Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography United Kingdom

21. Gender-Responsive Organizational Climate Assessment in Armed Forces

Author:
Samantha Crompvoets
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
This guide aims to collate and share knowledge and experience from NATO, NATO Partners and other armed forces regarding good practice when developing, implementing, and evaluating a gender-responsive organizational climate assessment. This guide is structured in five parts to describe the why and how of undertaking an organizational climate assessment in armed forces. It provides step-by-step advice, along with case study examples, for progressing your climate assessment from thought to action.
Topic:
Security, Gender Issues, Law Enforcement, and Women
Political Geography:
Geneva, United Kingdom, Canada, United Nations, Spain, and Global Focus

22. Challenges to Metropolitan Security. Terrorism in Brussels, Manchester and Nice / Retos a la seguridad metropolitana. El terrorismo en Bruselas, Manchester y Niza

Author:
Fernando Jiménez Sánchez
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
This article seeks to identify the challenges that metropolis faces in the security field based on the analysis of three attacks of the "new" terrorism carried out in the European Union in 2016 and 2017. In order to contribute to the analysis of the challenges faced by the security agencies of the States in order to accomplish with their role in areas undergoing expansion and of growing importance.
Topic:
Security, Terrorism, European Union, and Cities
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, France, and Belgium

23. Global Britain's Arctic security policy: Going forward while looking back

Author:
Agne Cepinsktye
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
Britain’s Arctic security policy has been shifting from abandoning the region after the Cold War to developing a non-military security approach, to reintroducing the military defence dimension, most notably by the announcement of the UK Defence Arctic Strategy (DAS). These changes are both reactive to regional factors, namely the increasing geostrategic importance of the Arctic and Russia’s military expansion in the North, and reflective of the UK’s redefined post-Brexit identity as Global Britain. The focus on expanding the naval presence in the Arctic is consistent with the Global Britain vision, which underlies the UK’s broader foreign and security policy direction and emphasises the reassertion of naval strength and global maritime influence. While Britain’s ambition to restore the naval power in the Arctic and the North Atlantic is currently constrained by a lack of resources in the defence budget, it indicates an aspiration to strengthen historically rooted naval defence relations with the Arctic states.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Navy, and Maritime
Political Geography:
Russia, United Kingdom, Europe, and Arctic

24. Britain’s Post-Colonial Foreign Policy Towards the Persian Gulf Security (1971-1991): An Alternative Approach

Author:
Esra Cavusoglu
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
Institution:
Sakarya University (SAU)
Abstract:
British withdrawal from the Persian Gulf in 1971, started a new era in the region with new political order and new security map. Iran and Saudi Arabia emerged as the guardians of the status quo to be filling the power vacuum left by the British in behalf of the West. Britain adopted a new post-imperial role in the region along with new post-colonial foreign policy in the post-withdrawal context. British policy towards the regional security is analysed in this article with central focus on the shift emerged in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution in the British policy. After 1979, Iran, no longer a Western ally, has been defined as the major internal threat for the regional security following the major external threat of the Soviet expansion in the British foreign policy. This paper argues that the shift in the British policy came along with a sectarianist approach towards the region. The sectarianization emerged with the securitization of the Gulf based on “Iran threat” within the determinants of the Anglo-American alliance on the regional security. The sectarianist discourse adopted by the British foreign policy was employed as an effective tool of the securitization of the Gulf that was deepened during the regional conflicts, the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, and Sectarianism
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Iran, Middle East, and Persian Gulf

