Europe ́s Coherence Gap in External Crisis and Conflict Management The EU’s Integrated Approach between Political Rhetoric and Institutional Practice. November 2019

The European Union (EU) aspires to play a part in conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict peace- building through civil and/or military operations, through stabilisation efforts, and by building resilience at home and abroad. To bring this ambition to fruition, EU institutions have gradually expanded their ‘comprehensive approach to external conflict and crisis’ (CA) to become a full-fledged ‘integrated approach to conflict and crisis’ (IA).1 In their most basic form, CAs seek coordination and coherence in responding to external conflicts and crises by adopting a system-wide ‘whole-of-government approach’ (WGA). In their more elaborate form, IAs have incorpo- rated non-traditional security concepts, variously known as conflict transformation, (non-liberal) peacebuilding and human-security approaches. In their most expansive form, IAs may even be understood to apply to external action writ large

United Nations Development Assistance Framework for Kenya

The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (2014-2018) for Kenya is an expression of the UN's commitment to support the Kenyan people in their self-articulated development aspirations. This UNDAF has been developed according to the principles of UN Delivering as One (DaO), aimed at ensuring Government ownership, demonstrated through UNDAF's full alignment to Government priorities and planning cycles, as well as internal coherence among UN agencies and programmes operating in Kenya. The UNDAF narrative includes five recommended sections: Introduction and Country Context, UNDAF Results, Resource Estimates, Implementation Arrangements, and Monitoring and Evaluation as well as a Results and Resources Annex. Developed under the leadership of the Government, the UNDAF reflects the efforts of all UN agencies working in Kenya and is shaped by the five UNDG programming principles: Human Rights-based approach, gender equality, environmental sustainability, capacity development, and results based management. The UNDAF working groups have developed a truly broad-based Results Framework, in collaboration with Civil Society, donors and other partners. The UNDAF has four Strategic Results Areas: 1) Transformational Governance encompassing Policy and Institutional Frameworks; Democratic Participation and Human Rights; Devolution and Accountability; and Evidence-based Decision-making, 2) Human Capital Development comprised of Education and Learning; Health, including Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), Environmental Preservation, Food Availability and Nutrition; Multi-sectoral HIV and AIDS Response; and Social Protection, 3) Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth, with Improving the Business Environment; Strengthening Productive Sectors and Trade; and Promoting Job Creation, Skills Development and Improved Working Conditions, and 4) Environmental Sustainability, Land Management and Human Security including Policy and Legal Framework Development; and Peace, Community Security and Resilience. The UNDAF Results Areas are aligned with the three Pillars (Political, Social and Economic) of the Government's Vision 2030 transformational agenda

Environmental Migrations from Conflict-Affected Countries: Focus on EU Policy Response

Given the strong evidence that most environmental migration is likely to occur within the Global South, the analysis of this paper and many of its recommendations focus on EU external and humanitarian policies in the field of environmental migration, as well as foreign policy and humanitarian aid and development-cooperation programs implemented in conflict-affected countries. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the environmental migration debate with a multifaceted perspective that takes into account the relationship between climate change, migration and conflict. In doing so, it aims to highlight areas of particular political and geopolitical interest where further EU legal, policy, and humanitarian action is needed. On the basis of the analyzed legal, political, and institutional frameworks and the critical issues raised from the rograms implemented in the field, I will indicate areas of political and geopolitical interest for EU external action and humanitarian aid strategy and where further EU policy action is needed

Regulating private military companies: What role for the EU?

Following allegations that private security guards were involved in the torture of Iraqi prisoners and in the wake an attempted coup by private mercenaries in Equatorial Guinea, the proliferation of so-called ‘private military companies’ (PMCs) is receiving considerable attention. Of particular concern is the lack of effective national and international controls of the industry. This article argues that much of the current debate about PMCs underestimates the extent of regulation that directly or indirectly applies to the industry. Especially in Europe, private military services are increasingly controlled by national and international legislation. The European Union (EU) plays a crucial role in this development because of two factors. First, the EU's free internal market in goods and services is putting pressure on the EU to harmonize national regulations on private security and policing and thus regulate the ‘soft’ end of the private military industry. Second, the growing role of the EU in foreign and defence issues is leading the EU to act as a driving force in assuring the implementation of non-proliferation policies among its member states. Following an examination of national and EU policies on the provision and export of specific private military services, this article concludes that, as the overlap and tensions between national and international policies grows, the EU is coming under increasing pressures to create common controls which subsume both

