La Fondation pour l'innovation politique souhaite relayer la conférence « La France en état de choc : comment sortir par le haut ? », organisée par le Collège des Bernardins, autour du livre de Pierre Manent : Situation de la France (DDB, 2015). Ce débat aura lieu le jeudi 7 janvier 2016 de 20h à 22h.
Cet article 7/01/16 : conférence sur le thème : « La France en état de choc : comment sortir par le haut ? » est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.
Nach langem Zögern hat David Cameron seine Forderungen für eine »EU-Reform« auf den Tisch gelegt, mit der er die Briten vom Verbleib in der Union überzeugen will. Kernelement seiner Vision der EU ist die Flexibilität. Großbritannien soll die Möglichkeit erhalten, sich endgültig von der weiteren EU-Integration abzukoppeln und seine Mitgliedschaft auf einen vertieften Binnenmarkt zu konzentrieren. Damit will er die bestehende Sonderstellung seines Landes in einer ohnehin immer stärker differenzierten EU weiter ausbauen. Jenseits konkreter politischer Überlegungen müssen die EU-Staaten daher in den Verhandlungen Antworten auf zwei Kernfragen finden: Wie viel Differenzierung und Sonderausnahmen verträgt die Europäische Union? Und wie kann eine dauerhaft bestehende Differenzierung besser abgefedert werden?
Argelia aprueba un presupuesto para 2016 al límite de lo políticamente posible tras una tumultuosa sesión parlamentaria.
L'avènement de la Cour pénale internationale a permis la pleine reconnaissance de la place de la victime dans le procès international, avec l'affirmation d'un droit à réparation pour le crime de génocide, les crimes contres l'humanité et les crimes de guerre. A l'heure des premières condamnations prononcées par la Cour, la question demeure toutefois entière de savoir non pas seulement s'il est possible de réparer l'irréparable, mais comment tenter de le faire.
Article publié dans Politique étrangère, vol. 80, n°4, hiver 2015.
ddJEUDI 17 DÉCEMBRE 2015
Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II - 12 place du Panthéon 75005 Paris - Salle des conseils (escalier M, 2e étage)
L'arrivée d'armes dites « autonomes » sur le champ de bataille suscite fantasmes et craintes. Longtemps marginaux,
les « systèmes d'armes létaux autonomes » pourraient connaître prochainement un développement sans précédent, grâce aux
progrès de l'intelligence artificielle. Dans ces conditions, ces « robots tueurs » pourraient-ils s'émanciper de leurs inventeurs
et devenir des menaces à la paix et à la sécurité internationales ? Peut-on alors raisonnablement parler d'une troisième
révolution militaire et stratégique, après l'invention de la poudre et de l'arme nucléaire ?
jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-kwuuii").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-kwuuii").fadeIn(1000);});});
Can trade and energy cooperation promote peace? On December 14, an IPI Vienna meeting discussed the possibilities and limitations of peace and economic connectivity between Europe and Asia; the European Union (EU) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EaEU); and across unrecognized boundaries, for example within states where there have been “frozen” or protracted conflicts. The potential role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in promoting economic connectivity was also discussed. The meeting, “Economic Connectivity,” was part of IPI’s Swiss-funded “Peace Incubator” project.
Pipelines, train tracks, roads, water lines, and power cables connect communities and states and provide the lifeblood for economic development. While their disruption for political reasons, as seen in the recent case of Crimea, can hamper living conditions, such arteries of trade can also help to promote greater understanding and improve well-being which, in turn, can contribute to stability and good-neighborly relations. That said, it was observed that economic connectivity alone is no guarantee of peace: Europe was highly integrated in terms of trade in 1914, but this did not avert a war.
Participants discussed what steps could be taken to reduce politicization of economic relations between the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian halves of the OSCE area, in what is sometimes described as the “integration of integrations” between EU and the EaEU. It was suggested that ways should be found to help states (like Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine) to build bridges between the EU and EaEU rather than being forced to make a “false choice” between them. The trilateral talks between the EU, Ukraine and Russia were cited as a positive example, as was relations between Turkey and a number of partners. It was also noted that members of both unions should harmonize their rules and standards in line with commitments of the World Trade Organization. Several participants stressed the importance of a “small step” policy rather than working towards the grand design of a common pan-European economic space.
A lively discussion focused on how economic cooperation could help to de-escalate tensions in and around Ukraine, and rebuild trust and cooperation in Europe. It was noted, for example in the context of trade and energy, that there is a high level of co-dependence between Russia and many EU countries, and therefore incentives for cooperation. At the same time, the crisis is forcing traditional trade partners to diversify their products and markets. Some participants stressed the role that economic cooperation can play as part of wider efforts to enhance stability while others warned that trade cannot operate in a political vacuum or reward bad behavior.
One participant pointed out the importance of rules in the context of trade. In the same way that states need the rule of law for legitimacy at home and predictability abroad, connectivity can only work effectively if investors can operate in an environment that they trust.
There was a detailed discussion on the impact of energy on security (and vice versa), particularly Russian oil and gas. It was noted that Russia has an over-supply of gas, that demand is dropping, and that Russia is pivoting to Asia. The impact of other geo-political changes, for example in Iran, Turkey and the Gulf, and their impact on energy markets were also discussed.
Participants discussed whether or not there is a role for the OSCE in promoting economic connectivity. One participant pointed out that this has been part of the OSCE’s work since the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, and now takes on a renewed significance. It was noted that, moving forward, discussions on this topic within the OSCE should involve the business community. This will be one of Germany’s priorities during its Chairmanship of the OSCE in 2016. It was noted that the recent report by the OSCE Panel of Eminent Persons included recommendations designed to increase the OSCE’s work in the field of economic connectivity. Furthermore, it was recalled that the 2010 OSCE Astana Summit Declaration called for an intensification of energy security dialogue.
Several participants suggested that science diplomacy and energy diplomacy could build bridges at a time when traditional diplomacy faces gridlock, and gave examples of on-going initiatives.
Participants discussed economic connectivity in the context of building confidence among parties to protracted conflicts. It was noted that identifying common economic interests and facilitating or regulating trade – even among parties that do not officially recognize each other – can create mutually beneficial incentives. The cases of China/Taiwan, Serbia/Kosovo, Cyprus as well as Georgia/Abkhazia were cited. This is an area of work where IPI intends to increase its activities, potentially in Moldova.