The dispute between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan over the delimitation of the Caspian Sea has been one of the focal points of relations between the two states and has had negative spillover effects for the region. The conflict prolonged the process of determining a new status for the sea, as the parties failed to build mutually beneficial bilateral relations, and the implementation of regionally important transportation projects such as the Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP) have been delayed. However, the signing of a new Convention on the status of the Caspian Sea in 2018 in Aktau, was met with optimism for the delimitation of the seabed and the construction of the TCP. The present research aims to find out whether the new Convention of 2018 on the status of the Caspian Sea resolved the long-standing dispute between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan and to assess the potential of implementing the TCP under the new conditions.
{"title":"Convention of 2018 on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea and Delimitation dispute between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan","authors":"S. Abilov, Ceyhun Mahmudlu, N. Abdullayev","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.13","url":null,"abstract":"The dispute between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan over the delimitation of the Caspian Sea has been one of the focal points of relations between the two states and has had negative spillover effects for the region. The conflict prolonged the process of determining a new status for the sea, as the parties failed to build mutually beneficial bilateral relations, and the implementation of regionally important transportation projects such as the Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP) have been delayed. However, the signing of a new Convention on the status of the Caspian Sea in 2018 in Aktau, was met with optimism for the delimitation of the seabed and the construction of the TCP. The present research aims to find out whether the new Convention of 2018 on the status of the Caspian Sea resolved the long-standing dispute between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan and to assess the potential of implementing the TCP under the new conditions.","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":"1 1","pages":"229-250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42187668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict resolution process had experienced insurmountable deadlock due to the failure of the peace negotiations brokered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France, and the United States since the mid-1990s. The so-called Velvet Revolution of Armenia in 2018 was unable to deliver any progress, although a breakthrough was expected of, and promised by, the new leadership of the country. This, coupled with the constant provocations of the military and political leaders of Armenia, aggravated the conflict and led to the outbreak of an almost full-scale war on September 27, 2020. The war changed the status quo and created an environment for the negotiated resolution of the conflict following the establishment of a humanitarian ceasefire in Moscow. Armenia’s subsequent violations of the ceasefire regime by targeting Azerbaijani civilians have, however, demonstrated that peace is likely to remain an inaccessible dream of the region’s people in the short to medium term.
{"title":"Peace Negotiations Cannot Be Held Forever: Breaking the Deadlock in the Armenia–Azerbaijan Conflict","authors":"Farid Shafiyev, Vasif Huseynov","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.07","url":null,"abstract":"The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict resolution process had experienced insurmountable deadlock due to the failure of the peace negotiations brokered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France, and the United States since the mid-1990s. The so-called Velvet Revolution of Armenia in 2018 was unable to deliver any progress, although a breakthrough was expected of, and promised by, the new leadership of the country. This, coupled with the constant provocations of the military and political leaders of Armenia, aggravated the conflict and led to the outbreak of an almost full-scale war on September 27, 2020. The war changed the status quo and created an environment for the negotiated resolution of the conflict following the establishment of a humanitarian ceasefire in Moscow. Armenia’s subsequent violations of the ceasefire regime by targeting Azerbaijani civilians have, however, demonstrated that peace is likely to remain an inaccessible dream of the region’s people in the short to medium term.","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":"1 1","pages":"99-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42524579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The collapse of the Muammar Qaddafi regime was ostensibly the prelude to a democratic Libya. The 2012 election elicited much optimism. By 2014, the domestic situation had taken an unexpected turn for the worse, resulting in two governments, one in the east and one in the west, each supported by numerous militias. While the civil war has pitted Libyans against Libyans, foreign interventions on behalf of opposite side in the conflict have hindered the end of the civil war. Indisputably, foreign interference had begun well before the civil war; however, the military backing to the protagonists has become more pronounced since 2014. The foreign powers involved in the Libyan conflict aim to fulfill specific interests, some of which deriving from the rivalries between those countries. Unless those foreign powers have achieved their goals in Libya, an end to the civil war anytime soon remains unlikely, occasional ceasefires notwithstanding.
{"title":"The Protracted Civil War in Libya: The Role of Outside Powers","authors":"Y. Zoubir","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.01","url":null,"abstract":"The collapse of the Muammar Qaddafi regime was ostensibly the prelude to a democratic Libya. The 2012 election elicited much optimism. By 2014, the domestic situation had taken an unexpected turn for the worse, resulting in two governments, one in the east and one in the west, each supported by numerous militias. While the civil war has pitted Libyans against Libyans, foreign interventions on behalf of opposite side in the conflict have hindered the end of the civil war. Indisputably, foreign interference had begun well before the civil war; however, the military backing to the protagonists has become more pronounced since 2014. The foreign powers involved in the Libyan conflict aim to fulfill specific interests, some of which deriving from the rivalries between those countries. Unless those foreign powers have achieved their goals in Libya, an end to the civil war anytime soon remains unlikely, occasional ceasefires notwithstanding.","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":"1 1","pages":"11-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42981952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Libyan crisis has been a litmus test for European unity and the EU’s ability to act together. Europe's relations with post-revolutionary Libya and European policies on Libya have been characterized by the frequently conflicting interests of Paris, London and Rome, with Berlin emerging as a result of a UN invitation to try and put an end to the instability in Libya. Until the January 2020 Berlin summit, European political and diplomatic interaction with Libya was the domain of EU Member States, with the EU being limited to performing the familiar functions of lending its administrative weight to joint policy roles such as countering migration, promoting business or supporting a developmental road towards stability. All in all, EU strategy remains committed to decision-making mechanisms at Member State level; however, what is exposed in Libya is that the EU toolbox can be a valuable weapon if Europe has a coherent stance. A continuing struggle between member states over how to handle the new world that is emerging in the wake of the Pax Americana is also exposed in European policy on Libya.
