The US-Russia Relations after the 'Reset': Pragmatism or a New Confrontation?
The US-Russia relations are entering a new political season in a shape which is far from being perfect. The “reset” is over, and throughout the years 2011 and especially 2012 the relations have worsened again. Political leadership of both countries is irritated and disappointed with each other. Unlike the last four years, neither Russia nor the US will invest much political capital in their relations improvement, and their relative priority will decrease in both countries’ foreign policies. The share of contradictions in the relations surpasses that of positive cooperation again. Yet, the paper argues, a new worsening of the US-Russia relations or their new stagnation over the next years is in neither side’s interests. The US and Russia still do have an important positive agenda to work on, which is crucial for both sides’ vital national interests. It includes, above all, Afghanistan and the Asia Pacific. The major impediment of progress on both dimensions, the author claims, will be in the near- and middle term future a lack of political will on both sides to move the relations forward.
The Relationship Between NATO and Russia Through the Prism of Mutual Cooperation and Confrontation
The aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between NATO and Russia, to explain the historical background of their relationship, to detect challenges of their relation and to specify the potential future areas of cooperation. Some of their policy objectives are overlapping, so the cooperation enables them to accomplish these important objectives. Although NATO became the most powerful military international organization in the world, over the years, it confronts strategic challenges and dilemmas divided in two groups: existing and new. These challenges included Russia’s aspiration for dominance, developments in Afghanistan, terrorism as an international risk, the Arab Spring, China as a global player and turn of the United States foreign policy toward the Asia-pacific region. This paper will focus on one of these challenges: Russia’s ambitions for dominance and its influence on NATO-Russia relationship, identifying specific areas and issues of cooperation and confrontation. In the foreseeable future, NATO needs to focus on challenges and developments of a strategic importance for the Alliance, such as the innovative efforts for enhanced relationships, limited missions, operations and a realistic combination of solutions that can serve the principles and values of all NATO allies, including the most influential.
The Impact of the Law of the Sea Convention on the Regime for Islands: Problems for the Coastal State in Asserting Claims to “New-Born” Islands in Maritime Zones
ter-productive. The work of the Preparatory Commission will certainly suffer in consequence and the apparently perceived belief that in time, and before a longdelayed coming into force of the Convention, substantial re-negotiation of the Part XI provisions will be possible, may well be illusory. At the time of writing, 138 countries have signed the Convention and 14 have ratified.* What has been called "the convoluted compromise" over prospective Community participation will certainly be widely interpreted as an attempt by the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom to secure eventually a form of limited accession with major reservations.* Their stance will be subjected to criticism within the Community as well as in the General Assembly and the Preparatory Commission. This is a subject to which the writer hopes to return in a future article. For the moment, however, it is as well to note that the stance of these two countries is not to be identified with the US position although its adoption now makes even more remote the emergence of a deep sea-bed mining regime established by " . . . an international treaty of a universal character, generally agreed upon . . . " as required by the 1970 General Assembly Declaration of Principles Governing the Sea-Bed . . . Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction.*