There are many ways to examine the evolving relationship between academia and politics. Often in situations of international political gridlock, policymakers may require scientific knowledge as a way to enlarge the scope of policy choices; but how can science deliver?
An elegant way to appropriate science for political purposes is via high level panels (HLPs) or international commissions; most are institutionalised and able to cover a broad spectrum of the science-politics interface. There is considerable literature on “blue ribbon commissions” in domestic settings, but little is available on how such bodies can expand the range of options to policy-makers in international and multilateral settings.
Membership criteria of HLPs are normally established according to geographic representation, political inclusivity and gender balance, with personalities and even celebrities from political, academic, defence, or private sector backgrounds. The HLPs are supported by research teams or research networks related to the study at issue. The members of the HLP should not represent governments, nor should they be part of advocacy groups, but they should be able to influence decision-makers. With the help of research and consultations, they have to provide expert advice and should offer policy options that could facilitate decision-making.
I refer here to three types of commissions or HLPs, one established by a State, one by the UN Secretary General, and one by the OSCE Chairmanship. By exploring how research inputs are administered and how the science-politics relationship is played out in such institutional arrangements, one can better assess their utility to policymakers.
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was established by Canada in 2000 in response to the genocides and atrocities of the 1990s and NATO’s unauthorized intervention in Kosovo in 1999. Eminent scholars, such as Michael Ignatius, Gisèle Côté-Harper, or Ramesh Thakur, together with former leaders from different communities were on this Commission that delivered its report The Responsibility to Protect in 2001. The Commission was supported by an academic advisory board and a research team, including scholars from Oxford and other universities[1]. The academic team prepared papers for policy discussions and research essays, together with an extensive bibliography and a supplementary research volume that was also published.[2] The research report, some kind of academic alter ego to the ICISS Report, presented itself as «of particular interest to scholars».
Another similar interface between science and politics was part of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (HLPTC) with its report A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. This HLP was initiated by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2004 in order to advise on reforms of the UN system due to the necessity to cope with emerging challenges after the 9/11 attacks and the US military intervention in Iraq that side-lined global governance mechanisms. This HLP was inclusive as to regional representation but did not include any scholars. However, the panel was supported by a director of research[3] who was able to use a dedicated team of ten researchers. The academic input to the work of the Panel also came from a series of “roadshows”. Over a period of nine months, the HLP and its research team met and consulted with forty think tanks, foundations, civil society organisations, and governments across the globe.
Finally, the OSCE as the world’s largest regional organisation, established a Panel of Eminent Persons on European Security (PEP) in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and the ensuing international crisis that led to the blockage of the decision-making mechanisms of the organisation. The objective of the Panel was to provide advice on how to (re-)consolidate European security “as a common project”. Here, 5 out of 15 members were academics. The work of the Panel was supported by a designated scholar[4] who worked closely with the drafting and editorial team[5]. The OSCE Network of Think Tanks and Academic Institutions also supported the Panel through a project dealing with key questions of the report. Seventeen research institutes and departments from fourteen States submitted written papers and fourteen took part in an event to discuss the Network’s contribution to the work of the PEP.
Policy implementation of “usable” knowledge
The work of these HLPs is based on research and consultations that are meant to generate new ideas and broaden the discussion area for policy options and concepts supporting a process of change. Some HLPs did have prominent scholars on board, but, more importantly, assigned research and drafting teams acted as facilitators between academia and politics. The fact that scholars are embedded into such HLPs did not guarantee critical academic input, even though, in view of the standing of many members, they could mobilise impressive academic networks for their purpose.
The generation of ideas and concepts and their transformation to policy “usability” was probably best assured and documented by the HLPTC. Here, specific recommendations such as the creation of an empowered Human Rights Council or a Peacebuilding Commission, in fact, were implemented. Reasons for this success were the personal engagement of the UN Secretary General, also through his report In Larger Freedom: Toward Development, Security and Human Rights for All that showcased the package of policy commitments and institutional reforms proposed by the Panel. Additional factors were the space granted to the research team to interact directly with HLP members and other stakeholders, and finally, the endorsement of numerous recommendations by the 2005 World Summit Outcome Resolution of the UN General Assembly.
The Report of ICISS, in turn, coined the term “responsibility to protect” (R2P) together with the controversial argument that “the principle of non‐intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect“. It thereby triggered an extensive debate among scholars on state sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, and access to humanitarian emergencies. Numerous case studies of the Report through the R2P lens became a fruitful basis for further research in this field.
Finally, as to the PEP, curiously, one of the most valuable contributions has been, faute-de-mieux, the drafting of three narratives (Western, Russian, and “In-between”), as the Panel members were unable to come up with a consensus text. Nevertheless, the emphasis on “Back to Diplomacy” and the subsequent outreach process after the Report was issued led to the formal launching of a Structured Dialogue on current and future challenges and risks to security in the OSCE area. Today, this structured dialogue is the only inclusive international platform available for dialogue on European peace and security.
A key function of an HLP is to breakdown scientific output into “usable” knowledge that can provide guidance for policymaking. For this purpose, the research input for HLPs is often regimented by the terms of reference (TORs) and inputs by states, but also by time limitations as well as the agendas and deliveries of the “roadshows”.
Engaging in a process of change is highly political and for states and organisations also quite risky, be it UN reforms or Russia-Western cooperative adjustments. In the case of the PEP, the politization of Russian-Western issues led to officially recorded disagreements on “both intellectual and political reasons” as to the Panel’s findings and advice.[6]
In conclusion, HLPs allow policymakers, states and international organisations to transfer responsibility to scientists and experts via institutionalised platforms, but the political context drives scope and effectiveness of the work. Drawing from the academic world in such structured fashions should be as much to the benefit of science as it is of politics.
[1] directed by Thomas Weiss, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York
[2] The Responsibility to Protect - Research, Bibliography, Background: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Thomas G. Weiss and Don Hubert, International Development Research Centre, 2001
[3] Stephen Stedman from Stanford University
[4] Wolfgang Zellner, IFSH Centre for OSCE
[5] Robert Cooper, Walter Kemp and Adrian Oroz
[6] Letter of disagreement, Back to Diplomacy, Final Report and Recommendations of the Panel of Eminent Persons on European Security as a Common Project, Nov. 2015, p. 18.
Professor Fred Tanner, Ambassador (ret.), a member of the IIP advisory board, currently has a teaching mandate at the Graduate Institute, Geneva (HEID). He also serves on the advisory board of the FES Regional Office for Cooperation and Peace in Europe, Vienna. Seconded by the Swiss government, Fred Tanner has worked several years at the OSCE, as Senior Adviser for the Secretary General and more recently until August 2020 for the Director of the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre.