Search

Begin New Search Topic Human Rights Political Geography Europe Content Type Working Paper Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Rethinking the EU’s Approach to Women’s Rights in Iran

Author:
Barbara Mittelhammer, Tara Sepehri Far, and Sussan Tahmasebi
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
After the death of twenty-two-year-old Mahsa (Jina) Amini in the custody of Iran’s morality police on September 16, 2022, protests quickly spread throughout the country under the slogan of “Woman, Life, Freedom.” Amini’s death galvanized a movement that connects women’s individual freedom to choose their dress code to the systemic social, political, and economic grievances of a larger population that is demanding fundamental change. In claiming the realization of their basic rights, Iranians are revolting against a system that not only oppresses women and peaceful dissent but also continues to fail to meet citizens’ needs. This fight, which has attracted global solidarity, highlights the core message that when women’s rights are marginalized to nonexistence, human rights for all are at risk. The protests have taken place amid mounting repression of organized peaceful activism, a continuing deterioration of Iranians’ basic rights, and a host of economic ills, including rising inequality, increasing poverty, worsening living conditions, skyrocketing food prices, raging inflation, and rising unemployment. Three years of the coronavirus pandemic as well as decades-long comprehensive economic and financial sanctions have gravely added to the socioeconomic calamity. On top of this economic insecurity, precarious and perilous working conditions had already sparked increasing protests in Iran in recent years, resulting in the government’s harsh crackdown on human rights activists and civil society as well as further infringements on rights, including internet shutdowns, even before current events. Repression and the deterioration of Iran’s socioeconomic conditions have aggravated the situation for women in particular. Especially in recent years leading up to the current protests, this trend has hindered Iranian women’s ability to mobilize, protest, and achieve the full realization of their rights. Those who experience intersecting discrimination because of their minority background or social status are impacted even more if they live in rural areas, which are less developed than urban ones, or in areas on Iran’s border, which the state views predominantly through a security lens. The international response to Iran’s very poor human rights record and current protests, however, has lacked a holistic approach that considers women’s key role as agents of change and encompasses civil and political as well as social and economic rights as integral components of women’s rights. In fact, women’s rights and gender equality are not only goals in themselves but also enable the realization of fundamental rights of other marginalized groups, such as children and minorities. Moreover, women’s rights and gender equality are the strongest indicators of and preconditions for sustainable and peaceful societies, both internally and externally. Yet, the European Union’s (EU’s) current approach to Iran does not account for this reality. Over the past years, the EU’s policy toward the country has focused on negotiations to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) after Washington’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018. The current situation in Iran urgently highlights the need for a policy framework that responds to the government’s repression and gross human rights violations and, equally, considers the disastrous socioeconomic situation in the country, which is a key obstacle to the public’s ability to organize to realize its rights. Given the importance of economic precarity and socioeconomic inequality in the current revolt, the EU should adopt policies that can support the protesters’ rights and demands in the short term while considering a revised long-term approach centered on empowering Iranians in their efforts to create long-lasting democratic change.
Topic:
Human Rights, European Union, Women, and Protests
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, and Middle East

2. Climate Protection Litigation on the Rise

Author:
Szymon Zaręba
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In the last several years, national courts and international institutions have increasingly begun to treat conservative or climate-adverse actions by states as violations of their obligations under international law and human rights. This has been followed by some countries more affected by climate change and engaged in international bodies to put more pressure on Global North states to protect the climate. The sympathetic attitude of international courts towards such complaints may, in the long term, force the need for increased climate ambition or even compensation payments by, among others, Poland.
Topic:
Climate Change, Human Rights, International Law, Courts, and Litigation
Political Geography:
Europe, Poland, and Global Focus

3. Turkey-Armenia Normalization: A Quest for Realism

Author:
Hay Ertan Cohen Yanarocak
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Ironically, the American recognition of the Armenian genocide removed an obstacle for Armenia and Turkey to move forward.
Topic:
Genocide, Human Rights, International Community, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and Armenia

