Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Deutschland stellt sich thematisch zu breit auf in einer sich neu ausrichtenden Weltordnung. Das zeigt sich besonders in der Entwicklungspolitik, die als Instrument deutscher Außenpolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit dort eingesetzt werden sollte, wo Wirkung realistisch nachgewiesen ist.

Deutschland stellt sich thematisch zu breit auf in einer sich neu ausrichtenden Weltordnung. Das zeigt sich besonders in der Entwicklungspolitik, die als Instrument deutscher Außenpolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit dort eingesetzt werden sollte, wo Wirkung realistisch nachgewiesen ist.

Deutschland stellt sich thematisch zu breit auf in einer sich neu ausrichtenden Weltordnung. Das zeigt sich besonders in der Entwicklungspolitik, die als Instrument deutscher Außenpolitik und internationaler Zusammenarbeit dort eingesetzt werden sollte, wo Wirkung realistisch nachgewiesen ist.

Germany is spreading itself too thinly across too many issues in a world order that is undergoing realignment. This is particularly evident in development policy, which, as an instrument of German foreign policy and international cooperation, should be used where its effectiveness has been realistically proven.

Germany is spreading itself too thinly across too many issues in a world order that is undergoing realignment. This is particularly evident in development policy, which, as an instrument of German foreign policy and international cooperation, should be used where its effectiveness has been realistically proven.

Germany is spreading itself too thinly across too many issues in a world order that is undergoing realignment. This is particularly evident in development policy, which, as an instrument of German foreign policy and international cooperation, should be used where its effectiveness has been realistically proven.

Dr. Triantafyllos Karatrantos, Research Associate at ELIAMEP, analyzes the new European Union EU Counter-Terrorism Agenda, explaining how rapid changes in the digital environment, increasing online radicalization, and complex geopolitical developments make an adapted and strengthened strategy necessary.

In this context, the EU’s new institutional initiative aims to effectively address terrorism and violent extremism, both in the physical and digital domains, promoting a comprehensive and coherent response within the framework of the ProtectEU Internal Security Strategy.

Read the ELIAMEP Explainer here (in Greek).

On 11 March 2026, the President of the European Council, António Costa and the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev met in Baku, the Republic of Azerbaijan.

On 11 March 2026, the President of the European Council, António Costa and the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev met in Baku, the Republic of Azerbaijan.

On 11 March 2026, the President of the European Council, António Costa and the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev met in Baku, the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Pressing environmental and societal challenges, such as the climate crisis and social inequality, demand policy interventions to steer and accelerate sustainability transitions. This chapter highlights four key intervention areas: providing direction to transitions (directionality), fostering innovation (niche support), phasing out unsustainable practices (regime destabilisation), and coordinating transition processes (coordination). We outline their theoretical rationale in transition studies and offer interdisciplinary insights from policy research. Based on a comprehensive literature review, we present 15 concrete policy interventions to transform production and consumption systems. Evaluating these interventions with empirical findings from leading transition journals, we highlight research opportunities at the intersection of public policy and sustainability transitions. Given the resistance and contestation around transformational policies, we aim to foster interdisciplinary exchange on how to accelerate sustainability transitions.

Pressing environmental and societal challenges, such as the climate crisis and social inequality, demand policy interventions to steer and accelerate sustainability transitions. This chapter highlights four key intervention areas: providing direction to transitions (directionality), fostering innovation (niche support), phasing out unsustainable practices (regime destabilisation), and coordinating transition processes (coordination). We outline their theoretical rationale in transition studies and offer interdisciplinary insights from policy research. Based on a comprehensive literature review, we present 15 concrete policy interventions to transform production and consumption systems. Evaluating these interventions with empirical findings from leading transition journals, we highlight research opportunities at the intersection of public policy and sustainability transitions. Given the resistance and contestation around transformational policies, we aim to foster interdisciplinary exchange on how to accelerate sustainability transitions.

Pressing environmental and societal challenges, such as the climate crisis and social inequality, demand policy interventions to steer and accelerate sustainability transitions. This chapter highlights four key intervention areas: providing direction to transitions (directionality), fostering innovation (niche support), phasing out unsustainable practices (regime destabilisation), and coordinating transition processes (coordination). We outline their theoretical rationale in transition studies and offer interdisciplinary insights from policy research. Based on a comprehensive literature review, we present 15 concrete policy interventions to transform production and consumption systems. Evaluating these interventions with empirical findings from leading transition journals, we highlight research opportunities at the intersection of public policy and sustainability transitions. Given the resistance and contestation around transformational policies, we aim to foster interdisciplinary exchange on how to accelerate sustainability transitions.

Là Direction Départementale de la Santé de l'Atlantique a lancé le recrutement de 155 agents de plusieurs catégories. La clôture du dépôt des dossiers est fixée au 15 mars. Voici les conditions et dossier à fournir ...

This chapter explores the role of social cohesion in African post-colonial state- and nation-building. It argues that understandings of social cohesion, rooted in pre-colonial traditions and concepts, were central to political and intellectual debates during decolonization in the 1960s and remain relevant today. Drawing on ethnophilosophical sources, such as oral traditions, proverbs, and communal practices, as well as social theories of African humanism and socialism, this chapter identifies core African notions of interconnectedness, collective responsibility, and the common good. Concepts including ubuntu, ujamaa, harambee, and other local philosophies illustrate how interdependence, identity, lineage, and community well-being shaped both traditional societies and post-independence political visions. African leaders and intellectuals invoked these ideas to legitimize distinctive paths of development, often contrasting them with Western models of statehood and individualism. At the same time, tensions arose between local, national, and pan-African identities, and between communal ideals and the practicalities of mass societies. By situating these debates historically and conceptually, this chapter demonstrates that social cohesion has been a constitutive element of African state- and nation-building and offers insights into contemporary challenges of inclusion, identity, and unity across diverse societies.

This chapter explores the role of social cohesion in African post-colonial state- and nation-building. It argues that understandings of social cohesion, rooted in pre-colonial traditions and concepts, were central to political and intellectual debates during decolonization in the 1960s and remain relevant today. Drawing on ethnophilosophical sources, such as oral traditions, proverbs, and communal practices, as well as social theories of African humanism and socialism, this chapter identifies core African notions of interconnectedness, collective responsibility, and the common good. Concepts including ubuntu, ujamaa, harambee, and other local philosophies illustrate how interdependence, identity, lineage, and community well-being shaped both traditional societies and post-independence political visions. African leaders and intellectuals invoked these ideas to legitimize distinctive paths of development, often contrasting them with Western models of statehood and individualism. At the same time, tensions arose between local, national, and pan-African identities, and between communal ideals and the practicalities of mass societies. By situating these debates historically and conceptually, this chapter demonstrates that social cohesion has been a constitutive element of African state- and nation-building and offers insights into contemporary challenges of inclusion, identity, and unity across diverse societies.

This chapter explores the role of social cohesion in African post-colonial state- and nation-building. It argues that understandings of social cohesion, rooted in pre-colonial traditions and concepts, were central to political and intellectual debates during decolonization in the 1960s and remain relevant today. Drawing on ethnophilosophical sources, such as oral traditions, proverbs, and communal practices, as well as social theories of African humanism and socialism, this chapter identifies core African notions of interconnectedness, collective responsibility, and the common good. Concepts including ubuntu, ujamaa, harambee, and other local philosophies illustrate how interdependence, identity, lineage, and community well-being shaped both traditional societies and post-independence political visions. African leaders and intellectuals invoked these ideas to legitimize distinctive paths of development, often contrasting them with Western models of statehood and individualism. At the same time, tensions arose between local, national, and pan-African identities, and between communal ideals and the practicalities of mass societies. By situating these debates historically and conceptually, this chapter demonstrates that social cohesion has been a constitutive element of African state- and nation-building and offers insights into contemporary challenges of inclusion, identity, and unity across diverse societies.

This paper analyses both theoretically and empirically, the relationship between inequality and social cohesion, where social cohesion is conceptualized as a multi-faceted phenomenon encompassing three core attributes: trust, inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good. These attributes operate along two dimensions: the horizontal and the vertical dimension. First, it provides an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between inequality and the three attributes of social cohesion. While inequality is likely to have a negative effect on all three attributes, the intensity of the relationship may depend on some key mediating factors. The empirical analysis focuses on Africa, given the scarce evidence for this continent. As expected, it shows that countries with higher income inequality usually have lower levels of social cohesion, measured by an aggregate index. This negative correlation holds when the three attributes of social cohesion are examined separately; however, the intensity varies. It is stronger for trust than for identity and cooperation. Further analysis indicates that a clear negative relationship between inequality and social cohesion attributes is visible only when the focus is on the horizontal dimension of social cohesion.

This paper analyses both theoretically and empirically, the relationship between inequality and social cohesion, where social cohesion is conceptualized as a multi-faceted phenomenon encompassing three core attributes: trust, inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good. These attributes operate along two dimensions: the horizontal and the vertical dimension. First, it provides an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between inequality and the three attributes of social cohesion. While inequality is likely to have a negative effect on all three attributes, the intensity of the relationship may depend on some key mediating factors. The empirical analysis focuses on Africa, given the scarce evidence for this continent. As expected, it shows that countries with higher income inequality usually have lower levels of social cohesion, measured by an aggregate index. This negative correlation holds when the three attributes of social cohesion are examined separately; however, the intensity varies. It is stronger for trust than for identity and cooperation. Further analysis indicates that a clear negative relationship between inequality and social cohesion attributes is visible only when the focus is on the horizontal dimension of social cohesion.

This paper analyses both theoretically and empirically, the relationship between inequality and social cohesion, where social cohesion is conceptualized as a multi-faceted phenomenon encompassing three core attributes: trust, inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good. These attributes operate along two dimensions: the horizontal and the vertical dimension. First, it provides an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between inequality and the three attributes of social cohesion. While inequality is likely to have a negative effect on all three attributes, the intensity of the relationship may depend on some key mediating factors. The empirical analysis focuses on Africa, given the scarce evidence for this continent. As expected, it shows that countries with higher income inequality usually have lower levels of social cohesion, measured by an aggregate index. This negative correlation holds when the three attributes of social cohesion are examined separately; however, the intensity varies. It is stronger for trust than for identity and cooperation. Further analysis indicates that a clear negative relationship between inequality and social cohesion attributes is visible only when the focus is on the horizontal dimension of social cohesion.