Search

Begin New Search Topic Conflict Political Geography Global Focus

201. Women political leaders and peacebuilding

Author:
Clare Castillejo
Publication Date:
05-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution
Abstract:
Over the past 15 years there has been growing recognition of the gender-differentiated impact of conflict, the opportunities to promote women’s rights that post-conflict peacebuilding processes provide and – crucially – the value that women bring to peacebuilding. Yet in many conflict-affected settings women’s participation and leadership in shaping the peacebuilding agenda remain strongly resisted by male elites and are not prioritised by international actors. This report explores the opportunities for achieving women’s meaningful participation and influence in peacebuilding, and the challenges faced by such an agenda. Given the crucially important role that political parties can play in shaping the direction of peacebuilding and post-conflict politics, the report focuses particularly on the ability of women to exercise political voice and leadership through parties and the party system. Finally, it examines why international actors have failed to live up to their commitments on women’s inclusion in peacebuilding, and identifies opportunities and strategies to strengthen international support for women’s participation and influence in the politics of peace.
Topic:
Gender Issues, Peacekeeping, Women, Feminism, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

202. Engaged societies, responsive states: The Social Contract in situations of conflict and fragility

Author:
Marco Mezzera
Publication Date:
04-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution
Abstract:
This concept note presents an analysis of the use of a “social contract” as a way of framing UNDP’s governance and peacebuilding practices in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. It forms part of the follow-up to the UNDP report “Governance for Peace: Securing the Social Contract” (UNDP, 2012) both to contribute further to UN policy discussions and to help chart ways forward. The social contract is the process by which everyone in a political community, either explicitly or tacitly, consents to state authority, thereby limiting some of her or his freedoms, in exchange for the state’s protection of their universal human rights and security and for the adequate provision of public goods and services. Divided into five sections, this note provides both a conceptual understanding of the social contract, as well as policy implications for UNDP projects moving forward. The note also examines case studies of post-conflict regions where the social contract has been rebuilt and proposes areas for further study in order to help fully capitalize on the potential that the social contract offers. Finally, the two annexes provide a framework for a tool to help practitioners analyze the structure and dynamics of the social contract in a fragile setting.
Topic:
Governance, Peacekeeping, Conflict, and Social Contract
Political Geography:
Global Focus

203. The Relevance of Clausewitz’s Theory of War to Contemporary Conflict Resolution

Author:
Jasmin Cajic
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
This article argues that Clausewitz’s writing on war nearly 200 years ago is still relevant for contemporary conflict resolution from at least three aspects: his idea that war is “the continuation of policy by other means”; secondly his analysis of the nature of war and the trinity theory; and finally his understanding of the nature of the strategy. The analysis in this article found that, if there is good policy from which to derive a strategy, and if we are able to apply it efficiently, with support of the people and international community, we have created solid preconditions to win the war. In addition, Clausewitz’s view of the issues associated with war, strategy and conflict resolution is important for understanding the major issues and decision making even while history and reality constrain his abstractions with today’s experience. His theories and concepts are as relevant today as they were two hundred years ago. Therefore, the twenty-first century strategists and leaders are recommended to take into consideration Clausewitz’s theories on war and strategy because they are still applicable today. In short, Clausewitz is a theorist for the twenty-first century.
Topic:
War, Political Theory, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

204. The Contagiousness of Regional Conflict: A Middle East Case Study

Author:
Graeme P. Auton and Jacob B. Slobodien
Publication Date:
03-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of International Affairs
Institution:
School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
Abstract:
Several factors contribute to or inhibit the “contagiousness” of regional conflict and irregular warfare, whether conducted at the interstate, extrastate, or intrastate level. Five broad drivers of the diffusion of regional conflict are (1) weak states, (2) anticipated power shifts, regional and domestic, (3) unstable and poorly controlled border regions, (4) large refugee flows, and (5) the religiously-based non-state militant campaign against the state as an organizing principle of world politics. These factors are both endogenous and exogenous to particular states and societies, and must be considered alongside the standard factors considered in international relations literature to be the basis of “dangerous state dyads:” geographic contiguity, absence of alliances, absence of an advanced economy, absence of a democratic polity, and absence of a regionally preponderant power. Two case studies illustrate this argument: the rise of Islamic State, and the awareness of the causes of contagion in regional conflict implicit in Israeli security policy.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, International Affairs, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