The President’s Immigration Accountability Executive Action of November 20, 2014: Overview and Issues

[Excerpt] On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced his Immigration Accountability Executive Action which revises some U.S. immigration policies and initiates several programs, including a revised border security policy for the Southwest border; deferred action programs for some unauthorized aliens; revised interior enforcement priorities; changes to aid the entry of skilled workers; the promotion of immigrant integration and naturalization; and several other initiatives the President indicated would improve the U.S. immigration system. The most controversial among these provisions will grant deferred action to as many as 5 million unauthorized aliens. The President announced the executive action through ten Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memoranda, two White House memoranda, and three Department of Labor (DOL) fact sheets. According to the President, the actions were taken in response to the absence of legislation addressing major problems within the immigration system. The President has stated that his actions are temporary, and that his successor can rescind them. Those opposed to the executive actions argue they were taken largely for political purposes. They contend that once granted, such temporary measures would be difficult to revoke. Separately, a debate has arisen as to whether the President has the legal authority to take such actions, with the Administration and others arguing the President’s actions fall within his authority, and many in Congress arguing the President has overstepped it. That debate and its attendant legal questions are beyond the scope of this report. As the Administration proceeds to implement the executive actions, some in Congress have vowed to halt some or all of them

Regulating military and security services in the European Union

In recent years, there has been a growing disillusionment with the lack of national and international regulation of private military and security services. While the expansion of the industry after the end of the Cold War has led to an increasing number of incidents – such as private soldiers accused of shooting at civilians on the streets of Baghdad,1 torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib,2 trying to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea,3 training the Croatian army which committed human rights atrocities in the Krajina,4 and circumventing the arms embargo against Sierra Leone5 – only the United States and South Africa currently have separate laws concerning the export of private military and security services. Moreover, regional and international efforts such as the United Nations and African Union conventions on mercenaries have proven ineffective

Consistency as an Issue in EU External Activities. EIPA Working Paper 99/W/06

[From the Introduction]. The European Community (EC) was initially only competent in the area of trade and gradually developed a common commercial policy. The 1970s onwards saw increasing foreign policy co-operation in the framework of European Political Co-operation (EPC). Over the next two decades the increasing number of external activities of the Union highlighted the need for consistency between the EC’s external competencies conducted in the context of the first pillar and the intergovernmental ones of the second pillar and, to an growing extent, the third pillar. By the late 1990s the European Union (EU) accounted for a greater percentage of global gross national product than the U.S. and Japan. The EU also contributes more to the UN budget and peacekeeping operations than either the U.S. or Japan. Given the enormous importance of the EU as a global actor and its potential to play an even more influential role, it is not difficult to see why concerns of consistency in the EU’s external activities are legitimate. Consistency has become something of a refrain. Most recently the consolidated Treaty on European Union (CTEU) states that, 'The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to attain its objectives while respecting and building upon the acquis communautaire.' [CTEU, 1997, Article 3] To this end, it is to the Union generally that the task of ensuring 'consistency in its external activities as a whole in the context of external relations, security, economic and development policies' falls. The Council and Commission are though charged with particular responsibility in this regard. The objective of achieving consistency in the Union’s external activities is to ensure that the Union can 'assert its identity on the international scheme.' [CTEU, 1997, Article 2] In support of the general theme of consistency the European Council identified the aim of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as being to enable the Union to speak with one voice. The same theme is returned to within the CFSP mechanisms, both directly but also indirectly through reference to 'common positions,' 'joint decisions,' 'joint actions,' and, most recently, 'common strategies.

Realizing women's rights to land and other productive resources

The purpose of this publication is to provide detailed guidance for lawmakers and policymakers, as well as civil society organizations and other stakeholders, to support the adoption and effective implementation of laws, policies and programmes to respect, protect and fulfil women's rights to land and other productive resources. It is based on the results of an expert group meeting held on 25-27 June 2012 in Geneva, Switzerland, during which papers were presented from various sectors and regions. These papers, and the discussions which were informed by them, helped to bring to the surface many of the critical issues facing women today in relation to the enjoyment of their land rights. The publication also incorporates additional case studies submitted by key experts, as well as extensive thematic research