In February 2016, as a consequence of the activation of the mutual defence clause of France after the ruthless terrorist attacks in Paris, the International Institute for Peace (IIP) and the Karl-Renner-Institute organised a conference in Vienna dealing with the topic of military interventions and EU-solidarity. In the aftermath, the IIP published an anthology which tries to tackle different issues in the framework of military interventions from various perspectives, which is available now.

Armed interventions in domestic conflicts have been named as ultima ratio in the last years in order to fulfil the International Responsibility to Protect (R2P) or the right of self-defence. There is to differ between UN-mandated and therefore legitimate interventions and uni- or multilateral interventions, which we can observe momentarily in Syria, where France, Great Britain and the USA are continuing the so called “War against terror”, which already started in Afghanistan in 2001. However, the questions of the reasonability, efficiency and extent of those interventions are at the very core of the discussion. 

Which intentions are eventually leading to an armed intervention and on which theoretical and judicial basis is it exercised? Who is realizing them and which purposes are behind them? Which impacts did military interventions have in the past and which possibilities do states, like e.g. the neutral Austria or alliances such as EU and NATO have in or outside of such intervention-coalitions? When is an intervention seen as efficient and effective and sustainable? Can those interventions, as a consequence, lead to obligations of solidarity within the European Union and if so, to what kind of obligations? Which role did Europe have in this regard, which consequences did this interventionism have and is there a difference between legality and legitimacy in international relations?

About the book:

Authors from different scientific disciplines and countries as well as journalists and practitioners are addressing various questions with regard to the legitimacy, efficiency, extent and practices of military interventions from several perspectives.

Die Entscheidung der britischen Bevölkerung, die EU zu verlassen, hat die Union in eine Krise gestürzt. Während die EU und Großbritannien verhandeln, ist nur eines sicher – die nächsten Monate werden von großer Unsicherheit und einem intensiven Nachdenken über die Folgen von Brexit geprägt sein. Die Podiumsdiskussion erörtert mögliche Folgen von Brexit für Europas Beziehungen mit der Welt: Wie entwickeln sich die Beziehungen zwischen den USA und Europa? Wird sich die Rolle der EU in Regionen wie dem Westbalkan und dem Nahen Osten nach dem Brexit verändern? Welche Folgen wird es für die europäische Außen-, Erweiterungs- und Nachbarschaftspolitik geben?

In his speech in Prague in April 2009 US-President Obama presented the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. What are the options for the US Administration under President Trump regarding nuclear weapons?

Recent developments might have an impact on US-European security relations: The Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) held its first session in May 2017 in Vienna. Two more will take place prior to the 2020 Review Conference, which will discuss the implementation of the NPT. Currently UN negotiations are taking place on a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons under international law. This first negotiation session showed that the 132 participating countries share a vision for a world without nuclear weapons. Austria was one of the initiators of this process and remains a strong supporter.

Other issues important for US- European relations are the link between talks on conventional arms (CFE) taking place within the framework of the OSCE in Vienna and nuclear disarmament, as well as the future of the 2015 Vienna Agreement “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA) with Iran after the Iranian elections.

After a rather tumultuous start, the Trump administration seems to face a shift in several key areas, especially when we consider the foreign policy. The escalation with North-Korea, the attitude towards Russia or the intervention in Syria and Afghanistan not only illustrate a certain continuity with Obama´s policy, but rather a determined implementation of it. Almost 100 days after the beginning of Donald Trump´s presidency, a panel of experts will discuss about the new U.S. foreign policy and its consequences on the European Union and on key regions such as the Middle East or the Balkans.

Trade and economic exchange between Western Ukraine and the non-government controlled areas have come to a halt, which resulted in a situation of economic deprivation of the people in the non-government controlled areas. At the same time, the trade unions in Donetsk and Luhansk/Lugansk separated from the Ukrainian trade unions. Former trade union colleagues do not have official contact anymore.

The Russian Federation and the USA are modernising their non-strategic nuclear arms for Europe. Both are blaming the counter part for violating the INF-Treaty – the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which came into force 30 years ago. Is there a new trend towards a larger role for nuclear weapons in European security? Is the Trump Administration receding from the vision of a nuclear-free world? Which challenges and risks arise for those who are putting efforts into the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? Which consequences can be drawn for the recent negotiations about a nuclear-weapons-convention (NWC)?

While the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) raised hope to be the beginning of an integration of Iran into the world community in 2015, this enthusiasm partly has waned nearly two years later. The difficult relations to many Arabic states – especially to Saudi Arabia, Donald Trump’s critical opinion about the JCPOA in general, the immigration ban and open threats regarding the Iranian rocket test as well as new tendencies to rising armament in NATO states pose new foreign policy challenges for Iran and the world community in general.

The relationship between Turkey and Austria has not been as tense as today for a long time. Whereas the long common history of these two nations has forged a collective memory, diplomatic relations are challenged by current events, especially the Turkish constitutional referendum, which will be held on Sunday, 16 April 2017. 

In addition to Turkey's significant role as a geopolitical platform for the Middle-East conflicts in Syria and Iraq, the country appears to be a key actor for a successful management of “the migration crisis” and an important partner for Austria and the EU.

The recent outbreak of violence in Eastern Ukraine made clear that this conflict will remain one of the most important challenges for the OSCE. The main task is to prevent further escalation and to push for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. In a broader perspective, it is essential to rebuild trust in the OSCE and between its member states so that the largest pan-European security organisation will be able to play the role that it is assigned for. The Austrian Chairmanship is confronted with these manifold challenges. But what can be expected realistically within the next few months? What can the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly contribute to minimize tensions between member states and to reestablish cooperation and trust between members?

‘Genocide in Africa has not received the same attention that genocide in Europe or genocide in Turkey or genocide in other parts of the world. There is still this kind of basic discrimination against the African people and the African problems’.

¬Boutros Boutros-Ghali