4. The OSCE as Sisyphus: Mediation, Peace Operations, Human Rights

Author:
Philip Remler
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
Over the past decade, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has been returning to its origins as a Cold War–era Conference – a forum where states and blocs, often antagonistic to one another and espousing opposing ideals, can air their frictions and hostilities. The OSCE was created without legal personality and with the liberum veto of the consensus principle. These constraints stunted the growth of executive capabilities and bound the OSCE closely to the will of its participating States. That rendered most mediation efforts ineffective, especially where an OSCE state is both belligerent and mediator in the same conflicts. Peace operations have been more effective – notably the Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine – but the same factors have tightly constrained its activity. Though all participating States committed themselves to democratic governance, rule of law and respect for human rights, these ideals failed in much of the former Soviet Union, and autocrats have used the organisation’s lack of legal personality and the consensus principle to hobble the OSCE’s efforts. If the OSCE’s participating States want it to remain an Organization, not a Conference, they must take action to secure its executive autonomy.
Topic:
Human Rights, Peacekeeping, Democracy, Conflict, and OSCE
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Eurasia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe

5. Equal Rights as a Basis for Just Peace: a European Paradigm Shift for Israel/Palestine

Author:
Daniela Huber
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
Historically speaking, the European Community and then the European Union have always reacted with paradigm changes in their foreign policies to watershed moments in the Middle East. In response to the two Arab-Israeli wars in 1967 and 1973, the European Community actually set up its own foreign policy in the first place and initiated the Euro-Arab Dialogue. After the Camp David Accords, the nine foreign ministers came out with the Venice Declaration in 1980 which reminded its partners in Washington and Tel Aviv that the Palestine question had been ignored and set the parameters for diplomacy in the 1990s. After the Cold War, however, the European Union became absorbed into the so-called Middle East Peace Process (MEPP), resulting in less independent EU agency on Israel/Palestine. This trend has become particularly obvious over the past four years of the Trump presidency, during which time the EU seemed almost paralyzed. While Europeans are now counting on the incoming Biden administration, during the election campaign Joe Biden stated that he will leave the US embassy in Jerusalem and that he is also favourable of the normalization deals between Israel and certain Arab states which President Trump had pushed for. At the same time, the Biden team seems hesitant to return to negotiations.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Human Rights, Territorial Disputes, European Union, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

6. Turkey: A Problem Partner?

Author:
ELIAMEP
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
It was around the mid-2000s when Turkey—if only for a short period of time—promulgated the idea of “zero problems with neighbours”. At the time, Turkey was seeking positive reforms in all aspects of public life and a cooperative future with neighbouring countries based on mutual understanding and converging interests. Furthermore, Turkey imagined itself as a bridge between, not as a wall separating and isolating, different regions. Unfortunately, those days are long gone. For almost a decade now, Turkey has been reactionary in its treatment of its own citizens and solipsistic with regard to its neighbours. Democratic backsliding and human rights abuses inside Turkey have become the norm, while militarisation and unilateralism increasingly characterise its foreign policy choices. Its government actions have begun to resemble those of a rogue state. This report seeks neither to explain the intricacies of Erdoğan’s problematic behaviour towards its own people and the rest of the world, nor to denigrate Turkey’s standing. Rather, it aims to raise the alarm about the slippery slope Turkey finds itself on, hopefully well before his governance causes irreparable damage to the region. The report starts by presenting general aspects of Turkey’s relationship with international stakeholders, such as the EU and the US. It proceeds by mapping out internal developments that exemplify strong tendencies of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses. The third part focuses on regional aspects of Turkey’s foreign policy behaviour, starting with the most severe cases that epitomize the militarisation of its foreign policy and violations of international law. It concludes with various cases of political differences between Turkey and states on its periphery, which, combined with the other more severe cases described, demonstrate how Turkey’s foreign policy expectations of ‘zero problems with neighbours’ have turned into a ‘zero neighbours’ reality.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Middle East, and Mediterranean

7. Humanitarian VISAs

Author:
Eleni Kritikopoulou
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
The X and X decision of the European Court of Justice highlighted the gap in current EU law regarding human rights protections in entry procedures. Currently over 90% of those granted refugee status in the EU arrive through irregular means. There is an increasing need for a new form of visa, specifically to accommodate humanitarian matters, which are not currently covered by the pre-existing Schengen rules. For limited numbers, consulates of EU states would be empowered to issue Visas for asylum seekers in order to legally cross EU borders to launch an asylum application. Research shows that the economic costs for the implementation of this humanitarian visa system would be minimal and that the political and humanitarian benefits would be significant.
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, European Union, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Europe

