By Filippo Romeo. Geopolitics, the study of how spatial dimension impacts on and affects states’ politics, may offer an important contribution to analysing strategies suited to developing rail infrastructures between Italy and the Balkans. The Balkan idea sets and fixes the concepts and definitions between real and ideological, so as to generate a counter position of geographical and geopolitical concepts. While in some cases the term “Balkans” does refer to a mountainous system, in others the definition tends to stretch to indicate the peninsula, or an area of chronic instability, a Europe powder keg or Continent underbelly, to the point of being used to decline a value judgement (consider the expression “Balkanization”, a paradigm used in other geographical contexts characterised by political instability.) The peculiarity of this space, which was for centuries a vehicle for great migrations, wars, traffic and cultural exchange, is provided by its physical form, which made it a fault, or point of contact, between different areas (Western and Eastern), religious and cultural models (Christianity and Islam, Catholicism and orthodoxy), as well as between two opposing economic models. The Balkans, observing a map, further present a triple “personality” in short distances: Mediterranean and maritime along the coast, Central-European in the Southern plains, Balkan in the continental mass. The ethnic mosaic, another concept linked to the Balkans, seems, then, to represent a sole aspect linked to a wider context, characterised by being complex and fragmentary. The counter positions and tensions distinguishing this area, crossing and subject to external yearning, differently renewed each year till today, appeal to long-term factors in European history, but mainly to insular, peripheral peculiarities and peculiarities of the closed spaces characterising them. These conditions actually made it hard to create and develop a proto-national awareness based on territorial consciousness deriving from urban, bourgeois culture. In contrast, the varied stratification of urban cultures have given rise to various identifying paths, on which Balkan nationalisms, mainly characterised by elements such as ethnocentrism and xenophobia, were built. Affirmation of new nations was actually based predominantly on the glue of purification from elements foreign to the natural Group. Such nationalist drives, on which foreign powers ambiguously weave cultural and geopolitical influence so as to erode definitively the authority of the Ottoman Empire and the institutional base it set up, will turn the Balkans into an area for European powers’ rivalries to clash (interposed). In the same way one may remember how the unification of the Balkans was only possible with intervention by the Sultan’s foreign power. One may indeed state the history of these territories, proceeding in the same direction as geography, characteised by complexity and diversity, reinforced certain peculiar traits such as diffidence towards the State, reinforced cultural identities and weak territorial attachment, mainly linked to the field of the small natural region. Such phenomena reappeared with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disappearance of great multinational entities (the disintegration of the USSR and Yugoslavia), which led to new races to fill empty spaces, hence giving rise to Yugoslav secession wars, which were – not by chance – situated on the ridge of a great geopolitical transition. Europe – in some way agent for intervention in the US area to follow its own strategic interests – failed to take concrete action, and this not only hindered the search for a solution, but also furthered the existing conflicts, until one may call the area a “geopolitical hotbed”. All this went on while the Community in Europe was trying to find a common market and negotiate the Maastricht Treaty to create an Economic Monetary Union. So this crisis created a threat for the European constituting order, and also represented a failed chance for Europe to show it exists and can act as a great power. It is clear that if the policy of a dynamic era like this one can exploit the evolved communication system so as to spread or compromise spaces and adopt names, concepts and strategic doctrines that do not correspond to previous geography, it still cannot change geography itself, or what man accumulated on the land for millennia, from an urban, economic, infrastructure, ethnic and political point of view. Indeed, each strategic representation cannot ignore the powerful bonds created by geography and history. In our age’s geo-history, the “Balkan hinge”, whose borders often divided historians, refers to an idea of a firmly delineated area rather than a great geographical region (is the natural border the Balkan chain or the Danube? Do Rumania or Slovenia belong? Turkey and Greece?) and occupies a European area represented by countries that entered the EU or are have been nominated to. For simplification, this area’s central core may be represented by the triangle of Belgrade-Thessaloníki-Sophia. Under the strictly geopolitical profile, one may state even today the Balkans do not constitute a unified system, but they are very fragmented in both North-South and East-West directions. With the exception of Slovenia, and partly Croatia – for historical reasons tightly linked to Central Europe – the region may be subdivided into Western, Southern and Eastern Balkans. The first area is geopolitically characterised by the contrast between Serbia and Croatia to spread its influence to Bosnia and Herzegovina; the second by the Albanese issue and influence from Greece; the third has special features and is formed of States bathed by the Black Sea. Europe has, then, the duty to integrate this area by a development and regional interconnection strategy that focuses on a solid infrastructural transport network, a tool that is fundamentally important in that it is suited to facilitate and raise economic interexchange and the cultural “contaminations” necessary to yield that European spirit of belonging, useful to create consolidated continental awareness, embryo for true, structured political union. Trans-Balkan circulation (consider the Danube axis, or Via Egnatia, the Ljubljana-Belgrade axis, and Istanbul therefrom) historically represented an element able to unify the region’s various populations, in contrast to country and state atomising, favouring creation of an integrated whole, unifying the Balkans and linking them to the world. The circulation networks, then, represent a fundamental element, especially in this era of multi-pole geopolitical transition. It is actually true that planning any infrastructural system can hardly ignore the global geopolitical and geo-economic picture, even more so in the current context, where continental infrastructures constitute an essential moment for economic rebirth, able to affect both technology modernisation processes and foreign policy stability. In this regard it is important to refer to the fact that it is no accident the economic power developed recently by the Chinese colossus is supported by a series of strategic infrastructural projects useful for accompanying, protecting and raising the Country’s expansion capacity. This certainly involves the great “New Silk Way” project for land and sea, devised by Peking with the main aim of moving China close to the rest of the Euro-Asian continental mass and the Mediterranean, and also developing the inland zone, lagging behind the coastal strip. But not only China, also other players like Russia, India, Iran and countries from Africa, ASEAN and Latin America are moving to create new communication paths. So in the face of the activism, experienced globally, it is good for the European front to also approach a development and regional interconnection strategy via a solid infrastructural transport network to involve all Europe and, most of all, the Balkan area. This could arise by simulating innovative initiatives to promote public – private partnership (obviously, no integration form may be painless, and to be held legitimate it must be based on consensus and acceptance by local governments). This means the development of corridors becomes essential. For Italy in particular, corridors V and VII carry high strategic importance. Corridor V is especially important for Po Valley – Veneto outlets to the North-East. Primarily for the Trieste – Budapest route, which is central to the interests of Austria and Germany, which obviously have the understandable wish to keep intact all the Street and rail traffic using their networks, not least with regard to traffic from Southern France, the Iberian peninsula and Southern Switzerland. These flows would actually be interrupted by Corridor V, should it present better conditions than the current ones. It must also be added that improved trans border links with the Balkan area could also encourage concrete, real stabilisation and integration thereof with Europe’s Western part, freed from the (currently latent) danger of terrorism and crime. Continuing current instability would actually consolidate the proliferation of organised crime and terrorism, making the Balkan fault even more fragmented and unstable and creating an irreparable break with the sparkling Asian area which is living a period of unstoppable growth and expansion. We must then focus on fully developing the concept of “network” to focus on creating full vertical and horizontal integration of the Europe system. This links could encourage mitigating this fragmentation which, as the opening foresaw, distinguished the history of this region, which could instead reproduce land for opportunity instead of conflict, representing at the same time an element to support Greater European integration. ————– About the author: Filippo Romeo is Director of the “Infrastructure and Territorial Development” Programme, IsAG Rome.  

