II. The Legal and Institutional Framework Under German Law
3. Institutional Setting and Action Plan “Civilian Crisis Prevention”
What seems to be more creative and forward orientated than the 2005 Law on parliamentary approval of international deployment of German armed forces is the strategy adopted by the German Federal Govern- ment with regard to the broader agenda of conflict prevention. While the issue as such has long been a focus of foreign policy, the changing nature of numerous conflicts after the end of the Cold War necessitates a fresh look at conflict prevention. The challenges which are most pressing in this regard result from the increasing number of regional conflicts and failing states, from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the spread of trans-national terrorism, from organised crime and the privatisation of violence, and many other sources.
The German Federal Government has realized that crisis prevention must be part of its broader concept of security with a need to adopt an integrative approach. Such approach must include not only foreign, se- curity and development policy, but also economic, financial and envi- ronmental issues. Recognition thereof has led to efforts to re-arrange administrative structures accordingly. The political focus of these ef- forts today is the Action Plan “Civilian Crisis Prevention, Conflict
28 This criticism was voiced by the German parliamentary opposition at the time, the CDU; cf. BT-Drs. 15/4264, at p. 6.
Resolution and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding.”29 The Plan was adopted in May 2004. It builds on the changing nature of conflicts, draws perti- nent conclusions with regard to Germany’s approach to crisis preven- tion, and identifies not only fields of action but specific initiatives to be implemented over a period of five to ten years.
What the Federal Government aims at is to improve its coordinating crisis prevention policy and make it more coherent. Crisis prevention, at least according to the Action Plan, is to be developed into a guideline for, and a task that involves all fields of national policy. By September 2004, an Interministerial Steering Group for civilian crisis prevention was established and charged with implementing the various measures contained in the Action Plan. This committee includes representatives from all Federal Ministries. It is headed by the Federal Foreign Office Commissioner for Civilian Crisis Prevention, Conflict Resolution and Post-Conflict Peace-Building. In 2006, the Interministerial Steering Group will report to the German Bundestag on the progress that has been achieved in the field of civilian crisis prevention.
So far, the Action Plan has hardly been discussed from the perspective of international law.30 If doing so, however, it can be illustrated that the Plan includes some elements of traditional conflict prevention as they emerged in public international law, and builds upon and extends them towards a more comprehensive approach, including post-conflict peacebuilding. Modern public international law, as it has developed over time, does not only provide the tools for the making and enforce- ment of rules in international relations but ipso facto also serves conflict prevention.31 In the course of the 19th century, academia and practice re- alized that there was a need to develop specific (and more refined) in- struments of conflict prevention and for the peaceful settlement of dis- putes, ranging from negotiation and mediation to arbitral and judicial settlement. These strategies have been included in Chapter VI of the UN Charter. They have been further developed in light of a broader va-
29 <http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/infoservice/download/pdf/
friedenspolitik/AP%20EN.pdf>.
30 T. Marauhn, Der Aktionsplan Krisenprọvention der Bundesregierung aus vửlkerrechtlicher Perspektive, Die Friedenswarte 79 (2004), 299-312.
31 P. Schneider, „Frieden durch Recht“. Von der Eingehung des Krieges zur gewaltfreien Konfliktbeilegung, Sicherheit und Frieden 18 (2000), 54-66.
riety of conflicts, actors, and policies, emerging over time, in particular, towards the end of the 20th century.32
This process was supported, stimulated and sometimes initiated by the United Nations. Recent institutional reforms within the UN are ample evidence thereof, including the UN Interdepartmental Framework for Co-ordination on Early Warning and Preventive Action, the Joint UNDP/DPA Programme on Building National Capacity for Conflict Prevention, and the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.33 Apart from these institutional developments, a lot of concep- tual work has been done within the framework of the UN, including the UN Secretary-General’s report on “Prevention of armed conflict”34 aiming at a translation of the “rhetoric of conflict prevention into con- crete action.”35 Trends and tendencies can also be taken from the “In- terim report of the Secretary-General on the prevention of armed con- flict.”36 Moving from “early warning” to “early action”, these develop- ments pinpoint the need to rely not only on military options but to de- velop a broad variety of legitimate interventions. This has to be consid- ered against the background that states today are reluctant to intervene and thus tend to downplay existing dangers and risks. The crisis in Dar- fur is a sad example to this end.37
The German Federal Government’s Action Plan and its institutional backbone thus fit into the general policies which have been developed in international law over time. Pertinent policies are all based on the comprehensive prohibition of force in international relations as embod- ied in Article 2, para. 4, of the UN Charter. Unfortunately, the German Action Plan does not explicitly refer to this starting point, which would have been important in particular in light of the weakening of the pro-
32 See Marauhn (note 30), at 301.
33 For further information on those institutional developments see <http://
www.un.org/Depts/dpa/prev_dip/fr_preventive_action.htm>.
34 UN Doc. A/55/985 (= UN Doc. S/2001/574); UN Doc.
A/55/985/Corr. 1 (= UN Doc. S/2001/574/Corr. 1).
35 UN Doc. A/55/985, at p. 3.
36 UN Doc. A/58/365 (= UN Doc. S/2003/888).
37 See N.J. Udombana, When Neutrality is a Sin. The Darfur Crisis and the Crisis of Humanitarian Intervention in Sudan, Human Rights Quarterly 27 (2005), 1149-1199. But see also P. Alston, The Darfur Commission as a Model for Future Responses to Crisis Situations, Journal of International Criminal Justice 3 (2005), 600-607.
hibition in light of recent developments such as Kosovo and Iraq.38 While a reinforcement of the prohibition of the use of force is missing within the Action Plan, the remainder follows a convincing line, mov- ing from the obligation to peacefully settle disputes, across preventive arms control and disarmament, towards what is termed co-operative and supplementary measures.39 The Action Plan thus extends the scope of crisis prevention and moves towards an integrated system of post- conflict peacebuilding and preventive action.