8. The EU-Turkey Visa Liberalization Saga: Lessons from the European Neighborhood

Author:
Ioannis N. Grigoriadis and Ayşe Tuba Uslu
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
This policy paper co-authored by Ioannis Grigoriadis, Senior Research Fellow of ELIAMEP and Head of its Turkey Programme, and Ayşe Tuba Uslu, Senior at the Department of International Relations of Bilkent University, lays out the main challenges for the successful conclusion of the Visa Liberalization Dialogue (VLD) between the European Union and Turkey. It examines the impact of democratic backsliding, the decline of the rule of law, fundamental rights and divergence in the legal framework regarding organized crime and anti-terrorism on the VLD and highlights the mistrust that has developed between the parties. Through a comparison between Ukrainian, Georgian, Moldovan and Turkish VLDs, it aims to highlight how the VLD could come to a successful conclusion.
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, Rule of Law, Visa, and Liberalization
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Ukraine, Moldova, Middle East, Georgia, and Mediterranean

9. EU return sponsorships: High stakes, low gains

Author:
Florian Trauner and Olivia Sundberg Diez
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
The concept of ‘return sponsorships’ is the most novel of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum’s proposals. It is also proving to be one of the most controversial in the negotiations. With this proposal, the Commission set out to resolve the discussion between member states on responsibility-sharing in migration matters, and simultaneously increase the number of migrants returned to their country of origin. Under the new scheme, member states would have to support other EU countries facing migratory pressure. If, however, they oppose the option of relocating asylum seekers, they can ‘contribute’ by facilitating the returns of migrants who lack permission to remain in Europe instead. But making this idea work in practice will not be straightforward. In unpacking the return sponsorship mechanism, Olivia Sundberg Diez and Florian Trauner have reached the following five conclusions: 1) Existing conflicts between member states over responsibility-sharing will not be settled but transposed onto discussions about the precise requirements of return sponsorship, in particular, the transfer of migrants within Europe if returns are unsuccessful. 2) The flexibility embedded in the solidarity mechanism comes at the expense of tangible support for EU border states, who continue to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the responsibility to receive and process new arrivals. 3) Matching the preferred contributions of a sponsor with a border state’s needs will be extremely complex in terms of administration, and effective enforcement tools are lacking. Repeated delays and the politicisation of solidarity processes are likely, giving member states many opportunities to shift and shirk their responsibilities. 4) Return sponsorships may create new human rights risks for migrants ordered to return, both in and outside of the EU. 5) The return sponsorship concept relies on returns being done faster and in far greater numbers. This is far from certain: many third countries, for one, will remain reluctant to readmit their own nationals. The Commission is taking a considerable risk with the return sponsorship proposal while the potential gains are modest. If the proposal is to move forward, negotiators should prioritise strengthening the predictability and tangibility of support provided by the solidarity mechanism to the EU’s border states, ensure that return sponsorships do not lead to new human rights violations, and avoid inflated expectations regarding the impact of the growing use of conditionality on returns.
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, European Union, Borders, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Europe

10. How did Serbia unite Chomsky, Mironov and Fukuyama? Engaging with the New Despotism

Author:
Vedran Dzihic and Gazela Pudar Drasko
Publication Date:
08-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
It is difficult to imagine what could unite Jürgen Habermas, Francis Fukuyama, Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Walzer, Yuval Noah Harari and Vladimir Mironov.1 However, the renowned Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory in Belgrade (IFDT), founded to settle dissident intellectuals expelled from the university for their involvement in the Yugoslav 1968 protests, managed to do so. An international appeal has reached us in the past few days which has revealed once more the ongoing clandestine attack on freedom of thought and academic autonomy in Serbia. Unfortunately, Serbia is not alone in democratic backsliding, neither in Southeast Europe or Europe more generally, nor at the global level. Democracy has been openly challenged in several EU states, while the most recent developments in the USA have revealed the depth of internal fractures in American liberal democracy. Thus, it is not surprising that the Southeast European region (SEE) - a post-conflict, semi-peripheral area in Europe - faces growing illiberalism and varying types of competitive authoritarianism and new despotism.
Topic:
Human Rights, Law, and Authoritarianism
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia