Global Insights

Our multi-disciplinary experts bring you fresh perspectives and timely, relevant analysis from across the globe.  Join our upcoming events, read our insights and publications, and follow live discussions and interviews through our digital hub.

Events

Analyse and Understand
Tools and Skills
Network and Collaborate
Archived / Past Events
Select topics of your interest:
Upcoming Events

Events relevant to you: Using the information you provided, we have some recommendations for you

Sort By
Topics
Date
Didn’t find the event you were looking for? May we suggest a related topic or upcoming course?
You can also register for our newsletter to make sure you never miss out on another course or event!
News
1 May 2019
Tobias Vestner presents at NATO legal practitioners' workshop
The NATO Office of Legal Affairs annually organizes the NATO Legal Practitioners’ Workshop. Led by Mr Steven Hill, Legal Adviser and Director of Office of Legal Affairs, the workshop convenes all legal advisers of the NATO system. This year’s edition was dedicated to the spirit of “One NATO - Legal Readiness”. It was organized from 15 to 17 October 2018 at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels. Mr Tobias Vestner, Head of Security and Law Programme, was invited to present on legal interoperability. He emphasized that there is no “one size fits all”-solution and that many interoperability issues depend on political and operational priorities. To achieve legal interoperability, political and military decionmakers need to be aware of troop contributing nations’ legal differences. Moreover, states need to define national legal positions and communicate them for effective management of legal differences. Dialogue among legal advisers serves that purpose. This is the aim of the GCSP Symposium for Senior NATO/PfP Legal Advisers (SSL): to provide a forum for exchange at the service of legal interoperability.
News
1 May 2019
Successful 3rd Symposium for Senior NATO/PfP Legal Advisors
On 14 and 15 March, 30 top legal advisors from NATO and the Ministries of Defence and the Armed Forces of NATO and PfP countries gathered in Geneva for the third time, on the occasion of the 2019 Symposium for Senior NATO/PfP Legal Advisors, organised by the Security and Law at the GCSP. The 3rd edition of the Symposium was devoted to ‘Legal Challenges 70 Years After the Washington Treaty’ and was led by Tobias Vestner, Head of the Security and Law Programme at the GCSP, and Steven Hill, Legal Adviser and Director of the Office of Legal Affairs at NATO. Participants and speakers included: Mr Stephen D. Mathias, Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations; Monte De Boer, Allied Command Transformation Legal Adviser, NATO; Col Charles Hebner, International Military Staff Legal Advisor, NATO; Mr John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; and Prof Ashley S. Deeks, Professor of Law, University of Virginia. Chief lawyers of France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Switzerland, Ukraine and other states attended the Symposium. A keynote speech was delivered by Adm Giuseppe De Giorgi, former Chief of the Italian Navy and Commander of the Italian Operation Mare Nostrum. The official dinner took place in the fascinating setting of Kempinski Hotel, on the shores of Lake Leman, giving participants the opportunity to keep exchanging views in a relaxed context. For the third year, the SSL developed according to its established format, based on thematic sessions introduced by kick-off briefings from a participant or guest speaker and followed by informal peer debates. This has been very appreciated for discussing common challenges, sharing insights and best practices, and deliberating novel approaches and solutions through collaboration and common undertakings. The SSL is designed to offer a collegial venue for an impartial and frank exchange. It remains committed to its main goal: the clarification of legal complexities while strengthening personal contacts among Chief Lawyers, with the final aim of enhancing collaboration among legal services.
News
26 April 2019
Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge Sponsor Profile: Deloitte
This year, they trained and sent three teams to the competition. Members of Deloitte sponsorship team sat down with our editor to discuss cyber security in business, their expectations for this year's competition and the importance of gender parity in the cyber security space.    1. What are you most looking forward to at the European Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge 2019 in Geneva? What is one expectation you have about the competition? We expect to see a very exciting competition this year, as the diversity and internationality of the teams promises to provide insight into a wide range of cyber crisis management approaches. Given we are supporting three all-female teams that are competing this year, we are also very much looking forward to seeing them in action and grow in the challenge.   2. Why did you decide to sponsor the competition? Why is it important to you to give students the space to advice on cyber policy? We are delighted to sponsor the European Cyber 9/12 Strategy Challenge in Geneva for the second time, as we believe it’s an excellent learning experience for students that focuses more on the strategic aspects of cyber crisis management, which goes beyond what many existing hacking competitions offer. With cyber being international, the setup with international student teams and judges, and a complex international crisis scenario, provides an ideal learning and networking platform for future cyber and policy professionals. As an organisation committed to contributing to the development and training of future cyber professionals, we see this event as a valuable addition to the cyber security community.   3. Describe cyber in three words and what does cyber represent for you?  Dynamic. Uncertain. Everywhere. It’s about thinking of all eventualities; be they malicious or accidental. Who will (try to) use what and for what purpose? What could go wrong?   4. What is something that is not commonly understood about the cyber world? Cyber is a lot more than protecting computer systems; it is a holistic approach to managing cyber risks. Often, the human aspect of cyber security is forgotten or misunderstood.   5. Did you know that in 2019, we have reached gender parity amongst all our participants? Why is that important for you? We were aware that gender parity amongst participants of this year’s challenge was achieved and are very happy that we contributed to this outcome by sponsoring and supporting three all-female teams as part of our Women in Cyber initiative. In addition to businesses benefiting from higher productivity, more innovation power, longer-term business impact and sustainability in the workplace by having diverse teams, encouraging more women to choose cyber as a career path will help the industry tackle the rapidly growing skills shortage in this field. With women’s representation in the cyber workforce still being very low, organisations are currently missing out on a largely untapped talent pool. At Deloitte Switzerland, we are committed to addressing this gender imbalance and skills shortage with our Women in Cyber initiative.
News
23 April 2019
GCSP’s Marc Finaud, contributes to conference of Basel Peace Office on nuclear disarmament
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy Senior Programme Advisor, Marc Finaud recently presented a report entitled, “What Nuclear-Weapons Possessor States Tell Us and What We Should Reply,” at the “Move the Nuclear Weapons Money” conference in Basel, Switzerland. The event, held from 12-13 April 2019 and hosted by the City of Basel, brought together legislators, climate change, disarmament and financial experts, and activists to address and work to reverse both corporate and financial interests which are maintaining a fossil-fuel based economy and a nuclear arms race. On Day 2, during a session entitled: Nuclear weapons impact, risk reduction and disarmament, Finaud pointed out dangers of relying on nuclear deterrence and provided responses to the arguments used by nuclear-armed states to justify their reliance on nuclear weapons. In Mr Finaud’s opinion new negotiations especially between the United States and Russia need to take place and also more attention should be devoted to CTBT and FCMT. He also called for de-alerting, adoption of “no-first use” policy, reducing nuclear weapons and for freezing modernization of these weapons. Mr Finaud concluded saying that “if the ‘step-by-step’ approach is not making any progress amongst the nuclear armed and allied States, then non-nuclear weapon states have a responsibility to advance nuclear disarmament through initiatives like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
News
23 April 2019
Building the GCSP Alumni Community in Ukraine Around Strategic Foresight
GCSP was pleased to contribute to a meeting in Kiev, Ukraine on 3 April 2019 on “Strategic Anticipation Approaches to Make Sustainable Solutions in Uncertain and Rapidly Changing Times”. The event was an initiative of the GCSP Alumni Hub in Ukraine and held in partnership, and kindly hosted, by Kyiv-Mohyla Business School (KMBS). The event brought together alumni of the GCSP in Ukraine and alumni of the Strategic Architect Programme ("Strategic Leadership in the Field of Security and Defense of Ukraine”) of KMBS. The meeting was also an opportunity for alumni in Ukraine across GCSP courses to build connections. The first part of the day was devoted to a presentation of future challenges and trends by the co-founder of Foundation for the Future, Mr Oleksii Zhmerenetskyi and a presentation by Strategic Anticipation Cluster Leader at GCSP, Ms Emily Munro on “Planning for the Future: Strategic Foresight Concepts and Methods”. The afternoon was devoted to a workshop led by the GCSP Alumni Hub leaders and Strategic Foresight course alumni, Ms Iryna Gubenko and Mr Ievgen Kylymnyk, to apply foresight methods to the Ukrainian security policy context. Connect with the GCSP Community Hub in Kiev: here  
News
23 April 2019
Eleventh Course on Implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty Ends
From 8 to 12 April 2019 the GCSP hosted an executive course that it organised on the topic “Building Capacities for Effective Implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)”. This course was made possible thanks to funding from the United Nations Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation, the governments of Australia and Sweden, and the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation (FES). Some 36 participants from all continents took part in this course, representing governments, civil society and industry from Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, France, Georgia, Germany, Honduras, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Palestine, Romania, Samoa, Slovakia, South Africa, Thailand, Tuvalu, Uganda, and the UAE. They heard experts address all aspects of the regulation of trade in conventional arms, including from the ATT Secretariat, the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs and UNIDIR. This was the eleventh edition of this course, initiated in November 2014, which by now has trained some 350 practitioners.    
Op-ed
26 March 2019
US-North Korea: ready for renewed confrontation?
