Search

Begin New Search Topic Treaties and Agreements Political Geography Europe

111. Death of an Institution. The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence?

Author:
Graham Messervy-Whiting and Alyson J. K. Bailes
Publication Date:
05-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
On 31 March 2010 the ten Member States of Western European Union (WEU) announced that the last organs, staffs and activities of that institution would be laid to rest by 30 June 2011. Having resiled from the Modified Brussels Treaty (MBT) of 1954 which created WEU as a successor to the Western Union of 1948, these nations are now working to dispose of the staff, premises and archives at WEU's Brussels offices and its Parliamentary Assembly in Paris. Little public interest has been shown in these moves, perhaps because WEU's operational and political work had already been taken over by the European Union (EU), in the frame of its new European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), at the end of 1999.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Europe

112. First Joint Russian-U.S. report on Cyber Conflict

Author:
Karl Rauscher and Andrey Korotkov
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EastWest Institute
Abstract:
In the spirit of the reset of relations between Moscow and Washington, Russian and U.S. security and cyber experts undertook to model new cooperative behavior for dealing with the most challenging security topic of our age: cybersecurity. Until now, the conventional wisdom has been that setting the “rules of the road” for cyber conflict would be both tedious and extraordinarily difficult. In this first effort, the joint team demonstrated that progress can be and is being made. This paper presents five joint recommendations that are immediately actionable and, if implemented, would be effective in preserving key humanitarian principles of the Laws of War. The progress demonstrated here can serve as a catalyst for further progress to achieve that goal. This joint paper presents the consensus findings of the Russian and U.S. experts on the Rendering of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in Cyberspace. The work is a product of a Track 2 bilateral program that seeks to open dialogue, build sustainable trust and have a positive impact in the most difficult, most critical areas for international security. In recent history, Russia and the United States have had an outsized influence on international issues. When these two countries can agree on a common approach to any particular problem, other countries are prone to listen seriously. For that reason, top experts from Russia and the United States agreed to tackle the problem of cybersecurity together. The hope is that other countries will join in this process.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Treaties and Agreements, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Washington, and Asia

113. Decision-Making in Security and Defence Policy. Towards Supranational Intergovernmentalism?

Author:
Jolyon Howorth
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG)
Abstract:
For scholars and practitioners of European politics alike, the distinction between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism has always been fundamental. This distinction has underpinned the various schools of European integration theory, just as it has remained crucial for European governments keen to demonstrate that the member states remain in charge of key policy areas. Nowhere is this considered to be more central than in the area of foreign and security policy, which has consciously been set within the rigid intergovernmental framework of Pillar Two of the Maastricht Treaty and, under the Lisbon Treaty, remains subject to the unanimity rule. And yet, scholarship on the major decision-making agencies of the foreign and security policy of the EU suggests that the distinction is not only blurred but increasingly meaningless. This paper demonstrates that, in virtually every case, decisions are shaped and even taken by small groups of relatively well-socialized officials in the key committees acting in a mode which is as close to supranational as it is to intergovernmental. The political control of foreign and security policy, which is considered sacrosanct by member state governments, is only rarely exercised by politicians at the level of the European Council or Council of Ministers.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Europe

