Charter Of Paris Research Articles

The Charter of Paris and a New European Order

The Charter of Paris and a New European Order

Stumbling from incident to incident: the systemic crisis of the post-Cold War order

The conflict between Russia and the Euro-Atlantic Community has taken the form of a systemic crisis, in which we face the risk of running from incident to incident. It is argued that the European post-Cold War order has undergone a norm-transforming, rather than norm-governed change. The normative framework and shared purpose on which it rests and which are essential to stabilise and perpetuate an international order have been eroded. The crisis is assessed on the basis of both the acts of violation and retreat by key ordering agents and their intersubjective assessment of the order. It is argued that normative pillars have gradually dissolved in four key areas: the principles of the Paris Charter on the indivisibility of security, the arms control regime, collective security and the European border regime. Tackling these issues is particularly complicated, because some, such as arms control, require today a global approach, involving China.

Problems and Perspectives of Cooperation between Kyrgyz Republic and the OSCE (Military-Political Aspects)

As a result of the Kyrgyz Republic becoming a full-fledged member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on the 30th of January, 1992 and signing up all fundamental documents of the Helsinki Final Act on the 8th of June, 1992 and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe on the 3rd of June, 1994, the Kyrgyz Republic administration has been showing commitment to fulfill all accepted obligations of the Organization and illustrating it with cooperation at military-political, social, economical and ecological fields as well as providing a space for organizing the OSCE events at the country. The OSCE' consultancy and expert assistance is heavily practiced in many fields. At the current moment, there is a high level of cooperation between Kyrgyzstan' government and OSCE's institutions that focuses on main aspects of the country's security. According to the mandate of the OSCE Head Office in Bishkek, any political or military cooperation should focus on three key points: development of political institutes, conflict prevention and anti-terror. At the current stage, the Kyrgyz Republic is focused on specifying cooperation plans in military-political field and security policy with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The political leadership of the country insists on accelerating the Organization engagement in the military-political field and multifaceted security problems, even after disagreement with the Organization's senior management and downgrading the status of the OSCE in Kyrgyzstan from the Head Office to a Program Office. After becoming a Program Office, the OSCE senior management has intensified the cooperation in the military-political field. Apart from supporting military institute, the Organization started to provide consultancy and technical support to the law enforcement in terms of new law enforcement reforms. The necessity to shape new cooperation plans between the Kyrgyz Republic and the OSCE were, first of all, focused on improving cooperation in military-political field and security policy, and its' immediate implementation with close and active participation of military and law enforcement institutes of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Ukraine–France: Contemporary Cooperation

In 2014, in the course of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine consciously opted for European values. Thus, cooperation with one of the founding member states of the EU bears strategic importance. The author believes that the the interaction between the two countries is based on ancient relations between France and Ukraine. Apart from political relations, France and Ukraine are bound by creative endeavours of many artists. After celebrating the 25th anniversary since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and France opened an exhibition dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the foundation of Ukrainian diplomatic service. The author stresses that France was the first Western state with which Ukraine signed the 1991 Interstate Agreement on Mutual Understanding and Cooperation. Moreover, it was in Paris where the Charter of Paris for a New Europe was signed, the document which allowed Ukraine to join the CSCE as a full-fledged member. Taking into account the current development in the east of Ukraine, the author underscores that France and Germany were the initiators of the Normandy Format negotiations. France consistently supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while not recognising the annexation of Crimea and takes a firm stand towards Russia. The author mentions the establishment of the France-Ukraine friendship group, headed by Valerie For-Muntean. Apart from political cooperation, economic ties between the two states are also gaining momentum. Nowadays, Ukraine is examining modern initiatives of France in ecology, energy efficiency, etc. The article outlines the interation of the two states in the educational sphere. France is encouraging numerous riveting projects intercultural projects displaying the best specimens of modern Ukrainian art. New intercultural contacts are also gaining ground. The author highlights the main events held at the culture and information centre of the Embassy and reports about the multidisciplinary festival Week-End a l’Est – Kyiv. Yet another recent development has been the inauguration of the web platform Nouvelle Ukraine, whose aim is to raise awareness about Ukraine in France, contribute to the positive image of the country, and build economic and cultural contacts. According to the author, the cooperation of Ukraine and France is only beginning to gain momentum and has infinite potential. Keywords: France, Ukraine, the EU, France-Ukraine friendship group, Ukrainian-French ties.

