Search

Begin New Search Topic International Security Political Geography United States

51. Beyond Market Forces: Regulating the Global Security Industry

Author:
James Cockayne, Emily Speers Mears, Alison Gurin, Iveta Cherneva, Sheila Oviedo, and Dylan Yaeger
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
In late 2008, seventeen states, including the US, UK, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others, endorsed the Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict (2008). This provides important guidance to states in regulating private military and security companies (PMSCs). However, there is a need to do more, to provide increased guidance to the industry and ensure standards are enforced.
Topic:
Security, Globalization, Markets, International Security, and Financial Crisis
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, China, Iraq, and United Kingdom

52. The United States and Mexico: Towards a Strategic Partnership

Publication Date:
01-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Wilson Center
Abstract:
It is time to strengthen the U.S. relationship with Mexico. here are few countries—if any—which are as important to the United States as Mexico. We share more than just a two-thousand mile border. Our economies and societies are deeply interwoven and what happens on one side of our shared border inevitably affects the other side. As the United States seeks to redefine its role in the world, it is vital to start at home, with our neighbors.
Topic:
Economics, Emerging Markets, Regional Cooperation, International Security, Bilateral Relations, Immigration, and Law Enforcement
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and Mexico

53. Euro-Atlantic Security: One Vision, Three Paths

Author:
Piin-Fen Kok
Publication Date:
06-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
EastWest Institute
Abstract:
The Euro-Atlantic security scene is characterized by a loss of mutual confidence, renewed tensions, and serious disagreements regarding not only practices but principles. Those trends, if not corrected, will produce negative strategic consequences for the security of Europe. New opportunities have emerged today for rethinking the security situation in the Euro-Atlantic region, for strengthening confidence, changing mutual relations, and, if need be, institutions. A basis for this can be found in the hopes for improved U.S.- Russian relations expressed by U.S. President Barack Obama, in the initiative by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on reforming the European security architecture, as well as in the process of elaboration of the new NATO strategic concept.
Topic:
International Relations, NATO, and International Security
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, and Europe

54. Forging a Strategic U.S.-EU Partnership

Publication Date:
12-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The world that created the transatlantic partnership is fading fast. The United States and Europe must urgently reposition and recast their relationship as a more effective and strategic partnership. It is a moment of opportunity -- to use or to lose. With the Cold War over and new powers rising, some say the transatlantic partnership has had its day. We disagree. Our achievements may not always match our aspirations, but the common body of accumulated principles, norms, rules and procedures we have built and accumulated together -- in essence, an acquis Atlantique -- affirms basic expectations we have for ourselves and for each other. In this new world of global connections, the transatlantic relationship is the thickest weave in the web. The deep integration of our democratic societies and economies is unparalleled and transcends neat “foreign” and “domestic” distinctions. We are literally in each other's business. North America's relationship with Europe enables each of us to achieve goals together that neither can alone -- for ourselves and for the world. When we agree, we are usually the core of any effective global coalition. When we disagree, no global coalition is likely to be very effective. The transatlantic partnership, while indispensable, is also insufficient. Only by banding together with others are we likely to advance our values, protect our interests, and extend our influence. Our partnership remains as vital as in the past. But now we must focus on a new agenda. Together, Europe and America must surmount immediate economic challenges while positioning their economies for the future; build transatlantic resilience -- protect our societies, not just our territory; continue work toward a Europe whole, free, and at peace; address conflicts more effectively; redouble efforts to halt proliferation of agents of mass destruction; reinvigorate efforts to preserve a habitable planet. Unfortunately, there is a growing mismatch between the nature of our challenges, the capacity of our institutions, and the tools at our disposal. Strong bilateral relations between the U.S. and European countries are still essential. NATO remains vital to our security. We offer views on NATO's future in a companion volume, Alliance Reborn. But we must also recast and reposition the U.S.-EU relationship. That is the subject of this report. The U.S.-EU relationship is important but not strategic. Such a partnership is possible, but it is not the partnership we have today. Given the challenges we face, such a partnership is urgent. It will require a new type of politics, not simply new kinds of process. Our central challenge is to mobilize political leadership behind a set of ambitious goals, tied to pragmatic steps forward.
Topic:
Economics, International Cooperation, and International Security
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

56. Reinventing NATO's Public Diplomacy

Author:
Stefanie Babst
Publication Date:
11-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
This paper examines some of the public diplomacy challenges that national governments and international organizations like NATO are increasingly facing. While new media technologies have become a powerful enabler in the globalised information environment, international security issues no longer remain 'close-hold' subjects reserved to foreign and security policymakers. Analyzing some of the current public trends in transatlantic themes in Europe and the United States, the author takes a closer look at NATO's evolving communication policies and activities. Evidently, public diplomacy has its limits. No matter how skilfully designed, it cannot replace political messages and contents. A serious political crisis or the loss of human lives cannot (and must not) be turned into a positive news story. However, if public diplomacy aims at establishing a trustful and interactive relationship between the seekers of information and the respective organization or government, public diplomacy requires political will, strategy and resources to be effective and credible.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Diplomacy, and International Security
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

57. Globalization and Global Governance in the 21st Century

Author:
Jeffrey Hart and Joan Edelman Spero
Publication Date:
01-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Peace and Security Studies
Abstract:
An examination of international economic relations in the six decades since World War II reveals many ways in which political factors have shaped economic outcomes. The postwar security system significantly affected the postwar economic system. The creation of a bipolar security system following the outbreak of the Cold War led to the separation of the Eastern and Western economic systems and provided a basis for the dominant role of the United States in the Western system and of the Soviet Union in the Eastern system. The end of the Cold War led in turn to the end of the East-West economic divide and to the integration of the formerly Communist countries and China into the global capitalist economy.
Topic:
Cold War, Globalization, Government, International Cooperation, International Political Economy, International Security, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
United States and China

58. A New Vision for Afghanistan

Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
The Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination (LISD) at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs convened a review conference under the theme, “A New Vision for Afghanistan: By Afghans, with Afghans, for Afghans and Afghanistan,” on September 4-7, 2008 on the Petersberg/Bonn, Germany. This was the tenth LISD-sponsored colloquium on Afghanistan since 2001. The meeting was funded in part by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein, and the Stiftung fuer Selbstbestimmung und Internationale Beziehungen, in Vaduz, Liechtenstein.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Terrorism, War, and International Security
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, New York, Central Asia, Asia, and Germany

59. Iran: Breaking the Nuclear Deadlock

Author:
Richard Dalton(ed.)
Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Chatham House
Abstract:
The dispute over Iran's nuclear programme is deadlocked. Five years of negotiations, proposals, UN resolutions and sanctions have failed to achieve a breakthrough. As diplomacy struggles and Iran continues to advance its nuclear capabilities, the issue becomes ever more grave and pressing.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Oil, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and International Security
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Iran, and Middle East

60. Fragility, Instability, and the Failure of States: Assessing Sources of Systemic Risk

Author:
Monty G. Marshall
Publication Date:
10-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
A public debate over the threat posed by weak, fragile, failing, and failed states and what can or should be done about them has become increasing visible and vocal since the attacks of September 11, 2001. As President George W. Bush declared in his 2002 National Security Strategy report: “America is now threatened less by conquering states than ... by failing ones.” This debate has grown particularly acute as the United States' prolonged military response to the war on global terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq has revealed the difficulties of controlling militancy and extremism by direct military intervention and enforced democratic change. The challenges associated with weak or failing states have garnered increase d attention by the policy community, but major differences about how to assess the level of risk in any given case remain.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, International Relations, Foreign Policy, Political Violence, Development, Diplomacy, Government, and International Security
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, and America