By Qi Lin. “The Chinese grab for fossil fuels or its military competition for naval control is not a challenge but rather a boost for the US Asia-Pacific –even an overall– posture. Calibrating the contraction of its overseas projection and commitments – some would call it managing the decline of an empire – the US does not fail to note that nowadays half of the world’s merchant tonnage passes though the South China Sea. Therefore, the US will exploit any regional territorial dispute and other frictions to its own security benefit, including the costs sharing of its military presence with the local partners, as to maintain pivotal on the maritime edge of Asia that arches from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, Malacca, the South and East China Sea up to the northwest–central Pacific. Is China currently acting as a de facto fundraiser for the US?“– professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic famously asked in his policy paper ‘What China wants for Asia: 1975 or 1908?’. Contextualizing the challenge, hereby a fresh take on the issue. The U.S. pivot to the Asia-Pacific in Obama Administration has concentrated on reinforcing traditional alliances, redeploying Navy forces, and creating multilateral cooperation mechanisms, such as Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Unfortunately, mounting suspicions have undermined the Sino-U.S. relationship and stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific. Washington needs to take a larger, more constructive approach. It needs not only to engage China but use U.S. leverage to influence China to act in a parallel fashion. U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific rely on regional stability and require a compatible China. The focus of U.S. policy toward China needs to become a win-win relationship. In September 2016, Obama and President Xi agreed to work together to constructively manage differences and decided to expand and deepen cooperation. This path is promising:

• Greater trust. When the United States emphasizes engaging China in multilateral frameworks it leads, both will be less skeptical about each other’s ambition. Therefore, the inclusion of China in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) becomes important, and the establishment of new security structure with China to share the U.S. defense responsibilities. The invitation for Chinese Navy to participate in the Rime of the Pacific Exercise later in 2016 is a likely step forward in this direction.
• Pragmatic values. Beijing’s political challenges push Chinese leaders to put their priority on domestic growth and stability. Accommodating to U.S. policy preferences enables China to retain stability with a restless populace. Better Sino-U.S. relations take pressure off the US Navy’s budget and even provide the United States an opportunity to reinforce its strength on dealing with security challenges, like nuclear nonproliferation in the North Korea.
• A more manageable regional security order. Statements by President Obama in support of a One-China policy and a resolution between maritime claimants reassure China that the U.S. will not act as a regional trouble-maker. The statements by President Xi that China is not interested in pursuing hegemony prevent China sabotaging the current security order. A wider strategic dialogue will improve the Pentagon’s ability to assess China’s military capabilities. Risks of miscalculation will be reduced.

America’s allies and China’s neighbors may feel less secure when China and the United States get along. Yet their confidence will rebound as both countries develop a shared understanding of responsibilities, and create more development opportunities. All will become stakeholders in better U.S.-China bilateral relations. The U.S. and China should make every effort to move forward to a beneficial partnership. Neither party wants confrontation and conflict. Both realize how much is at stake, and how much they have to gain from a successful, stable relationship. China’s future membership in TPP, dialogue and cooperation between the Pentagon and China’s military, and a pragmatic approach to managing regional differences points the way to a better future. Both the United States and China want and deserve an Asia-Pacific region that is prosperous and secure.   About the author: Qi Lin, a MA candidate of the George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs. Her research focus is on cross-Pacific security and Asian studies, particularly on the Sino-U.S. relations and on the foreign policy and politics of these two.    

The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus  H.E. Ambassador Alexandros N. Zenon. By Roy Lie A Tjam. His Excellency Ambassador Alexandros Zenon is a veteran of Cypriot diplomacy who he has been active in the diplomatic world since 1979. He is married with one daughter (24) who is a lawyer. She had her formative years in the Netherlands and, according to her father, has retained some pleasant Dutch characteristics, including the famous punctuality and organization. Ambassador Zenon studied Law at the National University of Athens and holds a post-graduate DEA degree from Paris IV-Sorbonne University in History, International Relations and Defence. He was also awarded a diploma in European Studies from the International Institute of Public Administration in Paris, and completed the Harvard University course on negotiating processes. He is fluent in Greek, English, French and Italian.