The death of Europe? Continental fates after Ukraine

The unravelling of the post-Cold War security order in Europe was both cause and consequence of the crisis in Ukraine. The crisis was a symptom of the three-fold failure to achieve the aspirations to create a ‘Europe whole and free’ enunciated by the Charter of Paris in 1990, the drift in the European Union's behaviour from normative to geopolitical concerns, and the failure to institutionalize some form of pan-continental unity. The structural failure to create a framework for normative and geopolitical pluralism on the continent meant that Russia was excluded from the new European order. No mode of reconciliation was found between the Brussels-centred wider Europe and various ideas for greater European continental unification. Russia's relations with the EU became increasingly tense in the context of the Eastern Partnership and the Association Agreement with Ukraine. The EU and the Atlantic alliance moved towards a more hermetic and universal form of Atlanticism. Although there remain profound differences between the EU and its trans-Atlantic partner and tensions between member states, the new Atlanticism threatens to subvert the EU's own normative principles. At the same time, Russia moved from a relatively complaisant approach to Atlanticism towards a more critical neo-revisionism, although it does not challenge the legal or normative intellectual foundations of international order. This raises the question of whether we can speak of the ‘death of Europe’ as a project intended to transcend the logic of conflict on the continent.

The New World Order in the Post-Communist Period

Mongolian Journal of International Affairs Vol.3 1996: 12-16

The Evolution of Russia's OSCE Policy: From the Promises of the Helsinki Final Act to the Ukrainian Crisis

In 2015, the OSCE will commemorate two seminal dates: the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act and the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Paris for a new Europe. This study takes these seminal dates for the OSCE as well as the current dramatic Ukrainian crisis as starting points to analyze three questions: How has Russia's relationship and role with/within the OSCE evolved throughout the years? Which role has the OSCE been playing in European security governance? How does the Ukrainian crisis affect Russia's OSCE policy and what does it mean for the OSCE? Studying Russia's OSCE policy is key to understand the OSCE's role as a framework for security governance in Europe with both its successes and failures. In order to answer these research questions, this study uses insights from (regional) security governance literature.

HELSİNKİ SON SENEDİ, PARİS ŞARTI VE AGİT

This paper concentrates on the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe within a scope begun with Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and ended with Paris Charter. In the first part, the developments that paved way to the Helsinki Final Act is explained and a legal interperation of the Act is provided. Then, the follow-up meetings and the Copenhagen meeting of the Conference on the human dimension of the CSCE is discussed and the entire process in which the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe turned into the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe is examined. This part of the paper evaluates the developments after Paris summit within a legal aspect. Keywords: OSCE, CSCE, Paris Charter, Helsinki Final Act, Follow-up Meetings, Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, Cold-War.

The Concept of 'National Minority' in the Domestic Legislation of the European Countries

The problem of the legal dimension of the concept of “national minorities” is subject of heated debate among legal scholars and international lawyers. Representing a broad and fairly developed field from a theoretical point of view of the field for debate, science approaches to review the concept of “national minorities” a little frostily. Frostily in sense that till now international law is lacking a single, legally binding definition of “minority” concept. In general, the minority is a group of persons, acting as subject of special protection, and shares a common identity and uniqueness. This group of individuals usually differs from its ethnic, linguistic or religious identity. In this context, international legal instruments in order to maintain the abovementioned identity require States to apply the necessary legislative, administrative and other measures.Considering this issue from the perspective of the laws of European countries, it should be noted that the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed in 1990, has approached to this issue very thoroughly. As evidenced by the intention of the heads of European states to elaborate on the rights of minorities.The intentions of the heads of European states to dwell on the consideration of the rights of minorities demonstrate this very thoroughly.There are over 300 minorities in Europe, with over a 100 million members. Politicians and citizens of the countries of Europe must recognize that their internal and external security is dependent on the respectful treatment of minorities. This is why it’s important to study not only the European meaning of national minorities”, but to see what is the meaning of this term in several internal laws from various countries from Europe.

An Agenda for Human Dignity

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 On the negotiations of the Final Act, see Jacques Andréani, Le Piège, Helsinki et la chute du communisme (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2005); Andrei Zagorski, The Helsinki Process (Moscow: Human Rights Editions, 2005); and John J. Maresca, To Helsinki, the Conference on Security and Co‐operation in Europe, 1973–1975 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1985). 2 John J. Maresca, ‘The CSCE at its Inception: 1975 in Myth and Reality’, in OSCE Yearbook 2005 (Baden‐Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2006), pp. 29–38. 3 Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, 29 June 1990. 4 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, Paris, 19–21 November 1990. 5 For information on OSCE activities, including those related to the fight against terrorism, police support and the fight against human trafficking, see http://www.osce.org. 6 See Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE. For more information on OSCE methodology, see Election Observation Handbook, 5th ed. (Warsaw: OSCE, 2005) and Handbook for Long Term Election Observers (Warsaw: OSCE, 2007). 7 David Milliband, ‘The Democratic Imperative’, St Hugh's College, Oxford University, 12 February 2008. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMarc Perrin De BrichambautMarc Perrin de Brichambaut is Secretary General of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The EU and a ‘better world’: what role for the European Security and Defence Policy?

