Global Insights

From 24 to 26 April, the GCSP Security and Law Programme organised the “Negotiations Theory and Practice“ course at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) Headquarters in Bern. The event was co-directed by GCSP Associate Fellow, Dr Franz von Däniken, and Mr Tobias Vestner, Head of Security and Law Programme, at the GCSP. The course was designed for young Swiss diplomats, providing them with the necessary tools and skills to master negotiations in their further diplomatic career. One of the highlights of the programme was the combination of negotiation theory, including a self-assessment, with the exchange of hands-on experiences amongst practitioners. The speakers elaborated on key elements pertaining to bilateral and multilateral negotiations as well as the interplay between both processes. Speakers highlighted building bridges and new relationships between diverse cultural and political realms, communication across federal departments, and an understanding of social, political and economic contexts as central factors of diplomatic work. Also, speakers and participants discussed digital communication tools and social media as emerging instruments in diplomacy. Finally, a representative of the Federal Office of Police (fedpol) challenged the diplomats’ perspective with negotiation techniques for negotiations in hostage situations. The course furthermore provided mentorship to young diplomats and offered them a unique opportunity to exchange with experienced negotiators. This element was very valued by participants.  A course participant reflected on the course by stating: “We had the unique opportunity to gain concrete insights and techniques from key personalities in Swiss diplomacy.” 

On 2 April 2019, Tobias Vestner, Head of Security and Law Programme, was invited by the ATT Working Group on Effective Treaty Implementation (WGETI) to present the findings of the study “Prohibitions and Export Assessment: Tracking Implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty” published under the Geneva Paper Research Series in March 2019. Rather than looking at what transfer decisions states are taking, the study examines how states implement Articles 6 and 7 of the ATT regarding prohibitions and export assessments by national legislation, policies and practice. Tobias Vestner notes that ATT states parties generally implement the ATT’s prohibitions set forth in Article 6 through national laws and policies. In addition, exporting states implement the ATT’s obligations regarding export assessment contained in Article 7 ATT in many ways. While the spectrum of how exporting states parties consider an arms exports’ potential effect on peace and security is very broad, their national frameworks contain similar or nearly identical export criteria on assessing the risk of arms being used for serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Few states parties have national export criteria regarding terrorism, transnational organized crime and gender-based violence. He adds that states also consider national criteria other than those specified in Article 7 before authorizing arms exports, including positive consequences of arms exports. Finally, he concludes that states parties’ national frameworks mostly do not define clear thresholds for denying arms exports. Given this divergence in states party implementation, in addition to a remaining lack of clarity on how states apply the ATT provisions in practice, Tobias Vestner recommends reinforcing dialogue on ATT implementation. This could lead to better understanding and implementation guidance that strengthens the emergence of common standards and improves the quality of national export assessments.