205. Notes for the Next UN Secretary-General

Author:
Simon Adams
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
The United Nations faces an existential crisis. The norms that bind and ‘safeguard humanity’ are currently under threat. The deliberate bombing of hospitals and the indiscriminate killing of civilians has become almost routine in Syria and several other conflicts. Numerous governments and murderous non-state actors (like isis or Boko Haram) are defying international humanitarian and human rights law. This article argues that the solution to the current global exigency and a central challenge facing the next Secretary-General is to achieve an equilibrium shift away from crisis response and towards conflict prevention. This is especially true with regard to preventing mass atrocity crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing). Historically, no single issue has done more to tarnish the reputation of the un than the failure to halt atrocities. Under a committed Secretary-General, the un has unique capacity to prevent these crimes.
Topic:
International Law, Displacement, Conflict, Violence, and Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Political Geography:
United Nations, Syria, and Global Focus

206. Fragile States Index 2016 – Annual Report

Author:
J. J. Messner and Nate Haken
Publication Date:
06-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Fund for Peace
Abstract:
The Fragile States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Fragile States Index—and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built—makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large.
Topic:
Democracy, Refugee Crisis, Fragile States, Political stability, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, and Global Focus

207. Terrorism: Undefinable and Out-of-Context?

Author:
Jochen Hippler
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Development and Peace
Abstract:
Terrorism studies have developed since the 1970s. But the research field still suffers from several weaknesses: the inability to formulate a consensus on what exactly “terrorism” is; the vagueness and arbitrariness of the practical usage of the term “terrorism”; its politicization and the habit to use it as a moral label instead as an analytical tool; and the tendency to use the term outside of any political context. This study firstly reconsiders these conceptual weaknesses, and proposes how to deal with them. Secondly, it suggests to focus terrorism studies more on the political contexts, which produce domestic and international terrorism, by using the key example of terrorism resulting from a context of civil wars and insurgencies. The study argues that terrorism is not an ideology, not a type of warfare, rarely a strategy, but mostly a tactical instrument, which has to be analyzed in the respective political contexts.
Topic:
Civil War, Development, Terrorism, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

208. The Paradox of Power Asymmetry: When and Why Do Weaker States Challenge US Hegemony?

Author:
Hong-Cheol Kim
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
Little is known about how, among weaker states, incentives to challenge the status quo are related to the expected response of the US as the system’s hegemon. In contrast to conventional wisdom that suggests militarized punishment can deter potential challengers, it is argued that weak but strongly motivated challengers can interpret the hegemon’s military intervention against adversaries as a window of opportunity to launch their own actions. Empirical results using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and binary time-seriescross-section (BTSCS) models reveal that weaker states possess incentives to challenge the international status quo when the hegemon is preoccupied with prior foreign policy commitments, most notably war. In other words, weaker states dissatisfied with the status quo are more likely to challenge the hegemon when it is preoccupied with prior military commitments. They do so because war involvement distracts the hegemon, drains its capabilities and resolve, and opens up a window of opportunity for weaker states to issue challenges. In addition, weaker states that have an alliance portfolio dissimilar to that of the hegemon are more likely than others to initiate Militarized Interstate Disputes. Theoretically, this paper provides microfoundations to answer the question of why weaker parties instigate asymmetric conflicts when it might seem irrational to do so.
Topic:
International Relations, Hegemony, Conflict, Power, and Asymmetric Relations
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

209. Adolescent Girls’ Access to Education in Conflict-Affected Settings: Closing the Gap

Author:
Peace and Security (GIWPS) Georgetown Institute for Women
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS)
Abstract:
Today, 62 million girls around the world are not in school, and at least 20 million of them live in conflict-affected and fragile settings as refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), or otherwise vulnerable populations. For policymakers and practitioners alike, understanding and being able to address this nexus between girls’ education and fragile settings is crucial. Crises deepen gender inequities – four of the five countries that currently have the largest gender gaps in education also experience high levels of conflict. An increasing consensus exists on the value of education for displaced girls. However, the challenges to providing quality educational opportunities remain significant. Within this context, educating displaced adolescent girls is particularly challenging, but is imperative for long-term stability and prosperity. Since the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals in 2000, significant progress has been made in increasing girls’ primary school enrollment, but secondary school enrollment remains limited. Fewer than one in three girls in Sub-Saharan Africa and less than half of girls in South Asia are currently enrolled in secondary school. Of at least 14 million refugee and internally displaced children between the ages of 3 and 15, only one in two attend primary school and one in four attend the lower secondary school grades. When crises strike, adolescent girls are acutely vulnerable. In these settings, girls are 2.5 times more likely to be out of school as compared to their male peers. While these challenges are increasingly well documented, little is known and even less is shared regarding evidence-based solutions. This brief highlights the organizations and institutions driving innovation in this space, and demonstrates possible pathways and successful strategies for confronting components of this global challenge. With the solutions featured in this brief, engaged organizations can leverage their unique capacities to let the 62 million girls who are not in school learn.
Topic:
Development, Education, Conflict, and Girls
Political Geography:
Global Focus

210. Below the Threshold: The Law Governing the Use of Force Against Non-State Actors in the Absence of a Non-International Armed Conflict

Author:
Daniel Hessel, Julia Shu, and Sarah Weiner
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
Boko Haram attacks civilians in Nigeria. The Islamic State launches attacks in Paris. Terrorists take hostages at a hotel in Mali. Mexican drug gangs threaten government officials and civilians. Houthi rebels seek to take control of the government in Yemen—and succeed. States increasingly face security threats from non-state actors, which have led states and observers to ask what states can do in response. What legal framework should apply? What constraints do states face? When can states resort to the use of military force to address threats posed to them by non-state actors, either on their own territory or on the territory of another state? The answer to these questions turns on whether the conflict in question rises to the level of a non-international armed conflict (NIAC). Based on the drafting history of international humanitarian law (IHL) governing NIACs, international jurisprudence, recent state practice, and academic commentary, this paper concludes that a NIAC does not exist unless the conflict passes an intensity threshold. In other words, the intensity of the conflict distinguishes generalized violence involving a non-state actor from a NIAC. Once the existence of a NIAC is established, states participating in it will be governed by relevant IHL. But if states are only governed by the IHL applicable to NIACs once an intensity threshold has been crossed, what law applies below that threshold? The answer varies with the circumstances, depending on whether the state is responding to a threat within its own territory or from outside; and if the threat is from outside the state, whether the host state consents to the use of force against the non-state actor. Thus, to answer the question of what law applies before a NIAC is established, this white paper analyzes three different scenarios in which a state contemplates forceful engagement with a non-state actor. Each scenario presumes that t he non- state actor is organized and has engaged in some violence, but that the intensity of the clash has not crossed the intensity threshold and thus has not risen yet to the level of a NIAC. 1. In Scenario One, a state seeks to engage a non-state actor that operates exclusively within the state’s territorial borders. 2. In Scenario Two, an intervening state seeks to engage a non-state actor located in another state, with the consent of the host state. 3. In Scenario Three, an intervening state seeks to engage a non-state actor located in another state, without the consent of the host state. The analysis of each scenario first identifies the authority that governs whether and when the state may initiate forceful engagement with the non-state actor (the “may the state use force” evaluation), then discusses which legal regime governs the scope and nature of the resulting use of force (the “how may the state use force” evaluation). Different legal regimes govern the acting state’s options in each of the scenarios. Although the authority for action differs, the inquiries for Scenarios One and Two are quite similar. In Scenario One, the acting state may engage the non-state actor with force by virtue of its territorial sovereignty. It must act, however, through a domestic law enforcement framework and in compliance with human rights law. In Scenario Two, the acting state derives the authority to use force against the non-state actor from the host state’s consent. However, it may only rely on that consent insofar as it comports with the host state’s human rights obligations under international law. In raising the possibility of one state violating another state’s territorial integrity, Scenario Three raises a different set of questions. The intervening state’s threat or use of force within another state’s territory is only lawful when authorized by the U.N. Security Council or justified under the Charter’s Article 51 self-defense provision. The intervening state’s use of force is accordingly regulated by the traditional IHL of international armed conflict. Where scenarios overlap (when, for example, the intervening state has both consent and Article 51 authority to act), the acting state may rely on more than one source of authority. It must, however, continue to ensure that it has authority to use force and that its use of force comports with the legal framework appropriate for the nature and intensity of the conflict. It is worth noting at the outset that these scenarios highlight developing areas of international law. Some raise questions that have clear answers in existing legal authority, while others contend with more inchoate legal regimes. Where state practice has not yet solidified into definitive international norms, legal ambiguity remains. In such instances, this white paper notes the existence of ambiguity and examines the history, purposes, and principles of relevant legal regimes to proffer answers.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Non State Actors, Law, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus