Please find below a listing with synopses of the Partnership for Peace Consortium's various policy recommendation papers, which were produced through the activities of our various Working and Study Groups. The policy recommendation papers cover topics of interest in international security.
This paper contains policy recommendations that were developed as a follow-up to the June 2016 Migration Crisis: Foreign Terrorist Fighters Challenges & Responses Tabletop Exercise that was conducted by the PfPC's Combating Terrorism Working Group at the George C. Marshall Center in Garmisch-Parkenkirchen, Germany.
This report contains policy recommendatoins for preventing, intervening in and mitigating radicalization that leads to violent extremism. The report is based on a countering violent extremism table top exercise held 1-3 March 2016 in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
These policy recommendations propose leveraging the South Caucasus media to reshape public opinion and to prepare for constructive change in relations among groups locked in frozen conflict in the South Caucasus.
This paper contains policy recommendations that were developed as a follow-up to the July 2015 Foreign Terrorist Fighters Challenges & Responses Tabletop Exercise that was conducted by the PfPC's Combating Terrorism Working Group at the George C. Marshall Center in Garmisch-Parkenkirchen, Germany.
This policy paper was produced following the the Regional Stability in South East Europe (RSSEE) Workshop on “Countering Violent Extremism in the Western Balkans,” held from 27 to 29 September 2015. The workshop, organized in cooperation with Austria’s National Defense Academy and the Belgrade Center for Security Policy, analyzed violent extremism in the region in order to produce policy recommendations on how to address violent extremism via a regional, transnational and comprehensive approach.
Hybrid conflicts are complex phenomena that do not readily fit into today’s security policy frameworks. Further aggravating matters is (1) the absence of an accepted legal definition and (2) the use of conventional and nonconventional tools by combatants to achieve their ends often coupled with a blatant disregard for international law. Such practices impede the ability of policymakers to pre-empt and resolve hybrid conflicts within traditional policy frameworks.
Despite difficulties, policymakers can recognize certain characteristics of hybrid conflict, such as the coordinated use of conventional and non-conventional means in conjunction with the use of media and other force-multiplier technologies to reduce the power of state response. When facing hybrid conflicts policymakers would be well served to (1) consider means to enhance human and cultural intelligence, (2) improve early warning and enhance understanding of technological developments and the increased role of social media, and (3) adopt a more comprehensive approach to better enable institutions to respond to hybrid warfare.