The team from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point is the winner of the 2019 “Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge” co-organised by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and the Atlantic Council. “It is of great importance to the GCSP to train, through this type of real case scenarios, the future policy makers” said Ambassador Christian Dussey, Director of the GCSP. “This is a critical way to prepare the next generations to the difficult tasks they will have to deal with in this ever-changing field”, he added. The two-day event, which ran on 25 and 26 April at the GCSP in the Maison de la paix, welcomed 22 teams of four students each from Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.   Finalists included: Team Nexus (ETH Zürich/ University of St. Gallen) from Switzerland (4th place); Team JYUnique (University of Jyväskylä) from Finland (3rd place); Team Trojan (ETH Zürich/ University of Zürich and the Graduate Institute Geneva) from Switzerland (2nd place).   “For NATO, cyber defence is a top priority”, said Chelsey Slack, Deputy Head, Cyber Defense Section, Emerging Security Challenges Division, NATO. “We’re working to develop our capabilities, enhance our resilience, and build our partnerships to tackle the evolving cyber threat. This is why it is important for us to be part of this event”, she added. Already in its fifth year, the competition invited university students to tackle a simulated cyber incident in real time. This year, the challenge’s scenario is based on a European-level cyber crisis targeting the maritime ecosystem and its consequences. Teams were required to respond to ever-changing situations and offer strategic policy recommendations, from a European point of view, to Head of States, government leaders, senior officials and representatives from the private sector. Escalating malicious cyber activities, data breaches, DDOS attacks and tensions between States have been their daily bread for the past two days. “We come from all different academic backgrounds”, said the members of Black Knight’s team, who are all undergraduates at West Point. “We have all different mind working together”, they added. The judges featured prominent personalities in the field of cybersecurity and included Ms Chelsey Slack, Deputy Head, Cyber Defense Section, Emerging Security Challenges Division, NATO; Mr Rami Efrati, Founder and President, Firmitas Cyber Solutions Ltd; Mr Gianni Crameri, Manager, Deloitte AG, Mr. Pete Cooper, Non-resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Atlantic Council and Ms Lenning Pedron, President and Co-Founder, ICON.   16 universities participated this year: Tallinn University of Technology (Estonia); University of Jyväskylä (Finland); Institut Français de Géopolitique (France); Corvinus University of Budapest (Hungary); National University of Public Service (Hungary); Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Norway); Swedish Defence University (Sweden); Stockholm University (Sweden); ETH Zürich (Switzerland); University of Zürich (Switzerland); Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Switzerland); HSG Universität St. Gallen (Switzerland); Royal Holloway, University of London (United Kingdom), US Air Force Cyber College (United States); US Coast Guard Academy (United States); US Military Academy at West Point (United States).   “Being a competitor in Cyber 9/12 was like the little thing that gave my resume an edge, that little extra thing that stands out in that pile of resumes that HR has to go through when hiring someone” said Robin Andreasson, a cybersecurity consultant, who has been participating for 4 years in this event, twice as a competitor and twice as an observer. Team Black Knights from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point wins for the second time in a row, following the footsteps of STUXNET from the Geneva School of Diplomacy that won in 2017.     The GCSP thanks all the sponsors that made this 5th edition of the European Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge a success and looks forward to welcoming many of you in April 2020!   Below are a list of press mentions: "Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge 2019", Esprit, 15 May 2019 "Une vraie fausse attaque informatique", Bilan, 7 May 2019 "Wenn der Hafen einer Cyberattacke ausgesetzt ist, ruft man am besten Amerikaner zu Hilfe", NZZ, 30 April 2019 "Une attaque de ports au menu des futurs stratèges", 20 minutes, 27 April 2019 "Cybersecurité : des étudiants américains à nouveau primés à Genève", La liberté, 26 April 2019 "L'équipe de l'académie militaire américaine de West point remporte la cinquième édition du Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge", Monde Economique, 26 April 2019 Radio interview Ambassador Christian Dussey, Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and Klaus Julisch, Deloitte Switzerland "Cyber 9/12 Strategy "Challenge - fictional cyber attacks and how to solve them", World Radio, 24 April 2019 Interview Ambassador Christian Dussey and Anne-Caroline Pissis, "Le secteur maritime au coeur du Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge", AGEFI, 24 April 2019

On the occasion of the meeting of the Preparatory Committee of the Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), GCSP and the Academic Peace Orchestra Middle East, together with the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation-New York Office, organised an international panel on the topic: “Towards a WMD-free Zone in the Middle East: Introducing Novel initiatives” at the UN Headquarters on 8 May 2019. Apart from the moderators Marc Finaud and Bernd W. Kubbig, the speakers included: Nataliya Artemenkova (PIR Center); Kelsey Davenport (Arms Control Association); Tytti Erästö (SIPRI); Mark Fitzpatrick (IISS) and Edward M. Ifft (Hoover Institution). They addressed the current stalemate of the project of a zone free of WMD in the Middle East and the potential as well as the pitfalls of the recent novel initiatives put forward to break this deadlock: the Russian proposal for an approach combining disarmament and regional security; a conference outside the NPT framework and within the UN General Assembly; a special role for the three Depositaries of the NPT (Russia, UK, US); the precedent of the ‘Four Horsemen’ for a nuclear-weapons free world; a series of partial measures (such as a nuclear test-free zone, a chemical weapon-free zone, regional application of the constraints from the JCPOA, regional limits on ballistic missiles, etc.); and finally a leadership initiative by the Egyptian President to convince Israel to participate in the process. This event was a follow-up to previous meetings and publications jointly launched by GCSP and the Academic Peace Orchestra Middle East.

