RESOLUTION ON

THE CO-OPERATIVE PHASE IN POST-CONFLICT BORDERS:
NEW TOOLS AND NEW ACTORS FOR A BROADER VIEW OF THE CONFLICT CYCLE

    1. Recognizing the historic role played by the OSCE under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter in the peaceful settlement of conflicts and in the promotion of security in its area of influence,

    2. Reaffirming the significance and validity of all elements of the conflict cycle as reflected in the CSCE Helsinki Document 1992, including crisis management, conflict resolution and peacekeeping,

    3. Considering the OSCE’s vast experience in prevention, analysis, early warning, reaction, promotion of dialogue, support of mediation, establishment of a secure environment, post-conflict rehabilitation, stabilization, confidence-building and reconstruction in all stages of the crisis cycle,

    4. Fully aware of the OSCE’s already comprehensive range of activities in post-conflict periods, such as the restoration of institutionality, judicial and electoral reforms, human rights empowerment, handling of inter-ethnic conflicts, educational reforms, protection of the rights of national minorities and economic recovery,

    5. Considering likewise the Resolution on “Enhancing Cross-border Co-operation Policies in Post-Conflict Scenarios,” adopted at the OSCE PA’s 2012 Annual Session in Monaco, and the Resolution on the “Role of Local and Regional Authorities in Post-conflict Rehabilitation Scenarios,” adopted at the OSCE PA’s 2013 Annual Session in Istanbul,

    6. Bearing in mind the adoption by all regional integration international systems of the political paradigms of the principle of subsidiarity and multilevel governance,

    7. Considering the introduction of a horizontal perspective of problem solving for border issues in the activities of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the nomination of an OSCE PA Special Representative for Border Issues,

    8. Being aware that many conflicts in the OSCE area have a cross-border component, be it legal borders or de facto borders (contact lines, administrative lines, etc.),

    9. Recognizing that because every conflict with an impact on border areas has its own characteristics, it would not be wise to apply a universal model for pacification, and that the possibilities will depend on various factors, including the degree of post-conflict settlement, but considering nonetheless that there are potential practical solutions for the improvement of the daily life of populations, even without assuming the solutions to be a breakthrough in the discussions on the substance of the conflict,

    10. Considering that the existence of political, economic, social and cultural relations of a certain density and continuity in a border region make resorting to conflict by any actor a more politically costly option and a difficult one to legitimize in the eyes of public opinion,

    11. Being aware that the traditional players and tools of military or police security are necessary but insufficient in this co-operation phase, and are also insufficient in connection with individual, legal, or political reforms by each state in the conflict,

    12. Concluding that the creation of ties of interconnection as a preventive element demand a common strategy and not simply unconnected bilateral logics,

The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:

    1. Proposes a revision of the framework of analysis of the Organization to adopt and generalize a new, wider concept of the conflict cycle in border scenarios, under the fundamental principle that a conflict between neighbours does not end with a safe border, but with a co operative border;

    2. Recommends, in consequence, the extension of the usual scheme of the conflict cycle beyond the traditional stabilization and rehabilitation phase to include a new final co-operative stage to prevent the crisis cycle;

    3. Proposes a reassessment of the scale of the human factor in this co-operative final stage of the border conflict, to ensure that the effects on people’s lives become the foreground concern and part of the political agenda, together with the issues of substance (territorial integrity, sovereignty, verification, stabilization, international marks of mediation and negotiation);

    4. Calls for an analysis of each previous individual case, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the incorporation of new actors and the use of new instruments in this co operative final stage;

    5. Proposes to incorporate the tasks of post-conflict co-operation with the relevant state authorities and in close co-ordination with these, to other relevant actors on both sides of the border, and among those, to women and their specific organizations, to local and regional authorities, to educational, academic or university centers, and their intellectual assets, to local religious leaders (both in border dividing communities with the same religion as in those dividing also from that point of view); to local and regional media; to civil society organized in the so called third sector (foundations, associations, etc.) and to private companies (whose activity in post-conflict areas is a clear sign of normalization);

    6. Also proposes the adoption of new mechanisms of action and new horizontal tools designed for this final co-operative stage of the conflict cycle that serve to strengthen its preventive profile, as has already been noted by the OSCE PA as an instrument of this nature in its 2012 resolution, exploring their potential and the use of the vast experience that many actors within the OSCE possess in this regard;

    7. Proposes the adoption of a scheme of two-level talks, together with the usual high-level talk scheme (bilateral with international mediation) about matters of substance (territorial integrity, sovereignty, border control, verification, stabilization, etc.), which would boost a new system of contacts of proximity to manage bilaterally the practical problems and daily difficulties created by the situation in the daily lives of people and communities, directly affected by a post-conflict border (checkpoints at de facto borders, access to health and education services, water availability or traditional farming land, difficulties in family or interpersonal communications, barriers to sharing public services, etc.);

    8. Proposes moreover, that these two areas of different nature and scale are formalized in various forums and are also to some extent autonomous, so that their agendas are complementary but not made conditional each on the other;

    9. Proposes that the level of proximity is bilaterally constructed and transmits an objective and common report of the repercussions that the situation has over the people directly affected as well as an analysis of the relationship schemes that contribute to the settlement of the conflict.