No / The Atlantic burden-sharing debate during the early part of the twenty-first century is shaping up to be very different from those of NATO's first fifty years. The resources needed for direct defence of western Europe have fallen sharply, and further cuts are possible. The gradual strengthening of European cooperation means that the EU is becoming an actor in its own right in many international regimes. Debates about which countries are pulling their weight internationally are also taking into account contributions to non-military international public goods¿financing EU enlargement, aiding the Third World, reducing emissions of climate-damaging pollutants. In this new multidimensional debate, it becomes more apparent that states that contribute more to one regime often do less than most in another. Germany, for example, is concerned about its excessive contribution to the costs of EU enlargement, but it spends considerably less than France and the UK on defence. European countries contribute three times as much as the United States to Third World aid, and will soon pay almost twice as much into the UN budget. Yet they were dependent on the US to provide most of the military forces in the 1999 Kosovo conflict, and would be even more dependent in the event of a future Gulf war. This widening of the burden-sharing debate contains both dangers and opportunities. It could lead to a fragmentation of the Atlantic dialogue, with each side talking past the other on an increasing number of issues, ranging from global warming to Balkan peacekeeping. In order to avoid such a dangerous situation, the US and European states should maintain the principle that all must make a contribution to efforts to tackle common problems, whether it be through troops in Kosovo or commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet there should also be some flexibility in defining who does how much. The preparedness of some countries to lead, by doing more, will be essential if international cooperation is to have a chance to work.

<p>Co-operation between states is a necessity to be able to handle environmental issues in the Baltic Sea area, since these are transboundary problems. Two organisations that deal with environmental issues in this region are HELCOM and Baltic 21. The aim has been to study how the problem of pollution from diffuse land-based sources, especially agriculture, has been dealt with through these organisations, to look upon the roles of and the relationship between HELCOM and Baltic 21 and to study the possibilities and the difficulties in the practical co-operation. The study holds a Swedish perspective, as Swedish representatives with connections to the HELCOM and Baltic 21 processes have been interviewed. The analysis shows that the EU is becoming increasingly important as an actor in the Baltic Sea co-operation, which makes the future roles of HELCOM and Baltic 21 uncertain. Concerning the difficulties of the work, aspects mentioned were cultural differences, group problems and lack of resources. To improve the work some proposals made by the interviewees were to use the experiences from different projects and to increase the resources.</p>

<p>Försvarsmaktens slutrapport från perspektivplaneringen 2007 innehåller ett avsnitt vilket avhandlar strategiskt samarbete med andra stater. Flera områden, vilka berör Försvarsmaktens operativa förmåga, identifieras som lämpliga för samarbete med de nordiska länderna. I detta sammanhang uttrycker Försvarsmakten ett bibehållande av nationell strategisk handlingsfrihet trots att uppbyggnaden av den operativa förmågan föreslås delas mellan olika länder. Uppsatsens problem och syfte tar sitt avstamp i ovan beskrivna sammanhang. Detta sker genom att undersöka vad begreppet handlingsfrihet kan sägas betyda när det uttrycks i sammanhang av mellanstatligt samarbete. Resultatet av begreppsanalysen visar att handlingsfrihet i den aktuella kontexten innefattar en för aktören inre kamp kring mål och medel samt en kamp mot de begränsningar traditioner och lagar ger. Vidare innehåller begreppet en yttre kamp syftande till att optimera åtgärder för att undersöka motståndarens intention</p> / <p>The Armed Forces’ final report from the perspective planning in 2007 contains a section which deals with strategic cooperation with other states. Several areas, which affect the Armed Forces operational capability, are identified as suitable for collaboration with the Nordic countries. In this context, the Armed Forces express maintenance of national strategic freedom of action, while building the operational capacity would be allocated between different countries. The essay’s problem and objective takes its starting point in the context described above. This is done by examining what freedom of action can be said to mean when it is expressed in the context of intergovernmental cooperation. The result of the conceptual analysis shows that freedom of action in the current context includes an internal struggle about means and ends, and a struggle against the limitations provided by traditions and laws. The result also makes the notion of an external struggle that is aimed at optimizing measures to investigate the opponent's intentions.</p>

Försvarsmaktens slutrapport från perspektivplaneringen 2007 innehåller ett avsnitt vilket avhandlar strategiskt samarbete med andra stater. Flera områden, vilka berör Försvarsmaktens operativa förmåga, identifieras som lämpliga för samarbete med de nordiska länderna. I detta sammanhang uttrycker Försvarsmakten ett bibehållande av nationell strategisk handlingsfrihet trots att uppbyggnaden av den operativa förmågan föreslås delas mellan olika länder. Uppsatsens problem och syfte tar sitt avstamp i ovan beskrivna sammanhang. Detta sker genom att undersöka vad begreppet handlingsfrihet kan sägas betyda när det uttrycks i sammanhang av mellanstatligt samarbete. Resultatet av begreppsanalysen visar att handlingsfrihet i den aktuella kontexten innefattar en för aktören inre kamp kring mål och medel samt en kamp mot de begränsningar traditioner och lagar ger. Vidare innehåller begreppet en yttre kamp syftande till att optimera åtgärder för att undersöka motståndarens intention / The Armed Forces’ final report from the perspective planning in 2007 contains a section which deals with strategic cooperation with other states. Several areas, which affect the Armed Forces operational capability, are identified as suitable for collaboration with the Nordic countries. In this context, the Armed Forces express maintenance of national strategic freedom of action, while building the operational capacity would be allocated between different countries. The essay’s problem and objective takes its starting point in the context described above. This is done by examining what freedom of action can be said to mean when it is expressed in the context of intergovernmental cooperation. The result of the conceptual analysis shows that freedom of action in the current context includes an internal struggle about means and ends, and a struggle against the limitations provided by traditions and laws. The result also makes the notion of an external struggle that is aimed at optimizing measures to investigate the opponent's intentions.

The thesis analyses the systems, dynamics and conditions of international cooperation/non-cooperation in the international community that is embodied through international/regional institutions and organisations. As Robert Cooper describes, the international community consists of the three worlds in which the differences between them may be confrontational in international cooperation. While the post-modern civilisation and values are introduced into the institutions and organisations for international peace and security, the state actors from the pre-modern and modern civilisations and values are vigorously defending the traditional version of state sovereignty. Then, all these are equally the member of the international community and, as Robert Axelrod's Prisoner Dilemma game sets, neither state actors nor structural actors of international relations can escape from it. Therefore, it is hoped that, as Axelrod's theory suggests, the closed community, in the end, produces cooperation and a positive peace for a better future for all. In the case studies, the OSCE faces a number of non-cooperative state actors, like Russia. An anti-OSCE civilisation exists and is resisting the organisational values, while it is staying in the framework. Thus, the organisation is suffering from defectors and free-riders. Knowing the limitation of the organisation, it still has a space for improvement and a useful function which is to provide a long term process to make a non-cooperate actor cooperative.

The thesis analyses the systems, dynamics and conditions of international cooperation/non-cooperation in the international community that is embodied through international/regional institutions and organisations. As Robert Cooper describes, the international community consists of the three worlds in which the differences between them may be confrontational in international cooperation. While the post-modern civilisation and values are introduced into the institutions and organisations for international peace and security, the state actors from the pre-modern and modern civilisations and values are vigorously defending the traditional version of state sovereignty. Then, all these are equally the member of the international community and, as Robert Axelrod¿s Prisoner Dilemma game sets, neither state actors nor structural actors of international relations can escape from it. Therefore, it is hoped that, as Axelrod¿s theory suggests, the closed community, in the end, produces cooperation and a positive peace for a better future for all. In the case studies, the OSCE faces a number of non-cooperative state actors, like Russia. An anti-OSCE civilisation exists and is resisting the organisational values, while it is staying in the framework. Thus, the organisation is suffering from defectors and free-riders. Knowing the limitation of the organisation, it still has a space for improvement and a useful function which is to provide a long term process to make a non-cooperate actor cooperative.

A Cooperação Jurídica Internacional não é um fenômeno completamente novo para o mundo do Direito, mas o crescente desenvolvimento das relações entre pessoas, bens e capitais situados em territórios sob jurisdições diferentes, provoca a necessidade de revisão de conceitos já parcialmente ultrapassados do Direito Internacional Público e Direito Internacional Privado. Neste contexto histórico, onde deve prevalecer a agilidade nas comunicações e na circulação também dos produtos jurídicos, sem perder de vista o respeito às particularidades de cada Estado e de seu ordenamento jurídico, surge questão especialmente nova da Cooperação Jurídica Internacional Vertical, aquela mantida entre Estados, por intermédio de seus juízes, órgãos de persecução e Tribunais domésticos, com Tribunais Internacionais e seus órgãos de persecução. O Direito Internacional Público fornece os instrumentos necessários e suficientes para a manutenção dessas relações jurídicas entre Estados e Tribunais Internacionais, inclusive no Brasil, cujas leis e Constituição reconhecem a importância da Justiça Internacional. / International Legal Co-operation is not an entirely new phenomenon to the world of Law, but the increasing development of relations between people, goods and assets located within territories under different jurisdictions, gives rise to revision of concepts already partly outdated, in the realms of International Law and Conflict of Laws. As a part of such historical context, in which should prevail the agility of communications, and also the circulation of legal products, without losing sight of the respect for the particularities of each state and its legal system, arises the especially new question of Vertical International Legal Co-operation, that maintained between National States, through its judges, prosecuting bodies and domestic courts; with International Tribunals and their organs of persecution. International Law provides for the necessary and sufficient tools for the maintenance of these legal relations between States and International Courts, even with Brazil, whose laws and Constitution recognize the importance of International Justice.

