Multilateral Response Research Articles

The global challenge of human security

Human security is far more than the absence of conflict. It encompasses education and health, democracy and human rights, protection against environmental degradation and the proliferation of deadly weapons. It may be referred to as the concept of “freedom from want and fear”, which includes economic, food, health, environmental, political, community and personal security. Human insecurity, whether generated by neo‐liberal globalization, militarization, trafficking and the sex industry, social inequality, poverty, terrorism and local conflicts, is a big challenge at the beginning of the twenty‐first century, as much for developing countries as for the countries of the Atlantic Community. The interrelated challenges of human security and peace require an integrated multilateral response of the international system, a consistent human security policy that focuses on the responsibility of each and everyone. In short, it is a call for the globalization of responsibility for human security.

The end of multilateralism: whither global governance?

The end of the Cold War gave a new momentum to the multilateralism which had begun with the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations, but had been constrained by the rivalries of the superpowers. In the economic sphere the World Trade Organization brought development issues to the fore, while the Rio summit, Kyoto and Johannesburg raised hopes that the environment would emerge as an issue for all nations. But the rejection of Kyoto by US President George W. Bush and the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks have redefined multilateralism. In this article the former Secretary‐General of the Commonwealth examines the conditions required for a renewal of the UN's pivotal rôle in re‐establishing a multilateral response to the world's problems, and the lessons that can be drawn from the Commonwealth experience.

The EAPC/PfP as an Instrument to Combat Global Terrorism

There is no multilateral security framework whose mandate has not been reexamined – and, in many cases, fundamentally redefined – in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.1 The search for an effective response at a multilateral level to global terrorist networks and the organized crime structures supporting these networks mirrored the extensive national measures and bilateral efforts undertaken to enhance homeland security. While it has been fashionable in academic circles to refer to the blurring of the distinction between national and international security, the magnitude and the nature of the terrorist attacks delivered the most convincing argument in favor of merging and intensifying the coordination between domestic intelligence, foreign policy, and defense policy. The invocation of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty was the swiftest multilateral response to the terrorist attacks on the United States masterminded by the al Qaeda network. On 12 September 2001, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) adopted a package of measures designed to combat the scourge of terrorism. Within a week of the terrorist attacks, more than thirty countries had offered disaster relief assistance to the United States through the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Relief Coordination Center. By December 2001, the EAPC had adopted the new EAPC Action Plan for 2002–2004 based on innovative counter-terrorist approaches suggested in a joint Finnish–Swedish “food-for-thought” paper.2 One year later, at the Prague Summit, the EAPC member states endorsed a Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism (PAPT), including practical mechanisms and an action plan ranging from intensified consultation and information sharing and increased prepared-

Moving the Trade and Competition Debate Forward

The present article argues that anti‐competitive practices, which distort international trade, require a multilateral response. Traditional unilateral and bilateral responses fall short when faced with such anti‐competitive practices. Competition‐related provisions are already contained in a number of WTO agreements such as TRIPs and GATS, but there is a need for a more systematic treatment of the issue of competition in the WTO. The solution could be negotiations on a WTO competition agreement, which would be based on the fundamental principles of non‐discrimination and transparency. The agreement would also establish the necessary modalities for multilateral cooperation thereby also giving developing countries access to such cooperation. Finally, the agreement and the Competition Policy Committee, which could be established to administer such an agreement, would play an important catalytic role in promoting the reinforcement of competition institutions.

Kosovo 1999: from multilateral humanitarian response to bilateral, and back again - a UNHCR perspective

Kosovo 1999: from multilateral humanitarian response to bilateral, and back again - a UNHCR perspective

