Search

Begin New Search Topic Armed Conflict

41. Strategic Implications of the War in Ukraine for the Post-Soviet Space: A View from Central Asia

Author:
Farkod Tolipov
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
The ongoing war in Ukraine is shaking the foundation of the already fragile Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). After the separation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and the splitting of Pridnestrovye from Moldova, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and keeping Ukraine in a lasting crisis by tactics that “take on attrition,” Russia not only has fallen under international economic sanctions but also aroused suspicions about its neo-imperial syndrome among post-Soviet friends on Russia’s perimeter. Not only has the international community condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine, but the intra-Commonwealth community has also been painfully strained by these actions. Paradoxically and ironically, such dramatic events are unfolding simultaneously with seemingly integrationist undertakings regarding the assemblage of the Euro-Asian Economic Union (EAEU). Both the war in Ukraine and creation of the EAEU have revealed the invalidity of the CIS and displayed the start of a new stage of restructuring and reformatting of what has been known as the post-Soviet space. How this space will be re-configured will have global geopolitical implications, as these processes are taking place on one sixth of the Earth – the vast geographical area that Tsarist Russia and the Soviets once proudly ascribed to themselves. Actually, the crisis of the CIS began right after its inception in 1991 when, in parallel, the then newly independent five Central Asian states decided to establish their own Commonwealth – CAC. Since then, different smaller commonwealths have coexisted alongside the CIS in the post-Soviet space, steadily undermining the construction of the CIS itself. The longer the war in Ukraine protracts, the more will Russia alienate Ukrainians and the more any integration around and with Russia will replicate the feigned CIS. Lately, Central Asia has been taking an unclear lesson from this geopolitical situation and is making an ambiguous strategic choice. This paper is devoted to the analysis of these aforementioned three focal points: the implications of the war in Ukraine for the CIS, Russia’s fault and the Central Asian countries’ reaction.
Topic:
Imperialism, Military Strategy, Armed Conflict, and EAEU
Political Geography:
Europe, Central Asia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and Asia

42. Kosovo 1999 and Crimea 2014: Similarities and Differences

Author:
Pál Dunay
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
Since the so-called Kosovo conflict of 1999 the views of states, including those of major players, have been divided as to whether it was a humanitarian intervention or the collective aggression of NATO member states. In 2014 the Russian Federation annexed Crimea and Sevastopol (formally separate entities) to its territory. Since then the argument has shifted and the current disagreement centers around how we should assess these two changes of territorial status quo (Kosovo and Crimea) in Europe. The situation is further complicated as states wish to present their actions as moral and legal (the general expectation is that they do so). This results in a situation where the dominant discourse is supposed to support the aspirations of states both in the east and in the west. The main effort of each party goes in countering the other’s position. It is difficult to get hold of a reliable set of facts, as these are presented selectively by the different parties. A further challenge arises in that different fields are not kept distinct from one another, and hence the legal and political analyses are often used interchangeably and with insufficient differentiation. This is aggravated by the fact that the so-called normative approach to international (and domestic) politics prevails in the analysis. Every state feels compelled to prove that it acts in full accordance with international norms, including legal rules and moral predicaments. However, any attempt to correctly analyze the change of the territorial status quo in the two cases mentioned above requires the contrary: keeping the different aspects strictly separate and only synthesizing the results in the conclusions. In this article I endeavor to keep the legal analysis separate from the political and moral assessment and wish to state in advance that they do not necessarily manifest in the same direction. Moreover, when the topic of analysis is as politically heavy-loaded as the change of territorial status quo in Europe, the international legal assessment must be disaggregated further. Namely, there is the positive international law as it exists, de lege lata, as adopted by the states or as it appears as jus cogens. There is also international law that does not exist, yet about which we speak as de lege ferenda with a view to its future evolution. Such differentiation will be particularly relevant in this case due to the swift evolution of norms in the area of humanitarian intervention relevant as point of reference in the case of Kosovo and the ambiguous content of the right to self-determination in the case of Crimea. International law has a further characteristic feature. Namely, its development cannot flexibly follow historical changes. This is particularly noticeable when major historical changes occur at a rapid pace. This was the case before and during World War II and more recently as the Cold War came to an end. The international system changed and international law in some areas did not follow. The gap between the international system and international law, where the latter forms part and parcel of the former, has widened. Furthermore, universal international law most often requires the consent of states in various regions of the world. This presents a challenge as states often profess different values and their value judgment serves different interests. It is the purpose of this article to present the legal situation that underlies the two cases, the position of the main actors, and attempt to draw separate conclusions as regards the assessment de lege lata and de lege ferenda.
Topic:
NATO, Imperialism, Conflict, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Kosovo, and Crimea

43. When the ‘desperates’ become ‘enraged’: an ethnographic study of Syrian Mudjahidin (2012-2014) | Quand les « malheureux » deviennent des « enragés » : ethnographie de moudjahidines syriens (2012-2014)

Author:
Romain Huët
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cultures & Conflits
Institution:
Cultures & Conflits
Abstract:
This article presents the findings of a sixty-days ethnographic research in a group of Free Syrian Army’s fighters in Aleppo and its region (July 2012, January 2013) and in a group of Mujahedeen affiliated with the Islamic Front in the Hama region (May 2014, September 2014). Literally embedded in these brigades, our research allowed us to describe "the ordinary life" of these combatants who were engaged into the battle for more than three years. Adopting ethnographical tools (interviews, observations), this article discusses how fighters explain the legitimacy of their engagement and the processes of radicalization.
Topic:
Sociology, Arab Spring, Ethnography, Armed Conflict, and Free Syrian Army
Political Geography:
Middle East and Syria

44. State Responsibility for Non-State Actors That Detain In The Course of a NIAC

Author:
Emily Chertoff, Lara Dominguez, Zak Manfriedi, and Peter Tzeng
Publication Date:
12-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
This white paper addresses three questions that arise when a non-state actor that is receiving assistance from a state actor in a non-international armed conflict engages in detention activities: (1) Under international law, when does a non-state actor have the authority to detain individuals captured in the course of a non-international armed conflict? (2) When does a state providing assistance to a non-state actor become responsible under international law for the non- state actor’s actions? (3) Assuming such responsibility exists, what actions must the state take if it believes the non-state actor may engage in human rights abuses or violations of the law of armed conflict? In response to the first question, neither the Geneva Conventions nor customary international humanitarian law provides a legal basis for non-state actors to detain captured individuals in non-international armed conflicts. However, international humanitarian law also does not expressly prohibit non-state actors from detaining individuals. Instead, it regulates the conditions of detention. If non-state actors comply with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and relevant provisions of the Second Additional Protocol, detention by armed groups in non-international armed conflict does not violate an explicit provision of international humanitarian law. As long as detention is not arbitrary, internment by non-state actors is also unlikely to constitute the war crime of unlawful confinement. In response to the second question, under agency-based theories of the state responsibility doctrine, actions of non-state actors may be directly attributed to the state if (1) the state exercises either strict or overall control over the non-state actor such that the group operates as a de jure or de facto state organ or (2) the state exercises effective control over a specific operation undertaken by the non-state actor. Additionally, to the extent Common Article 1 requires states to ensure that all parties to an armed conflict respect the Geneva Conventions, it may create an alternative and additional source of state liability for the actions of non-state actors. Finally, in response to the third question, this white paper recommends a series of ex ante and ex post measures states can adopt when engaging with a non-state actor. These include, vetting, training, acquiring written agreements, providing punishment frameworks, and ceasing support when actors commit violations of IHL. Since existing jurisprudence does not contemplate mitigation of state responsibility for the conduct of non-state actors, it is difficult to assess to what extent any of the proposed measures would limit the state’s liability. Nevertheless, states adopting these recommendations will both make violations less likely and be more likely to discharge their duties under international humanitarian and human rights law. By taking ex ante measures designed to prevent violations and creating ex post incentives for non-state partners to comply with IHL norms, states reduce the risk armed groups will engage in detention practices that violate international law.
Topic:
International Law, Non State Actors, Humanitarian Intervention, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

45. Strengthening Implementation of the UN's Children and Armed Conflict Agenda

Author:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination
Publication Date:
02-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
on Children and Armed Conflict, and the Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations, convened a workshop, “Strengthening Implementation of the UN's Children and Armed Conflict Agenda,” on December 12-13, 2013, at Princeton University. The workshop brought together representatives of United Nations member states, members of the Security Council, United Nations offices, representatives of NGOs, and academics to discuss strengthening Security Council action toward perpetrators of violations against children in situations of armed conflict. The workshop produced recommendations for action to the Security Council and its Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, the Secretary-General and his Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, UN member states, regional and subregional organizations and arrangements, and donors.
Topic:
International Cooperation, United Nations, Children, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

46. Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children

Author:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination
Publication Date:
02-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
The report discusses specific, concrete, and targeted actions that can be taken within the framework of the UN’s Children and Armed Conflict agenda to put an end to and to prevent the recruitment and use of children by state actors and non-state armed groups, as well as to end and to prevent other grave violations against children. Recommendations in the report focus support mechanisms for the campaign to end the recruitment and use of children by government security forces by 2016; the role of partnerships in promoting the children and armed conflict agenda; and addressing other grave violations committed against children in situations of armed conflict, specifically attacks on schools and hospitals. The report also provides targeted recommendations for action to the Security Council and its Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, the Secretary-General and his Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, UN member states, regional and subregional organizations and arrangements, and donors. The report is the result of a workshop convened at Princeton University in December 2013 by the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict, and the Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the UN.
Topic:
Security, United Nations, Children, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus