Feed aggregator

Evgeniya Bakalova,

A Nyugat-Afrikában található Benini Köztársaság hagyományaihoz még ma is hozzátartoznak a bőrbe vésett, törzsi tetoválások, azaz hegek. A különféle geometriai minták jelzik, hogy ki melyik törzshöz tartozik, illetve gyakran a szépség és az erő szimbólumai.

Lengyelországban gőzerővel folyik a választási kampány – október 25-én lesznek a parlamenti választások. Ennek kapcsán sorra készülnek...

Der Zusammenhang von Entwicklungsperspektiven und den Auswirkungen der transnationalen Organisierten Kriminalität (OK) ist in den letzten Jahren in Deutschland wie auf internationaler Ebene zunehmend in den Fokus gerückt. Dabei richtet sich der Blick besonders auf fragile und von Konflikten betroffene Staaten, die gemeinhin als besonders verwundbar für OK und deren Folgen angesehen werden. In der entwicklungspolitischen Debatte wird seit längerem darauf verwiesen, dass OK und kriminelle Gewalt eine Erklärung dafür sind, warum fragile Staaten mehrheitlich nicht die Millenniumsentwicklungsziele erreichen werden. Auch deshalb kommt die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (EZ) nicht umhin, sich aktiv mit OK und den Risiken, die sie für fragile Staaten mit sich bringt, auseinanderzusetzen. Denn OK ist ein Querschnittsthema, nicht allein ein Sicherheitsproblem. Zudem kommen EZ-Akteure bereits mehr mit OK oder OK-relevanten Bereichen in Berührung, als üblicherweise angenommen wird – ob in bilateralen Programmen alternativer Entwicklung in Drogenanbaugebieten oder bei der Unterstützung des Aufbaus nachhaltiger Fischerei- oder Forstsektoren in Partnerländern. Die Analyse illegaler Ökonomien in Liberia, Sierra Leone und Guinea zeigt, dass die von OK ausgehenden Gefahren für Entwicklung über die Zeit und verschiedene Sektoren hinweg variieren. Denn OK kann unter den Bedingungen fragiler Staatlichkeit als externer Stressfaktor, in Form einer Gewaltökonomie, der Staatsvereinnahmung und/oder (Über-)Lebenswelt wirken. Die entsprechenden Gefahren lassen sich jedoch systematisch erfassen, um Ansatzpunkte und Zielkonflikte für die EZ im Umgang mit OK zu identifizieren.

Mohamed Abdesslam et Benjamin Le Pendeven présentent leur note : PME : nouveaux modes de financement.

Cet article Mohamed Abdesslam et Benjamin Le Pendeven présentent leur note : PME : nouveaux modes de financement est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.

Retrouvez l’interview de Mathieu Flonneau et Jean-Pierre Orfeuil sur leurs notes : Vive l’automobilisme ! (1) Les conditions d’une mobilité conviviale et Vive l’automobilisme ! (2) Pourquoi il faut défendre la route.

Cet article Mathieu Flonneau et Jean-Pierre Orfeuil présentent leurs notes : Vive l’automobilisme ! (1) Les conditions d’une mobilité conviviale et Vive l’automobilisme ! (2) Pourquoi il faut défendre la route est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir in May 2015. Source: CTV News

A mSafe Bridport, provide

Slovak Zuzana 155-mm Self-Propelled Howitzer

Le 61 vous convie, mardi 6 octobre à 19h, à la présentation de "Comment faire tomber un dictateur quand on est seul, tout petit, et sans armes" de Srdja Popovic. Vente, dédicace, discussion avec l'auteur. Vive la révolution !
Srdja Popovic, Comment faire tomber un dictateur quand on est seul, tout petit, et sans armes (Payot)
« Voici le livre des révolutions possibles, celles que nous pouvons faire, nous, les gens ordinaires. Il part d'un principe : si l'on veut lancer rapidement un mouvement de (...)

/ Région parisienne, Serbie

Le 61 vous convie, mardi 6 octobre à 19h, à la présentation de "Comment faire tomber un dictateur quand on est seul, tout petit, et sans armes" de Srdja Popovic. Vente, dédicace, discussion avec l'auteur. Vive la révolution !
Srdja Popovic, Comment faire tomber un dictateur quand on est seul, tout petit, et sans armes (Payot)
« Voici le livre des révolutions possibles, celles que nous pouvons faire, nous, les gens ordinaires. Il part d'un principe : si l'on veut lancer rapidement un mouvement de (...)

/ Région parisienne, Serbie

En prolongement de son intervention au colloque « Les français à l’étranger, un atout pour la France », organisé par Hélène Conway-Mouret le mardi 5 octobre 2015, Julien Gonzalez est intervenu, sur la chaîne Public Sénat lors de l'émission Sénat 360, animée par Delphine Girard, sur le thème "Coup de projecteur sur les français de l'étranger".

Cet article Public Sénat – Intervention de Julien Gonzalez lors de l’émission sur les français vivant à l’étranger est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.

Le déficit de financement des PME, déjà reconnu comme important lors des années 2000, s’est aggravé avec la crise de 2008 : réduction importante des crédits bancaires pour certaines entreprises et surconcentration des encours sur les meilleurs dossiers, baisse sensible des investissements en capital-risque, baisse des marges et donc des capacités d’autofinancement, etc. Aussi, des modes de financement publics et privés déjà existants se sont vu modernisés et adaptés au marché, et ont connu une forte croissance.

Cet article Mohamed Abdesslam et Benjamin Le Pendeven : PME : nouveaux modes de financement est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.

This week’s post is focused on security and crisis decision-making, on the murky distinction between a bit of domestic disorder which, albeit a nuisance, poses no threat to society, and disorder as a simple use of force in an event which approaches conflict. Specifically, it is concerned to unpick the issues of tactics meant to turn protest to disorder, and that disorder to strategic mayhem. The practice, under the heading of ‘Black Bloc Tactics,’ has yet to be used to any greater objective than momentary chaos which it is hoped will give heft to the political point of the protest. However, as the events of the Arab Spring amply demonstrate, protest is not necessarily far from conflict of the worst sort. So, read the post, consider the questions, and join the discussion on Twitter at #CCLKOW.

This weekend I travelled to Manchester to observe the policing of the protest and the Conservative Party Conference. Rather than run about on the streets following the public order officers, [1] this time I was a guest of the force and was allowed to observe the policing from the central command by way of CCTV and helicopter footage. It was utterly fascinating.

The anti-austerity protest planned for Sunday involved a march and rally of significant numbers. And as I am very interested in urban mayhem, watching the events I calculated the many opportunities, moments and locations in which a dedicated operative could act to bring chaos out of the calm. In fact, this has been a tactic of varying use and utility adopted by different groups within a protest in the last couple of decades. Often associated with Anarchists, Black Bloc tactics are not necessarily limited to that group. Briefly, these tactics encompass small cells of anonymised actors who have traditionally used token violence to punctuate the political statement of the protest.

To date, they have not been used in any real capacity beyond the general aim of the protest. And to be perfectly clear, this thought piece does not direct its consideration to protest as protest, even when it might include violence and disorder. Free expression and democratic principles do not always play out in the neatest possible fashion, but that is by far to be preferred over other forms of governance. I have argued elsewhere and I do not step back from that position here that the state and police forces must live by the rule that ‘you can’t shoot rioters.’ [2] In fact, as we have witnessed in the uprisings collectively known as the Arab Spring, strong arm responses to even violent protest can turn political action to conflict too easily.

So, what are we concerned with here if not protest run amok of its own volition? I have argued in another article that the strategic actor – either terrorist or state affiliated – could use mayhem in lieu of battle. It’s worth jogging over to give that piece a read as it describes the concept in detail, but in brief, it envisions the intentional use of such tactics as would turn the mob in the urban setting into a cheap but effective army to be wielded against the society. That is, such an approach, which to date has only been used to create token or short term violence, could be adapted as a type of warfare.

This is where it all becomes difficult. A competent actor will be able to camouflage the strategic intent of the disorder, at least in the short term. Done very well, a society could slowly be bled white with exhaustion coping with disorder. Or, in frustration, the security forces could escalate the situation to the point of conflict. Thus, with very few resources, a state could be defeated.

Whereas my very first post in this series put to you the problem of the local, rural partisan, in this case you are forced to confront a modern urban warrior, whether at home or abroad on COIN or other stabilisation operations. And so the questions are:

1. How will you identify that protest is not protest but an act of war?

2. How will you act without doing undue additional harm or damage?

3. Is this a strategy you might consider?

4. At what point does this amount to an act of war?

 

Give your answers some thought and join the conversation on Twitter at #CCLKOW.

 

Notes

1. The police are rarely troubled by my close presence to their activities as I look nothing short of harmless. Seriously, I won’t ever be mistaken for anarchist or terrorist, and as yet ‘rogue professional woman’ is not yet a style adopted by any combatants.

2. Despite a heavy ethos against the use of force generally, and in public order policing specifically, there has been an uproar in the British press today regarding the deployment of a sniper on a rooftop which overlooked the protest route. It also overlooked the conference venue site. Given the heightened threat level with respect to terrorism and the high-profile nature of the event, such precautions are to be expected. However, with the highly constrained model for the use of lethal force, the idea that the police would even consider using snipers against protesters when it is their job to facilitate protest is beyond silly. And given the control on the police use of firearms, the thought is even more far-fetched. Read the IPCC investigation report on the shooting of Mark Duggan in 2011 if you want to understand how it works, at pages 96 ff – the officers were questioned repeatedly regarding what happened. The material directly related to the officer who fired the fatal shot is at pages 118-164.

Pierre Pezziardi, co-auteur pour la Fondation pour l’innovation politique de la note Pour la croissance, la débureaucratisation par la confiance, interviendra à différents colloques aux côtés de nombreux conférenciers d'envergure internationale.

Cet article Interventions de Pierre Pezziardi lors de colloques les 8, 9 et 15 octobre 2015 est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.

Une tribune parue dans l'Opinion

Méditerranée orientale / Exercices navals : le croiseur lance-missiles Moskva (Projet 1164), les frégates Ladniy, Pitliviy et Smetliviy (flotte de la mer Noire) ont procédé hier à des tirs de missiles contre des cibles en surface et dans les airs, dans...

What this will mean for both US and EU companies

Today thousands of potential jobs, billions in revenues and any cooperation such as medical research is put into question in a landmark decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg. After a multi-year back and forth nail-biting legal exercise the CJEU has today ruled that the Safe Harbor data-sharing agreement between the EU and the US is invalid. It has also ruled that national supervisory authorities should be able to launch court proceedings to over-rule any data-sharing agreements between the EU and third countries.

What does that mean? The US-EU is able to transfer data through various mechanisms including an agreement called the Safe Harbor Agreement. Previously that worked well as the EU saw that it provided adequate safeguards. Today the CJEU has ruled (courtesy of PRISM and Mr. Snowden) that it does not. So whilst the transfer of data is not invalid, the process to do so has become less clear with national data protection authorities now having increased powers as a result of this decision to intervene directly.

A cloud of uncertainty has covered the EU

If you thought moving your customers’ data to the Internet/Cloud was a risky and uncertain procedure well unfortunately it just got worse. A whole new can of worms has opened up.

We hope the sober minds of the US and EU will react sensibly to resolve the many issues now being raised. The most challenging and frightening outcomes are on the table include:

• Data flows between the EU and the US could be suspended. Without a valid EU-US data transfer agreement in place, it is unclear how trans-Atlantic data transfers could continue to take place.
• Negotiations between the EU and US to review the Safe Harbour are already in an advanced position will now have to be renegotiated.
• Negotiations to complete the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) could be delayed.

There is also the slippery slope. The GDPR, currently being negotiated, would allow for the Commission to define a list of third countries to which data can be transferred. This judgment means that this list would not be definitive. Each of the 28 Member States and pressure groups could launch court proceedings to over-rule this list and refuse data transfers to any country it considers not to have a high enough level of protection for EU citizens. This would cause uncertainty and fragmentation for businesses.

Next steps – don’t worry the world is not doomed…

• The European Commission is in the process of renegotiating the Safe Harbor agreement with the US – since 2013 (hopefully now with a new name made of numbers that doesn’t make it a target to regulators) . Today’s decision will likely complicate the talks and an increasing of the legal bar and requirements to be considered adequate safeguards.
• We understand that the US Government’s department of commerce is preparing guidance for companies, following today’s judgment. This is expected to come out at the end of this week.
• AmCham has already issued a response to the case. We expect that many other trade associations will also be issuing statements and guidance in the coming days.

Here’s a quick update : Official European Commission Response

Key highlights: Vice-President Timmermanns said the Commission was ‘not surprised’ by the ruling, as it is very much in line with the Advocate General’s opinion issued 2 weeks ago and a validation of the Commission’s own stance with the 13 recommendations they have been negotiating with the US on Safe Harbor since 2013. He sees it as ‘neither a huge reinforcement, nor a huge blow’.

The Commissioner Jourova highlighted 3 actions:

1. Safe Harbour negotiations: the European Commission will undergo is to ensure ‘sufficient’ safeguards will be met for EU citizens through stepping up and finalising its negotiations with the US on revising Safe Harbour. However, she declined to give a timeline, saying that negotiations had already been delayed past the expected deadline of summer 2015 due to national security reasons.
2. Data transfers: Commissioner Jourova confirmed that EU-US data transfers cannot continue under the Safe Harbour mechanism. She said that other international data transfer mechanisms must be relied upon instead, which are provided for in the current Data Protection Directive: standard contract clauses, binding corporate rules (for intra-company transfers) and derogations such as the performance of a contract, public interest grounds (including the fight against fraud), the vital interests of the data subject, or in cases where the individual has given free and informed consent.
3. Prevent uncertainty and fragmentation: The Commission will provide guidance to the National Data Protection authorities to ensure be coordinated on alternative ways for data transfer and as it applies to businesses. Information will be published on the Commission website soon. The Commission said it understands the business need for a coordinated approach to data protection in the EU, and avoiding fragmentation. They are already in ‘intensive discussions’ with national data protection supervisory authorities and the Chair of the Article 29 working party. More meetings will take place over the coming weeks.

GDPR: Commissioner Jourova said that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) negotiations are still on track to be finalised by the end of the year. She said the ruling supports the regulation, as the regulation would strengthen the power of national data protection supervisory authorities.

The irony

The outcome of the case was the result of one student’s vision to taking on the US Government to prevent unlawful surveillance of personal data. BUT as Cynthia Rich, an analyst in Washington D.C., rightfully highlights in a blog that killing Safe Harbor will not have much of an impact on the surveillance rules of the US or all the other EU countries spying on foreign countries. It will however hurt the business and anything that requires international data transfers.

By the way there are benefits to the Internet!

Ever wonder how important the data flow between the US and the EU really is? The success of the Internet relies on the flow of information and data between countries. It is core to the Digital Single Market initiative to reboot Europe’s sluggish economy. While US internet companies are aggressively ramping up its storage and processing capabilities in the EU it is far from capable to take on the massive flow of data generated in the EU. For the moment the engine to really make cloud computing services as we know it work is storing and processing the data in the US. It gets worse. Cloud Computing mechanics is not clear cut to drop data in the EU and expect it provide the 99.9% reliability. Redundancy of data often means duplicating information several times around the world.

If we see companies, governments, consumers and scientists sharing information on a wide range of issues across the planet then we can start believing industry analyst figures that foresee the global cloud computing market will grow from a $40.7 billion in 2011 to $241 billion in 2020, according to Forrester Research. Cloud computing will generate nearly 14 million jobs worldwide from 2011 to 2015, according to a study by the analyst firm IDC. This is just the tip of the iceberg as tens of billions of euro in both public and private spend on medical and scientific research is made in the US and EU each year with increasing trans-Atlantic cooperation.

Ray Pinto