China´s Economic Security Police Towards ASEAN From

After the economic reforms of 1978, China started rising very fast and started engaging other countries in the region which has served to increase its confidence in the region. In the post cold war period, China was seen as a big threat for the region because of its claims on the South China Sea. Nevertheless, this image was eliminated when China engaged ASEAN and other multilateral and regional organizations. This paper is studying China’s economic and security policies towards ASEAN. Globalization Theory is the theory being used to explain the nature of China-ASEAN relations. This research paper argues that China’s rise is promoting peace in the region. With the engagement policy, China started promoting trade and security co operations based on mutual benefits and dialogues for the peaceful resolutions of the disputes in the region. This contributed greatly to improve China’s image in the region. Additionally, China’s posture during the economic crises of 1997 also greatly contributed to improve its image. Thus, the rise of China is providing opportunity to the other countries in East Asia. Chapter One: Background On China-ASEAN Relations The use of Soft Power and engagement policy by the Chinese government has helped to change China’s image in the region. By using these policies China has been able to clear the feeling of suspicion and mistrust among the Asian states. China has increased its participation in multilateral and regional organizations, such as ASEAN. Due to this China has been able to promote economic and security co-operation among countries in the region. Thus, from being a potential threat China became a potential co-operative partner. Chapter Two: A Look into ASEAN ASEAN was originally formed on 8th August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Nevertheless, ASEAN was not the first regional group created to act as forum for dialogue between the leaders of different countries. Thought, it is the only one which could work in the region. The aim of the foundation of ASEAN was to promote peace and stability in the Abstract 2 region and also contain the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. For this reason, China did not engage ASEAN until 1990. However, in 1978 with the establishment of the open up policy China started engaging other countries. It started building trust among its neighboring countries by using soft power. By 1992, China formalized its diplomatic ties with ASEAN as a group. The diplomatic ties between China and ASEAN focus on multilateralism and co-operation as the best way for a more peaceful Asia and the search for common security. Thus, security in the region is promoted through economic co-operation among the states. Therefore the relation between China – ASEAN emphasizes the five principles of peaceful coexistence, mutual benefits in economic co-operation, dialogue promoting trust and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Chapter Three: China-ASEAN Economic Relations Since 1978 The economic reform of 1978 has greatly contributed to the economic development of China. After the adoption of the open up policy, China has been able to establish economic and trade relations with the outside world. The realist school of thought had predicted that Asia will not be stable in the post cold war period. Nevertheless, this has not been the case in Asia. China is growing peacefully with the co-operation of countries in the region. China is establishing strong ties with its neighboring countries. China and ASEAN relations focus on mutual benefit instead of being a zero sum game. Thus these relations are aimed at encouraging trust and economic co-operation in the region. China and ASEAN have agreed on Free Trade to assure that the two parties benefit from the co-operation. The ACFTA will have a great impact on economic, political and security issues. This will enable China to increase its influence in Asia and counterbalance the influences that Japan and U.S have in the region. Chapter Four: China ASEAN Relations in the Security Perspective This Chapter is about China and ASEAN relations on security issue. The new security issues of the post cold war period need to be solved in multilateral way. China as a major power in the region, through its engagement policy has solved most Abstract 3 of the disputes in the region using multilateral means. China has also found ways to solve the dispute over Spratly Islands peacefully, through dialogue using ASEAN. Additionally, China signed the Treaty of Amity in 2003, promoted security initiatives through ARF, Declaration on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and documents covering non-traditional security threats, economic co-operation and agricultural co-operation in November 2002, and the Joint Declaration on Strategic. Chapter Five: Finding and Analysis This chapter provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the date collected throughout this research. It provides an analysis of how the rise of China is promoting peace in the region. China has been promoting mutual beneficial trade and security co-operation which has increased its influence in the region. China has also been able to solve most of the territorial and border dispute in the region through ASEAN. Thus, ASEAN has amended China’s relations with other countries in the region. Therefore, China’s foreign policy in the region has a big impact in shaping the dynamic relations in East Asia. Conclusion and Recommendations This paper concluded that the relationships between China and ASEAN are contributing to peace in the region. After China engaged ASEAN, it has been able to promote multilateral trade based on mutual benefit. This is clearly emphasized by the CAFTA. Additionally, China has solved most of the dispute in the region. It has also found way for a peaceful resolution of the dispute over Spratly Island. Nowadays, the ASEAN countries don’t see China as a threat to the region. Nevertheless, they’ve adopted deterrence measures such as establishing diplomatic relations with other big powers in the region to assure that the region continues to grow peacefully. Concerning this deterrence measures, I recommend as another way for a continued peaceful growth, the resolution of the outstanding dispute.

Les réseaux militaires comme acteurs des relations internationales : le cas du Multinational Interoperability Council

Depuis plus de cinquante ans, les puissances occidentales ont créé toutes sortes de réseaux militaires internationaux, afin de renforcer leurs liens et harmoniser leurs techniques, leurs équipements et leurs façons de faire. Jusqu’à ce jour, ces regroupements sont demeurés largement ignorés de la discipline des relations internationales. Or, la mondialisation des échanges et l’essor des technologies de l’information ont ouvert les processus politiques à de nouveaux acteurs, y compris en matière de sécurité, jetant un éclairage nouveau sur le rôle, la mission et les responsabilités que les États délèguent à ces réseaux. En menant une analyse approfondie d’un réseau militaire, le Multinational Interoperability Council, cette recherche a pour objectifs de définir les réseaux militaires internationaux en tant que catégorie d’analyse des relations internationales, de documenter empiriquement leur fonctionnement et de mieux comprendre leur rôle dans le champ de la sécurité internationale. Pour ce faire, la démarche propose de recourir à l’appareil conceptuel de l’institutionnalisme relationnel, de la théorie des champs et du tournant pratiques en relations internationales. Cette combinaison permet d’aborder les dimensions institutionnelle, cognitive et pratique de l’action collective au sein du réseau étudié. L’analyse nous apprend que, malgré une influence limitée, le MIC produit une identité, des capacités, des préférences et des effets qui lui sont propres. Les acteurs du MIC ont eux-mêmes généré certaines conditions de son institutionnalisation, et sont parvenus à faire du réseau, d’abord conçu comme une structure d’échanges d’informations, un acteur intentionnel du champ de la sécurité internationale. Le MIC ne peut agir de façon autonome, sans contrôle des États. Cependant, les relations établies entre les militaires qui y participent leur offrent des capacités – le capital social, politique et d’expertise – dont ils ne disposeraient pas autrement, et qu’ils peuvent mobiliser dans leurs interactions avec les autres acteurs du champ.

Incidencia de las agresiones a la seguridad cibernética en el desarrollo informático de las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos (2003-2013)

La presente investigación tiene como objetivo analizar la incidencia de las agresiones cibernéticas en el desarrollo informático de las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos. Los diferentes estudios que se han realizado sobre el ciberespacio se han enfocado en el papel del individuo como actor principal y se ha dejado de lado las repercusiones que éste ha tenido para el Estado, como un nuevo eje de amenazas. Teniendo en cuenta lo anterior, esta investigación demostrará a partir del concepto de securitización, que se busca priorizar la “ciberseguridad” dentro de la agenda del gobierno estadounidense. Al ser este un estudio que aborda experiencias concretas durante un periodo de tiempo de más de 10 años, el diseño metodológico de la investigación será longitudinal, ya que abarcará estudios, artículos, textos y resoluciones que se han realizado desde 2003 hasta la actualidad.

Does the Stockholm Programme matter? The struggles over ownership of AFSJ multiannual programming. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security No. 51/December 2012

Does the 2009 Stockholm Programme matter? This paper addresses the controversies experienced at EU institutional levels as to ‘who’ should have ownership of the contours of the EU’s policy and legislative multiannual programming in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) in a post-Lisbon Treaty landscape. It examines the struggles around the third multiannual programme on the AFSJ, i.e. the Stockholm Programme, and the dilemmas affecting its implementation. The latest affair to emerge relates to the lack of fulfilment by the European Commission of the commitment to provide a mid-term evaluation of the Stockholm Programme’s implementation by mid-2012, as requested by both the Council and the European Parliament. This paper shifts the focus to a broader perspective and raises the following questions: Is the Stockholm Programme actually relevant? What do the discussions behind its implementation tell us about the new institutional dynamics affecting European integration on the AFSJ? Does the EU actually need a new (post- Stockholm) multiannual programme for the period 2015–20? And last, what role should the EP play in legislative and policy programming in order to further strengthen the democratic accountability and legitimacy of the EU’s AFSJ?

Poverty, hunger and food security in Central America and Panama

Includes bibliography

Biennial report (2010-2011): Economic and Social Council, official records 2012. Supplement no. 20

Includes resolutions adopted at the thirty-fourth session of the Commission, held in 2012.

Revisiting the Security of the ALRED Design and Two of Its Variants: Marvin and LetterSoup

The ALRED construction is a lightweight strategy for constructing message authentication algorithms from an underlying iterated block cipher. Even though this construction's original analyses show that it is secure against some attacks, the absence of formal security proofs in a strong security model still brings uncertainty on its robustness. In this paper, aiming to give a better understanding of the security level provided by different authentication algorithms based on this design strategy, we formally analyze two ALRED variants-the MARVIN message authentication code and the LETTERSOUP authenticated-encryption scheme,-bounding their security as a function of the attacker's resources and of the underlying cipher's characteristics.

Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)

The past decade has witnessed a period of intense economic globalisation. The growing significance of international trade, investment, production and financial flows appears to be curtailing the autonomy of individual nation states. In particular, globalisation appears to be encouraging, if not demanding, a decline in social spending and standards. However, many authors believe that this thesis ignores the continued impact of national political and ideological pressures and lobby groups on policy outcomes. In particular, it has been argued that national welfare consumer and provider groups remain influential defenders of the welfare state. For example, US aged care groups are considered to be particularly effective defenders of social security pensions. According to this argument, governments engaged in welfare retrenchment may experience considerable electoral backlash (Pierson 1996; Mishra 1999). Yet, it is also noted that governments can take action to reduce the impact of such groups by reducing their funding, and their access to policy-making and consultation processes. These actions are then justified on the basis of removing potential obstacles to economic competitiveness (Pierson 1994; Melville 1999).

Military Capabilities: From Pooling & Sharing to a Permanent and Structured Approach. Security Policy Brief No. 37, September 2012

In 2013 the European Council for the first time since long will deal with European defence. An excellent opportunity: to move key Pooling & Sharing projects to the implementation stage in the short term, and to launch a permanent and structured approach to the development of European military capabilities for the long term.

The start-up fund - an elegant treaty mechanism for sustaining defence capabilities. Security Policy Brief No. 48, June 2013

When the European Council meets in December, it will face a range of decisions which will lay the foundations for Europe's defence posture and role in the wider world for decades to come, perhaps even beyond the remainder of this century. The Lisbon Treaty has, for the first time, equipped the EU with the range of means to meet that role in practice. The question that remains to be answered is whether Europe's leaders have the political will to implement those means in full.

EEAS 2.0. A legal commentary on Council Decision 2010/427/EU establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service. EIPA Working Paper, 2013

From the Preface. Pursuant to Article 13(3) of Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service, the High Representative is held to provide a review of the organisation and functioning of the EEAS by mid-­‐2013. This review will cover, inter alia, the implementation of Article 6(6), (8) and (11), so as to ensure an adequate geographical and gender balance and a meaningful presence of nationals from all member states in the EEAS. If necessary, the review will be accompanied by appropriate proposals for the revision of the 2010 Council Decision (e.g., suggestions for additional specific measures to correct possible imbalances of staffing). In that case, the Council will, in accordance with Article 27(3) TEU, revise the Decision in light of the review by the beginning of 2014. This short and user-­‐friendly legal commentary on the 2010 Council Decision is the first of its kind and is intended to inform those involved in the review process and to serve as a reference document for practitioners and analysts dealing with the EEAS. This commentary is not an elaborate doctrinal piece, but rather a textual and contextual analysis of each article, that takes account of i) other relevant legal provisions (primary, secondary, international), ii) the process leading to the adoption of the 2010 Council Decision (i.e. travauxpréparatoires), iii) the preamble of the Council Decision, and iv) insofar as it is possible at this stage, early implementation. Wherever relevant, cross-­‐references to other provisions of the EEAS Council Decision have been made so as to tie in the different commentaries and ensure overall consistency.

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).