Paper short abstract:

The paper depicts Counter Terrorism strategies of security organizations active in Central Asia, including the OSCE and the SCO. Using the concept of “regime complexity” it scrutinizes the institutional array in this functional domain and assesses its consequences for institutional effectiveness.

Paper long abstract:

The growing density, overlaps and connections among regional security organizations raise the question of how they relate to one another. In fact, inter-organizational relations vary considerably, ranging from cooperation, mutual support, learning or emulation, to downright competition.

The paper proposed for presentation takes issue with inter-organizational relations in Central Asia related to Counter Terrorism. Relations among security organizations tackling these problems are scrutinized, of which (all or most of) the five Central Asian states are either members or third-party objects, inter alia the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the European Union (EU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

For instance, the OSCE has established the Border Management Staff College in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, and the SCO developed the Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure (RATS) in Tashkent. Yet notions, strategies and practices often diverge significantly, as when the SCO and CSTO apply overly broad definitions of “terrorism” and “extremism”. Further, the EU and the OSCE – much more than the latter – link their strategies closely to rule of law reform (regarding penal provisions or the in dubio pro reo principle) and civil society empowerment.

Two key questions stand out in the paper: 1) What regional governance comprising notions of, and strategies and practices against, these challenges, has thus far arisen in this policy field? 2) And how does overlap and organizational interplay affect actor strategies and over-all institutional effectiveness (the ability to achieve established objectives)?

Both qualitative document analysis of subject-related key texts of the five organizations, and semi-structured expert interviews with representatives of these organizations and other ex-perts, are used to gather data.

The paper wishes to make a contribution to the literature on regime complexity which can be broadly seen as one research agenda within rational institutionalism. One definition in this scholarship by Karen Alter and Sophie Meunier, which is used for this study, understands a regime complex as “the presence of nested, partially overlapping and parallel international regimes that are not hierarchically ordered”.

The key questions of the study are why and by what means regime complexes arise from the interactions of actors over time, how they come to overlap, and how their interplay affects actor strategies and regime effectiveness.

Paper short abstract:

This article questions the potential of interventions to become a means of settling domestic conflicts of the states by one another, and how it may particularly contribute to the practice of dispute settlement in a conflict-prone region like Eurasia.

Paper long abstract:

The United Nations (UN) forbids states from interfering in each other's domestic affairs, in order to safeguard their territorial independence and national interests. This concept is essentially a corollary to each nation's territorial sovereignty. Although the duty of the “Non-Intervention” principle is usually seen as prohibiting all outside military interventions, there are historical examples of such action that are widely regarded as legitimate interventions (such as humanitarian intervention). During the process, humanitarian intervention may also cause some national elites, political leaders, and heads of states to undergo trials and punishments by the international judicial channels. The scholarship is currently preoccupied with the damages that these procedures may pose to the national interests of states. What is understudied under this framework is the role of interventions in solving the internal disputes of states and thereby saving their national interests, as contrary to the prevailing belief in this regard. As a case in point, Afghanistan’s intervention in the Tajik civil war between 1992-1997 proved advantageous to resolving the dispute between warring parties. Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Massoud’s personal meetings with the leaders of both parties paved the way for an effective settlement and brought an end to the five-year long civil war. Building on the case of Afghanistan and Tajikistan, this article questions the potential of interventions to become a means of settling domestic conflicts of the states by one another, and how it may particularly contribute to the practice of dispute settlement in a conflict-prone region like Eurasia. In doing so, this article proposes a shift to the “Non-Intervention” principle in international relations. It posits that intervention, at least, may not always refer to a forcible action intruding a given country’s domestic values. Instead, it can sometimes function as a means of conflict resolution by a state to end a period of domestic stalemate in another state. As there is a considerably scarce amount of published materials on this case, the paper largely relies on the author’s interviews with former Jihadist leaders, then Afghan ambassadors to Tajikistan, and close figures to Ahmad Shah Massoud and Burhanuddin Rabbani.

Paper short abstract:

Based on the regional security complex theory, I argue on the formation of a new independent RSC in Central Asia during the last 30 years. The main research question is how the developing relations with South and East Asia are changing the Central Asian regional security complex

Paper long abstract:

Central Asia was detached from the South and East Asia regions for decades. Based on the regional security complex theory, I argue on the formation of a new independent RSC in Central Asia during the last 30 years after the acquisition of sovereignty by regional countries. The main research question is how the developing relations with South and East Asia are changing the Central Asian regional security complex.

There are two hypotheses of the article. First, considering the increasing interests of China, Pakistan and India in Central Asia, the impact of the situation in Afghanistan and the development of the BRI regional security complexes of Central, South and East Asia are becoming more interdependent and penetrating. I argue that in this situation the role of geographically distant Central Asia in the stability and sustainable development of the Indo-Pacific region is significant. Second, Central Asia is no any more dominated by the post-Soviet regional security complex and it is becoming more reliant on the security of South and East Asian regions due to the substantial variety of links with them.