114. Gambit or Endgame? The New State of Arms Control

Author:
Alexei Arbatov
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The pursuit of nuclear arms control has enjoyed something of a renaissance recently, with the signing of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in spring 2010 in Prague. Whether that momentum will dissipate after New START or lead to further nuclear arms control agreements depends on several factors: The new U.S. and Russian nuclear doctrines. While there is always some distance between a state's declared policy and that policy's implementation, both documents show that, behind their more ambitious disarmament rhetoric, the United States and Russia maintain conservative nuclear policies that make radical nuclear disarmament unlikely—to say nothing of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The peculiarities of the recently signed and ratified New START agreement. Among these are the modest cuts stipulated by the treaty relative to its predecessors; the acrimonious ratification debates in both the U.S. and Russian legislatures; and the dim prospects for a follow-on agreement (in sharp contrast to the mood prevailing after past START agreements). The dynamics of obsolescence and modernization of U.S. and Russian strategic offensive forces. The United States should have little problem cutting its forces to get below New START's limits. Russia, however, will have problems, not in reducing its numbers, but in raising them to treaty ceilings, due to their removal of obsolete weapons from service and slow deployment of new systems. Either Russia can negotiate a New START follow-on treaty with even lower ceilings or it can accelerate the development and deployment of new systems. While the former is obviously a more attractive alternative, it would require the United States and Russia to resolve many thorny arms control issues, such as ballistic missile defense, conventional strategic weapons, and tactical nuclear weapons. Ballistic missile defense. President Obama's decision to modify the Bush administration's ballistic missile defense plans in Central Europe opened the way for New START and eased Russian concerns, even if they could never have been allayed entirely. Moscow believes that U.S. ballistic missile defense programs are ultimately designed to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent, and it is far from clear that U.S. proposals to jointly develop such capabilities with Russia would allay those concerns—or that the idea even makes any sense. Russia's perceptions of U.S. conventional strategic weapons. Russian officials are especially concerned about the U.S. Prompt Global Strike concept and do not trust American assurances that such capabilities are only directed at terrorists and rogue states. There has already been some progress made in dealing with these weapons in negotiations, and future progress on this issue will likely depend on legal agreements and confidence-building measures to scale U.S. capabilities in ways that would threaten Russia's (or China's) strategic deterrent. Joint development of ballistic missile defenses with Russia. This issue could seriously complicate Washington's and Moscow's strategic relations with China and India. Officials on both sides would do well to start small and proceed step-by-step, using incremental successes to build the momentum necessary to work through more difficult issues. Non-strategic—that is, tactical—nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, the United States and Europe relied on tactical nuclear weapons to counterbalance Warsaw Pact superiority in conventional forces in Europe; today, the situation is reversed, with Moscow relying on tactical nuclear weapons as a counterbalance not only to NATO conventional superiority but also to U.S. strategic nuclear superiority and long-range precision-guided weapons. No one now knows which weapons systems should be categorized as non-strategic, and how limits across regions could be accounted for and verified. In addition, reviving the moribund Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty is essential to dealing with the issue of tactical nuclear weapons.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, Washington, and Moscow

115. Guardians of subsidiarity: National parliaments strive to control EU decision-making

Author:
Kaisa Korhonen
Publication Date:
05-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The Lisbon Treaty encourages national parliaments to jointly forge a new node in the EU institutional architecture. National parliaments are given the right to control certain aspects of EU decision-making without the involvement of member state governments. Most importantly, national parliaments share the responsibility for ensuring that the subsidiarity principle is respected in all legislative matters of the Union.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, and Governance
Political Geography:
Europe

116. Palestinian Reconciliation: Plus ÇA Change...

Publication Date:
07-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
Hamas and Fatah surprised all with their announcement of a reconciliation accord. What had been delayed since Hamas took over Gaza in 2007 and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Abbas asked Salam Fayyad to form a government in the West Bank was done in Cairo in hours. Shock was matched by uncertainty over what had been agreed and the course it would take. Would the factions produce a national strategy and unify fractured institutions? Or would the agreement codify the status quo? Even some of the more pessimistic scenarios were optimistic. Reconciliation stumbled at its first hurdle, naming a prime minister – though that is not the only divisive issue. Neither side wants to admit failure, so the accord is more likely to be frozen than renounced, leaving the door slightly ajar for movement. Palestinian parties but also the U.S. and Europe need to recognise that reconciliation is necessary to both minimise the risk of Israeli-Palestinian violence and help produce a leader- ship able to reach and implement peace with Israel.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Treaties and Agreements, and Territorial Disputes
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Arab Countries

