Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 3 Years

6931. Recipe for Success: Israeli and Lebanese Analytical Perspectives on the Maritime Delimitation Negotiations

Author:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
The Israel-Lebanon maritime boundary agreement is not a direct agreement between the two countries, but rather two separate agreements with the United States. It is unique: the first such agreement reached between countries with no diplomatic relations, the first between adjacent states in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the first in the region to be resolved through indirect negotiations facilitated by a mediator. A confluence of domestic and geopolitical events contributed to the signing of the agreement, including elections in Israel, the deterioration of Lebanon’s economy and the country’s descent into political crisis, and the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the global energy market. Effective mediation between parties was more important than the degree of trust the parties had in the mediator or the mediator’s relative neutrality on the issue. The United States was not an unbiased mediator, but because of its own incentives to deliver an agreement and its leverage over both parties it was the only possible one. International oil and gas companies influenced the negotiations, but did not directly participate in them. Due to their vested interest in securing their existing or prospective investments, they used public communications and discrete engagements with the Israeli and Lebanese governments to encourage a deal. This agreement could serve as a model for other maritime disputes by demonstrating at least two things. Firstly, solutions can be achieved when parties delink their maritime negotiations from the core issues in their bilateral relationship. Secondly, if two sides are committed to reaching an agreement, the international law of the sea is sufficiently flexible for them to find a solution, even when one party is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the other is not.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Maritime, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Lebanon

6932. The Future of Neutrality

Author:
Pascal Lottaz
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
Neutrality is a naturally occurring phenomenon. There have always been actors on the world stage that have remained outside the conflicts of others, be they countries, religious institutions or international organisations (IOs). Even during the two world wars and the first Cold War (i.e. the US and its allies versus the USSR and its allies), some actors managed to avoid the battlefields or claimed a position separate from the various alliance systems. Despite the beliefs of some commentators that neutrality is coming to an end, there is no indication that world politics is actually about to change dramatically enough to eradicate the reasons and logic for neutrality. In fact, the least conductive international environment for neutrality – unipolarity – seems to be ending. What could be called the “New Cold War” (the West-aligned countries versus Russia in Europe and versus China in Asia) and the emerging multipolar world will likely produce the dynamics leading to more neutrality as a counter-reaction to the new great power rivalry. We should expect neutrality and neutralism – i.e. political movements demanding the adoption of neutrality policies – to strengthen. Nevertheless, neutrality is shifting. It is moving from Europe to other regions of the world, and, in the process, will likely also change conceptually. This Policy Brief will first describe the nature of neutrality and the three basic motivations for actors to opt for its policies. It then discusses the challenges any neutrality policy faces and will conclude by providing concrete recommendations for policymakers seeking to maintain neutrality vis-à-vis either hot or cold conflicts.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Hegemony, Rivalry, and Neutrality
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6933. India's G20 Presidency: Opportunity to Resume Engagement in the Arctic

Author:
Anurag Bisen
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
The Arctic lies at the intersection of several issues with global consequences such as climate change, increased accessibility to and availability of resources, and global strategic contestation that have made the region increasingly relevant to the world. Temperatures in the Arctic continue to rise at four times the global annual average, driving many of the changes under way there, most prominently sea-level rise and the thawing of permafrost, which impact both local ecosystems and the global climate system. International scientific cooperation and data monitoring and sharing are crucial to understanding the impact of climate change, counteracting its negative effects, and enhancing living conditions and economic activity. Apart from a few limited pockets of cooperation that still exist, cooperation between Russia and the West with regard to the Arctic has largely been put on hold since the start of the conflict in Ukraine. The current absence of research and data sharing among scientists is threatening to jeopardise scientists’ understanding of the warming trends in the Arctic, exacerbating the environmental emergency the region in particular is facing. One of the few channels that still exists for constructive dialogue on a range of Arctic-related issues is the GCSP’s “‘High North Talks”’, through which discreet exchanges on various important issues continue. Among other things, the G20 agenda includes climate change, sustainable development and the environment, all of which are under threat due to the cessation of Artic-related scientific engagement. The G20 also represents a rare platform where engagement between Russia and the West has not yet ceased. The suspension of dialogue and scientific exchange vis-à-vis the Arctic is driven by a deep distrust that needs to be overcome by an interlocutor that is acceptable to all stakeholders. India's theme for its G20 presidency resonates strongly with the Arctic and its impact on the world. The resumption of Arctic-related scientific exchange is an easy deliverable with global benefits that India, which has the necessary legitimacy, credibility and relevance, should use its G20 presidency to strive for.
Topic:
Climate Change, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Science and Technology, G20, and Sustainability
Political Geography:
India, Asia, and Arctic