The promise of denuclearisation on the Korean Peninsula, resurrected last year by the renewed dialogues between the US and North Korea, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Republic of Korea (RoK), was destined to be a long and arduous road flanked with perils and traps. After all, two precedent attempts failed after years of efforts in the 1990s and 2000s. The blunt threat from Pyongyang, in the aftermath of the failed Hanoi Summit between the US leader Donald Trump and his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong Un on 27-28 February, to quit the negotiations and resume nuclear and missile tests, provides a fresh reminder of this very truth.  The North Korean reaction also reminds us of the fundamental fragility of the process, the absence of trust between the parties- despite apparent personal chemistry between the leaders- and the profound differences between the parties on the principles that should govern denuclearisation. As evident at the Hanoi Summit, Washington is demanding the elimination of the North Korean nuclear program as a precondition for any sanction relief, while Pyongyang insists on the lifting of the bulk of the sanctions regime for it to make a further step toward denuclearisation. With positions so far apart, rapprochement will be challenging. In a normal negotiation process, lengthy discussions between both sides might eventually lead to some form of common understanding of the broad objectives and the means to reach them. At this point, when the parties deem the negotiation sufficiently advanced, the leaders might decide to bless the outcomes, perhaps helping to solve some minor differences, as a consecration of lengthy diplomatic efforts. The approach adopted by the US and North Korean leaders, by inverting the order of things, meant that they tried to bargain over the complexity of the matter, without any strategy other than their supposed genuine art of convincing. The result was an abrupt end of the second Summit, with no progress in the substance of negotiations and no certainty on the way forward, even though the two prudently avoided direct criticisms, thereby keeping the door open to further negotiations.   What were the responses? Mr Trump's dream of a "grand bargain", where a maximalist approach of complete denuclearisation and subsequent sanctions relief would provide North Korea with the prospect of a “fantastic” US-aided development process, was flatly ignored. Furthermore, very few believed that a maximalist approach of denuclearisation first, as sponsored by hawks like the National Security Advisor J. Bolton, would bear fruit (even among experts in the US), in particular if “maximum pressure (sanctions)” would be maintained until complete dismantlement. Indeed, what was possible years ago with Libya, a country with an emerging nuclear program, would hardly be a realistic approach with a nation that has tangibly demonstrated its nuclear reach. As one diplomat observed, Kim Jong Un was not going to give the key to his arsenal to his enemy, which he believes to be the core of his deterrent capability, for a promise of undetermined sanctions relief and uncertain development.  The DPRK strategy also appeared unrealistic. The demand to lift the US’s core sanctions in return for the dismantlement of Yongbyon, the main nuclear production facility of the country, subjected to a previous attempt at dismantlement in the 1990s, and a formal halt on nuclear and missile tests, was far-fetched. While such a move, already promised during the North-South Summit in Pyongyang last September, would indeed represent a substantial step forward, Mr Trump claimed it was not worth the price. In his words, he "couldn't do that," since he would be deprived from what he considers his strongest means of pressure, precisely the one he thinks forced Pyongyang to the negotiation table. Furthermore, the move would not relieve the US of the concern that it would have left intact the entire North Korean nuclear arsenal, estimated at thirty to sixty nuclear devises and numerous intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Both leaders obviously proved to be unrealistic in their negotiation positions, thereby exemplifying the limits of the Summit as a means to resolve most complex issues. This was in the absence of a necessary preparatory process that would have clarified the respective expectations and helped narrow the gap. The Americans claim their efforts at launching diplomatic negotiations after the first Singapore Summit were at first snubbed by the North. Confusion constantly prevailed on the respective negotiation positions since the first Summit. Rumours hinted at a possible deal involving security assurances, steps towards normalisation and suspension of some sanctions, in line with the commitments made at the North-South Panmunjom Summit, against tangible progress in denuclearisation. The US Chief negotiator Steven Begun hinted at a public conference in early 2019 that an incremental approach was to be pursued in order to make progress in the negotiations. But in Hanoi, Mr Trump decided to stick to the maximalist script suggested by Mr J. Bolton, while Kim Jong Un presented uncompromising demands to relinquish the bulk of the sanctions for the dismantlement of Yongbyon.   North Korea would hardly give in to US pressure. Its harsh response to the US, uttered by the North Korean vice-Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui, provides a clear signal that Pyongyang is ready to raise the stakes if the US does not show flexibility on what seems to be Pyongyang’s first priority: sanctions relief. The warning was especially aimed at Mr Bolton who seemed to have played a prominent role in shaping the US position since the Hanoi Summit. He is known for his past advocacy of regime change and use of force (pre-emptive strikes) to disarm North Korea. Satellite observations indicated that Pyongyang had already restored a rocket launch facility that had been disabled last year, which might serve for the launch of a satellite. It might quickly set back the bilateral relationships toward a confrontational mood.   What does this mean for the future? Such developments may fulfil the wish of hawks on both sides: those in Washington who do not believe in the merits of negotiation and are comfortable with a return to confrontation, and those in Pyongyang who simply do not want to relinquish nuclear weapons and the benefits of a military first policy. This is an option that would lead to the status quo ante of 2017, when the US and the DPRK were on the brink of war, a new Korean War but with nuclear weapons. A more hopeful scenario might follow elements along the following line. A prudent strategy might focus on the short-term. The US and DPRK could maintain deterrence while pursuing efforts at limiting the development of nuclear programs by keeping alive the de facto freeze on nuclear and missile tests and implementing measures already suggested: dismantlement of Yongbyon and other sites, verifications, etc. This would imply further US engagement with the North in an incremental process, the provision of security guarantees (end of war declaration, suspension of major military drills), and a move towards normalisation. This would also involve an easing of the sanctions regime. These would, in particular, help the leaders of both DPRK and the RoK to pursue efforts towards cooperation and normalisation of their relationship by developing bilateral confidence building measures. The question of complete denuclearisation would arise in the long run, perhaps in about ten to fifteen years, according to the most seasoned experts.  The conditions for an uncertain but hopeful scenario to materialise are countless. But primarily, both sides need the capacity to exercise patience and flexibility- along with good faith. These are the most unlikely ingredients in the current state of affairs. But the absence of these virtues could surely pave the way for the most sombre prospects over the Korean Peninsula.
News
22 March 2019
Bye-bye, international order?
The current international order is based on international institutions and law. The United States of America played the major role in its creation and sustenance. Yet the U.S. has recently withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, the Paris Climate Change Agreement, UNESCO, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the INF Treaty with Russia. The Trump Administration has also criticized the International Court of Justice and threatened to prosecute and freeze the assets of the judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court. Is it time to say goodbye to the current international order? Or will global governance and liberal institutionalism survive the superpower’s withdrawal? On 13 March 2019, the GCSP Security and Law team organised its 7th Reality Check event to answer these and other questions with John B. Bellinger III, former Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration, currently Adjunct Senior Fellow in International Law at the Council on Foreign Relations. The discussion was moderated by Tobias Vestner, Head of Security and Law at the GCSP.   Watch the video of the event   John B. Bellinger III reflected on the current U.S. approach to international law and institutions and shared his thoughts and experience on how to bridge diverging political and legal perspectives to the benefit of cooperation and stability.   Security and Law: A Reality Check is the event series to address how international law matters in security affairs. It aims to critically assess if current norms fit contemporary and future security challenges, how international commitments can effectively be implemented, and how new international law can successfully be shaped.
Op-ed
21 March 2019
BREXIT. A political accident or an inevitable occurrence?
Since the EU’s inception in the 1950s from the original European Steel and Coal Community, the UK has always had an uneasy relationship with European economic and political structures.  From the ‘inner six’ countries of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and West Germany, the European Community gradually expanded to what we know today with 33,000 officials and an annual budget of €165 billion with 28 member countries, representing 20% of the world’s trade.  However, even in its infancy Winston Churchill in 1953 declared ‘We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe but not of it.  We are linked but not combined. We are associated but not absorbed.  If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea she must always choose the open sea.”  The UK’s entry into the European Community was a political challenge but with a strong majority the country joined the expanding European trading block.  Later Conservative governments resisted the drift from a trade block to greater political union with Mrs Thatcher famously declaring “No, no, no…!” to the concept of a federal Europe and loss of UK sovereignty to an EU Commission.  Despite this, the UK has historically been the third largest donor to the EU, after contributions from France and Germany, providing on average 13% of the EU annual budget1.  The UK’s annual contribution of €15.1 billion2 to the EU represents a modest 2.9% of the UK government’s annual €728 billion spending. On 23 June 2016, after a controversial political campaign, a UK referendum was held and with 17 million votes, 52% voted to leave the EU and 48% voted to remain.  It represented the first direct vote on the EU since 1973 and the MPs of Westminster promised to honour the result.  