Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

In diesem Open-Access-Buch werden Prozesse und Dynamiken der Zusammenarbeit zwischen verschiedenen Akteur*innen in Projekten des zivilen Friedensdienstes in Kenia, Sierra Leone und Liberia betrachtet. Das durch lokale und internationale Akteur*innen gemeinsame Bearbeiten von Konflikten und Herausforderungen der Friedenskonsolidierung hat in der deutschen Friedensarbeit eine lange Tradition und wird in einer globalisierten Welt immer wichtiger. Deswegen geht das Buch der sowohl für die Wissenschaft als auch für die Friedenspraxis relevanten Frage nach, inwiefern im Kontext der Zivilen Konfliktbearbeitung eine gleichberechtige Partnerschaft vorliegen kann. Indem sich die Arbeit auf die Chancen und Herausforderungen der Zusammenarbeit konzentriert, gelingt es, den Blick auf die alltäglichen Aktivitäten zu legen, die eigentlichen Prozesse und Reibungspunkte der Friedensarbeit zu analysieren und einen wertvollen Beitrag zur kritischen Friedensforschung und der Diskussion um Hybridität und Friction zu leisten.

In diesem Open-Access-Buch werden Prozesse und Dynamiken der Zusammenarbeit zwischen verschiedenen Akteur*innen in Projekten des zivilen Friedensdienstes in Kenia, Sierra Leone und Liberia betrachtet. Das durch lokale und internationale Akteur*innen gemeinsame Bearbeiten von Konflikten und Herausforderungen der Friedenskonsolidierung hat in der deutschen Friedensarbeit eine lange Tradition und wird in einer globalisierten Welt immer wichtiger. Deswegen geht das Buch der sowohl für die Wissenschaft als auch für die Friedenspraxis relevanten Frage nach, inwiefern im Kontext der Zivilen Konfliktbearbeitung eine gleichberechtige Partnerschaft vorliegen kann. Indem sich die Arbeit auf die Chancen und Herausforderungen der Zusammenarbeit konzentriert, gelingt es, den Blick auf die alltäglichen Aktivitäten zu legen, die eigentlichen Prozesse und Reibungspunkte der Friedensarbeit zu analysieren und einen wertvollen Beitrag zur kritischen Friedensforschung und der Diskussion um Hybridität und Friction zu leisten.

In diesem Open-Access-Buch werden Prozesse und Dynamiken der Zusammenarbeit zwischen verschiedenen Akteur*innen in Projekten des zivilen Friedensdienstes in Kenia, Sierra Leone und Liberia betrachtet. Das durch lokale und internationale Akteur*innen gemeinsame Bearbeiten von Konflikten und Herausforderungen der Friedenskonsolidierung hat in der deutschen Friedensarbeit eine lange Tradition und wird in einer globalisierten Welt immer wichtiger. Deswegen geht das Buch der sowohl für die Wissenschaft als auch für die Friedenspraxis relevanten Frage nach, inwiefern im Kontext der Zivilen Konfliktbearbeitung eine gleichberechtige Partnerschaft vorliegen kann. Indem sich die Arbeit auf die Chancen und Herausforderungen der Zusammenarbeit konzentriert, gelingt es, den Blick auf die alltäglichen Aktivitäten zu legen, die eigentlichen Prozesse und Reibungspunkte der Friedensarbeit zu analysieren und einen wertvollen Beitrag zur kritischen Friedensforschung und der Diskussion um Hybridität und Friction zu leisten.

Bonn, 5 June 2023. For the last 50 years, World Environment Day has been celebrated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as a reminder of the environment’s essential and irreplaceable role in human development. As the theme of the first World Environment Day in 1973 indicated, there is “Only One Earth”. Yet, protecting it has proven a paramount challenge for the United Nations and all of its member states.

While international environmental law has evolved dynamically, and a host of multilateral environmental agreements seek to govern international cooperation around a broad range of environmental challenges, humankind’s ecological footprint continued to increase and is far bigger than the “one earth” it treads on, using almost twice its biocapacity today. Accordingly, the global environment has continued to deteriorate as the impacts of socio-economic developments undercut improvements in environmental policy and implementation. Countless plant and animal species have been terminally lost already with many more threatened by extinction. In parallel, the average global temperature has increased by 1.1°C with major impacts around the world. Across all major assessment reports the science is crystal clear: achieving socio-economic goals within planetary boundaries will require urgent and transformative change.

Global environmental agreements have individually led to positive shifts towards such change, but lag far behind what is needed still. To boost their comparative strength and, indeed, coherent and effective implementation, stronger integration will be essential. First, socio-economic drivers are common across multiple environmental issues. Second, it is not only socio-economic development that can lead to environmental damage, but also environmental measures can, at times, adversely affect one another. For instance, extensive plantations of biofuels and non-native forest plantations to address climate change can lead to biodiversity loss, while ecosystems restoration through slow regrowth can limit the potential for more rapid carbon sequestration. Third, environmental change that remains unaddressed in one area may prompt domino effects for others. In that regard, global heating stands out as the biggest human-induced environmental threat: its ubiquitous impacts have far-reaching consequences for life on land and below water.

Reflecting the overarching risk of “dangerous climate change,” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and has held numerous semi-annual negotiations since. Today, parties to the UNFCCC and its 2015 Paris Agreement are reconvening for two weeks of negotiations in Bonn for the latest session of its Subsidiary Bodies. These technical meetings serve to support the implementation of the decisions of the more political annual UN climate change conferences (better known as COPs). As such, “the SBs” are key to advancing the implementation of the Paris Agreement in particular.

At the heart of this year’s agenda is the “Global Stocktake” which aims to determine progress made towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Moreover, it considers the broader impacts of climate response measures and the losses and damages already incurred due to climate change. It is no surprise that the results are clear: climate action remains highly insufficient in terms of both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in adapting to climate change impacts. In effect, this puts all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at risk all the while our environment as we know it is being irretrievably changed by intensified forest fires, loss of terrestrial and marine biodiversity due to increased temperatures, water scarcity and desertification as a result of droughts, acidified oceans, salinised coastal areas, melting glaciers and permafrost, and even changing ocean currents.

Importantly, the impacts of response measures are now getting more attention under the Global Stocktake. Nevertheless, these discussions so far remain largely focused on the social dimension with the aim to enable just transitions, and environmental impacts receive limited attention. Yet, this would be crucial to shed light on the strong link between climate action and other environmental issues and to ensure that synergies can be maximised and trade-offs avoided or at least limited. To that end, a stronger and systematic exchange with the multitude of pertinent multilateral environmental agreements would be key. Enhancing policy integration across the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity is an obvious vantage point, given the relevance of “nature-based solutions” in both fields. Yet, it must not stop there. Indeed, synergies and trade-offs will also need to be identified and addressed across further conventions and MEAs ranging from the UN Convention to Combat Desertification to treaties addressing a broad range of hazardous wastes, pollutants and chemicals, like the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, or highly specialised concerns of species and ecosystems conservation, like the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

UNEP and its United Nations Environment Assembly would have a strong role to play in coordinating such efforts. Not only is it the organizational home of the majority of MEAs in question, but it would also reaffirm the original mandate UNEP was given by the UN General Assembly five decades ago, prompting inter alia the establishment of the World Environment Day. Having the current climate talks coincide with the 50th return of the World Environment Day should therefore serve as a stark reminder that climate and environmental action really are two sides of the same coin. The important links between climate change and the environment more broadly must be better appreciated and addressed. Ultimately, the transition to low-carbon and climate resilient societies is unfeasible without protecting the environmental fundament upon which these societies can develop and thrive. Economic concerns and development aspirations must no longer serve as a pretext for lukewarm climate action, but quite to the contrary ambitious climate action is an imperative for equitable and just sustainable development. To that end, climate action and environmental governance must work together.

Bonn, 5 June 2023. For the last 50 years, World Environment Day has been celebrated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as a reminder of the environment’s essential and irreplaceable role in human development. As the theme of the first World Environment Day in 1973 indicated, there is “Only One Earth”. Yet, protecting it has proven a paramount challenge for the United Nations and all of its member states.

While international environmental law has evolved dynamically, and a host of multilateral environmental agreements seek to govern international cooperation around a broad range of environmental challenges, humankind’s ecological footprint continued to increase and is far bigger than the “one earth” it treads on, using almost twice its biocapacity today. Accordingly, the global environment has continued to deteriorate as the impacts of socio-economic developments undercut improvements in environmental policy and implementation. Countless plant and animal species have been terminally lost already with many more threatened by extinction. In parallel, the average global temperature has increased by 1.1°C with major impacts around the world. Across all major assessment reports the science is crystal clear: achieving socio-economic goals within planetary boundaries will require urgent and transformative change.

Global environmental agreements have individually led to positive shifts towards such change, but lag far behind what is needed still. To boost their comparative strength and, indeed, coherent and effective implementation, stronger integration will be essential. First, socio-economic drivers are common across multiple environmental issues. Second, it is not only socio-economic development that can lead to environmental damage, but also environmental measures can, at times, adversely affect one another. For instance, extensive plantations of biofuels and non-native forest plantations to address climate change can lead to biodiversity loss, while ecosystems restoration through slow regrowth can limit the potential for more rapid carbon sequestration. Third, environmental change that remains unaddressed in one area may prompt domino effects for others. In that regard, global heating stands out as the biggest human-induced environmental threat: its ubiquitous impacts have far-reaching consequences for life on land and below water.

Reflecting the overarching risk of “dangerous climate change,” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and has held numerous semi-annual negotiations since. Today, parties to the UNFCCC and its 2015 Paris Agreement are reconvening for two weeks of negotiations in Bonn for the latest session of its Subsidiary Bodies. These technical meetings serve to support the implementation of the decisions of the more political annual UN climate change conferences (better known as COPs). As such, “the SBs” are key to advancing the implementation of the Paris Agreement in particular.

At the heart of this year’s agenda is the “Global Stocktake” which aims to determine progress made towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Moreover, it considers the broader impacts of climate response measures and the losses and damages already incurred due to climate change. It is no surprise that the results are clear: climate action remains highly insufficient in terms of both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in adapting to climate change impacts. In effect, this puts all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at risk all the while our environment as we know it is being irretrievably changed by intensified forest fires, loss of terrestrial and marine biodiversity due to increased temperatures, water scarcity and desertification as a result of droughts, acidified oceans, salinised coastal areas, melting glaciers and permafrost, and even changing ocean currents.

Importantly, the impacts of response measures are now getting more attention under the Global Stocktake. Nevertheless, these discussions so far remain largely focused on the social dimension with the aim to enable just transitions, and environmental impacts receive limited attention. Yet, this would be crucial to shed light on the strong link between climate action and other environmental issues and to ensure that synergies can be maximised and trade-offs avoided or at least limited. To that end, a stronger and systematic exchange with the multitude of pertinent multilateral environmental agreements would be key. Enhancing policy integration across the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity is an obvious vantage point, given the relevance of “nature-based solutions” in both fields. Yet, it must not stop there. Indeed, synergies and trade-offs will also need to be identified and addressed across further conventions and MEAs ranging from the UN Convention to Combat Desertification to treaties addressing a broad range of hazardous wastes, pollutants and chemicals, like the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, or highly specialised concerns of species and ecosystems conservation, like the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

UNEP and its United Nations Environment Assembly would have a strong role to play in coordinating such efforts. Not only is it the organizational home of the majority of MEAs in question, but it would also reaffirm the original mandate UNEP was given by the UN General Assembly five decades ago, prompting inter alia the establishment of the World Environment Day. Having the current climate talks coincide with the 50th return of the World Environment Day should therefore serve as a stark reminder that climate and environmental action really are two sides of the same coin. The important links between climate change and the environment more broadly must be better appreciated and addressed. Ultimately, the transition to low-carbon and climate resilient societies is unfeasible without protecting the environmental fundament upon which these societies can develop and thrive. Economic concerns and development aspirations must no longer serve as a pretext for lukewarm climate action, but quite to the contrary ambitious climate action is an imperative for equitable and just sustainable development. To that end, climate action and environmental governance must work together.

Bonn, 5 June 2023. For the last 50 years, World Environment Day has been celebrated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as a reminder of the environment’s essential and irreplaceable role in human development. As the theme of the first World Environment Day in 1973 indicated, there is “Only One Earth”. Yet, protecting it has proven a paramount challenge for the United Nations and all of its member states.

While international environmental law has evolved dynamically, and a host of multilateral environmental agreements seek to govern international cooperation around a broad range of environmental challenges, humankind’s ecological footprint continued to increase and is far bigger than the “one earth” it treads on, using almost twice its biocapacity today. Accordingly, the global environment has continued to deteriorate as the impacts of socio-economic developments undercut improvements in environmental policy and implementation. Countless plant and animal species have been terminally lost already with many more threatened by extinction. In parallel, the average global temperature has increased by 1.1°C with major impacts around the world. Across all major assessment reports the science is crystal clear: achieving socio-economic goals within planetary boundaries will require urgent and transformative change.

Global environmental agreements have individually led to positive shifts towards such change, but lag far behind what is needed still. To boost their comparative strength and, indeed, coherent and effective implementation, stronger integration will be essential. First, socio-economic drivers are common across multiple environmental issues. Second, it is not only socio-economic development that can lead to environmental damage, but also environmental measures can, at times, adversely affect one another. For instance, extensive plantations of biofuels and non-native forest plantations to address climate change can lead to biodiversity loss, while ecosystems restoration through slow regrowth can limit the potential for more rapid carbon sequestration. Third, environmental change that remains unaddressed in one area may prompt domino effects for others. In that regard, global heating stands out as the biggest human-induced environmental threat: its ubiquitous impacts have far-reaching consequences for life on land and below water.

Reflecting the overarching risk of “dangerous climate change,” the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and has held numerous semi-annual negotiations since. Today, parties to the UNFCCC and its 2015 Paris Agreement are reconvening for two weeks of negotiations in Bonn for the latest session of its Subsidiary Bodies. These technical meetings serve to support the implementation of the decisions of the more political annual UN climate change conferences (better known as COPs). As such, “the SBs” are key to advancing the implementation of the Paris Agreement in particular.

At the heart of this year’s agenda is the “Global Stocktake” which aims to determine progress made towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Moreover, it considers the broader impacts of climate response measures and the losses and damages already incurred due to climate change. It is no surprise that the results are clear: climate action remains highly insufficient in terms of both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in adapting to climate change impacts. In effect, this puts all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at risk all the while our environment as we know it is being irretrievably changed by intensified forest fires, loss of terrestrial and marine biodiversity due to increased temperatures, water scarcity and desertification as a result of droughts, acidified oceans, salinised coastal areas, melting glaciers and permafrost, and even changing ocean currents.

Importantly, the impacts of response measures are now getting more attention under the Global Stocktake. Nevertheless, these discussions so far remain largely focused on the social dimension with the aim to enable just transitions, and environmental impacts receive limited attention. Yet, this would be crucial to shed light on the strong link between climate action and other environmental issues and to ensure that synergies can be maximised and trade-offs avoided or at least limited. To that end, a stronger and systematic exchange with the multitude of pertinent multilateral environmental agreements would be key. Enhancing policy integration across the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity is an obvious vantage point, given the relevance of “nature-based solutions” in both fields. Yet, it must not stop there. Indeed, synergies and trade-offs will also need to be identified and addressed across further conventions and MEAs ranging from the UN Convention to Combat Desertification to treaties addressing a broad range of hazardous wastes, pollutants and chemicals, like the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, or highly specialised concerns of species and ecosystems conservation, like the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

UNEP and its United Nations Environment Assembly would have a strong role to play in coordinating such efforts. Not only is it the organizational home of the majority of MEAs in question, but it would also reaffirm the original mandate UNEP was given by the UN General Assembly five decades ago, prompting inter alia the establishment of the World Environment Day. Having the current climate talks coincide with the 50th return of the World Environment Day should therefore serve as a stark reminder that climate and environmental action really are two sides of the same coin. The important links between climate change and the environment more broadly must be better appreciated and addressed. Ultimately, the transition to low-carbon and climate resilient societies is unfeasible without protecting the environmental fundament upon which these societies can develop and thrive. Economic concerns and development aspirations must no longer serve as a pretext for lukewarm climate action, but quite to the contrary ambitious climate action is an imperative for equitable and just sustainable development. To that end, climate action and environmental governance must work together.

After the successful adoption of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) in 2014, investment facilitation is gaining importance as the next policy priority for a plurilateral agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO). In fact, more than 110 WTO Members aim to conclude the negotiations on the Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement by mid-2023 after only three years of formal negotiations. Investment facilitation refers to actions taken by governments designed to attract foreign investment and maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of its administration through all stages of the investment cycle. The IFD agreement focuses on allowing investment to flow efficiently for the greatest benefit, particularly to developing and least developed member countries, with the aim of fostering sustainable development. To provide policymakers with essential information for ongoing negotiations and to fill an existing research gap, we examine the economic impacts of a potential IFD agreement. Starting with a lower bound scenario, which incorporates investment facilitation commitments already present in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, we estimate that the IFD could improve global welfare by more than $250 billion. Pushing the boundaries of the policy scope by incorporating provisions from several proposals submitted at the beginning of the structured discussions, the ambitious IFD scenario suggests an increase of global welfare by almost $800 billion. Furthermore, extending the country coverage to India and the United States, currently disengaged from the negotiations, might boost global gains to as much as $1.1 trillion. Hereby, low and middle-income countries have the most to gain from a successful implementation of the IFD, given their low level of current practice in investment facilitation. Overall our analysis shows that the potential gains from an IFD agreement exceed those available from traditional trade liberalization. This provides a strong incentive for non-participating developing countries to join the IFD, reform their investment frameworks along the IFD agenda, and use the support structure contained in the section on special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed country members.

After the successful adoption of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) in 2014, investment facilitation is gaining importance as the next policy priority for a plurilateral agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO). In fact, more than 110 WTO Members aim to conclude the negotiations on the Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement by mid-2023 after only three years of formal negotiations. Investment facilitation refers to actions taken by governments designed to attract foreign investment and maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of its administration through all stages of the investment cycle. The IFD agreement focuses on allowing investment to flow efficiently for the greatest benefit, particularly to developing and least developed member countries, with the aim of fostering sustainable development. To provide policymakers with essential information for ongoing negotiations and to fill an existing research gap, we examine the economic impacts of a potential IFD agreement. Starting with a lower bound scenario, which incorporates investment facilitation commitments already present in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, we estimate that the IFD could improve global welfare by more than $250 billion. Pushing the boundaries of the policy scope by incorporating provisions from several proposals submitted at the beginning of the structured discussions, the ambitious IFD scenario suggests an increase of global welfare by almost $800 billion. Furthermore, extending the country coverage to India and the United States, currently disengaged from the negotiations, might boost global gains to as much as $1.1 trillion. Hereby, low and middle-income countries have the most to gain from a successful implementation of the IFD, given their low level of current practice in investment facilitation. Overall our analysis shows that the potential gains from an IFD agreement exceed those available from traditional trade liberalization. This provides a strong incentive for non-participating developing countries to join the IFD, reform their investment frameworks along the IFD agenda, and use the support structure contained in the section on special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed country members.

After the successful adoption of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) in 2014, investment facilitation is gaining importance as the next policy priority for a plurilateral agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO). In fact, more than 110 WTO Members aim to conclude the negotiations on the Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement by mid-2023 after only three years of formal negotiations. Investment facilitation refers to actions taken by governments designed to attract foreign investment and maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of its administration through all stages of the investment cycle. The IFD agreement focuses on allowing investment to flow efficiently for the greatest benefit, particularly to developing and least developed member countries, with the aim of fostering sustainable development. To provide policymakers with essential information for ongoing negotiations and to fill an existing research gap, we examine the economic impacts of a potential IFD agreement. Starting with a lower bound scenario, which incorporates investment facilitation commitments already present in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, we estimate that the IFD could improve global welfare by more than $250 billion. Pushing the boundaries of the policy scope by incorporating provisions from several proposals submitted at the beginning of the structured discussions, the ambitious IFD scenario suggests an increase of global welfare by almost $800 billion. Furthermore, extending the country coverage to India and the United States, currently disengaged from the negotiations, might boost global gains to as much as $1.1 trillion. Hereby, low and middle-income countries have the most to gain from a successful implementation of the IFD, given their low level of current practice in investment facilitation. Overall our analysis shows that the potential gains from an IFD agreement exceed those available from traditional trade liberalization. This provides a strong incentive for non-participating developing countries to join the IFD, reform their investment frameworks along the IFD agenda, and use the support structure contained in the section on special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed country members.

Behavioral economics has shown that changing small features in framing a context or action may drastically change behavior. A key factor characterizing most development interventions is the salience of either a local or an international implementer. Using the setup of an intervention conducted in Indonesia, we show that the study population in the Acehnese context exhibits higher levels of support for the project if the participation of international actors is highlighted. We find that previous experience with the respective actor is pivotal. Qualitative evidence suggests that internationals' perceived skills drive results, highlighting the importance of strengthened local capacities for positive experiences with local implementers. Overall, the study underlines the benefits of linking framing experiments to the actual experiences of respondents to generate insights into the real world.

Behavioral economics has shown that changing small features in framing a context or action may drastically change behavior. A key factor characterizing most development interventions is the salience of either a local or an international implementer. Using the setup of an intervention conducted in Indonesia, we show that the study population in the Acehnese context exhibits higher levels of support for the project if the participation of international actors is highlighted. We find that previous experience with the respective actor is pivotal. Qualitative evidence suggests that internationals' perceived skills drive results, highlighting the importance of strengthened local capacities for positive experiences with local implementers. Overall, the study underlines the benefits of linking framing experiments to the actual experiences of respondents to generate insights into the real world.

Behavioral economics has shown that changing small features in framing a context or action may drastically change behavior. A key factor characterizing most development interventions is the salience of either a local or an international implementer. Using the setup of an intervention conducted in Indonesia, we show that the study population in the Acehnese context exhibits higher levels of support for the project if the participation of international actors is highlighted. We find that previous experience with the respective actor is pivotal. Qualitative evidence suggests that internationals' perceived skills drive results, highlighting the importance of strengthened local capacities for positive experiences with local implementers. Overall, the study underlines the benefits of linking framing experiments to the actual experiences of respondents to generate insights into the real world.

Äthiopien hat eine lange Geschichte als Aufnahmeland von Geflüchteten aus seiner ostafrikanischen Nachbarschaft. Das mit etwa 114 Millionen Einwohner:innen zweitbevölkerungsreichste Land Afrikas war zugleich immer wieder auch Schauplatz erheblicher  Binnenvertreibungen aufgrund politischer Unruhen. Nachdem 2020 ein militärischer Konflikt im Bundesstaat Tigray im Norden des Landes ausbrach, der sich rasch zu einem Bürgerkrieg ausweitete, sind Millionen Menschen vertrieben worden. Zehntausende von ihnen  flohen in den benachbarten Sudan. Der vorliegende Beitrag behandelt beide Seiten der äthiopischen Fluchtverhältnisse: Er erörtert sowohl die durch den Tigray-Krieg ausgelöste Vertreibungskrise als auch die Situation Hunderttausender ausländischer Geflüchteter, die seit vielen Jahren, oft Jahrzehnten, im Land leben.