Ambassador Zenon joined the Foreign Service early in his career and has served in the diplomatic missions of Cyprus in Rome (1982-1989), Vienna-CSCE (1989) and Paris (1991-1996), as well as in various positions and departments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nicosia, including in the Foreign Minister’s private office. He was also a Member of the Board of Governors of the Commonwealth Secretariat. He later became Cyprus’s first resident Ambassador to the Netherlands in 1996. Until that time the Cyprus Ambassador accredited to the Netherlands was based in Brussels. “It’s good to be back in The Hague twenty years after the establishment of the embassy,” remarked His Excellency. Like the novel Twenty years after by Alexander Dumas (père), the Netherlands has a special place in AZ’s heart. He speaks fondly of the then Queen Beatrix, having been impressed by her warmth, broad interests and intelligence. Ambassador Zenon recalls well the day he presented his credentials to HM Queen Beatrix, a remarkable piece of Dutch diplomatic tradition. He has served as the Cypriot envoy to a number of European countries, and is currently Cyprus’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Permanent Secretary. Cyprus has always been an important country, strategically located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa. Many world powers have tried their hand at dominating the island, including the crusaders. Britain was the last foreign power to control Cypriot shores. Cyprus adheres to a high standard of justice, and it is for this reason that the country has made the donation of the 3^rd century BC sculpture to the International Court of Justice. For over seventy years, the court has been a beacon to nations seeking justice. Cyprus would like the ICJ and the world to know the nation recognises the efforts the court has made in the cause of justice worldwide. According to Ambassador Zenon, Cyprus is making great strides in ending the dispute over Famagusta, Europe’s ghost city. There is cautious optimism that within the coming months a plan for the (re)unification of Cyprus might be agreed. Peace talks have been taking place in various locations. Recently, UNSG Ban Ki Moon visited the ongoing negotiations in Switzerland to encourage stakeholders to pursue the road to unification.

His Excellency Ambassador Elpidoforos Economou has organized many interesting activities in 2016. Among them was the Famagusta photo exhibition which was a great success. The Ambassador revealed there will be more promotional events to follow in 2017.                                

By John Dunkelgrün. Of course the best sight is hindsight. The US election results, so devastating to so many, should not have come as a surprise. We live in a time when neglected voters are finally protesting. In The Netherlands it started with Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders, in France with the Le Pens, in the (not so)UK with UKIP and in the US with Bernie Sanders. And now we have President elect Donald Trump in the US. What are some of the causes? Politically Correct speak and policies fuelled by misplaced guilt over a colonial past eventually make the traditional populations uneasy. This is especially so when minority groups are seen to be overly favoured. This causes “Local people first” type of political movements. By far most people are in favour of accepting and assisting refugees, but when a trickle becomes a wave and then a tsunami that threatens the economy, the social programs and the very culture of a receiving country, it becomes too much to bear for many. No reassuring “Wir schaffen das”, will alleviate that anxiety. Globalisation has demonstrably improved the economy all over the world. So, and even more so, has automation. However in its wake of creative destruction these developments have left behind many manual and clerical workers. It is for society at large to use part of the gains to set up facilities for retraining these people and, where that is impossible, caring for them. The political elites are too aloof, too far away from the anxieties and real worries of the affected people. They have been blind to the damage caused by the absurd extreme differences in wealth and income between “the 1%” and the rest. It causes mistrust in the political establishment that can, is and will be be used to great effect by populist politicians. Mrs. Clinton was made aware of the anxieties of the young liberal left by the success of Bernie Sanders and adjusted her campaign (too little, too late?). She totally ignored the states with large populations of people who were left behind by globalisation and automation. She didn’t counter Republican claims of the danger of immigrants, not did she repudiate in a forceful way the slander of crookery, untruthfulness and unreliability poured out forcefully and continually on Republican publications, radio, TV and social media. She did not heed the lessons from the policies of Josef Goebbels and Der Stürmer that lies, when repeated often enough become truths. “Truths” that have put her opponent in The White House. If leaders everywhere don’t heed these lessons, next year we may be looking at a world not just with Donald Trump as US President and a UK in the process of leaving the EU and perhaps of breaking up, but with a Germany without Mrs. Merkel, Ms. Le Pen as President of France and Mr. Wilders as Prime Minister of The Netherlands.  