Building Democracies with Southern Command's Legal Engagement Strategy

America has conducted itself in the post-Cold War era with the understanding that fostering democracies and encouraging military establishments subject to the of are vital to US national security interests. [1] In this regard, the warfighting unified commands mirror the overall US national security policy of peacetime engagement not only by maintaining close contacts with allies and friendly governments for the purpose of imparting values and ideals associated with democratic principles, but by focusing this commitment through detailed engagement plans. For example, in document entitled Strategy of Cooperative Regional Peacetime Engagement, General Charles E. Wilhelm, Commander in Chief of US Southern Command from 1997 to 2000 (now retired), set out his vision for Latin America and the Caribbean as a community of democratic, stable, and prosperous nations...served by professional, modernized, interoperable security forces that embrace democratic principles, demonstrate respect for human rights, are subordinate to civil authority, and are capable and supportive of multilateral responses to challenges. [2] In addition, recognizing that there is legal dimension to almost every aspect of the US Southern Command engagement plan, the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate developed and published first-ever legal engagement strategy in 1998. [3] The intent of the legal engagement strategy is to promote the concept of professional law-based militaries that operate in accordance with the of law, respect internationally recognized human rights, [4] and are subordinate to and controlled by democratically elected civilian governments. In short, the US Southern Command legal engagement strategy is blueprint for democracy-building in the context of the of law. In the quest for war avoidance, this legal engagement plan is unique force multiplier and contributes to the shaping dimension of the National Military Strategy. The Importance of the Rule of Law in War Avoidance In his groundbreaking book about warfare in the 21st century, Race to the Swift, Richard Simpkin argues that democracies must find politico-legal devices to confront the enemies that threaten today's societies, and that the armed forces of democracy must carry out their duties in conformity with the of law. Simpkin states, Democratic governments rest on the of law, and must so rest. [5] The term rule of law was initially coined to refer to the common system of jurisprudence with particular emphasis on equality before the courts. The more modern common meaning, however, encompasses those rules and legal standards of behavior recognized and practiced between states in the context of the community of nations, and connotes consistency in the application of democratically passed and impartially implemented and enforced national laws and regulations. In the words of University of Virginia professor John Norton Moore, the importance of the of is central to international relations: Law... is vitally important. Even in the short run, the [rule of] serves as standard of appraisal for national actions and as means of communicating intentions to both friend and foe, and perceptions about lawfulness can profoundly influence both national and international support for particular actions. [6] In tandem with Professor Moore's admonishment, the Clinton Administration's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said that of all the problems facing the Southern Hemisphere, none is more important than improving adherence to the of law. Where justice is absent, Albright writes, peace and stability of nation and its neighbors come under threat; where justice is partial, citizens who do not have access to equal treatment lose faith in their government, and the forces of extremism grow strong; and where justice is unprofessional, crime flourishes, corruption grows, and economies suffer. …

The United Nations and Civil Society: Creative Partnerships for Sustainable Development

As people from around the world gathered in San Francisco in the summer of 1995 to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations organization, celebration and euphoria were greatly tempered with frustration and sober reassessment about the future of global governance. Creating the capacity to deal effectively with poverty, malnutrition, environmental degradation, resource depletion, and other problems associated with the dual processes of under- and overdevelopment, coupled with the endless striving of humans for identity and fulfillment of basic needs and values, stands as a major challenge for governance in the twentyfirst century. Yet the peoples of the world and their governments at all levels have gained little ground in building effective multilateral responses. Moreover, the United Nations and the system of associated, autonomous specialized agencies seem ill-equipped at best to meet that challenge. Individuals acting in the name of states have generally found the policy mechanisms under their control to be insufficient for the work at hand. Similarly, civic-based actors seldom possess sufficient resources, authority, or the requisite capacity for launching successful, large-scale independent policy initiatives. Yet, building and sustaining cooperation between public and civic-based entities has remained an elusive objective. On the other hand, it is vitally necessary to place the present limitations of the UN system in the perspective of history. Those who

Peace, Human Rights, and Minorities: Multilateral Responses and the CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities

AbstractThis article attempts to understand concurrent efforts by inter-governmental agencies in the areas of minority protection and ethnic conflict prevention. The analysis specifially aims (1) to assist in differentiating between the numerous inter-governmental organs, bodies, and mechanisms, including the CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, with a role in addressing minority issues, and (2) to begin the process of identifying interrelationships, overlaps, and gaps in existing capacities. In addition to the High Commissioner, the minority-related activities of the UN, the Council of Europe, and the Council of Baltic Sea States are all reviewed. The essential view is that 'the effectiveness of international response to minority questions lies not in the efficacy of single institutions but in synergetic cooperaton among them'.

Multilateral Response to Ethnicity, Nationalism and Racism in Contemporary Europe1

Multilateral Response to Ethnicity, Nationalism and Racism in Contemporary Europe1