25. Strategic deterrence redux: Nuclear weapons and European security

Author:
Leo Michel and Matti Pesu
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
One of the most notable consequences of the end of the Cold War was the diminished role of nuclear weapons in international relations. The world’s primary nuclear weapon powers, the United States and the Russian Federation, made considerable reductions in their nuclear forces. The climax of the process was the New START Treaty signed in 2010. Now, the optimism that characterized the first decades of the post-Cold War era is rapidly evaporating. Geopolitical competition again dominates global and regional security dynamics. Nuclear powers are modernizing their forces and introducing novel systems that may affect strategic stability. At the same time, existing arms control regimes are crumbling. This report takes stock of recent developments in deterrence in general, and nuclear deterrence in particular. Its main ambition is to understand how deterrence has changed in light of certain post-Cold War trends. To this end, the report introduces the basic principles of deterrence. It also explores the nuclear-related policies and capabilities of the four nuclear weapon states most directly involved in European security affairs – Russia, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. Importantly, the report also analyses the implications of the recent trends in strategic deterrence for Northern Europe. This report is part of a research project conducted by the FIIA entitled ‘New Challenges for Strategic Deterrence in the 21st Century’. The project is part of the implementation of the Government Plan for Analysis, Assessment and Research 2018.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, United Kingdom, Europe, France, and North America

26. Ombuds Institutions for the Armed Forces: Selected Case Studies

Author:
William McDermott, Kim Piaget, Lada Sadiković, Mary McFadyen, Riina Turtio, Tamar Pataraia, Aida Alymbaeva, Bogdan Kryklyvenko, and Susan Atkins
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
Ombuds institutions for the armed forces are key actors in establishing good governance and implementing democratic controls of the security sector. These institutions are tasked with protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of armed forces personnel, as well as providing oversight and preventing maladministration of the armed forces. This publication highlights good practices and lessons learned in seven case studies of ombuds institutions for the armed forces from the following OSCE states: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Finland, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, United Kingdom.
Topic:
Security, Human Rights, Governance, and Armed Forces
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Central Asia, Ukraine, Canada, Finland, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, North America, and Bosnia and Herzegovina

27. Brexit and Baltic Sea Security

Author:
Riina Kaljurand, Tony Lawrence, Pauli Järvenpää, and Tomas Jermalavicius
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
The result of the UK’s June 2016 referendum on continued membership of the EU was unexpected and its consequences may be wide-ranging and grave. This report considers the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union (‘Brexit’) on the security of Estonia, the Baltic Sea region and Europe more widely. Its focus is hard security – military security and defence. The UK is a defence and security actor of considerable prominence, able to contribute significant military capability to the organisations and operations in which it participates. It is, however, sceptical about the place of the EU in defence matters and has achieved a certain level of infamy for its perseverance in obstructing the further development of an EU defence dimension. One immediate consequence of the Brexit referendum result was a burst of ideas for further EU defence integration, which has led to an agreement on the first steps for implementing the EU Global Strategy in the area of security and defence. Not all member states, however, are enthusiastic for these ideas. Interviews conducted for this report with officials and researchers in the Baltic Sea states of Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, and also in the UK found that interviewees believed that their countries shared with the UK approaches to security that would be harder to pursue after Brexit without the active support of the UK itself, and were largely sceptical about the need for further defence integration in the EU. In general, though, interviewees felt that the character of the European security environment post-Brexit is very difficult to forecast and the many factors that will contribute to shaping it are highly uncertain, complex, and intertwined. In these circumstances, scenario planning methodologies offer perhaps the best means of thinking about the future and informing policy decisions. The report thus identifies a range of possible post-Brexit scenarios as a vehicle for testing policies and identifying those likely to result in maximum benefit and minimum cost.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, European Union, and Brexit
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, Nordic Nations, and Baltic States

28. 2016 Report Card on Nuclear Disarmament, Nonproliferation Efforts

Author:
Elizabeth Philipp and Kelsey Davenport
Publication Date:
07-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
The report, "Assessing Progress on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, 2013-2016," is the third in a series that measures the performance of 11 key states in 10 universally-recognized nonproliferation, disarmament, and nuclear security categories over the past three years. The study evaluated the records of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea—each of which possess nuclear weapons—as well as Iran and Syria, which are states of proliferation concern.
Topic:
Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Disarmament
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Russia, China, United Kingdom, Iran, India, Israel, North Korea, France, Syria, and United States of America