Äthiopien hat eine lange Geschichte als Aufnahmeland von Geflüchteten aus seiner ostafrikanischen Nachbarschaft. Das mit etwa 114 Millionen Einwohner:innen zweitbevölkerungsreichste Land Afrikas war zugleich immer wieder auch Schauplatz erheblicher  Binnenvertreibungen aufgrund politischer Unruhen. Nachdem 2020 ein militärischer Konflikt im Bundesstaat Tigray im Norden des Landes ausbrach, der sich rasch zu einem Bürgerkrieg ausweitete, sind Millionen Menschen vertrieben worden. Zehntausende von ihnen  flohen in den benachbarten Sudan. Der vorliegende Beitrag behandelt beide Seiten der äthiopischen Fluchtverhältnisse: Er erörtert sowohl die durch den Tigray-Krieg ausgelöste Vertreibungskrise als auch die Situation Hunderttausender ausländischer Geflüchteter, die seit vielen Jahren, oft Jahrzehnten, im Land leben.

Äthiopien hat eine lange Geschichte als Aufnahmeland von Geflüchteten aus seiner ostafrikanischen Nachbarschaft. Das mit etwa 114 Millionen Einwohner:innen zweitbevölkerungsreichste Land Afrikas war zugleich immer wieder auch Schauplatz erheblicher  Binnenvertreibungen aufgrund politischer Unruhen. Nachdem 2020 ein militärischer Konflikt im Bundesstaat Tigray im Norden des Landes ausbrach, der sich rasch zu einem Bürgerkrieg ausweitete, sind Millionen Menschen vertrieben worden. Zehntausende von ihnen  flohen in den benachbarten Sudan. Der vorliegende Beitrag behandelt beide Seiten der äthiopischen Fluchtverhältnisse: Er erörtert sowohl die durch den Tigray-Krieg ausgelöste Vertreibungskrise als auch die Situation Hunderttausender ausländischer Geflüchteter, die seit vielen Jahren, oft Jahrzehnten, im Land leben.

Am 8. Mai jährte sich die Verabschiedung der südafrikanischen Verfassung zum 27. Mal. Neben den ersten demokratischen Wahlen von 1994, aus denen Nelson Mandela als Präsident und die frühere Befreiungsbewegung African National Congress (ANC) als Regierungspartei hervorgingen, markiert sie für das Land das Ende des über vier Jahrzehnte herrschenden Apartheid: Denn bis dahin verfügten die Nachfahren der europäischen Kolonialmächte die Rassentrennung für alle Lebensbereiche und Wohngebiete in den Städten – und verwehrten der nicht-weißen Bevölkerungsmehrheit ihre Grundrechte. Wie steht es heute um die Demokratie Südafrikas? Inwiefern wird das Land dem in seiner international als vorbildlich angesehenen Verfassung niedergeschriebenen Anspruch gerecht, das soziale Unrecht seiner Vergangenheit anzuerkennen und die Rechte aller dort Lebenden zu schützen – „in unserer Verschiedenheit verbunden“ (united in our diversity)? Welchen Aufschluss gibt in diesem Zusammenhang der Umgang von Politik und Teilen der Gesellschaft mit den in Südafrika wohnenden Migrant*innen aus anderen Ländern Afrikas?

Am 8. Mai jährte sich die Verabschiedung der südafrikanischen Verfassung zum 27. Mal. Neben den ersten demokratischen Wahlen von 1994, aus denen Nelson Mandela als Präsident und die frühere Befreiungsbewegung African National Congress (ANC) als Regierungspartei hervorgingen, markiert sie für das Land das Ende des über vier Jahrzehnte herrschenden Apartheid: Denn bis dahin verfügten die Nachfahren der europäischen Kolonialmächte die Rassentrennung für alle Lebensbereiche und Wohngebiete in den Städten – und verwehrten der nicht-weißen Bevölkerungsmehrheit ihre Grundrechte. Wie steht es heute um die Demokratie Südafrikas? Inwiefern wird das Land dem in seiner international als vorbildlich angesehenen Verfassung niedergeschriebenen Anspruch gerecht, das soziale Unrecht seiner Vergangenheit anzuerkennen und die Rechte aller dort Lebenden zu schützen – „in unserer Verschiedenheit verbunden“ (united in our diversity)? Welchen Aufschluss gibt in diesem Zusammenhang der Umgang von Politik und Teilen der Gesellschaft mit den in Südafrika wohnenden Migrant*innen aus anderen Ländern Afrikas?