| Feb. 13, 2024, 4:20 p.m. |
Created
43
|
[{"model": "core.projectfund", "pk": 63698, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 8, "amount": 746596, "start_date": "2015-06-01", "end_date": "2019-02-28", "raw_data": 186418}}]
|
|
| Jan. 30, 2024, 4:24 p.m. |
Created
43
|
[{"model": "core.projectfund", "pk": 56535, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 8, "amount": 746596, "start_date": "2015-06-01", "end_date": "2019-02-28", "raw_data": 166705}}]
|
|
| Jan. 2, 2024, 4:15 p.m. |
Created
43
|
[{"model": "core.projectfund", "pk": 49350, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 8, "amount": 746596, "start_date": "2015-06-01", "end_date": "2019-02-28", "raw_data": 141099}}]
|
|
| Dec. 5, 2023, 4:24 p.m. |
Created
43
|
[{"model": "core.projectfund", "pk": 42101, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 8, "amount": 746596, "start_date": "2015-05-31", "end_date": "2019-02-28", "raw_data": 118758}}]
|
|
| Nov. 27, 2023, 2:14 p.m. |
Added
35
|
{"external_links": []}
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
43
|
[{"model": "core.projectfund", "pk": 34809, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 8, "amount": 746596, "start_date": "2015-05-31", "end_date": "2019-02-28", "raw_data": 74944}}]
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
41
|
[{"model": "core.projectorganisation", "pk": 101882, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 18304, "role": "COLLAB_ORG"}}]
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
41
|
[{"model": "core.projectorganisation", "pk": 101881, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 15519, "role": "COLLAB_ORG"}}]
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
41
|
[{"model": "core.projectorganisation", "pk": 101880, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 12552, "role": "COLLAB_ORG"}}]
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
41
|
[{"model": "core.projectorganisation", "pk": 101879, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 10934, "role": "COLLAB_ORG"}}]
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
41
|
[{"model": "core.projectorganisation", "pk": 101878, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 17750, "role": "COLLAB_ORG"}}]
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
41
|
[{"model": "core.projectorganisation", "pk": 101877, "fields": {"project": 11903, "organisation": 11356, "role": "LEAD_ORG"}}]
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
40
|
[{"model": "core.projectperson", "pk": 64063, "fields": {"project": 11903, "person": 20116, "role": "COI_PER"}}]
|
|
| Nov. 21, 2023, 4:39 p.m. |
Created
40
|
[{"model": "core.projectperson", "pk": 64062, "fields": {"project": 11903, "person": 20117, "role": "PI_PER"}}]
|
|
| Nov. 20, 2023, 2:05 p.m. |
Updated
35
|
{"title": ["", "Understanding and managing intra-state territorial contestation: Iraq's disputed territories in comparative perspective"], "description": ["", "\nThe 'disputed territories of Iraq' are a contentious and destabilizing issue with wider regional ramifications of increasing national security importance to the UK. The contestation impacts upon broader Middle East instabilities, and is of interest to the UK and Europe in terms of energy security and economic interests in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region. \n\nThe stability of Iraq is a critical UK foreign policy concern, even though in recent years it has diminished in visibility. Key issues remain unresolved, with perhaps the most pressing being the territorial extent of the Kurdistan Region, its relationship with Baghdad, and the management of security and resources in this oil-rich territory. The centrality of this particular issue also derives from the wider regional implications of the "Kurdish question" that also affects Turkey (a NATO ally), and Iran and Syria. \n\nThis project examines the dynamics of the disputed territories - internally in terms of the social and political aspirations of communities there, and 'externally', in terms of their links with Baghdad and Erbil (the capital of the Kurdistan Region), and the interests of these two power poles, plus their regional and global interactions. It does so with a view to assessing current proposals (including those submitted by the UN in 2009 and Kurdish demands for a referendum on the disputed territories) to resolve what remains a dangerous political stand-off, while presenting an empirically rich and comparative analysis to assist in the formulation of approaches that may assist in the management of the dispute. \n\nThis analysis focuses upon three inter-related issues which we contend lie at the core of the contestation: (1) communal mobilization and the articulation of local aspirations, i.e. what do people in this territory want, in terms of their governance, socio-economic provision, and overall future? (2) the interests of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the Government of Iraq (GoI), in terms of 'security' and natural resource exploitation, and (3) the influence of neighbouring and regional powers (namely Turkey, Iran, Syria, and the Arab Gulf states) and of extra-regional and global powers (especially the US and UK) on the status of the Kurdistan Region and its overall status as either an autonomous entity existing inside Iraq, or an independent entity having seceded from Iraq. \n\nWith this set of understandings in place, the research then considers the current options that have been posited by different interest groups for the resolution of the problem. At the time of writing, two proposals have gathered significant traction. The first is that by the KRG and those political forces in Iraq that tend to stand in opposition to the