  “We must break with the past to build the future and turn the grim pages of our history” Michel Aoun   anuary”   By Corneliu Pivariu, CEO INGEPO Consulting, MG (two stars general – ret.) On 1 October 201, the Lebanese Parliament ended the longest period in the history of Lebanon without a President (2 months since the end of President Michel Suleimans term of office – May 2014) after parliamentary sessions in which no candidate could reach the needed quorum to be elected. The new President is General Michel Aoun, whose election had been expected by many people, including the longeval (first elected on 20 October 1992 and re-elected several times) President of the Lebanese Parliament, Abih Berri, President of the Amal movement (since1980). General Michel Aoun (born 18 February 1935) can be considered a legendary figure in Lebanon. He was promoted to the rank of general in 1984 and the same year he was appointed commander in chief of the Lebanese army. His military education includes training courses in France and the US. From 22 September 1988 to 13 October 1990 he acted as Prime Minister, having been assigned by President Amine Gemayel at the end of his term of office (a controversial decision which led to the existence of two parallel governments, one led by General Aoun, the other led by Prime Minister Selim Hoss). On 14 March 1989 Aoun announced the liberation war (against the Syrian armed forces), and on 13 October the Syrian army strongly supported by aviation attacked the area controlled by Aoun, including the presidential palace in Baabda, killing hundreds of Lebanese soldiers and civilians. General Aoun took refuge at the French Embassy in Beirut, later being evacuated in an operation of the French intelligence services and army and he received political asylum in France, where he has remained for 15 years – until 2005. He returned to Beirut on 7 May 2005, 11 days after the withdrawal of the Syrian troops from Lebanon, being cheered by hundreds of thousands of Lebanese people in the streets of Beirut. His political evolution is marked by a high tenacity, a great understanding of the complicated political developments in Lebanon, of the relations between different parties, groups and personalities, but also of the regional and global geopolitical developments. In 2006, as head of the Patriotic Liberation Movement, he signed the Memorandum of Understanding with Hezbollah, an alliance that remained in effect even today, and in 2009 he proved his political maturity again by visiting Syria. His complex personality made us insist and succeed in obtaining an interview for the Geostrategic Pulse during our travel to Beirut in the summer of 2010, which has been published in a special issue dedicated to Lebanon.     Michel Aoun continued to prove maturity and appropriateness on the Lebanese political arena in order to reach a political consensus to elect a President at the end of Michel Suleimans mandate in 2014 and he gradually succeeded it. The public statement made by Saad Hariri on 20 October in which he showed that his parliamentary block – Alliance 14 March ( 45 MPs) would vote for the election of Michel Aoun as president, is another signal for the settlement of the presidential crisis. There are also the positions of other Lebanese political leaders, of which we mention Samir Geagea, which does not mean that they have a less important role.   Although Michel Aoun was elected with 83 votes out of 127, this majority was reached only in the second valid ballot (after the first round, two other rounds were invalidated due to a number of votes higher than the numbers of MP present). General Aoun obtained 84 votes in the first round (one vote less than the two-thirds majority required), for the second round being required only a simple majority of 50 % plus one (64 votes). These details highlight the fragility of the Lebanese political arena and if from the outside it would seem that a new President would be mostly the result of the agreements between Tehran and Riyadh or of Moscows influence (in early October Saad Hariri met Sergei Lavrov in Moscow), the election of President Michel Aoun is primarily due to the domestic political arrangements. In his first speech after being elected as President, Aoun spoke about: the primary concern for “political stability, respect of the law, the National Pact and the Constitution”; “the necessity to adopt a new electoral law to ensure fair representativeness to the next parliamentary elections” (scheduled for June 2017); Lebanons neutrality; economic and social reforms; “the provision of security and stability through cooperation between security services and justice” the consolidation of the army – as a priority.   A new prime minister is to be appointed, most likely in the person of Saad Hariri, the new government is to be formed, but that does not mean that the old problems will be solved in Lebanon.

---

About the author: Corneliu Pivariu, former first deputy for military intelligence (two stars general) in the Romanian MoD, retired 2003. Member of IISS – London, alumni of Harvard – Kennedy School Executive Education and others international organizations. Founder of INGEPO Consulting, and bimonthly Bulletin, Geostrategic Pulse”. Main areas of expertise – geopolitics, intelligence and security.   Photography by  INGEPO Consulting Photographer Ionus Paraschiv.

By Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M. The Hague hosts many international courts, tribunals and other organizations and soon a new one will be added: the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. What is it ? The former Prosecutor of the ICTY (the Yugoslavia Tribunal) Mrs. Carla Delponte pointed out in her memoirs that allegedly in the years 1998 – 2000 very serious crimes were committed in Kosovo and Albania by (former) members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The Council of Europe started an investigation and the result was the Marty report in 2011, that confirmed Mrs. Delponte’s accusations. The Special Investigative Task Force, established by the European Union, concluded in 2014 that there was sufficient evidence to start legal cases. But: for which court ? The EU reached an agreement with Kosovo about additional chambers on every level of the Kosovo court system (Basic Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and Constitutional Court) and a Public Prosecutor Office to conduct the trials. They will function according to relevant Kosovo laws as well as customary international law and international human rights law. Because of experiences with other cases, it was decided for safety reasons to establish these chambers outside Kosovo: in The Netherlands. There is now a (provisional) host state agreement with The Netherlands. The Dutch parliament agreed. Apart from the EU the project has been supported and co-sponsored by Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. The Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office will have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under Kosovo law in relation to allegations reported in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Report of 7 January 2011. They will be established in the former EUROPOL-building at the Raamweg in the International Zone of The Hague. A Prosecutor (Mr David Schwendiman from the USA) and a Registar (Ms Fidelma Donlon from Ireland) have been nominated. The judges will come from EU-countries and the abovementioned supporting countries from outside the EU. Only the President will be nominated full time, the other judges will work via the so called roster system. All will start in 2017 or 2018. The City of The Hague is happy and proud to host another important international tribunal. About the author:  Jhr. Alexander W. Beelaerts van Blokland LL.M. Justice (Judge) in the (Dutch) Court of Appeal and honorary Special Advisor International Affairs, appointed by the Mayor & Aldermen of The Hague. a.beelaerts@planet.nl          

By Dr Rens Willems. Burundi, South Africa and Gambia have recently announced their withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Kenya, Namibia and Uganda are also deliberating a withdrawal. This article argues that it is through action, not withdrawal, that African countries can truly promote justice and human rights in Africa. Critiques underlying the withdrawal from the ICC are that the Court unfairly targets African countries and that it serves as a neo-colonial tool for oppression of Africa by the West. Harsh accusations, which are fueled by the fact that most investigations of the Court are on the African continent, and all convicted or currently on trial are African nationals. There are some arguments against these critiques. The majority of these cases were referred to the ICC by the governments of these countries themselves. And sadly, many countries outside of Africa that are involved in war have not ratified the Rome Statute, and referral by the UN Security Council is blocked in cases where its permanent members are involved. These rational counter-arguments notwithstanding, the critiques on the ICC should not simply be brushed aside as politically expedient remarks by African politicians. Serious efforts should be made to re-engage critical countries with the Court, including a serious reflection on the Court’s functioning and how it can better integrate its vision of justice with local practices. The criticisms and withdrawal should furthermore be considered as an opportunity to promote justice and human rights in Africa. Even where the ICC has jurisdiction, it is a court of last resort. A positive approach to the critiques on the ICC would be to promote alternative judicial processes dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity at national and regional levels. African leaders have the opportunity to take matters in their own hands and work towards the promotion of human rights for people living on the African continent. The African Union and its member countries have a responsibility to act. One promising step in this direction was the special court set up by the African Union to try former president of Chad Hissène Habré. Another opportunity has presented itself in South Sudan. In August 2015, the warring parties in South Sudan signed the Agreement for the Resolution of the Crisis in South Sudan (ARCISS). Chapter V of the ARCISS details the parties’ plans for combating impunity and addressing the legacies of past conflicts, including the establishment of a Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS) to bring cases against individuals bearing responsibility for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and sexual violence and gender-based crimes. The Agreement mandated the African Union Commission (AUC) to establish the HCSS, and provide guidelines to regulate its functioning. In September 2015, the African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) authorized the Chairperson of the AUC to take all necessary steps towards the establishment of the HCSS. The AUC should take action and continue with the establishment of the HCSS. Because it is through action that African countries can promote their vision on and future of justice and human rights on the continent. ——– About the author:   Dr Rens Willems. Research Fellow and Programme Leader Peace and Conflict Studies, University for Peace (UPEACE) Centre The Hague.[1]   [1] UPEACE recently completed a 2-year research project on transitional justice in South Sudan together with SSLS and PAX. More information can be found here: http://www.upeace.nl/index.php?page=Thematic_Programmes-Thematic_Programmes-&pid=154&id=1&projid=39