| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
083348
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Every region has to elaborate its own confidence- and security-building measures (CSBMs) culture, while not abandoning the basic Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) accords in this field. CSBMs cannot be seen as an aim in themselves. They have to be incorporated in the broader, emerging security regime. If our security is threatened, both internally and externally (from territories far away from Europe), our counteraction must correspond to the new nature of these threats. Although played down, the concept of CSBMs is not a thing of the past and may be a useful instrument in addressing various kinds of security issues, including those on the Korean peninsula. There is an urgent need to start a serious discussion on the overall concept of arms control and CSBMs and its place in the security-building processes. The main forum for European CSBMs remains the OSCE, although arms control efforts are also being developed outside its remit. The promotion of endeavors in this field would be much enhanced by having the European Union and NATO engaged more deeply in it. The question of CSBM implementation in the contiguous areas of the states which share frontiers with non-European, non-OSCE states remains outstanding. The current circumstances on Europe's perimeter bear evidence that the OSCE community cannot defer the issue interminably. The OSCE Partners for Cooperation need to be further encouraged to follow and get involved in the CSBM/arms control processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
173161
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What role can conventional arms control (CAC) and confidence- and security-building measures (CSBMs) play in crises and conflicts? By examining the use of CAC and CSBMs during the Russian-Georgian war in 2008 and during Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine in 2014, the present article argue that CAC and CSBMs are unable to prevent intentional conflict. Their more realistic value in crises is to function as early warning mechanisms that raise the bar for and increase the costs of conflict as well as serving as instruments to monitor conflicts. To increase their effectiveness, the links between early warning and early action need strengthening and several ambiguities need to be removed, particularly form the Vienna Document, in order to improve indicators, increase warning times and raise the political costs of non-compliance. Nonetheless, when one or two sides seek a conflict, CAC and CSBMs do not provide a remedy for conflict prevention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|