Such a seismic result caught the main political parties completely by surprise.  Of those that voted, 96% of UKIP voters voted to leave, alongside 58% of Conservative voters and 37% of Labour voters.  Regionally the majority of voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voted to remain.  Notably 73% percent of voters between 18-24yrs voted to remain, whereas 57% of those over 55yrs voted to leave3.  The country and the political parties themselves were completely divided. Much was made of the benefits of being able to take back control of borders, fishing waters, of sovereignty and a rejection of globalisation, big government and ever closer political union.  The touch-paper for the campaign was mass migration, further fuelled by the illegal immigrant crisis in southern Europe.  The question is what does the underlying data actually tell us?   What is true and what is political rhetoric?  Notably, in a recent UK poll4, 76% of respondents said that they had little or no confidence in their politicians or the information they provided.   Migration. Research of statistical data shows that immigration since 1851 has followed a consistent upward trend but that since 1990, 10 million people have come to the UK legally and the number of children born to non-UK born mothers climbed from a historical average of circa 10% to upwards of 25%5.  However, many of the jobs undertaken by legal immigrants are low-paid roles not popular with UK-born residents.   The greatest number of EU migrants come from Poland and Romania, representing approximately 4m of the total 2.2m living in the UK.  At the same time non-EU migration, something the UK can control, has steadily climbed to over 200,000 per annum.  Infrastructure spending on housing, hospitals and schools did not keep pace with the increase in population. Trade.  After 52 years in the economic trading block, the UK’s trade is inexorably linked to its nearest geographical neighbours.  The UK exports approximately 48% of its goods and services to EU countries but it represents approximately 16% of the EU’s exports and so it is a very important trading partner.  A key conclusion is that being able to trade with each other is incredibly important to both the UK and the EU.  However, the uncomfortable truth is that with the creation of global trade, one does not need a trade agreement to sell a product or service.  For example, the US does not have a trade agreement with the EU, but consumers can still buy iPhones.  This is because Apple the manufacturer, opened subsidiaries within the EU.  Therefore, the idea that on 29 March all trade between the UK and the EU will cease is both alarmist and totally unrealistic.  The key question will be what controls may or may not be imposed at respective border. Non-EU goods are routinely checked but the checks are not on 100% of all goods.  A zero-based tariff agreement between the UK and the EU could solve this issue, rather than ideological political grand-standing. Standard of Living.  Since 2008, real wage growth in the UK has fallen and therefore citizens have felt a real loss of spending power and they have felt the effect of lower living standards.  Concurrently lowering interest rates to stimulate growth, coupled with quantitative easing, led to significant levels of cheap debt and property prices climbed steadily.  Affordability criteria show that the average house price to average income has climbed to more than 18 times6 and has priced a whole generation out of the residential property market. Government Spending.  UK government spending has not fallen significantly in real terms since 2008.  It has risen and the corresponding the tax burden on businesses, families and individuals has risen to its highest level since the 1970s.  The UK cannot be considered a low tax economy.  However, during this time the amount spent on front-line services has fallen; there are fewer hospital beds7 and a cut in staff working in the emergency services.  So where did the money go?  Data shows that the number of people employed in the public sector has increased and one in five of all people employed in the UK works for the public sector and that the UK now employs more people in the public sector than France8.  The UK has become overly-bureaucratic and un-productive with a large public sector. So what?  What conclusions might be drawn from this data? The BREXIT vote was a protest vote.  If one asks a stupid question, one may get a stupid answer.  It was an indication of what populism can do when applied as a direct democratic tool.  The UK and the EU must be more accountable, and more transparent and more efficient.  The BREXIT vote was a protest to a loss of sovereignty and ever closer political union under the Lisbon Treaty.  Another deduction is that those who voted for BREXIT voted for change because they understood that the current system is not working for them and they wanted something different. Failure of the political class has arguably caused similar symptoms to to be observed in the result of the recent US presidential election as well as the ‘gilets jaunes’ in France, and the rise of the far-right parties in other European states. What needs to happen?  The EU and the UK need to act quickly, whatever they decide.    The EU and the UK need to promote economic migration not mass migration.  The UK government needs to promote trade and reduce taxation to encourage inward private sector investment.  A radical reduction in the size and scope of the UK government administration is required. Governments, both in the UK and the EU must learn to live within their means, become leaner and act with fiscal responsibility.  Since 2008, far from falling net government debt has been rising throughout the EU and continues to be an issue, particularly in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy9. The UK will remain part of Europe but not part of the EU and it has a strong future as a key trading partner with the EU.  The UK and the EU must remain friendly neighbours if they cannot be political partners. The challenge now is whether the politicians on both sides of the English Channel have the pragmatism to permit a mutually beneficial long-term trading relationship to come to pass.       DISLCAIMER: This opinion represents the author and not that of the GCSP.      1 Source – European Commission 6/2017 2 UK Office for National Statistics 2018 3 Lord Ashcroft Polls analysis 2016 4 IPSOS Mori Poll February 2018 5 UK Office for National Statistics 6 ABS & UBS data 7 NHS England & Kings Fund data 8 International Labour Organisation (ILO) data 9 IMF Global Financial Stability Report 2017
