Hans van den Berg

The European Union can be considered as the triumph of liberal institutionalism. However, the international community only seems to understand a realist rhetoric. It is therefore questionable to what extend the EU needs to move towards a more realistic outward perspective rather than its current liberal institutionalist. To understand the extent of this necessity three cases studies have been conducted to identify windows of opportunity in policy areas where the Union is currently fragmented. At the same time these situations expose the necessity for the EU to take on a stance which is more pragmatic and oriented on the protecting and promotion of its interests. The dependency of the Union’s members on Russian energy offers an opportunity to further integrate the single market and build a more stable relationship. The issues surrounding NATO membership and the current U.S. approach are discussed to further explore possibilities for a more autonomous EU military and further harmonisation and integration of the Unions Defence and Security policies. By exploring these subjects, a conclusion is drawn that the EU is in a position where it can harmonise its internal liberal institutionalist perspective with an outward realist position to withstand the international power struggle.

Religion is often considered to be a motivator and mobiliser of masses in conflict areas. It is labeled as the negative contributor to conflict instead of a potential positive influence on conflict transformation. The Western secularisation is associated with a modern, democratic, pluralistic state, those states that are dominated by culture and religion are perceived as premodern, undemocratic, and intolerant (Powers, 2010). Often religion is dealt the unimportant role at the negotiation table, ignoring a major dimension to many conflicts. The goal of this paper is to review this role of religion and discover its benefits to the peacebuilding process. Mozambique, Nigeria, Cambodia, and Bosnia are cases in which religion played an important role either in the conflict, the peacebuilding process, or both. After examining each case a more generalised view will be given on the role that religion can have within peacebuilding. As an author I acknowledge that religion is often a tool used by criminal and war leaders, political and religious elites, and those in power to gain personal financial or political benefits or secure and increase their political power. It is not the goal to refute or examine this claim, but to develop an understanding of the influence of religion on a grassroots level in a positive way towards peace. Based on the analyses of the cases and the theory conclusions are drawn on how the international community can strengthen the role of religion.

The problem with aggression is the difficulty of defining what is permissible and impermissible aggression. The Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression has made the first important steps to define a line not to be crossed when dealing with aggression. It builds on a foundation laid by the treaty of Versailles that was to end the wars all wars. In this paper I wish to research the history, meaning, and challenges within the amendments accepted at the Review Conference in Kampala. I want to explore what further needs to be done, so the definition of and jurisdiction over the crime of aggression can contribute to the international peace and security and hold responsible those committing mass atrocities.

Often the public questions if what the government does is correct, if it can be trusted and if the solutions and decisions made are correct. In this the public trusts science to give independent advice to the government to make the right decision. But science and politics have become intertwined, science has become dependent on the government for grants and politics has become dependent on science to legitimize its decisions (Weingart, 1999).
How decisions are reached and legitimized is not solely dependent on science. It is how an issue reaches the political agenda, often a specific event puts an issue at the top of the agenda. The issue, however, can be framed by the government in such a way that it only covers a part of the complete problem. The information given to the public can even be manipulated by which the solution given to the problem seems to be the best solution, leaving out all the other information. It is through this art of framing that policy makers legitimize their decisions.
The case studied for this paper will show these different aspects of issue framing. In December 2015 the United Kingdom parliament, or the House of Commons, voted in favour of bombing ISIS on the territory of Syria. Back in 2013 it had voted against such intervention, events and framing leading up to the vote in 2015 have changed the opinion of MPs. The case shows how the framing by the Cameron government influenced public opinion, and tried to legitimize it long desired support to the United States led actions in Syria.
The development in the crisis in Syria can be considered as very recent, but with the sensitivity of the issue there is a lot of information available making it an interesting case to analyse to see how an issue reaches the agenda, in which way policy makers frame a problem and solution, and how expert advice is used to the advantage of the government.

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is a beautiful but troubled state that seems to be unable to move on from its past. Political reform, stability and peace are not as sure as many like to think. The country has made great progress, working towards NATO membership and filing an official EU candidacy application. International actors, institutions and organisations seem to be its main obstabcles. Some argue the Office of the High Representative (OHR) is like a governor forcing policies and legislation. Others promote the positive influence of such organisations; guaranteeing peace, stability, implementation of the Dayton Accords and preventing eruption of new hostilities.
In my research on BiH I found that two states, Russia and Turkey, exert considerable influence on the Bosniak and Serb segments of BiH. It is their actions and policy which have left me to question what their impact has been on the development of BiH. I have attempted to find and describe the “operational codes” for both actors by analysing official statements, public appearances, speeches by representatives of the governments and media reports. I used the theory concerning operation codes by George complemented by Holsti and others. I tried to answer five “philosophical” questions on how the actors perceive BiH and their influence on it, as well as five “instrumental” questions on how their policy goals are set and pursued.
This has lad me to conclude that both actors believe to have considerable influence. Turkey uses a wide range of tools to exert influence, such as economic and political support. Organising diplomatic meetings between different ethnic groups. It utilises its shared Ottoman heritage and history and its position in international organisations such as NATO. Along its wide range of tools it sets multiple goals with several sub-objectives and seizes opportunities to pursue them. Turkey invests in reconstruction of Muslim monuments and in educational facilities. It believes BiH is peaceful, but conflict is possible by misinterpretations of events by different ethnic groups. Turkey has been criticised for its focus on Muslim communities and projects.
Russia uses more limited means to exert its influence, namely its international influence, its common Slavic heritage and political and limited financial support. By safely testing the waters it progresses slowly towards limited goals with few sub-objectives. It only seizes the opportunities in which its limited means can be used. For instance Russia didn’t support the Republika Srpska the first time it asked for a loan. And it didn’t make any deals with Serbia for military equipment against reduced prices. Only after a second attempted and when it noticed little resistance from the international community Russia gave such support. Finally I apply the discovered operational codes to BiH’s timeline and we can observe the influence of both states.