6934. Climate Change in Japan’s New Defence and Security Strategies

Author:
Alistair D B Cook
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Abstract:
Japan has taken concrete steps to integrate climate change into its defence and security strategy going forward, and to provide the necessary budget for implementing the relevant measures needed in mitigating the impacts of this threat. This may signal a more prominent leadership role for Japan on climate security in the Indo-Pacific.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Climate Change, and Environment
Political Geography:
Japan and Asia

6935. Disaster Management in Southeast Asia: 20 Years of Progress and Challenges

Author:
Mely Caballero-Anthony, Alistair D B Cook, and Jonatan Anderias Lassa
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Abstract:
The management of consequences arising from natural hazards in Southeast Asia has seen laudable advancement in the last 20 years. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a positive role in this progress. However, there is emerging disaster policy inertia that reflect local realities at the ASEAN and global levels.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Regionalism, and Disaster Management
Political Geography:
Asia and ASEAN

6936. China’s “Catchup” on Growing Genetically Modified Crops

Author:
Paul Teng and Genevieve Donnellon-May
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Abstract:
China, the world’s largest importer of corn and soybean, seems finally to accept the potential of using genetically modified (GM) feed crops. Will this be enough to reduce China’s dependency on such imports and will it meet the demands of other countries that are also experiencing an increase in demand for feed to increase production of animal meat?
Topic:
Agriculture, Science and Technology, Food, and Production
Political Geography:
China and Asia

6937. Worsening Risk of Mass Atrocities in South Sudan

Author:
Sarah McIntosh and Naomi Kikoler
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide published a report in February 2022 detailing the immediate risk of mass atrocities facing South Sudanese civilians.1 Since then, threats facing South Sudanese civilians have worsened and the government of South Sudan has failed to take action to mitigate these threats.2 Attacks against civilians have continued, leading thousands of people to be killed, injured, or displaced. Experts told Simon-Skjodt Center staff that they feared the world's youngest country would slip back into full scale war. This stems from both the highly complex conflict dynamics throughout the country with different geographic regions experiencing unique forms of violence from distinct perpetrators as well as the South Sudanese government's recent decision to delay for two years the deadline for implementing the peace agreement and for conducting national elections. Their actions suggest that those most responsible for past abuses may intend to cling to power and evade justice for their actions. The need to take decisive preventative and protective action is urgent.
Topic:
Impunity, Civilians, Atrocities, Armed Conflict, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Africa and South Sudan

6938. Using Targeted Sanctions to Help Prevent Mass Atrocities: Results from Interviews with Experienced Practitioners

Author:
Tallan Donine, Kyra Fox, Daniel Solomon, Alex Vandermaas-Peeler, and Lawerence Woocher
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
The Simon-Skjodt Center’s “lessons learned” project aims to understand better how policy makers, across all levels of government, can take effective action to prevent mass atrocity crimes and protect civilian populations in situations where they face serious threats of group-targeted, systematic violence. We have sought to identify, distill, and organize insights on a range of policy tools—ranging from “naming and shaming” to sanctions to prosecutions—which are sometimes used to help prevent or respond to mass atrocities. To complement our review of the empirical research literature on the use of targeted sanctions, we conducted interviews with people who had substantial policy or operational experience working in the US government on targeted sanctions prior to 2021. The premise for the interviews is that experienced practitioners have important insights about when and how targeted sanctions can be most effective in helping prevent mass atrocities.3 While one can find many ideas about how to use targeted sanctions most effectively, none that we are aware of are: (1) focused specifically on the use of targeted sanctions for mass atrocity prevention and (2) based on the collective perspectives of a set of experienced practitioners. This report summarizes the results of the interviews with experienced targeted sanctions practitioners. Details on the methods employed and the interview respondents are presented in appendices.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Sanctions, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6939. Social Media Platforms, the Risks of Mass Atrocities, and Opportunities for Atrocity Prevention: 2023 Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention

Author:
Tallan Donine
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
On January 19 and 24, the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum brought together a diverse group of scholars, representatives of social media companies, practitioners, and policy makers for two 90-minute virtual convenings to discuss social media platforms, the risks of mass atrocities, and opportunities for atrocity prevention. Motivations for this seminar included (1) taking stock of knowledge about the relationship between social media, mass atrocities, and atrocity prevention; (2) generating new ideas for future research or practice on this topic; and (3) exploring how the Simon-Skjodt Center can play a constructive role in this area. This rapporteur’s report summarizes key observations raised during both discussions under the Chatham House rule of non-attribution and does not necessarily represent the views of all participants. The first session focused on exploring the interaction between social media platforms and risks of mass atrocities. Guiding questions included: • How might social media platforms contribute to risk factors associated with mass atrocities? • How might perpetrators use social media platforms to enact mass atrocities? • How might the relationship between social media platforms and mass atrocities change in the future? The second session focused on social media platforms and the prevention of mass atrocities. Guiding questions included: • How do technology firms and others understand the risks that social media platforms may inadvertently contribute to the commission of mass atrocities? • What steps have firms taken to date to address these risks? • What new or different actions can social media companies take to design and manage their platforms in ways that would help reduce risks of mass atrocities? • What type of regulation of social media platforms would most effectively balance interests in civil liberties and violence prevention?
Topic:
Genocide, Social Media, Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6940. Social Media, Mass Atrocities, and Atrocity Prevention: 2023 Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention

Author:
Daniel Solomon and Tallan Donine
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
In 2018, anti-Muslim extremists in Sri Lanka organized a series of attacks against Muslim civilians throughout the country (Taub and Fisher 2018). Extremist leaders used a misleading viral video to stoke fears that the country’s Muslim minority was organizing a campaign to sterilize the majority Sinhalese population en masse. The video circulated widely on Facebook, and participants in the violence also set up private WhatsApp groups to coordinate the violence. This is just one example of a disturbing pattern that is increasingly under the spotlight: social media seeming to fuel violence, including large-scale and deliberate attacks on civilians based on their identity. These examples have become widespread in recent years, with attacks on the Rohingya community in Burma, the Muslim community in India, and multiple marginalized groups in Ethiopia and elsewhere following a similar trajectory. Influential users appeared to use social media in these cases to dehumanize their targets, recruit participants, and coordinate violence. Amid public outcry social media firms have begun to develop or revise some policies to limit the spread of harmful content. In the Sri Lanka case, Meta—which operates both Facebook and WhatsApp— acknowledged and apologized for the platforms’ role in the violence (Facebook 2020), issued a series of human rights impact assessments of its role, and stated it would implement policies to address associated human rights concerns from its products, with applications to other high-risk contexts (Sissons 2020). Across social media companies, responses to concerns about “offline harm” have largely focused on content moderation, modifying algorithms that promote different kinds of content, and restricting access to certain users. Many advocates argue that actions to date have not gone far enough, asserting that stronger action—including government regulation—is necessary to prevent social media from contributing to violence, including mass atrocities. Social media use will only continue to rise, especially in countries at high risk of new mass atrocities. Beyond select cases, however, there is insufficient research about the specific relationship between social media platforms and the onset and escalation of mass atrocities—or how social media companies and government actors might limit these platforms’ potential negative effects. The goal of this paper is to stimulate and frame discussion during the Sudikoff Interdisciplinary Seminar on Genocide Prevention about the relationship between social media technologies and the risk and prevention of mass atrocities. Based on a review of relevant research, policy documents, and public statements by social media companies, the paper surveys current knowledge and identifies important gaps in understanding about (1) how social media platforms have contributed to the risk and occurrence of mass atrocities in the past and how they might do so in the future;1 and (2) strategies to help prevent social media from fueling mass atrocities.
Topic:
Social Media, Facebook, Atrocity Prevention, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
India, Sri Lanka, and Global Focus