Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a three-stage process for creating biocultural community protocols: deciding on the appropriateness of a protocol, mapping the community's foundations (identity, natural, social-cultural, economic, political, and legal), and consolidating this information into a strategic tool for external engagement. It emphasizes that protocols are context-dependent and should be community-led, avoiding external coercion. The guide provides specific tools and questions to document traditional knowledge, customary laws, and biodiversity, while cautioning facilitators to safeguard sensitive information. It concludes that while individual protocols offer self-affirmation and local change, their collective aggregation can drive broader structural and legal shifts.

The report examines the interaction between ICCAs and international and national laws, finding that while international instruments and some national policies show progress, systemic gaps and discriminatory implementation continue to threaten these areas. It highlights the critical need for the recognition of customary land rights, self-determination, and integrated socio-ecological legislation to support community-led conservation.

The briefing examines the systemic threats facing TICCAs, highlighting a widespread lack of legal recognition for customary land rights and traditional governance. While noting positive developments in international jurisprudence and specific national programs—such as Australia's Indigenous Protected Areas and Namibia's Communal Conservancies—it argues that state legislation often remains discriminatory, fragmented, and exclusionary. The document provides comprehensive recommendations for legal reform, the adoption of human rights standards, and the implementation of non-legal support mechanisms to ensure the resilience of indigenous-led conservation.

The document outlines a proposal by TotalEnergies, Shell, and PetroSA to drill up to five exploration wells in Block 5/6/7 off the coast of the Western Cape, South Africa. It argues that the project is unnecessary for energy security, contradicts South Africa's climate commitments to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and poses significant risks to marine biodiversity and local industries like fishing and tourism. The text also highlights the poor environmental and ethical track records of TotalEnergies and Shell in other African nations.

The report analyzes the interaction between ICCAs and international law, national legislation, and institutional frameworks. It identifies systemic threats to these areas, including discriminatory law enforcement and a lack of secure land tenure. While noting positive developments like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and specific national reforms in countries like Kenya and Bolivia, it emphasizes that state-led conservation often excludes indigenous peoples. The document provides comprehensive recommendations for legal reform, the recognition of customary land rights, and the implementation of non-legal support mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of ICCAs.

The authors present a dataset of 357 armed conflict episodes (1946–2006) to track post-conflict justice (PCJ) processes. PCJ is defined as any process initiated within five years of a conflict's end to address wrongdoings. The dataset identifies six primary tools: trials, truth commissions, reparations, amnesties, purges, and exiles. Preliminary analysis shows that the choice of justice mechanism is influenced by conflict intensity, incompatibility (territorial vs. government control), and the type of termination (victory vs. bargained solution). For instance, trials are more frequent after decisive victories, while amnesties are more common after bargained solutions and in high-intensity civil wars.

The research paper analyzes how the AKP government transitioned Turkey's role in Syria from a projected 'humanitarian superpower' to a state focused on national security. It examines the tension between 'humanitarian diplomacy'—which emphasizes Islamic identity and solidarity—and the 'securitisation' of Kurdish autonomy in Northern Syria. The author argues that Turkey's foreign policy is deeply linked to its domestic political shift toward authoritarianism and the need to appease nationalist allies, ultimately prioritizing state security over human security.

The research examines the determinants of external state support for rebel groups using a new dataset of 403 organizations. It argues that support is not merely a function of the civil war's general characteristics but depends on the specific attributes of the rebel group and the international relations of the target state. The findings indicate that moderately strong groups with transnational constituencies are most likely to receive aid, particularly when the target state is involved in an international rivalry or receives its own external support. Conversely, very strong or very weak groups, and those in democratic states, are less likely to be supported.

The research demonstrates that states experiencing civil wars are significantly more likely to be involved in militarized interstate disputes (MIDs). Using data from 1946 to 2001, the authors find that this 'civil peace' effect is comparable in magnitude to the 'democratic peace' effect. Analysis of over 400 MIDs reveals that the increased risk is driven by states attempting to influence the outcome of civil wars through direct intervention, externalization (such as cross-border counter-insurgency), and unintended spillovers, rather than by opportunistic attacks on weakened states or diversionary wars to consolidate domestic power.

The authors argue that non-violent direct action is more effective at undermining autocracies and significantly more likely to lead to democratic transitions than violent conflict. Using a multinomial logit model for the period 1900-2004, the study finds that non-violent campaigns substantially increase the probability of democratization, particularly when the state has a high proportion of democratic neighbors. Conversely, violent direct action is less effective at destabilizing regimes overall and makes transitions to new autocracies relatively more likely. The research suggests that non-violence promotes power dispersion and elite defection, whereas violence tends to centralize power and justify further repression.

The document examines the intersection of global climate goals, EU energy security, and the emergence of the Eastern Mediterranean as a potential gas hub. It analyzes the role of natural gas as a 'bridging fuel' for the EU, the geopolitical use of energy by Russia and Iran, and the commercial and political obstacles facing gas development in Israel, Cyprus, and Egypt, particularly following the discovery of the Zohr field.

The document examines the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East through a series of expert perspectives. Key themes include the failure of Western 'exceptionalism' in diplomacy, the systemic human rights abuses in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and the critical role of water scarcity as a driver of intra-state conflict. It provides detailed analysis of the 'bottom-up' stabilization efforts in Iraq via local ceasefires, the strategic threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation, and the use of public diplomacy by non-state actors like Hizbollah. Additionally, it addresses the stalled peace process between Israel and Palestine and the specific challenges of the Cyprus division.

The author argues that mediation is not merely a tool for conflict resolution but a strategic foreign policy instrument that allows middle powers to create 'extra political power space'. By engaging in mediation, these states can build stronger Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), create issue linkages for 'logrolling' with senior allies, and establish network ties. The paper illustrates this through an analysis of Turkey's mediation efforts under the AK Party government between 2002 and 2011, suggesting that Turkey leveraged its role as a peace broker to secure alliance benefits from the US and consolidate domestic political power.

The Middle East has hosted the world's deadliest conflicts over the last decade, with Syria being the deadliest since 1989. While state-based conflicts and battle-related deaths declined in 2019, internationalized civil wars reached record levels since 2015. Non-state conflicts peaked in 2014 and have since declined, though they remain higher than pre-2011 levels. One-sided violence fatalities doubled from 2018 to 2019, driven by IS, Syrian insurgents, and Iran. Despite an increase in ceasefires, peace agreements are rare in the region compared to Africa and Asia, with only one full peace agreement recorded between 1989 and 2018.

The document provides a comprehensive overview of global conflict trends from 1989 to 2019, noting a record high of 54 state-based conflicts in 2019. It highlights the significant role of the Islamic State (IS) in driving recent conflict increases and the prevalence of internationalized civil conflicts. While battle-related deaths have generally decreased over the last 20 years, specific hotspots in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia remain deadly. The paper also analyzes the decline in peace agreements since 2015 and the persistence of non-state conflicts, particularly violent drug cartel activity in Latin America and communal violence in Africa.

The document analyzes the ethical dilemmas of trust and fairness during the JCPOA negotiations (2013-2015). It argues that while deep-seated distrust between the US and Iran initially hindered progress, a shift in US policy and the efforts of second-tier negotiators helped build a 'minimal' level of trust necessary for a procedurally fair agreement. However, the authors contend that the use of threats and sanctions undermines this trust, and the decision to limit the agreement's scope for short-term success may have jeopardized its long-term sustainability, as evidenced by the US withdrawal in 2018.

The study analyzes 142 self-determination movements across 77 countries to determine the preventive effects of UNSC actions. It finds that direct diplomatic engagement significantly reduces the probability of armed conflict onset. Additionally, while direct force and sanctions show limited or positive correlations with conflict, indirect authorizations of force and sanctions—those applied in a broader regional or state-wide context—act as powerful deterrents, reducing the likelihood of civil war for related self-determination groups.

The author replicates and extends the civil war model of Collier & Hoeffler (2002), finding that while natural resources correlate with conflict, the drivers differ by region. In the Middle East, the 'greed' explanation—where rebels fight to seize resources—is less plausible than a 'rentier-state' model, where oil-funded authoritarianism, corruption, and slow growth generate grievances. The study also finds that democracy is significantly and negatively related to civil conflict, a finding absent in the original Collier & Hoeffler analysis.

The document argues that the India-Pakistan conflict is the core security dynamic of the South Asia Regional Security Complex (RSC), with Afghanistan serving as an 'insulator' or buffer zone. While India possesses greater aggregate power, the rivalry remains durable due to 'truncated power asymmetry'—where local parity in nuclear capabilities and territorial disputes in Kashmir offsets India's global superiority. The author contends that both nations project their internal insecurities and mutual mistrust onto Afghanistan, using it as a zone for proxy competition rather than a core security priority. Pakistan's engagement is driven by a need for 'strategic depth' and fears of Pashtun nationalism, while India uses economic aid to project regional leadership and counter Pakistani influence. The paper concludes that stabilization in Afghanistan is unlikely as long as the core insecurities within the South Asia RSC remain unresolved.

The research examines the Central Asia Regional Security Complex (CA RSC), comprising Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. It argues that while these states share concerns regarding trans-border terrorism, extremism, and narcotics trafficking from Afghanistan, their primary security drivers are internal rivalries and the strategic balancing of global powers—specifically Russia, China, and the USA. The author contends that the 'Heart of Asia' concept fails because it underestimates inter-state non-cooperation and ignores the distinct security dynamics of sub-regions. Central Asian states employ a 'multi-vector' foreign policy to maximize benefits from competing external interests while guarding their sovereignty. Consequently, their engagement with Afghanistan is fragmented and unilateral, focused on extracting economic rent or preventing security 'bleed-out' rather than a unified regional strategy.