As one who was directly involved in the genesis of the EU's European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in 1999, * this author can testify that no one talked much at the time about doing something for the 'good of the world'. A lot of people were thinking about the good of Europe: shocked by the events in Kosovo and the Europeans' lack of capacity to master that crisis, they sought new crisis management capabilities for Europe to use on its own chosen ground and under its own control in future. Many others were thinking of the good of NATO and of US?European relations, convinced that Atlantic ties would in the last resort be stronger if Europeans shouldered more of the burden of their own security. Some were simply hoping to get the Germans to make more effort in defence. There was remarkably little public debate on the initiative, and even less about the ethical implications of what the EU was doing. Sweden and Finland were, in fact, among the few EU members to show misgivings going somewhat beyond their national concerns to keep the EU's new military dimension within bounds compatible with their non-membership of NATO. Sweden in particular questioned the implied 'militarizing' of the Union's nature, governance and image, and was instrumental in promoting a simultaneous decision to develop EU civilian crisis management capabilities. The non-NATO nations, with others, also worked to place language in the ESDP's constituent documents about EU-led forces acting 'in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the OSCE Charter of European Security ['Paris Charter']'.2 France and Britain, the originators of the initiative, did what they could to water down this wording and to remain as vague as possible about the geographical scope as well as the legal base of future ESDP missions.

Democratic Government and International Justice

The supremacy of is widely apparent in in creasingly commonplace endorsements of democracy as only justifiable form of government.2 In 1989, for example, Francis Fukuyama suggested that momentous events of that year marked the end of history as such: that is, end point of mankind's ideological evolution and universalization of Western liberal democracy as final form of human government.3 Ten years later, Amartya Sen (comparatively modestly) wrote in a widely cited paper: While democracy is not yet uni versally practiced, nor indeed uniformly accepted, in general climate of world opinion, democratic governance has now achieved status of being taken to be generally right.4 Similar claims can be found in inter national treaties. For example, 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe states: We will undertake to build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as only system of government of our Nations. In realm of international law, many would argue, ideological supremacy of democracy has taken form of a legal norm requiring states to be governed democratically. According to Gregory Fox and Brad Roth:

Democratic Control of the Armed Forces, the OSCE Code of Conduct, and the Case of Latvia

This article will be devoted to a theme that is becoming increasingly topical in politico-military discussions. Today we are observing the situation that it is no longer sufficient to share the values and principles of contemporary democracies, such as free elections, respect for human rights, self-determination, the rule of law, and so forth as expressed in the Helsinki Final Act and the Paris Charter. Events in the world around us remind us that we must also consider ways to implement these values in everyday life. In order to achieve this, we must admit, at least partly, the necessity of going beyond the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs and must open ourselves up to discussions about domestic jurisdiction relating to matters of security and defense. Some of these principles, such as common markets, open and democratic societies, and human rights, are subjects of discussion in many international forums— the European Council, the OSCE, the UN, the EU, and even NATO—and often shape the headlines in newspapers. However, some issues are covered less frequently although they remain very important even within Europe. One particular subject that emerges as a rich source of enquiry is the role of armed forces and their relationship with civil society, particularly during conflict situations. While this is only one part of the broader concept of building a modern society, it is an essential component. It is commonly accepted that tasks and responsibilities should be strictly divided between civil and military authorities, but where exactly should the line dividing the two domains be drawn? The aim of this article is to outline the basic features of the distribution of power and responsibilities between the civil and military authorities in Latvia. This can provide some insights into how to properly structure the armed forces under democratic control, how to formulate their tasks according to local needs, how to develop a legislative framework, and how to avoid the appearance of “warlords” or uncontrolled armed institutions that threaten the democratic fabric of state and society. These and many other questions spring to mind when one thinks about the subject, but it is not my intention to provide elaborate answers. Rather, I hope to supply some “food for thought” to stimulate further discussion on the adequacy of democratic control of the armed forces in Latvia. The OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security will serve as an organizing

David Khayat: co-founder of the Charter of Paris Against Cancer

Professor David Khayat received his degree from the Medical Faculty of the Pierre and Marie Curie University, Paris, France. In 1985, he became Assistant Professor of Oncology at the Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, and while there obtained a PhD in immunology from the University of Paris in Villejuif. In 1990, he was made a full Professor at Salpêtrière, and became the Director of Medical Oncology.