117. Taking Stock: EU Common Commercial Policy in the Lisbon Era

Author:
David Kleimann
Publication Date:
04-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
The first 16 months of the EU's common commercial policy (CCP) in the post-Lisbon period provide indicative insights into how the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers interpret their respective roles under the new legal framework introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. This paper analyses the amendments, the institutional capacities to respond to the reform challenges and the evolving institutional balance applying to Lisbon-era common commercial policy. Against this backdrop, the paper gives an overview of the changing dynamics of EU trade and investment policy in a context of enhanced politicization resulting from the European Parliament's involvement in the decision-making process. Particular importance is given to the question whether enhanced EP involvement in decision-making has the potential to lead to a scenario resembling the policy process in the United States, where congressional responsibility for trade and investment policy has resulted in the capture of the policy agenda by special interest groups and snail-paced policy progress (if any) in recent years. Accordingly, the paper scrutinizes the political preferences that the European Parliament is introducing into current European trade policy debates as well as the framework legislation and trade agreements. Finally, it is argued that parliamentary involvement in making common commercial policy has the potential to narrow the gap between European public political preferences and perceptions, on the one hand, and actual EU trade policies on the other, and to place EU trade and investment policies on a foundation of renewed public political support. In the author's view, however, it is imperative that such an achievement is based on well-informed, responsible, sustainable and clearly communicated policy proposals from the MEPs, who respond to and seek to balance the multiplicity of interests of CCP stakeholders in European civil society and respect the Union's international obligations.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Europe

118. The General Affairs Council: The Key to Political Influence of Rotating Presidencies

Author:
Piotr Maciej Kaczyński and Andrew Byrne
Publication Date:
07-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for European Policy Studies
Abstract:
In spite of the formal role laid out for the General Affairs Council (GAC) in the Treaties, it has been weakened since it was extracted from the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) and set up to function on its own. Its current uneven composition is leading to further marginalisation. Reforming the GAC can bring it to the centre of gravity of the Council proceedings and address a number of problems in the current institutional structure. For that to happen, however, countries holding the rotating Council presidency need to consider placing their head of state or government in the chair of the GAC meetings. Upgrading GAC in this way would streamline the diverse work of the Council, it would help in alleviatin g the heavy political burden that now falls on the understaffed President of the European Council and it would allow the institution of the rotating presidency to regain a higher political profile by creating out of national leaders a de facto Vice President of the European Council.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, and Governance
Political Geography:
Europe

119. The internal-external security nexus: more coherence under Lisbon?

Author:
Florian Trauner
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Union Institute for Security Studies
Abstract:
Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the EU has intensified its efforts to establish closer coordination between the internal and external dimensions of the EU's security policies - i.e. between the fields of justice and home affairs (JHA) and foreign and security policy - based on the assumption that this serves the interests of all actors involved. More inward-looking actors, typically from the ministries of the interior and justice in individual Member States, believe that they can strengthen their internal problem-solving capacities if the EU uses its foreign policy instruments and capabilities in a targeted and focused way to improve internal security and to engage third countries in achieving its goals in the JHA domain. At the same time, JHA expertise and actors have become an indispensable resource for traditional foreign policy actors in terms of dealing with today's security challenges and achieving the EU's main foreign policy objectives, such as promoting the rule of law and preventing state failure.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Europe and Amsterdam

120. Rehashed Commission Delegations or Real Embassies? EU Delegations Post-Lisbon

Author:
Michele Comelli and Raffaello Matarazzo
Publication Date:
07-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) have transformed the delegations of the EU abroad which are the face of the EU in third countries and in international organisations. Previously they dealt with trade and aid only, now they also deal with foreign and security policy, coordinating and representing the positions of the EU in third countries. This is an important innovation, but one which poses new challenges. In addition, EU delegations to international organizations are confronted with specific problems: the member states' reluctance to recognize the new competences conferred by the Treaty to the EU and the discrepancies between the new provisions of the EU's external representation and the internal procedures of international organizations themselves. In order to use all the space for manoeuvre provided for by the Treaty EU delegations must pursue a double objective: further adapting the EU's external representation to the procedures of the main international organizations; and promoting deeper coordination between the EU and the member states, particularly when shared competences are at stake.
Topic:
International Organization, Regional Cooperation, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Europe and Lisbon