government, namely the implementation of relevant constitutional articles that specified a roadmap for the resolution of the status of the disputed territories (Article 140). There exist a myriad range of problems regarding the implementation of this article in terms of (a) how the article could be implemented, and (b) the impact of the implementation (or lack of implementation) of the article. The second set of options that exist are those presented by the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in 2009. Following in-depth fieldwork in the disputed territories, UNAMI submitted a range of possible power-sharing options, all of which were rejected by Iraqi stakeholders for reasons of political sensitivity at the time. We contend that these proposals warrant systematic and comparative analysis to identify their appropriateness as possible solutions to the problem. We will base our analysis of these proposals on the current state of the art in relation to the management of territorial disputes in divided societies, thus being able to reflect on what are considered feasible and viable options for relevant institutional designs and how these may be applied in the specific context of Iraq's disputed territories.\n\n"], "extra_text": ["", "\n\nPotential Impact:\nThe research stands to benefit four sets of interests: \n\n1. Local stakeholders in Iraq's disputed territories, including the general population of this region that is subjected to political uncertainties, and their associated structures of local government, including the Governors Offices and Provincial Councils.\n2. Iraqi stakeholders that are contesting ownership/sovereignty over the disputed territories, and namely the offices of the Government of Iraq (Baghdad), and the Kurdistan Regional Government (Erbil). \n3. International stakeholders that have a role to play in mitigating conflict and improving the political stability and socio-economic circumstances in Iraq's disputed territories. These stakeholders include Her Majesty's Government (in particular the FCO and the UK Embassy), the Government of the United States, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), and the EU External Action Service (EEAS).\n4. Commercial interest in the oil and gas sector, and particularly International Oil Companies (IOCs) with interests in Iraq. Of direct relevance to UK interests is the position of Shell and its operations in Iraq and, in the US, Chevron with its operations in the Kurdistan Region. \n\nThe relevance of the proposed research to these beneficiaries is as follows:\n\n1. Local stakeholders: this research would prove important in benchmarking the situation in the disputed territories in what remains a very unstable Iraqi state that is generating increasing concern in the wider regional and international community. The research may identify local approaches to confidence-building measures and further constructive discussion and negotiation over settlement preferences and mechanisms, within the setting of a neutral, objective, project. The project should allow for the articulation of local stakeholder preferences and views to higher levels in the GoI and KRG, and to international stakeholders that are engaged in managing the contestation. Finally, the focus on local stakeholders would also allow for the identification of projects that could improve socio-economic well-being for IOCs corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. \n2. Iraq stakeholders: The GoI and KRG have shown themselves to be remarkably adept at failing to find common ground when negotiating the status of the disputed territories, or the management of resources in these areas. The research can present objective findings to these key stakeholders and also provide further examples of possible solutions from comparative study. Iraqi stakeholders may also benefit from the provision of workshops held in neutral settings (e.g. in RUSI, or in the UK embassy in Baghdad) to discuss draft option papers generated by the research. \n3. International stakeholders: The UK and US remain involved in Iraqi political life, having invested heavily in terms of lives given and resources used in the removal of the Ba'th regime. To see Iraq collapse into civil war would be viewed as a serious problem for London and Washington, and one that both would deem essential to prevent. Yet little work has been done to ascertain the mechanisms by which the disputed territories can be managed, and so this research would provide a much needed analytical support for the diplomatic efforts of London and Washington. The UN has been significantly involved in researching the disputed territories in previous years (UNAMI 2009), yet has not engaged recently. Again, this research will provide a valuable benchmarking for UN efforts. \n4. Commercial interests: IOCs are engaged in Iraq, but struggle to make sense of what the dispute between Erbil and Baghdad means for them in the future. Of concern to companies that work 'with Baghdad' and 'with Erbil' (such as Shell and Chevron respectively) is the negotiations that may lead to a new oil and gas law, that would impact upon their operations. Any such law would require compromises to be reached between Erbil and Baghdad.\n\n\n"], "status": ["", "Closed"]}
|
|
| Nov. 20, 2023, 2:05 p.m. |
Added
35
|
{"external_links": [48174]}
|
|
| Nov. 20, 2023, 2:05 p.m. |
Created
35
|
[{"model": "core.project", "pk": 11903, "fields": {"owner": null, "is_locked": false, "coped_id": "49cd4678-7062-414e-b4cd-f5155dae6478", "title": "", "description": "", "extra_text": "", "status": "", "start": null, "end": null, "raw_data": 74927, "created": "2023-11-20T13:44:21.355Z", "modified": "2023-11-20T13:44:21.355Z", "external_links": []}}]
|
|