ranks 15th out of the 27 countries assessed. The quality of its multilateral aid is relatively strong with significant contributions to EU institutions who score in the top half of multilateral agencies, and well-above the UK’s bilateral aid. We analyse the UK’s bilateral aid in detail, identifying areas of relative strength but also four recommendations for the UK Government to improve aid effectiveness
- Topic:
- Development, International Cooperation, Foreign Aid, and Multilateralism
- Political Geography:
- United Kingdom and Europe
75. 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
76. 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
77. Matching Systems for Refugees
- Author:
- Will Jones and Alexander Teytelboym
- Publication Date:
- 01-2017
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal on Migration and Human Security
- Institution:
- Center for Migration Studies of New York
- Abstract:
- Design of matching systems between refugees and states or local areas is emerging as one of the most promising solutions to problems in refugee resettlement. We describe the basics of two-sided matching theory used in a number of allocation problems, such as school choice, where both sides need to agree to the match. We then explain how these insights can be applied to international refugee matching in the context of the European Union and examine how refugee matching might work within the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, Refugees, and Resettlement
- Political Geography:
- United States, United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, and North America
78. The Berlin Pulse 2017 (full issue)
- Publication Date:
- 11-2017
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Körber-Stiftung
- Abstract:
- Dear Reader, Welcome to The Berlin Pulse! In the past years, calls for greater German international engagement were heard at many occasions. As Germany sets out for a new coalition experiment, the question is whether the new government will assume this responsibility, and how it will address international challenges. To succeed, a Chancellor Angela Merkel will have to reconcile the views of her coalition partners with expectations of Germany’s international partners. How much leeway does a new government have between international expectations and domestic constraints? The idea behind The Berlin Pulse is to guide policy-makers and experts on this fine line. To this end, prominent international authors such as Jens Stoltenberg and Mohammad Javad Zarif formulate their expectations for Germany on 2018’s most pressing issues. A representative survey commissioned by Körber Foundation in October 2017 contrasts their perspectives with German public opinion. We will publish The Berlin Pulse annually on the occasion of the Berlin Foreign Policy Forum, which we host together with the Federal Foreign Office. The contrast of domestic and international perspectives indicates what kind of foreign policy actor Germany can become. For example, while many foreign policy makers demand that Germany punches its weight on the international stage, Germans do not demonstrate the same enthusiasm: 52 percent prefer international restraint over increased engagement, a value similar to past years. As Timothy Garton Ash writes in his contribution on Germany’s role in the world, “there has been no historical caesura since 3 October 1990 large enough to justify talking about a ‘new’ Germany.” And while experts still discuss whether we are in a “post-Atlantic era”, the German population already seems to have reached a conclusion: 56 percent consider the relationship between the US and Germany to be somewhat or very bad, and a striking 88 percent would give a defense partnership with European states priority over the partnership with the US. In an interview for The Berlin Pulse, Condoleezza Rice stresses the importance of increased defense spending for the transatlantic relationship, yet 51 percent of Germans think spending should stay at current levels. Opinion polls are often snapshots. Yet, we have been conducting polls since 2014 and believe that continuity allows distinguishing between outliers and underlying characteristics of German public opinion on foreign policy. We particularly thank the Pew Research Center for fielding six joint questions on the transatlantic relationship in the US. The motto of our founder to “talk to each other rather than about each other” has guided Körber Foundation’s activities from the beginning. The Berlin Pulse shall gather representative voices from within and outside Germany to illustrate and acknowledge the potential and limits of Germany’s role in the world. We believe this is a prerequisite for developing a viable and successful foreign policy. Behind every successful publication, there is a dedicated editor. Thanks to the acumen and persistence of Luise Voget, Program Manager at our International Affairs Department, the idea of a ‘guidebook to German foreign policy’ has been molded into 60 pages of data, analysis and opinion: The Berlin Pulse. I wish you a good read. Thomas Paulsen
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, International Affairs, and Military Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Europe and Germany
79. NATO, Cooperative Security, and the Middle East – Status and Prospects
- Author:
- Hakan Akbulut
- Publication Date:
- 04-2017
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
- Abstract:
- This report consists of three parts: The first part offers a brief introduction into the topic of NATO partnerships in general and ICI more specifically. The second part compiles three papers presented at the workshop on the preferences, perspectives, and policies of Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) relating to cooperation with NATO. The third part summarizes the presentations of all workshop participants and accompanying discussions without making any explicit attributions as the event was held under Chatham House Rule. All speakers participated in the workshop in a personal capacity and expressed exclusively their personal views and assessment. Moreover, as this summary incorporates all different views expressed, a participant will unlikely endorse all arguments to be found herein.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, International Cooperation, International Affairs, and Partnerships
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, Bahrain, Oman, and UAE
80. Alexander Van der Bellen, President of Austria
- Author:
- Alexander Van der Bellen
- Publication Date:
- 09-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Columbia University World Leaders Forum
- Abstract:
- His Excellency Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen, Federal President of the Republic of Austria, addresses the Columbia University World Leaders Forum in Low Library.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Human Rights, International Cooperation, International Affairs, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- New York, Europe, Austria, and European Union