Paris charter for a new Europe

PARIS HARTIA FOR NEW EUROPE Signed by the leaders of 32 countries of Europe, the USA and Canada on 21.11.1990.

International Organizations & Democracy

International Organizations & Democracy Marc F. Plattner and Larry Jay Diamond World politics has entered a new era. The outlines of the emerging post-Cold War international order may still be fuzzy, but at least two of its distinguishing features are clear—the ascendancy of democratic ideas and regimes, and an increasing trend toward multilateral organization and action. There manifestly seems to be a connection between these two developments, but its precise nature is not easy to specify. The series of articles that follows is devoted to exploring the complex relationship between democracy and multilateralism. In part, these essays are meant to convey some sense of the growing attention that is being devoted to democracy today by the world's leading international organizations. Carl Gershman writes on the United Nations; Neil Kritz discusses the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), along with the Council of Europe; Heraldo Muñoz and Peter Hakim provide a pair of complementary studies on the Organization of American States (OAS); and Clement Nwankwo and Larry Garber offer short essays on the newest and most hesitant entrant in this field, the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Thus this series covers both the premier worldwide organization and the major continent-spanning regional organizations. Also mentioned at least in passing are a number of other multilateral bodies—ranging from the European Community to UNESCO to the international financial institutions—that would merit greater scrutiny in a truly comprehensive study of this subject. The heightened multilateral concern with democracy is apparent in a series of key resolutions and agreements that are discussed in these essays: the Santiago documents of the OAS; the CSCE's Copenhagen and Moscow documents and Charter of Paris; and the UN resolution on free elections. But it is also reflected in the creation of new institutional structures within these bodies. In the past few years the OAS has established a Democracy Unit, the CSCE an Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and the UN a Unit on Free Elections. It is perhaps not surprising that active support for democracy is most advanced in the OAS and the CSCE, the two regional bodies that are largely composed of democratic governments, or that the OAU, which is still dominated by authoritarian governments, lags significantly behind in this regard. But this simple and obvious correlation has some important implications. In Perpetual Peace, his classic 1795 work envisioning the creation of a league of nations, Immanuel Kant proposed as the "First Definitive Article" of such an association that "The Civil Constitution of Every [End Page 3] State Should Be Republican." Only representative (as opposed to arbitrary or despotic) government, according to Kant, is based upon the rule of law; moreover, republican governments are much less likely to start wars, precisely because they must have the consent of their citizens in order to do so. Kant argues that an international league dedicated to peace and the law of nations can form around a powerful republic and gradually be extended to encompass more and more states. In the article that concludes our series, Morton Halperin and Kristen Lomasney, citing the model of the U.S. Constitution and echoing Kant's emphasis on the centrality of republican government, propose that the "international community" guarantee constitutional democratic government to people around the world. They adduce an impressive body of evidence to show how far international law has recently moved toward affirming a "democratic entitlement." Yet skeptics may well wonder if a world community that is still, roughly speaking, only half democratic is capable of endorsing, much less enforcing, such a guarantee. The prospects of success are clearly much greater in organizations (like the OAS) whose members are overwhelmingly democratic, and where the self-interest of freely elected governments impels them to oppose the forceful overthrow of constitutional democratic regimes. A crucial factor, then, in assessing the likely impact of multilateralism on democracy is the nature of the regimes that prevail in member states. If during the Cold War international organizations were indifferent or sometimes even hostile to the cause of democracy, this was due less to the many other complications caused by the East-West rivalry than to the preponderance in...

Calendar of the Meetings of the Institutions of the CSCE Since the Charter of Paris (1990)

Calendar of the Meetings of the Institutions of the CSCE Since the Charter of Paris (1990)

The Charter of Paris on the Conditions of Economic Prosperity

The Charter of Paris on the Conditions of Economic Prosperity

Charter of Paris for a New Europe

Charter of Paris for a New Europe

Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: Charter of Paris for a New Europe and Supplementary Document to Give Effect to Certain Provisions of the Charter

Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: Charter of Paris for a New Europe and Supplementary Document to Give Effect to Certain Provisions of the Charter