Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Event Video 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-btdeje").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-btdeje").fadeIn(300);});});

As clear evidence of war crimes and violations of international law have come to light in the war in Ukraine, the fight against impunity has garnered new attention. This is not just true for Ukraine but for the entire world. The task of reprioritizing the protection of civilians and human rights has become increasingly urgent.

To address this global challenge, the European Parliamentary Research Service in partnership with Fight Impunity and No Peace without Justice held its first International Annual Conference, entitled “The Future of Human Rights and the Fight Against Impunity.” The event took place at the European Parliament in Brussels from June 16-17, 2022, bringing together leading figures from the EU, UN, and NGOs. Throughout both days, participants aimed to shed light on abuses against human rights, foster a better-informed public debate on the subject, and help generate a stronger commitment to prioritize it with international resources.

IPI Vice President and COO Adam Lupel participated as a speaker at the conference’s fourth session on “Threats to Peace and Democracy.” His presentation examined the fragmentation of international order, the crisis of multilateralism, and the overall weakening of commitments to international law. Commenting on the atrocities taking place in Ukraine, Dr. Lupel said: “The principles of non-aggression, inviolability of state borders, and limitations on the use of force…are under threat by the Russian aggression in Ukraine. Without adherence to these basic norms, you lose the very conditions for the possibility for the international rule of law.”

Watch his full remarks here>>

In addition to Dr. Lupel, the panel featured remarks by Nadia Volkova, Founder & Director of the Ukrianian Legal Advisory Group; Ayman Nour, former member of the Egyptian Parliament and Presidential Candidate; and Shada Islam, Visiting Professor, College of Europe. The panel was moderated by MEP Christophe Hansen, Member of the European Parliament for Luxembourg.

Both days of the conference are available to watch at the recordings below.
June 16, 2022 (Day 1)
June 17, 2022 (Day 2)

In the space of just nine months, Tunisia’s President Kais Saied has centralised power and dismantled the institutions established by the young democracy since the revo­lu­tion of 2011. His new constitution establishing a “New Republic” will be put to a refer­endum on 25 July 2022. Saied’s plans have divided the nation, with growing resistance from political and civil society actors demanding the return to an inclusive and demo­cratic process. At the same time, the country is moving closer to default. Tunisia’s Euro­pean partners have invested heavily in democratisation and view the autocratic shift with concern. But they have failed to take meaningful action, and each new step by Saied makes it harder to reverse the path. In the interests of Tunisia’s stability, Europe should move decisively and employ the financial and diplomatic leverage it has due to Tunisia’s economic crisis.

Finland and Sweden want to join NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine. But Turkey was quick to object and even threatened to block their bid. So why is Turkey rejecting this and what could happen?

The implementation of the new net emission targets for 2030 and 2050 as part of the European Green Deal is moving the deliberate removal of CO2 from the atmosphere up the agendas of political decision-makers. In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also recently reiterated that net-zero targets can­not be achieved without the deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods. The political debate in the European Union (EU) about CDR has changed rapidly in recent years, with almost all political actors now calling for a new regulatory frame­work for CDR to become an integral building block of EU climate policy. However, fundamental conflicts are brewing over the question as to which removal methods and policy instruments should be implemented and which priorities should be set. There are signs of emerging political alliances on the EU level that will shape the Fit-for-55 legislation in the short term and pre-structure the debate on the design of climate policy between 2030 and 2040.

Das Deutsche Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt eine

WissenschaftlerIn (m/w/d)

für den Arbeitsschwerpunkt International Finance

in Teilzeit (25%, Möglichkeit ab 1.1.23 auf 50% zu erhöhen).

Das Deutsche Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt

mehrere promovierte WissenschaftlerInnen (m/w/d).

Over the last decade, only a single projection of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows by the United Nations influential “World Investment Report” has proposed a negative outlook in the medium term. Based partly on surveys of business executives, these forecasts reflect ex¬pecta¬tions of investment growth which, however, have repeated¬ly failed to materialise. In fact, FDI flows to develop¬ing countries have remained stagnant over the past decade.
Such wishful thinking is nurtured by a long series of positive narratives and facts about foreign investment. FDI has been one of the pillars of international development efforts for over 70 years. Its promise has not been limited to critical finance, but extends to longer term competitiveness through access to better technology, managerial know-how and, above all, prosperity through more and better paid jobs in the formal sector. From the old prescriptions of the so-called Washington Consensus to the hopeful Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the dominant development narrative has therefore favoured a rather indiscriminate pursuit of investment volume.
This brief calls for rethinking of narratives and policies that help to improve the impact of FDI, based on secular trends that challenge our expectations. Four such trends stand out:
First, while other sources of finance for development have grown considerably over the last decades, foreign invest¬ment has not followed the trend. Second, the kind of investment that is associated with stronger gains and longer term commitment in host economies – greenfield FDI – has also been in consistent decline as a share of total invest¬ment, while mergers and acquisitions and project finance have gained in importance. Third, the top 100 multinational enterprises (MNEs), accounting for nearly a quarter of global FDI stock, rely less on employment today than they used to in order to grow their foreign presence. Job creation, knowledge transfer and spillovers are therefore less likely to materialise through the presence of mega-firms and their corresponding investment at scale. Fourth, the growth of Chinese outward FDI within a strategic expan¬sionary political agenda stands to change rules and attitudes towards foreign investment moving forwards.
We argue that, collectively, these trends invite a renewed conversation around the kind of foreign investment we want and expectations of this source of finance for develop¬ment. These facts obscure neither the broad benefits of FDI to developing countries, nor the value proposition of FDI attraction. Rather, they raise questions about expectations, priorities and the alignment of investment policy with the realities experienced across develop¬ing countries.
To that end, we propose four priorities that stand to make a difference in the current context. We call for policy-makers to:
1) Place additional emphasis on retention of investment and linkages with the domestic economy.
2) Try new approaches for FDI attraction that focus on improving domestic investment facilitation frameworks.
3) Be selective as to investment sources and activities in order to mitigate political risks and align inward investment better with sustainable development.
4) Add evidence to improve our understanding of invest¬ment and inform decision-making.
Overall, it is critical to engage in a serious multi-stakeholder conversation around expectations, actors and solutions that respond to the investment reality of today.

Over the last decade, only a single projection of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows by the United Nations influential “World Investment Report” has proposed a negative outlook in the medium term. Based partly on surveys of business executives, these forecasts reflect ex¬pecta¬tions of investment growth which, however, have repeated¬ly failed to materialise. In fact, FDI flows to develop¬ing countries have remained stagnant over the past decade.
Such wishful thinking is nurtured by a long series of positive narratives and facts about foreign investment. FDI has been one of the pillars of international development efforts for over 70 years. Its promise has not been limited to critical finance, but extends to longer term competitiveness through access to better technology, managerial know-how and, above all, prosperity through more and better paid jobs in the formal sector. From the old prescriptions of the so-called Washington Consensus to the hopeful Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the dominant development narrative has therefore favoured a rather indiscriminate pursuit of investment volume.
This brief calls for rethinking of narratives and policies that help to improve the impact of FDI, based on secular trends that challenge our expectations. Four such trends stand out:
First, while other sources of finance for development have grown considerably over the last decades, foreign invest¬ment has not followed the trend. Second, the kind of investment that is associated with stronger gains and longer term commitment in host economies – greenfield FDI – has also been in consistent decline as a share of total invest¬ment, while mergers and acquisitions and project finance have gained in importance. Third, the top 100 multinational enterprises (MNEs), accounting for nearly a quarter of global FDI stock, rely less on employment today than they used to in order to grow their foreign presence. Job creation, knowledge transfer and spillovers are therefore less likely to materialise through the presence of mega-firms and their corresponding investment at scale. Fourth, the growth of Chinese outward FDI within a strategic expan¬sionary political agenda stands to change rules and attitudes towards foreign investment moving forwards.
We argue that, collectively, these trends invite a renewed conversation around the kind of foreign investment we want and expectations of this source of finance for develop¬ment. These facts obscure neither the broad benefits of FDI to developing countries, nor the value proposition of FDI attraction. Rather, they raise questions about expectations, priorities and the alignment of investment policy with the realities experienced across develop¬ing countries.
To that end, we propose four priorities that stand to make a difference in the current context. We call for policy-makers to:
1) Place additional emphasis on retention of investment and linkages with the domestic economy.
2) Try new approaches for FDI attraction that focus on improving domestic investment facilitation frameworks.
3) Be selective as to investment sources and activities in order to mitigate political risks and align inward investment better with sustainable development.
4) Add evidence to improve our understanding of invest¬ment and inform decision-making.
Overall, it is critical to engage in a serious multi-stakeholder conversation around expectations, actors and solutions that respond to the investment reality of today.

Over the last decade, only a single projection of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows by the United Nations influential “World Investment Report” has proposed a negative outlook in the medium term. Based partly on surveys of business executives, these forecasts reflect ex¬pecta¬tions of investment growth which, however, have repeated¬ly failed to materialise. In fact, FDI flows to develop¬ing countries have remained stagnant over the past decade.
Such wishful thinking is nurtured by a long series of positive narratives and facts about foreign investment. FDI has been one of the pillars of international development efforts for over 70 years. Its promise has not been limited to critical finance, but extends to longer term competitiveness through access to better technology, managerial know-how and, above all, prosperity through more and better paid jobs in the formal sector. From the old prescriptions of the so-called Washington Consensus to the hopeful Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the dominant development narrative has therefore favoured a rather indiscriminate pursuit of investment volume.
This brief calls for rethinking of narratives and policies that help to improve the impact of FDI, based on secular trends that challenge our expectations. Four such trends stand out:
First, while other sources of finance for development have grown considerably over the last decades, foreign invest¬ment has not followed the trend. Second, the kind of investment that is associated with stronger gains and longer term commitment in host economies – greenfield FDI – has also been in consistent decline as a share of total invest¬ment, while mergers and acquisitions and project finance have gained in importance. Third, the top 100 multinational enterprises (MNEs), accounting for nearly a quarter of global FDI stock, rely less on employment today than they used to in order to grow their foreign presence. Job creation, knowledge transfer and spillovers are therefore less likely to materialise through the presence of mega-firms and their corresponding investment at scale. Fourth, the growth of Chinese outward FDI within a strategic expan¬sionary political agenda stands to change rules and attitudes towards foreign investment moving forwards.
We argue that, collectively, these trends invite a renewed conversation around the kind of foreign investment we want and expectations of this source of finance for develop¬ment. These facts obscure neither the broad benefits of FDI to developing countries, nor the value proposition of FDI attraction. Rather, they raise questions about expectations, priorities and the alignment of investment policy with the realities experienced across develop¬ing countries.
To that end, we propose four priorities that stand to make a difference in the current context. We call for policy-makers to:
1) Place additional emphasis on retention of investment and linkages with the domestic economy.
2) Try new approaches for FDI attraction that focus on improving domestic investment facilitation frameworks.
3) Be selective as to investment sources and activities in order to mitigate political risks and align inward investment better with sustainable development.
4) Add evidence to improve our understanding of invest¬ment and inform decision-making.
Overall, it is critical to engage in a serious multi-stakeholder conversation around expectations, actors and solutions that respond to the investment reality of today.

Nach langem Ringen haben sich die EU-Länder Anfang Juni auf ein Teilembargo gegen russisches Öl geeinigt. Die EU will Russlands Haupteinnahmequelle trockenlegen und die Abhängigkeit von russischen Öl beenden. Betroffen sind bis zu zwei Drittel der Ölimporte, die über Tanker nach Europa gelangen. Das wird Russland ökonomisch auf Dauer sicher hart treffen. Nach Inkrafttreten des Embargos verliert das Land unter den aktuellen Ölpreisen Einnahmen von circa 330 Millionen Euro täglich. In dem sechsten Sanktionspaket wird darüber hinaus ein Versicherungs- und Rückversicherungsverbot für russische Ölladungen auf See eingeführt. Damit erhöhen sich für Russland die Kosten, um das Öl an Drittländer zu liefern.

Allerdings haben die langen Verhandlungen um einen Kompromiss auch das Ansehen der Union beschädigt und Zweifel an ihrer Entschlossenheit geweckt. Die lange Vorlaufzeit von sechs Monaten spielt Russland in die Hände. Es kann in der Zwischenzeit die komplexe Logistik der Ölströme an Drittländer organisieren. Zudem gewährt der aktuell hohe Ölpreis Russland bereits jetzt Mehreinnahmen. Und da die Herkunft von Öl nicht immer eindeutig ist, wird es schließlich für die Versicherer kompliziert, das Verbot einzuhalten. Wenn es um die Öl- und Gasversorgung geht, sind die Abhängigkeiten einzelner Länder und ihre politischen Prioritäten offenbar wichtiger als Solidarität und schnelles Handeln.  

Einführzölle auf Gas und Öl: (k)eine bessere Alternative

Um die russische Wirtschaft schneller und effektiver zu treffen, wird nun nach ergänzenden Maßnahmen gesucht. Vor allem wird ein Einfuhrzoll auf Gas und Öl diskutiert. Dieser könnte schneller und effektiver wirken als das beschlossene Ölembargo – und ein für die EU riskantes Gasembargo. Den Zoll könnte der europäische Ministerrat mit qualifizierter Mehrheit beschließen, ohne mühsame Verhandlungen und Kompromisse. Im Idealfall reduziert der Zoll nicht nur die Zahlungen an Russland, sondern auch die Auswirkungen auf die europäische Versorgungssicherheit. Dabei würden die Preise nicht so stark steigen, weil keine Angebotsverknappung droht.

Allerdings hat diese Lösung zwei wesentliche Schwachstellen: Bei relativ unelastischer Gas- und Ölnachfrage würde Russland höchstwahrscheinlich die Preise nicht senken, und die Importeure würden den Zoll an die europäischen Endverbraucher weitergeben. Darüber hinaus wäre ein Beschluss mit qualifizierter Mehrheit zwar möglich. Er würde aber genauso wie im Falle des Teilembargos ein Signal der Unentschlossenheit senden.

Es zeigt sich, dass Energiesanktionen aufgrund des hohen Verflechtungsgrades und gegenseitiger Abhängigkeiten mit Russland nicht besonders geeignet sind, um Russland und seine militärische Handlungsfähigkeit schnell zu beeinträchtigen. Was theoretisch möglich wäre, ist gesamtwirtschaftlich nicht immer haltbar. Es droht entweder den Sanktionierten nicht schnell genug oder den Sanktionierenden zu hart zu treffen. Diese Lehre sollten die EU und Deutschland beherzigen, vor allem wenn es um mögliche Sanktionsmaßnahmen gegen russische Gaslieferungen geht.

Aufgrund mangelnder Alternativen bleibt Gas mehr als Öl kurz- bis mittelfristig die Achillesferse der EU. Gasexporte sind aber auch für Russland kritisch. Einnahmen aus dem Ölexport fallen zwar höher aus. Die Ausweichmöglichkeiten sind im Gasbereich aber noch begrenzter: Die fehlende Infrastruktur gen Asien und die größtenteils erdgebundene Lieferwege stellen Hürden dar, welche Russland erst in einigen Jahren überwinden kann, während das Land mehr denn je auf diese Einnahmequelle angewiesen ist. Umso wichtiger ist es für die EU und Deutschland, den Ausstieg aus russischem Gas mit kühlem Kopf und langem Atem nach zwei Prinzipien zu planen:

Erwartungen managen, europäisch handeln

Erstens müssen die EU und ihre Mitgliedsländer bei der Erwägung weiterer Energiesanktionen – insbesondere im Gasbereich – die Erwartungen managen und ihre Handlung nach realistischen Zielen richten. Alle bis dato vorgeschlagenen Sanktionsmaßnahmen wie Embargos, Einfuhrzölle oder Preisdeckel sind nur bedingt geeignet, um die russische Aggression schnell zu beenden. Die politischen Risiken und die ökonomischen Kosten für Europa können erheblich sein und die Akzeptanz für eine längere Konfrontation mit Russland schwinden lassen. Man kann sich darüber hinaus nicht sicher sein, ob Russland politisch und militärisch einlenkt. Während eine Debatte um sofortige Maßnahmen weiterhin zu begrüßen und moralisch nachvollziehbar ist, sollte der politische Fokus weiterhin darauf liegen, der russischen Wirtschaft den maximalen Schaden zuzufügen und gleichzeitig die Risiken für die europäischen Wirtschaften minimieren.

Dafür müsste aber die EU bei weiterhin unsicheren Versorgungsalternativen weniger sofortige Sanktionsmaßnahmen erwägen. Vielmehr sollte sie sich als ersten Schritt auf die rapide Sicherung alternativer Gasquellen sowie auf die Umsetzung des Plans »Repower EU« – dem Maßnahmenpaket der Kommission für die Energieunabhängigkeit von Russland – konzentrieren, zumal sie sich gegen den Fall eines von Russland herbeigeführten Lieferstopps bereits jetzt wappnen muss.

Zweitens, und vom ersten ableitend, müssen die EU und ihre Mitgliedsländer die Sicherung ihrer alternativen und möglichst nachhaltigen Gasversorgung viel intensiver und koordinierter vorantreiben, zumindest die vom russischen Gas besonders abhängigen Länder wie Deutschland oder Italien. Die neu geschaffene »EU-Energie-Plattform«, mit der die EU-Mitgliedsländer Gas und perspektivisch Wasserstoff aus anderen Staaten als Russland beschaffen, die Nachfrage bündeln und so den Preis dafür senken wollen, ist sicherlich ein Instrument, um die Verhandlungsmacht zu erhöhen. Dafür müssten sie aber schon jetzt Fragen wie der Menge, Infrastruktur oder Vertragslaufzeit klären.

Deutschlands schwierige bilaterale Verhandlungen mit Ländern wie Katar oder Israel zeigen, dass in der neuen europäischen Energiewelt nationale Alleingänge nicht zielführend sind. Eine europäische oder zumindest multilaterale Gasversorgung würde hingegen die langfristige Basis für einen nachhaltigen Ausstieg aus russischen Energielieferungen legen. Das würde Russland substantieller treffen als jede weitere hastig beschlossene, nur bedingt wirksame Sanktionsmaßnahme.

The EU postulates global climate action leadership in the European Green Deal. This Policy Brief takes the findings of the latest IPCC report as a starting point to discuss the implications for the EU's role in the global governance of climate change with a particular focus on Loss and Damage policy and financing. It argues that the pertinent Glasgow Dialogue series provides the EU with an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by supporting the design of enhanced integrated approaches to climate risk governance and finance that better address Loss and Damage, and by putting adaptation and Loss and Damage on top of the COP27 agenda in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt, in November 2022.

The EU postulates global climate action leadership in the European Green Deal. This Policy Brief takes the findings of the latest IPCC report as a starting point to discuss the implications for the EU's role in the global governance of climate change with a particular focus on Loss and Damage policy and financing. It argues that the pertinent Glasgow Dialogue series provides the EU with an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by supporting the design of enhanced integrated approaches to climate risk governance and finance that better address Loss and Damage, and by putting adaptation and Loss and Damage on top of the COP27 agenda in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt, in November 2022.