Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the tension between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the practice of humanitarian intervention within South African foreign policy. It contends that R2P's 'reaction pillar'—which allows for military intervention as a last resort—is politically and morally divisive. The author argues that South Africa's interests are shaped by a 'logic of appropriateness' rooted in its identity as an African leader and its history under apartheid, leading it to prioritize 'African solutions to African conflicts'. This is exemplified by the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC), an African-owned military initiative. The paper concludes that R2P fails to resolve the fundamental question of 'who should intervene and why?', and that South Africa's actions, including its controversial role in the 2011 Libya crisis, must be analyzed through the lens of evolving humanitarian intervention norms rather than R2P alone.

The report outlines the priorities for the June 2015 AU summit, noting that the official theme of women's empowerment is likely to be overshadowed by urgent crises. Key concerns include the high death toll of African migrants crossing the Mediterranean from Libya, xenophobic violence in South Africa, and the instability in Burundi caused by President Pierre Nkurunziza's third-term bid. It also examines the AU's role in mediating conflicts in South Sudan and Libya, the challenges of establishing an African Standby Force, and the broader struggle for continental economic and political integration.

The report finds that the vast majority of UK universities have links to military interests, with funding provided by the UK government, arms companies, and overseas organisations. While public military R&D spending as a percentage of total R&D has fallen since the Cold War, the author warns of recent trends toward increasing military-university collaborations and a rise in government military R&D spending between 2011 and 2012.

The document examines South Africa's role as Africa's representative in the G-20 and BRICS, arguing that its effectiveness is limited by domestic challenges and a competitive relationship with Nigeria. It traces the historical trajectory of South Africa-Nigeria relations from the anti-apartheid struggle to post-1999 democratic cooperation and subsequent diplomatic rifts. The author contends that a reinvigorated partnership between these two pivotal states is essential to avoid Africa's marginalisation in global economic governance and recommends evidence-based research and a shared developmental agenda to move beyond rivalry.

The document examines the shifting diplomatic strategies of middle powers in a multipolar world, contrasting the approaches of the MIKTA grouping, South Africa's alignment with BRICS, and Canada's shift toward strategic consolidation with Western allies.

The document analyzes the ideological shift within European green parties—specifically in Belgium, France, and Germany—from a foundation of anti-militarism and nuclear disarmament in the 1980s toward a complex tension between pacifism and the 'responsibility to protect' human rights. It highlights how events such as the Kosovo conflict, the September 11 attacks, and the 2011 intervention in Libya created internal divisions between those advocating for absolute non-violence and those supporting legal military intervention to prevent massacres. The author argues that green parties must now address new complexities of modern warfare, including privatization and environmental consequences, to pursue their ultimate goals of world peace and global disarmament.

The author criticizes the European Union's criminalization of migration and the failure of neoliberal development models in the Maghreb. It highlights the link between environmental degradation—such as desertification and water scarcity—and forced migration, noting that 'environmental refugees' may reach 250 million by 2050. The text calls for a transition to 'post-development' cooperation that reduces Europe's ecological footprint while improving the Human Development Index (HDI) in the Maghreb, moving beyond the interests of extractive elites and the 'Washington Consensus'.

The author contends that the EU must move away from criminalizing migrants and implementing neoliberal economic models in the Maghreb. Instead, the document proposes a cooperation framework based on reciprocity and ecological awareness, highlighting how environmental issues—such as desertification in coastal areas and water scarcity linked to fracking in Algeria—drive social instability and migration. It criticizes the 'Washington consensus' and the lack of international legal recognition for environmental refugees, who are estimated to reach 250 million by 2050. The text also notes that political instability, corruption, and bilateral conflicts between nations like Morocco and Algeria hinder regional cooperation and the development of interregional projects.

The document examines the ideological shift within European Green parties regarding the use of force, moving from 1980s antimilitarism and anti-nuclear activism toward a complex debate between strict pacifism and humanitarian interventionism based on international law.

The author critiques the European Union's current approach to migration, characterizing it as based on myths that criminalize migrants and ignore the systemic links between environmental degradation and displacement. The text argues that North Africa's future depends on moving away from neoliberal models and resource extraction—such as shale gas in Algeria—toward ecological sustainability and democratic stability. It calls for the recognition of 'ecological refugees' and a reduction of the Global North's ecological footprint to address the root causes of migration.

The document defines a Green foreign policy as a holistic approach that prioritizes human rights, democracy, and environmental sustainability over narrow economic interests. It advocates for the reform of international organizations like the UN and the Bretton Woods Institutions to increase transparency and representation for the Global South. The framework emphasizes the strengthening of international law, specifically the International Criminal Court, and supports restrictive weapons export policies and UN-mandated military interventions. It also calls for a development agenda that links environmental sustainability with social inclusion and conflict prevention through the 'Responsibilities to Protect' (R2P) framework.

The document examines the challenges European Green parties face in reconciling non-violence with the need to protect human rights in conflict zones. It argues for a shift in EU foreign policy from reactive crisis management to a proactive, multilateral approach that prioritizes ecological justice, nuclear disarmament, and the empowerment of civil society. Specific analyses cover the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, and the Maghreb, as well as the strategic importance of South East Asia.

The document analyzes how South Africa's economic and political dominance affects its relations with Southern African neighbors. It highlights a 'forked approach' where South Africa employs quiet diplomacy in political matters but is perceived as assertive and mercantilist in economic engagements. While its peacekeeping efforts are praised, the paper notes a gap between the region's expectations of South African leadership and the actual funding and capacity constraints of the South African National Defence Force.

The policy brief examines South Africa's transition from a human-rights-led foreign policy to a more pragmatic approach that views the R2P doctrine and the ICC with suspicion. It details the evolution of R2P and the ICC, the factors leading to African disillusionment—including the 2011 Libyan crisis and perceived ICC bias—and argues that South Africa must engage constructively with these mechanisms rather than rejecting them to maintain its international and continental influence.

The document examines South Africa's complex relationship with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, noting a tension between its commitment to protecting civilians and its skepticism toward military interventions that may serve as pretexts for regime change. While South Africa helped integrate R2P principles into the African Union's Constitutive Act, its actions as a UN Security Council member—particularly regarding Libya—have led to perceptions of inconsistency. The author argues that South Africa prefers a moderate approach centered on dialogue and regional solutions, constrained by limited domestic resources and a strategic desire to avoid endorsing interventions that could be applied selectively in Africa.

The paper critiques the 'liberal peace paradigm' in Africa, suggesting that external peacebuilding often reinforces autocratic governance by focusing on state-building and technical capacity rather than addressing systemic inequality and patronage networks. It argues that current conflicts are driven by the collective denial of individual rights to maintain power configurations, and that peacebuilding must shift toward a rights-based approach to be effective.

The February 2015 Peace & Security Council Report details the AU's efforts to manage continental security crises. Key outcomes include the authorization of a 7,500-strong Multinational Joint Task Force (MJTF) to combat Boko Haram and a new tiered funding model for the AU budget. However, the report notes significant setbacks, such as the deferral of the Commission of Inquiry report on South Sudan and deep divisions within the International Contact Group on Libya. It also highlights the high risk of election-related violence across 18 African states in 2015 and the ongoing struggle to defeat al-Shabaab in Somalia.

The document examines the evolution of African continental court structures, focusing on the 2014 Malabo Protocol. It argues that the protocol's creation of an 'Expanded Court' with jurisdiction over 14 international crimes is undermined by Article 46 A bis, which grants immunity to serving heads of state and senior government officials. The author contends this is a response to the perceived bias of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the use of universal jurisdiction by European states, ultimately serving to protect political elites rather than victims of human rights violations.

The document examines how the International Criminal Court's (ICC) approach to victim and witness participation can contribute to healing and social recognition for those affected by mass violence. It highlights that while the court process can provide a sense of justice and a public platform for suffering, its therapeutic success depends on procedural justice—specifically benevolence, neutrality, and respect—and the provision of psychosocial support. The brief also notes the tension between the court's legal objectives and victims' expectations for reparations, which some may perceive as a means of silencing their accounts.

The briefing examines the rapid rise of Podemos in Spain, analyzing its positions on corruption, inequality, democracy, and European policy, while highlighting its influence on traditional left-wing parties and the strategic challenge it poses to ecological parties in Southern Europe.