Browse results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 69 items for :

  • International Law: General Interest x
  • International Relations x
  • Human Rights and Humanitarian Law x
Clear All

Edited by Barry Steiner

The essays in this book, originally published in a special issue of the journal International Negotiation (vol. 23.1, 2018), are intended to enhance America's ability to mediate Israel-Palestine conflict. Every American president for the last thirty years, down to Donald Trump, has chosen to engage in this effort. To help understand and evaluate these efforts, and to focus upon the more promising mediation directions, these essays analyze mediation options in detail.
I. William Zartman accentuates special challenges of third party mediation. Amira Schiff critiques John Kerry’s mediation effort made on behalf of the Obama Administration. Galia Golan outlines mediation requirements in light of past American mediation efforts. Walid Salem suggests a new paradigm centered upon symmetry rather than asymmetry to assist Israel-Palestine peacemaking. And Barry Steiner studies a specific mediation action proposal.


Edited by Sergio Carrera, Arie Pieter Leonhard den Hertog, Marion Panizzon and Dora Kostakopoulou

This collective volume draws on the themes of intersectionality and overlapping policy universes to examine and evaluate the shifting functions, frames and multiple actors and instruments of an ongoing and revitalized cooperation in EU external migration and asylum policies with third states. The contributions are based on problem-driven research and seek to develop bottom-up, policy-oriented solutions, while taking into account global, EU-based and local perspectives, and the shifting universes of EU migration, border and asylum policies. In 15 chapters, we explore the multifaceted dimensions of the EU external migration policy and its evolution in the post-crisis, geopolitical environment of the Global Compacts.

Walid Salem


Third party mediation is critical in pushing forward a new peace process that is based on Israeli and Palestinian compliance in fulfilling previous agreements, including an Israeli freeze on settlements. The freeze will be part of a transformative constructionist process that will allow both sides to negotiate from a more symmetrical position. It will also create more trust among the Palestinians by communicating that Israeli intentions are not about grabbing their land while discussing peace.

Galia Golan


Inasmuch as the 2015 Israeli elections brought to power a Netanyahu-led coalition even more ideologically opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state than the previous coalitions, the absence of political will to reach agreement would appear to prejudge the outcome of any future negotiations should they take place. For this reason, recommendations to improve American mediation efforts remain in the realm of theory, but nevertheless may provide useful suggestions for the more basic step of returning the sides to serious negotiations.

Amira Schiff


This article examines the factors that contributed to the failure of the last major effort, which was carried out by US Secretary of State John Kerry, to facilitate a Final Status Agreement to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The analysis is based on an understanding that every effort to resolve this intractable conflict, even if unsuccessful, is worthy of examination, which can yield interesting observations and insights that may inform future attempts to find a solution. As President Trump’s administration makes intensive efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, and the US Middle East negotiation delegation shuttles intensively between the parties and between major regional actors to explore the possibility of renewing official negotiations, this seems like an opportune time to review the major factors that affected the outcome of the previous peace talks.

I. William Zartman


This issue contains an examination of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations with an effort to break through the deadlock strategically. It analyzes the past record of failure and addresses the basic problem of asymmetry. Despite the solutions that have been advanced for all the specific issues, it is the forward-looking matter of trust that is the impediment to productive negotiations. The declaration of a Palestinian state and its recognition by the international community are now the basic elements necessary to break the asymmetry of the parties. A second element – allegedly favored by the Trump administration – is to reduce a symmetry by enlarging the playing field to include surrounding states, as proposed in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.


Midori Okabe

However normative it might be, the inclusive power of European Union (EU) is not effective to Asian countries (including asean as a region) with regard to migration governance. The EU attempts to be a mandatory actor of global institutions yet it seems only successful on condition that the EU and Asian countries reach agreements to cooperate. Although the asean-eu meeting (asem) could have been used for the very opportunity, it serves as a forum on information sharing at best. The bilateral scheme is the possible alternative and the EU would need a negotiation-based power instead of attracting non-EU countries to join in the EU as it does to EU candidate and other neighboring countries. Since the EU Enlargement is not a viable bargaining chip to Asia, the EU needs different items of agenda to make the package-deal useful. As a result, the EU resembles more of a single actor on the arena of negotiation where the inclusive power is least salient


Edited by Sergio Carrera, Leonhard den Hertog, Marion Panizzon and Dora Kostakopoulou


Paula García Andrade

The design and implementation of the external dimension of the EU migration policy requires a high degree of coordination among the different levels and actors involved in its development. The current division of external competences in this field calls for the participation of both the Union and its Member States in the setting of cooperation with third countries in the field of migration, leading to potential overlaps as it is particularly noticeable, for instance, in the negotiation of readmission agreements or the adoption of mobility partnerships. The involvement of various EU institutions in the design and execution of this external dimension also creates major challenges for inter-institutional coordination within the EU, such as those identified in the relationships between the Commission, the eeas, the Council and the European Parliament. The same is true with regard to the different Directorates-General and working structures within the Commission or the Council. The legal answer to the current flaws of coordination which may be perceived in the development of the EU external action on migration lies in the “duty of cooperation” which has been inferred by the ecj from the loyal cooperation principle enshrined in art. 4.3 and 13.2 teu. This contribution attempts to extract from the Court’s case law the scope and content of the precise obligations arising from this duty and, after identifying those instances in which a lack of coordination and cooperation can be perceived at the different levels of action in the external dimension of migration, to suggest ways of ensuring its respect with the aim of securing the unity of the international representation of the EU and the consistency and effectiveness of its external action.


Zvezda Vankova

The concept of circular migration keeps appearing in the context of the EU labour migration policy through legal instruments such as the Seasonal Workers Directive and the proposal for a recast of the Blue Card Directive, as well as it has been featured in the latest Mobility partnership with Belarus from October 2016. These examples suggest that the EU still has some interest in promoting circular migration as a policy instrument. The question is what does this interest mean in terms of the rights of migrant workers? Most of the literature so far focuses on conceptualising circular migration or analysing circular migration patterns rather than looking into implementation dynamics as part of the EU migration policy and its external dimension. This chapter aims at filling namely this gap by assessing the circularity of EU labour migration policies with regards to the Eastern Partnership neighbourhood and addressing the question of whether they provide rights-based outcomes for migrant workers. This is done through the prism of a framework of benchmarks based on international universal and regional human rights standards as well as policy measures that foster circularity focusing on entry and re-entry conditions, work authorisation, residence, social security coordination and entry and residence conditions for family members. This chapter is based on legal empirical research and combines legal and policy analysis with qualitative methods.