Co-operation between states is a necessity to be able to handle environmental issues in the Baltic Sea area, since these are transboundary problems. Two organisations that deal with environmental issues in this region are HELCOM and Baltic 21. The aim has been to study how the problem of pollution from diffuse land-based sources, especially agriculture, has been dealt with through these organisations, to look upon the roles of and the relationship between HELCOM and Baltic 21 and to study the possibilities and the difficulties in the practical co-operation. The study holds a Swedish perspective, as Swedish representatives with connections to the HELCOM and Baltic 21 processes have been interviewed. The analysis shows that the EU is becoming increasingly important as an actor in the Baltic Sea co-operation, which makes the future roles of HELCOM and Baltic 21 uncertain. Concerning the difficulties of the work, aspects mentioned were cultural differences, group problems and lack of resources. To improve the work some proposals made by the interviewees were to use the experiences from different projects and to increase the resources.

A Cooperação Jurídica Internacional não é um fenômeno completamente novo para o mundo do Direito, mas o crescente desenvolvimento das relações entre pessoas, bens e capitais situados em territórios sob jurisdições diferentes, provoca a necessidade de revisão de conceitos já parcialmente ultrapassados do Direito Internacional Público e Direito Internacional Privado. Neste contexto histórico, onde deve prevalecer a agilidade nas comunicações e na circulação também dos produtos jurídicos, sem perder de vista o respeito às particularidades de cada Estado e de seu ordenamento jurídico, surge questão especialmente nova da Cooperação Jurídica Internacional Vertical, aquela mantida entre Estados, por intermédio de seus juízes, órgãos de persecução e Tribunais domésticos, com Tribunais Internacionais e seus órgãos de persecução. O Direito Internacional Público fornece os instrumentos necessários e suficientes para a manutenção dessas relações jurídicas entre Estados e Tribunais Internacionais, inclusive no Brasil, cujas leis e Constituição reconhecem a importância da Justiça Internacional. / International Legal Co-operation is not an entirely new phenomenon to the world of Law, but the increasing development of relations between people, goods and assets located within territories under different jurisdictions, gives rise to revision of concepts already partly outdated, in the realms of International Law and Conflict of Laws. As a part of such historical context, in which should prevail the agility of communications, and also the circulation of legal products, without losing sight of the respect for the particularities of each state and its legal system, arises the especially new question of Vertical International Legal Co-operation, that maintained between National States, through its judges, prosecuting bodies and domestic courts; with International Tribunals and their organs of persecution. International Law provides for the necessary and sufficient tools for the maintenance of these legal relations between States and International Courts, even with Brazil, whose laws and Constitution recognize the importance of International Justice.

yes / The purpose of this paper is to identify how the presence, proliferation, and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW) negatively impact children in conflict and post-conflict societies. It examines the impact of these weapons on children's well-being, rights and development, drawing on primary research in Cambodia, Mozambique, and Colombia. It was prepared in the context of the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in July 2001 and the UN Special Session on Children. Both are key opportunities to examine fully the impact of SALW on children at the international level and to agree global action to prevent and reduce the spread and misuse of the weapons that endanger the safety and undermine the potential of children. While UN agencies, international governmental organisations, human rights and development organisations have documented abuses committed against children, to date there has been no systematic analysis of the numerous ways in which SALW negatively affect the lives of children in conflict and post-conflict situations, let alone in societies at peace. However, the information that has been collected paints a terrible picture of devastation wrought by SALW. The use of small arms by and against children has both direct effects, which include death and injury, human rights abuses, displacement and psychosocial trauma, and indirect effects, which include insecurity, loss of health care, education and opportunities. These direct and indirect effects have both short and long-term impacts on the well-being, rights and development of children. This paper highlights these direct and indirect costs by drawing on the personal testimonies of youth affected by small arms in Cambodia, Mozambique, and Colombia - countries that have felt the devastating impacts of small arms and are currently at different phases of the recovery process. It is often extremely difficult to separate the impact of conflict from the impact of small arms on children but the human suffering caused by small arms is ultimately immeasurable. Indeed, the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called small arms 'weapons of mass destruction' . These weapons often prolong and deepen the consequences of war and also impede post-conflict resolution and reconstruction. If many small arms remain behind after a conflict ends, they can promote insecurity, which in the extreme, may result in a return to conflict. Even in societies at peace, the presence of SALW can fuel crime and violence, and they can also be used by security forces for the facilitation of human rights violations against the civilian population. These weapons have several characteristics that make them ideal for contemporary conflicts and, in particular, the targeting and use of children in war. Many are so lightweight and simple that a child as young as eight can operate and repair them without difficulty. Equally, they can last over 40 years, meaning they can be exported from conflict to conflict through porous borders and lax national, regional, and international controls.