29. Europe Today and What's Next

Author:
Hannes Androsch
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
In many places it is forgotten that Europe, especially the EU, is a veritable success story, as this continent has never before experienced a period such as the past seven decades of democracy, peace and prosperity. Faced with the current challenges, especially the refugee crisis, there has been an increasing tendency among European governments to take unilateral action. This approach cannot be successful, however, as European governments attempt to implement policy prescriptions of the past to solve problems of the present. In fact, we need not less but more Europe—but also a reformed Europe: a European Union with one voice for external policy (common foreign, security and defense policy and asylum and migration policy) and the capacity to overcome its internal turmoil (common economic, budget, and tax policies, and a minimum of a transfer union). We also need a European Union that makes the benefits of globalization available to all people. The European Union is currently experiencing one of its worst crises in its history. Old fault lines that have run through the continent for centuries, once considered overcome, have become prominent once again; new challenges have arisen, especially in the wake of globalization, climate change and new technological developments (the Digital Revolution). The world has seemingly become ungovernable. The proclaimed 1989 “end of history” (Fukuyama) is certainly over, and history has a firm grip on Europe. This, at least since the outbreak of the financial and economic crisis in 2007/08, no longer deniable fact is reflected in the still unresolved crisis in Greece (“Grexit”), the associated Euro Crisis, the British referendum on exit from the EU (“Brexit”), and in the renaissance of geopolitics. The annexation of Crimea by Russia undertaken in violation of international law, the war in eastern Ukraine, as well as state disintegration in Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria have made it clear that, from the Caucasus to the Balkans and from Pakistan/Afghanistan via the Middle East to North Africa, extends a “Ring of Fire,”—a term used by former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew to describe the geopolitical challenges of Europe more than twenty years ago. These long concealed —or ignored—distortions are now breaking out again in the form of “wars of succession,” leaving behind territories plagued by unrest, civil wars, and failed states, and resulting in terrorism and refugee waves now reaching the center of Europe. The resulting “crisis mode,” within which the European Union has been operating for several years now, reached its climax with the result of the referendum conducted in June, determining Britain’s exit from the European Union (Brexit). Aside from the medium and long-term economic implications for the country, Brexit was an earthquake with unforeseeable consequences especially on the political level. Scotland is once again discussing its potential separation from the United Kingdom, the fragile peace funded by the EU in Northern Ireland is threatened by collapse, and in a considerable number of other EU countries—mainly France and the Netherlands—populist and nationalist parties are interpreting Brexit as a signal to seek their salvation in national initiatives.
Topic:
Security, Global Recession, European Union, Refugee Crisis, Brexit, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Russia, China, United Kingdom, Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Asia, and Syria

30. ‘Keep Calm and Carry on’? Resilience and UK Security Policies

Author:
Sarah Ponesch
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
In the UK context of National Security Strategies and Critical National Infrastructure Protection, resilience is understood as a result of, or an answer to, an ever changing, complex and interconnected world in which even a tiny event can have a huge impact. Resilience incorporates the need to adapt to an almost infinite variety of hazards and risks and could therefore be called an all-hazards approach in the wider realm of security. However, an analysis of UK security policy documents and qualitative in-depth interviews with a variety of stakeholders shows it is more than that. Resilience is framed as a means to address change in general. It includes not only the negative aspects of globalisation but also its opportunities. Moreover, resilience is understood as a whole-of-government, if not whole-of-nation attempt to ‘connect the dots’ and overcome the ‘silo thinking’ in order to see the ‘bigger picture’. Therefore, resilience, in the UK, is often understood as a form of culture rather than a tool, instrument, concept or approach. In order for it to ‘function’, resilience has to overcome and reach beyond simple top-down or bottom-up approaches. It has to be lived.
Topic:
Security, Globalization, and Resilience
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe