Securitization of Climate Change- Issues for Global and National Security

The Energy and Resources Institute and the India Office of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung aim to bring together a diverse set of perspectives on aspects of global security by involving experts through research and dialogue; the experts range from scientists to practitioners drawn from the domains of climate change, governance and security. The objective of this policy study is to discuss various aspects of ‘securitization of climate change’, which include non-traditional security, external security, internal security and political dynamics. The initiative aims to serve the constructivist function of informing the discussion on securitization of climate change in India and all over the world. Realists in international literature consider non-traditional security issues such as anthropogenic climate change, pandemics and food security as second-order problems especially for the major security powers of the world. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate how a non-traditional security issue is of traditional security concern. Security establishments are actively involved in activities such as rescue, control, prevention and even cure. The United States Department of Defense, for instance, has army researchers who are working and collaborating to develop rapid COVID-19 testing technology and vaccines. India has also invoked the provisions of the Disaster Management Authority Act 2005 to treat COVID-19 as a national disaster and undertake measures, in coordination with state governments, for rescue, relief and rehabilitation. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1625 of 2005 has broadened the role of the UNSC by adding conflict prevention through addressing ‘root causes’ in its ambit. In the five UNSC open debates that have transpired so far, China and the Russian Federation have opposed while France and the United Kingdom have supported the UNSC dealing with climate change as a security threat. The United States of America has been ambiguous on this aspect. All participating members of the European Union and the Pacific Small Island Developing States, and a majority of the Alliance of Small Island States favour UNSC dealing with climate security concerns. A majority of the member states of the Group of 77 and the Non- Aligned Movement have opposed the legitimization of the UNSC in dealing with climate change. Emerging narratives position climate change and security using three rationales. First, in terms of ‘adaptation’ as climate change and environmental changes pose significant risks for the traditional security structures themselves. Second as ‘disaster response mechanism’ where armed forces need to be well trained and equipped to ensure that humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and non-combatant evacuation operations are provided on a timely basis. Third, in terms of ‘conflict mitigation’ as nontraditional security challenges can lead to disasters and environmental degradation which in turn could lead to disasters hence requiring traditional security structures. The first two rationales are more widely accepted in countries while the third rationale (conflict mitigation) is still not supported with evidence. Traditional security may not be an inclusive way of approaching climate change but then again, traditional external and internal security institutions cannot be discounted. Security structures at the national level may need to be deployed fully towards objectives of adaptation and disaster response. However, international goals, given the aspect of historical responsibilities for climate change, will not be served by securitisation but through equitable norms of international cooperation.

Safeguarding the Rule of Law –The need for consistency and adherence to established law by the Supreme Court in a Pandemic

- by Eklavya Vasudev

This article aims to scrutinize the judiciary’s role in maintaining the rule of law in a situation where one arm of the State (the legislature) has not been in function due to the nature of an unprecedented situation like the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that the Supreme Court must strictly act as per its constitutional mandate and issue orders and judgments which are consistent and bound in sound legal reasoning.

FICCI-KAS Knowledge Report on “Blue Economy” launched


The India-EU Partnership: A New Era of Multilateral Cooperation

- by Aastha Kaul

Konrad Adenaeur Stiftung hosted the India-EU-Germany Dialogue on Effective Global Governance: A New Era of Multilateral Cooperation. The Dialogue carried an Indian delegation to exchange views on the future of multilateralism. The delegation visited three key European cities namely Geneva, Brussels & Berlin, each home to significant institutions that undergird the international governance architecture, where discussions explored potential avenues for India-EU multilateral cooperation on international, European, and bilateral levels.

The Challenge of Building a “Free and Open” Indo-Pacific Region

- by Prof. Brahma Chellaney

The Indo-Pacific region, uniting the Indian and Pacific oceans, is the world’s economic and geopolitical hub.

A Special Relationship Between Two Democratic Powers (Indo-German Relations)

- by Prof. Brahma Chellaney

A paper on the special relationship that India and Germany have forged.

© Yann Forget / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA

Wahlen in den indischen Bundesstaaten Maharashtra und Haryana

Eine Verschiebung der Machtverhältnisse?

Die Auswirkungen der Bundesstaatswahlen in Indien für die regierende Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) und ihre größte Opposition, den Indian National Congress (INC).

BLUE ECONOMY - "Global Best Practices Takeaways for India and Partner Nations"

- by FICCI & KAS

Comprehensive Study on Blue Economy dealing on exploitation and preservation of the marine environment

Narendra Modi / flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0

Wenn der Elefant den Drachen zum Tanz bittet

Informelles Gipfeltreffen zwischen Modi und Xi

Vom 11. bis zum 12. Oktober 2019 haben sich der indische Premierminister Narendra Modi und der chinesische Staatspräsident Xi Jinping im südindischen Tamil Nadu zu einem informellen Gipfel getroffen. Während viele Beobachter dem Ereignis insbesondere aufgrund der diesjährigen Spannungen zwischen den beiden Staaten erwartungsvoll entgegensahen, waren die Ergebnisse überschaubar. Durch seinen informellen Charakter hatte das Zusammentreffen eher symbolische Bedeutung.

wikimedia commons

„Houston, wir haben kein Problem“

Indiens Premierminister Modi und der amerikanische Präsident Trump Hand in Hand bei dem „Howdy, Modi!“-Event in Houston, Texas

Vor fünf Jahren hatte Modi noch im New Yorker Madison Square seinen ersten Wahlsieg gefeiert. Zuvor war ihm die Einreise in die USA seit fast einem Jahrzehnt verweigert worden. Anti-muslimische Pogrome im Jahr 2002 im indischen Bundesstaat Gujarat, in dem Modi seit 2001 Ministerpräsident war, forderten mindestens tausend Menschenleben und trugen damals zu seinem umstrittenen Ansehen bei. Sein Staatsbesuch 2014 wurde daher von vielen als Versuch gesehen, sein Image auf der Weltbühne positiv zu verändern. Seitdem hat sich in der indischen Politik viel verändert; Modi gewann 2019 zum zweiten Mal – und noch deutlicher – die indischen Parlamentswahlen auf Unionsebene mit einer absoluten Mehrheit.