Op-ed
21 March 2019
5 Emerging Tech Trends to Watch in 2019
Prediction questions are always tough to answer, but I’ll stick my neck out and give my personal view on the 5 technologies that will play a significant role in shaping our world and influencing our society, within the timeframe of one year. I believe they are technologies worth tracking. Some technologies work in the background, and although they might be transparent to us, they are nonetheless ubiquitous. These often serve as a foundation for other technologies that are more in the forefront and visible to the user. With this in mind, here goes: 5G This is a foundational technology that is an enabler of so much of the rest of the technologies shown below. Without 5G, it is not possible to have autonomous vehicles, Internet of Things, drones, etc… 5G networks are expected to be 20-100x faster than 4G and it is difficult to overstate the impact that 5G will have on the world of communication, specially one between devices. 5G networks are gradually being set up in different parts of the world, and 5G compatible handsets will be rolling out in 2019. Artifical Intelligence Here is another foundational technology that will have its place in any “5 tech trends list” for the coming years. We have only scratched the surface. Already today we use AI without necessarily knowing it, every time we are offered new products to purchase, every time we use Siri or Alexa and every time our friends and family are recognised in our holiday photos. Machine Learning and Deep Learning will continue to develop and enable technological developments in many fields (eg medical, automotive, business applications, etc), and will continue to be the engine behind “Big Data”. And as we move from “Weak AI” to “Strong AI”, we will continue to be debating existential questions of human vs artificial intelligence. Augmented/Virtual Reality AR/VR have applications in so many domains but customer acceptance has been relatively slow so far, mainly due to the high barrier to entry (specially with VR). But as processing power and data transfer speeds continue to increase, and costs go down, 2019 could well be the year that AR/VR move from “early adoptor” phase to more mainstream. In the right hands, these technologies certainly have the potential of disrupting many businesses. Voice / Internet of Things Ok I surreptitiously added two technologies here, but bear with me. More and more devices will be more and more connected to each other. Think of wearables (specially for health and sports), the “Connected Home”, cars, etc… and as these devices proliferate, voice will become an important interface, one that will require businesses to adapt to that new input method. Already today it is estimated that by 2020 50% of all searches on mobile devices will be done through Voice. Blockchain Blockchain will slowly emerge from the shadows of Bitcoin and will stand on its own. Blockchain has the potential of disrupting the way transactions are conducted, by decentralising trust in the data and cutting intermediaries. In many ways it is analogous to the internet and how it introduced the “Shared Economy”. Possible applications of blockchain include Financial Services (asset management, insurance claims…), Contracts, Healthcare records, Voting, and so on.   In looking back at my list, I realise that there is a good mixture of forecasting and wishful thinking, with maybe a higher dose of the latter than I would like to admit. There are clearly many other technologies that will impact our world in 2019. But although the above looks like a laundry list of technologies, it is when they work together that they become a powerful influence in our society. Hence, the combination of Voice, Deep Learning, connected devices, 5G and Augmented Reality can make for a very compelling and disruptive presence in our world.
6 December 2018
Videos
6 December 2018
Videos
6 December 2018
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
6 December 2018
Videos
6 December 2018
Videos
6 December 2018
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
GCSP: 2019 Course Videos Promo Video
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
22 January 2019
Videos
12 June 2018
Can Geneva Become the City of Disarmament?
GCSP's Marc Finaud explains why actions should be taken to revitalize Geneva's role as a center of peace.
12 June 2018
Assessing the JCPOA from a Historical Perspective
Moving Beyond the Declaratory Policy of the 2004-2006 Initiative of a Gulf WMD-Free Zone.
3 June 2018
Towards a Missile-Free Zone for the Middle East – Moving Beyond the Nuclear Dimension of the JCPOA
A Checklist for European Actors to Deal Constructively with the Regional Missile Problem.
3 June 2018
Assessing the JCPOA from a Historical Perspective:
Moving Beyond the Declaratory Policy of the 2004-2006 Initiative of a Gulf WMD-Free Zone.
1 June 2018
General Kosciuszko, a man ahead of his time

GCSP Global Fellowship-in-Residence, Mr Adam Koniuszewski, was published in the June 2018 edition of the “UN Special” Magazine.

In his article entitled, “General Kosciuszko, a man ahead of his time,” Mr Koniuszewski discusses the significance of human rights advocate, General Tadeusz Kosciuszko, the builder of West Point, the world’s most famous military academy.

15 May 2018
Cooperative Ideas for New Communication & Conference Processes in the Middle East/Gulf

In our new Track II initiative we will present, discuss, and disseminate Cooperative Ideas jointly developed at two International Expert Conferences in Frankfurt and Berlin (see issue No. 1 of this New Publication Series at academicpeaceorchestra.com). The aim is to help establish promising focal points around which especially the relevant regional actors in the disarmament & non-proliferation area can rally. They may ultimately lead to constructive and sustainable dialogue mechanisms which are so rare – and so needed – in the Middle East/Gulf.

1 May 2018
Why We Need New Communication & Conference Processes and How They Could Come About: the Classical Role of this Track-II Initiative

This New Publication Series POLICY FORUM is in addition to the Two Expert Panels conducted at the First NPT PrepCom in Vienna on May 8 and 10, 2017 our second Track II tool. Both aim at presenting, discussing, and disseminating the jointly developed Cooperative Ideas as potential rallying points for the most important actors in the entire Middle East/Gulf.

25 April 2018
Exploring the Transfer Potential of the JCPOA for Zonal Disarmament Arrangements in the Middle East/Gulf
This Policy Forum issue advocates using elements of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or agreement/accord)
25 April 2018
Dilemmas around Using Militias to Right the Taliban
GCSP Fellow Dr Dee Dee Derksen opines on decision to arm militias to fight the Taliban and the Islamic State.
15 April 2018
Transferring the Win-Win Approach of the JCPOA to Other Areas of Cooperation in the Middle East/Gulf

Based on his rich experience since 1994 as a strategy consultant for major international companies investing in Iran, the author makes the case for using the achievement-oriented approach of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as a model for tackling all major regional challenges in a cooperative way, especially by non-governmental actors.