Eduardo Wassim Aboultaif critically analyzes civil–military relations and the way armies are constructed in divided societies. To achieve that, the book looks at four case studies with deep divisions and whose armed forces have been reconstructed after civil wars. Lebanon and Bosnia-Herzegovina represent two examples of consociational power-sharing arrangements with functioning armed forces that enjoy wide popular support and neutral in internal affairs. Iraq and Burundi, however, have semi-consociational provisions that have politicized the army and made it a partisan military that has either led to disintegration (as in the case of Iraq) or politicization and loss of legitimacy (as in Burundi).

How does one build democracy in the aftermath of a violent, deep-rooted conflict? This handbook shows how to structure negotiations and design democratic institutions which address the real needs and interests of conflicting parties. It provides practical advice for policy-makers and political leaders in post-conflict societies and presents a wealth of options that can be drawn upon to build a sustainable peace. Aimed at those negotiating a peace settlement, this book provides a thorough overview of democratic levers - such as power-sharing formulas, questions of federalism and autonomy, options for electoral reform, when to use truth commissions, transitional justice mechanisms, methods of preserving minority rights, constitutional safeguards and many others. It also analyses actual negotiated settlements from various countries and illustrates the many, often unrecognized, options that negotiators can draw upon when attempting to build or rebuild democracy.

This book studies the origins and evolution of power sharing in Lebanon. The author has established a relationship between mobilization, ethnurgy (ethnic identification), memory and trauma, and how they impact power sharing provisions. The book starts with the events in the 1820s, when communities began to politicize their identities, and which led to the first major outbreak of civil violence between the Druze and the Maronites. Consequently, these troubled four decades in Lebanon led to the introduction of various forms of power-sharing arrangements to establish peace. The political systems introduced in Lebanon are: the Kaim-Makamiya (dual sub-governorship), a quasi-federal arrangement; the Mutassarifiya, the prototype of a power-sharing system; the post-independence political system of Lebanon which the book refers to as semi-consociation, due to the concentration of executive powers in the Presidential office; and finally, the full consociation of the Taif Republic. In each of these phases, there was a peculiar interaction between the non-structural elements that had a direct impact on power sharing; this led at times to instability, and at other times it brought down the system, as in 1840–1860 and 1975. Power Sharing in Lebanon is the first academic work that emphasizes the influence of the non-structural elements that hinder power sharing. This volume is now a key resource for students and academics interested in Lebanese Politics and the Middle East.

Nearly all the peace accords signed in the last two decades have included power-sharing in one form or another. The notion of both majority and minority segments co-operating for the purposes of political stability has informed both international policy prescriptions for post-conflict zones and home-grown power-sharing pacts across the globe. This book examines the effect of power-sharing forms of governance in bringing about political stability amid deep divisions. It is the first major comparison of two power-sharing designs – consociationalism and centripetalism - and it assesses a number of cases central to the debate, including Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi and Northern Ireland. Drawing on information from a variety of sources, such as political party manifestoes and websites, media coverage, think tank reports, and election results, the author reaches significant conclusions about power-sharing as an invaluable conflict-management device. This text will be of key interest to students and scholars of ethnic conflict management, power-sharing, ethnic politics, democracy and democratization, comparative constitutional design, comparative politics, intervention and peace-building.

"The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic marks the most significant, singular global disruption since World War II, with health, economic, political, and security implications that will ripple for years to come." -Global Trends 2040 (2021) Global Trends 2040-A More Contested World (2021), released by the US National Intelligence Council, is the latest report in its series of reports starting in 1997 about megatrends and the world's future. This report, strongly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, paints a bleak picture of the future and describes a contested, fragmented and turbulent world. It specifically discusses the four main trends that will shape tomorrow's world: - Demographics-by 2040, 1.4 billion people will be added mostly in Africa and South Asia. - Economics-increased government debt and concentrated economic power will escalate problems for the poor and middleclass. - Climate-a hotter world will increase water, food, and health insecurity. - Technology-the emergence of new technologies could both solve and cause problems for human life. Students of trends, policymakers, entrepreneurs, academics, journalists and anyone eager for a glimpse into the next decades, will find this report, with colored graphs, essential reading.

Military intervention in a conflict without a reasonable prospect of success is unjustifiable, especially when it is done in the name of humanity. Couched in the debate on the responsibility to protect civilians from violence and drawing on traditional 'just war' principles, the centralpremise of this book is that humanitarian military intervention can be justified as a policy option only if decision makers can be reasonably sure that intervention will do more good than harm. This book asks, 'Have past humanitarian military interventions been successful?' It defines success as saving lives and sets out a methodology for estimating the number of lives saved by a particular military intervention. Analysis of 17 military operations in six conflict areas that were thedefining cases of the 1990s-northern Iraq after the Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo and East Timor-shows that the majority were successful by this measure. In every conflict studied, however, some military interventions succeeded while others failed, raising the question, 'Why have some past interventions been more successful than others?' This book argues that the central factors determining whether a humanitarian intervention succeeds are theobjectives of the intervention and the military strategy employed by the intervening states. Four types of humanitarian military intervention are offered: helping to deliver emergency aid, protecting aid operations, saving the victims of violence and defeating the perpetrators of violence. Thefocus on strategy within these four types allows an exploration of the political and military dimensions of humanitarian intervention and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each of the four types.Humanitarian military intervention is controversial. Scepticism is always in order about the need to use military force because the consequences can be so dire. Yet it has become equally controversial not to intervene when a government subjects its citizens to massive violation of their basic humanrights. This book recognizes the limits of humanitarian intervention but does not shy away from suggesting how military force can save lives in extreme circumstances.

Freedom in the World, the Freedom House flagship survey whose findings have been published annually since 1972, is the standard-setting comparative assessment of global political rights and civil liberties. The survey ratings and narrative reports on 192 countries and a group of select territories are used by policy makers, the media, international corporations, and civic activists and human rights defenders to monitor trends in democracy and track improvements and setbacks in freedom worldwide. Press accounts of the survey findings appear in hundreds of influential newspapers in the United States and abroad and form the basis of numerous radio and television reports. The Freedom in the World political rights and civil liberties ratings are determined through a multi-layered process of research and evaluation by a team of regional analysts and eminent scholars. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information, including foreign and domestic news reports, academic studies, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region, in conducting their research. The methodology of the survey is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these standards are applied to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.