The 20th NISC, running from 6 May to 28 June 2019 is focused on “Mapping Today’s Security Environment to Meet Tomorrow’s Challenges”. The course puts an emphasis throughout on human and state security, the interlinkages between issues, and the value of adopting a more forward-looking approach in international security. To highlight: Participants: The course brings together a diverse group of twenty-three participants in terms of both geographical representation and institutional perspectives, leading to a rich opportunity for exchange amongst the participants. This includes participants from such countries as China, Finland, Mali, and Ukraine and such organisations as the African Union and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). Knowledge & Skills: The course both covers such topics as global health security; emerging technologies; terrorism and organised crime; conflict prevention, managing conflict and sustaining peace; and global and regional governance. Skill-building sessions are held on strategic foresight, crisis management, and negotiation – for example. In addition to knowledge and skills’ focused sessions, the NISC group will visit the ICRC, UNOG, and CERN. In 2019 the NISC is celebrating its 20th anniversary with a number of special activities over the next months. Stayed tuned for further news and announcements on this anniversary!

On 1st May 2019, GCSP's Director Ambassador Christian Dussey signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Dr. Rascha Ragheb, Executive Director of the Egyptian National Training Academy (NTA), which hosts the Egypt Presidential Leadership Program (PLP). This is the beginning of a long-term collaboration with NTA. Through this cooperation agreement, GCSP is proud to contribute to strengthening the NTA’s capacities in the provision of impactful and innovative executive education. Founded in 2017, NTA is a national training organisation aimed at forging an outstanding class of managers and young professionals, equipping them with the skills and knowledge essential to the development of Egypt, the MEA region and Africa, enabling their full integration in the world economy and achieving sustainable and equitable economic growth. The NTA aims to become a center of excellence and the reference point for meeting a wide range of educational, training and research needs expressed by the Egyptian government, corporations and individuals who will be setting the standards of quality for the MEA region. GCSP looks forward to closely collaborating with Dr. Rascha Ragheb in furthering the NTA’s mission.

The GCSP welcomed, on 6 May 2019, a Delegation from the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences (SASS), led by Prof. Liu Ming, to discuss recent geopolitical developments at global level. In a first part, the meeting focused on the triangular relationships between China, the US and Europe and the evolving posture of these actors in the light of increasing power competition. The participants examined the new opportunities and constraints presented to each of them by the new geopolitical landscape. In a second part, at the Confucius Institute, the participants discussed the challenges facing the World Trade Organization in the context of increasing protectionist pressures and the future prospects of international trade relationships, with Dr. Nicholas Niggli, a Swiss WTO expert.

The Security and Law Programme at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy was one of the co-organisers of the conference ‘Legal Resilience in an Era of Hybrid Threats’, which took place at the University of Exeter from 8-10 April 2019. The conference was hosted by Aurel Sari and the Exeter Centre for International Law, in partnership with the GCSP, the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats, the British Academy, and the Lieber Institute of the United States Military Academy. The aim of the event was to explore the legal challenges presented by hybrid threats and to develop the notion of legal resilience as an analytical and policy framework in current international affairs. The conference therefore served as a platform to look through the more antagonistic international system emerged over the last decade, characterized by increased competition among major powers. In this context, also international law has become a major battleground for legitimacy. NATO and the EU adopted the notion of hybrid warfare to describe the threats related to this new environment. Yet, hybrid warfare, as well as the notions of gray zone conflict and lawfare, lack clarity and precision required in the legal domain. Several panels tried to bring clarity to the use of these concepts in the legal discourse and practice. Practitioners and academics explored the different elements and features of legal resilience; the relationship between legal resilience, hybrid warfare, hybrid threats, gray zone conflict and lawfare; the implications of lawfare and the development of counter-lawfare strategies as an example of legal resilience; and the increasing importance of legal narratives and influence operations. Tobias Vestner, Head of Security and Law Programme, presented on the panel on ‘Resilience and the Law’, and chaired the panel on ‘Legal Narratives and Influence Operations’. The conference brought together nearly one hundred representatives from academia, government and international organisations. The Security and Law Programme stands ready to contribute to similar initiatives exploring novel approaches to strengthen the legal community and its capacity to understand and analyse our current security landscape.

President Donald Trump announced on 26 April 2019 that the United States would “unsign” the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) signed in 2013 by the Obama administration. While ratification of the Treaty by the Trump administration was most unlikely, the signal sent to the world under the influence of the US gun lobby will no doubt be counter-productive to American interests and world security. Guns can also backfire and shoot oneself in the foot. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was initiated by civil society groups to mitigate the humanitarian suffering caused by the unregulated trade in conventional weapons worldwide, especially in conflict zones or in countries destabilised by terrorism and organised crime. It entered into force in December 2014 and now has 101 States Parties and 34 signatories (that included the United States), which signed but did not ratify the Treaty. During the negotiation of that treaty, the Obama administration, aware of the rejection by the domestic gun lobby of any restriction on the right to bear arms, was at pains to limit the scope of its provisions to international trade and protect the national sovereign rights of states to regulate the internal conditions for sale and possession of firearms. The final version of the Treaty was made acceptable to the United States and this is why Secretary of State John Kerry could affix his signature on it, while stressing that the ATT “recognises the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.” What obligations does the ATT impose of its States Parties? Mostly the prohibition to export arms in violation of United Nations embargoes and other treaties, or for perpetrating serious crimes against international humanitarian or human rights law such as genocide, crimes against humanity or attacks against civilians. Additionally, all exporters are bound to assess the risk that the exported arms could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of humanitarian or human rights law or acts of terrorism or organised crime; should such risk be ‘overriding’, the transfers would be prohibited. By “revoking the effect of America’s signature,” President Trump obviously wanted to please the US gun lobby for electoral reasons. He also yielded to the hardliners in his administration who loathe international obligations or multilateral cooperation. The first precedent for such an ‘unsigning’ was the letter sent on 6 May 2002 to the UN Secretary-General by Ambassador John Bolton, then US Representative to the UN, informing the Depositary of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, signed by the Clinton administration, that the United States “does not intend to become a party to the treaty” and thus “has no legal obligations arising from its signature.” Some legal experts have considered that the American Constitution did not give the President the power to “unsign” treaties unilaterally and that Congress should have a role to play to preserve the constitutional balance. Since President Trump was elected, his administration, mostly under John Bolton’s influence, decided to withdraw from several international agreements: the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (an executive agreement accepted by President Obama); the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO); the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or ‘Iran Nuclear Deal’ (a political, not legally binding agreement). In the case of the ATT, most critics underlined that the US national arms export control system was much more robust than what the Treaty required. As an American expert, Rachel Stohl, reminded, “the ATT helps level the playing field by requiring other countries to adopt standards similar to those that US companies must follow. While Russia and China have not joined the treaty, the ATT provides a principled basis for the United States and its allies to challenge these countries’ arms exports, where appropriate, as inconsistent with international norms.” When the US delegation no longer participates in the regular conferences and working groups of the ATT, it will lose the opportunity to shape and influence discussions and decisions while protecting its national interests. Most perilously, the second “pillar” of the ATT, international cooperation in the fight against illicit trafficking in arms that fuels civil wars, harms civilians, and benefits violent armed groups or criminals will be weakened by the US withdrawal. How can the US Government legitimately accuse state or non-state actors of contributing to or taking advantage of this dangerous trade if it rejects the very norms of international behaviour that have been designed to combat such a scourge?

On 28 May, Fleur Heyworth is co-directing an intensive workshop ‘Leverage Diversity to Increase Performance’ with Sandrine Tunezerwe, Associate Faculty with the Centre for Creative Leadership and author of an upcoming book on Diversity and Inclusion.  She explains why the strategic tool of ‘polarities’, a key tool in many of our leadership courses, including ‘Leading Strategically in Turbulent Times’, will enable participants to lead diversity and inclusion more effectively. What do you see in the image?  It was first produced in Fliegende Blätter, a German humor magazine (Oct. 23, 1892, p. 147) and has since been used by pyschologists and philosophers to explore the workings of the mind.  It is described as a paradoxical image because two different images can be seen at the same time.         How often are we able to see and work with two interrelated and yet apparently contradictory images, concepts or tensions at the same time?  Dealing with and leading tensions are something that we as humans tend to be uncomfortable with.  Many of us have been brought up to try to identify and analyse problems, and then find ways to solve them. ‘Theories of change’ aim to take a group or organisation from a given state to a better state.  But is this actually an effective strategy that is sustainable over time, and does it in fact reflect the reality? Take for example, organisational transformation strategies designed to improve the way an organisation works and make it ‘fit’ to meet the challenges of our VUCA world (volatile, unpredictable, complex and ambiguity).  How many transformation strategies actually meet resistance, challenge the core culture or expertise of an organisation and forget lessons of the past resulting in failure or inefficiency?  In polarity thinking, the strategy will recognise that transformation is in fact in tension with continuity, and we need to do both for enduring success. In many human relationships and systems, the phenomenon of polarities, also known as paradoxes, contradictions, dilemmas, wicked problems exist.  They have been recognised since ancient time: within Taoism, one finds yin and yang, Hinduism embraces masculine and feminine, Christianity espouses justice and mercy, and Martin Luther King advocated both power and love. Polarities are not always a ‘comfortable truth’; and our own values, fears and cognitive bias can orientate us to one side of a pole, make us defensive of it, and lead to conflict.  In addition, as our environment becomes more complex or VUCA, it can be harder to see and lead polarities.  However, if we ignore them, we do so at our peril: applying a ‘problem-solving mindset’ can actually make the situation worse rather than better, creating a vicious cycle of negative energy in which we experience the downsides of the tension and conflict If we can see, map and leverage polarities however, we can create win-win situations.  Whilst this phenomenon is ancient wisdom, Barry Johnson has spent around 30 years researching it and developing it to make it strategically useful.  Polarity thinking is now recognised as a top strategic tool by the Centre for Creative Leadership and Harvard Business Review.  The phenomenon operates at individual, team, organisational and societal levels and many polarities exist within diversity and inclusion strategies. I am really excited to be able to bring this mindset and tool to advance diversity and inclusion, which entail an interrelated set of tensions that have a significant impact on teams’ performance. I am delighted that Sandrine Tunerzewe, who has years of experience working with organisations and is passionate about busting myths relating to diversity and inclusion and developing concrete practices to lead inclusively.  A polarity mindset can dramatically alter the way we consult within our organisations to see ‘both sides of the coin’ and develop a culture that can be sustained over time and across boundaries.  Here are some questions to reflect on in preparation for the workshop on May 28th:   1.     Do you see a tension between uniqueness and equality? 2.     Are you able to create an environment of psychological safety and invite conflict? 3.     Are you able to support your people to thrive and drive performance? 4.     Is your inclusion strategy also creating healthy exclusion? 5.     Do you have a strong core culture which also welcomes new ideas? 6.   What diversity-related tensions do you frequently experience in your teams and organisation?   We hope you can join us on the 28th May to develop your ability to 'see, map and leverage' polarities, and share strategies with fellow practitioners and experts to lead them more effectively.  In addition, 'Leading Strategically in Turbulent Times' between 3-6 June 2019 will also be using the polarities tool to strategic leverage tensions across your organisation.