{"title":"The EU Policy toward Libya","authors":"Tarek Megerisi","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.02","url":null,"abstract":"The Libyan crisis has been a litmus test for European unity and the EU’s ability to act together. Europe's relations with post-revolutionary Libya and European policies on Libya have been characterized by the frequently conflicting interests of Paris, London and Rome, with Berlin emerging as a result of a UN invitation to try and put an end to the instability in Libya. Until the January 2020 Berlin summit, European political and diplomatic interaction with Libya was the domain of EU Member States, with the EU being limited to performing the familiar functions of lending its administrative weight to joint policy roles such as countering migration, promoting business or supporting a developmental road towards stability. All in all, EU strategy remains committed to decision-making mechanisms at Member State level; however, what is exposed in Libya is that the EU toolbox can be a valuable weapon if Europe has a coherent stance. A continuing struggle between member states over how to handle the new world that is emerging in the wake of the Pax Americana is also exposed in European policy on Libya.","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":"1 1","pages":"29-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43541969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay seeks to demonstrate that there are both ethical and practical considerations for enabling refugees to manage the coronavirus disease (COVID-19 pandemic) Given that a majority of refugees live in highly congested environments, particularly urban areas, an outbreak would swiftly spread through their local communities Our argument is twofold: (i) That a new approach is needed to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic -one that recognizes mounting challenges facing refugees and relies on international cooperation rather than the myopic rhetoric and sentiments of xenophobic right-wing politicians;(ii) That helping refugees to curb the spread of the current coronavirus cannot be divorced from social contexts, hence the necessity of improving employment, basic health services, and educational opportunities for refugees
{"title":"Managing the Refugee Crisis in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"M. Monshipouri, B. Ellis, Cassidy Renee Yip Yip","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.11","url":null,"abstract":"This essay seeks to demonstrate that there are both ethical and practical considerations for enabling refugees to manage the coronavirus disease (COVID-19 pandemic) Given that a majority of refugees live in highly congested environments, particularly urban areas, an outbreak would swiftly spread through their local communities Our argument is twofold: (i) That a new approach is needed to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic -one that recognizes mounting challenges facing refugees and relies on international cooperation rather than the myopic rhetoric and sentiments of xenophobic right-wing politicians;(ii) That helping refugees to curb the spread of the current coronavirus cannot be divorced from social contexts, hence the necessity of improving employment, basic health services, and educational opportunities for refugees","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":"1 1","pages":"179-200"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46457309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this commentary, we advocate for a comprehensive framework to address the political, economic, and social challenges facing Libya. The proposal draws a clear roadmap that begins with establishing trust and extending the authority of the government across the Libyan territory. As the waters get muddied with poorly conceived political proposals, the project advocated for in this commentary stands out as a genuine, empirically-based framework toward a solution for the Libyan crisis.
{"title":"From Zero-sum to Positive Sum: Cultivating Political Settlement and Reform in Libya","authors":"Shatha Sbeta, Mohamed A. Abufalgha","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.06","url":null,"abstract":"In this commentary, we advocate for a comprehensive framework to address the political, economic, and social challenges facing Libya. The proposal draws a clear roadmap that begins with establishing trust and extending the authority of the government across the Libyan territory. As the waters get muddied with poorly conceived political proposals, the project advocated for in this commentary stands out as a genuine, empirically-based framework toward a solution for the Libyan crisis.","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":"1 1","pages":"87-97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43897527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Libya has been witnessing a long and destructive civil war since the fall of Qaddafi in 2011. While countries like the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and France have an extremely damaging role in Libya, Turkey and Qatar has been trying to focus on ending the conflict and establishing a stable democratic country. Hafter’s invasion attempt, supported by the UAE and Egypt, failed as a result of Turkey’s intervention. In this regard, it would be correct to say that the peace process and political dialogue has only become possible with Turkey’s involvement in the Libyan equation. In Libya, where tribal ties are already effective, and centralization is weak, long-term conflicts have deeply shaken social cohesion. Furthermore, international actors have remained uninterested in Libya or preferred to fuel the problem rather than solve it. All of these factors, made it difficult for Turkey to implement its plans in Libya. Nevertheless, both Libya and Turkey have achieved major gains since the beginning of the year. In this context, this study aims to underscore the challenges of aforementioned process and consequently acquisitions of both sides.
{"title":"Turkey’s Libya Policy: Achievements and Challenges","authors":"I. Telci","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.03","url":null,"abstract":"Libya has been witnessing a long and destructive civil war since the fall of Qaddafi in 2011. While countries like the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and France have an extremely damaging role in Libya, Turkey and Qatar has been trying to focus on ending the conflict and establishing a stable democratic country. Hafter’s invasion attempt, supported by the UAE and Egypt, failed as a result of Turkey’s intervention. In this regard, it would be correct to say that the peace process and political dialogue has only become possible with Turkey’s involvement in the Libyan equation. In Libya, where tribal ties are already effective, and centralization is weak, long-term conflicts have deeply shaken social cohesion. Furthermore, international actors have remained uninterested in Libya or preferred to fuel the problem rather than solve it. All of these factors, made it difficult for Turkey to implement its plans in Libya. Nevertheless, both Libya and Turkey have achieved major gains since the beginning of the year. In this context, this study aims to underscore the challenges of aforementioned process and consequently acquisitions of both sides.","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":"1 1","pages":"41-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49652628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Libya, inspired by the February 17 revolution but devastated by post-revolt challenges, is struggling to build order, as state, non-state, and external actors exacerbate the already fragile security environment. Among these actors, state and non-state actors pose a repeating and paradoxical dilemma. Libya’s post-Qaddafi state structure has been formed by non-state armed actors, and at the same time these actors threaten the survival of the state; certain non-state armed groups compete against each other to accumulate more power, while in some cases being legitimized and funded by the state itself. The root causes of this paradoxical situation can be scrutinized by investigating the security culture inherited from Qaddafi’s regime, particularly its inefficient and ignored security institutionalization, and the efforts of the competing armed groups to dominate their areas of influence in the absence of a coherent state structure.
{"title":"Hybrid Political Order in Libya: State, Non-State and Armed Actors","authors":"Murat Aslan","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.09","url":null,"abstract":"Libya, inspired by the February 17 revolution but devastated by post-revolt challenges, is struggling to build order, as state, non-state, and external actors exacerbate the already fragile security environment. Among these actors, state and non-state actors pose a repeating and paradoxical dilemma. Libya’s post-Qaddafi state structure has been formed by non-state armed actors, and at the same time these actors threaten the survival of the state; certain non-state armed groups compete against each other to accumulate more power, while in some cases being legitimized and funded by the state itself. The root causes of this paradoxical situation can be scrutinized by investigating the security culture inherited from Qaddafi’s regime, particularly its inefficient and ignored security institutionalization, and the efforts of the competing armed groups to dominate their areas of influence in the absence of a coherent state structure.","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42136409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the last decade, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has emerged as a leading counter-revolutionary force in the Middle East. Feeling the heat of change in the region, the small, oil-rich Gulf country adopted an aggressive foreign policy that defined the UAE as a disruptive force that aims to reverse the fledgling democratic trend in the Middle East. After succeeding in Egypt in 2013, Abu Dhabi decided to support field marshal and warlord Khalifa Haftar in Libya to overthrow the UN-recognized government in Tripoli, take over power, and control Libya by force. To that end, the UAE offered massive military, financial, and diplomatic support to Haftar. In this context, the present paper aims to discuss the UAE’s interventions in Libya in terms of their nature, extent, motives, goals and repercussions. It highlights the UAE’s efforts to weave regional and international alliances to support Haftar and tries to answer the questions why Abu Dhabi has been able to act with impunity in Libya despite being the top foreign player fueling the war there for many years, and whether it will be able to achieve its goals and continue its interventions in the oil-rich North African country or not.
{"title":"The UAE’s Disruptive Policy in Libya","authors":"Ali Bakir","doi":"10.25253/99.2020224.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.10","url":null,"abstract":"In the last decade, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has emerged as a leading counter-revolutionary force in the Middle East. Feeling the heat of change in the region, the small, oil-rich Gulf country adopted an aggressive foreign policy that defined the UAE as a disruptive force that aims to reverse the fledgling democratic trend in the Middle East. After succeeding in Egypt in 2013, Abu Dhabi decided to support field marshal and warlord Khalifa Haftar in Libya to overthrow the UN-recognized government in Tripoli, take over power, and control Libya by force. To that end, the UAE offered massive military, financial, and diplomatic support to Haftar. In this context, the present paper aims to discuss the UAE’s interventions in Libya in terms of their nature, extent, motives, goals and repercussions. It highlights the UAE’s efforts to weave regional and international alliances to support Haftar and tries to answer the questions why Abu Dhabi has been able to act with impunity in Libya despite being the top foreign player fueling the war there for many years, and whether it will be able to achieve its goals and continue its interventions in the oil-rich North African country or not.","PeriodicalId":44871,"journal":{"name":"Insight Turkey","volume":"1 1","pages":"157-177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41618227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：