140 likes | 238 Views
INTERNATIONAL POLICY CONFERENCE “COMPETITIVENESS & DIVERSIFICATION: STRATEGIC CHALLENGES IN A PETROLEUM-RICH ECONOMY”. Strategic Dispute Dynamics and Resolution: Government, Business and Non-state Actor Interfaces. Peter Jenkins. 14 – 15 march 2011, Accra, Ghana.
E N D
INTERNATIONAL POLICY CONFERENCE “COMPETITIVENESS & DIVERSIFICATION: STRATEGIC CHALLENGES IN A PETROLEUM-RICH ECONOMY” Strategic Dispute Dynamics and Resolution: Government, Business and Non-state Actor Interfaces Peter Jenkins 14 – 15 march 2011, Accra, Ghana
Strategic Dispute Dynamics and Resolution:Government, Business and Non-state Actor InterfacesPeter Jenkinswww.adrgambassadors.com14 March 2011
Inter-state disputes only one of four categories of possible resource-related disputes: • inter- state • government/provincial or local entities • government/business • government/non-state actors
Border delimitation only one of several causes of inter-state disputes since 1960: • inter-factional strife • ethnic rivalries • religious differences • Cold War manoeuvring • climate-induced migration • trafficking and other organised crime
Some border disputes more resource-related than others: • Ethiopia/Eritrea • Libya/Chad • Western Sahara • Botswana/Namibia • Nigeria/Cameroon • (1967 Nigerian Civil War) • (Katanga Crisis)
Some examples of resource-related disputes between governments and provincial entities: • Nigeria: Delta region • Angola • Sierra Leone • North and South Sudan
Disputes between governments and businesses can involve local enterprises or transnational affiliates, and can be either direct or indirect: • direct: usually contract-related • indirect: disputes can stem from the corruption of host officials, or from abuse of the rights of local inhabitants
Inter-state disputes can be avoided or resolved peacefully by recourse to: • the International Court of Justice • the UN Security Council (Chapter VI of the UN Charter) • other arbitration or mediation mechanisms • the UN Law of the Sea Convention
The risk of intra-state disputes can be minimised by: - strong central government institutions (UN Convention against Corruption) - the rule of law (UNCAC) - sovereign wealth funds: - the pacing and spacing of disbursements - developing economic potential (education and health) - developing export potential - strengthening institutions - transparency of accruals and disbursements - making embezzlement difficult - inclusive decision-making and accountability
The interface with local communities presents challenges for central government if disputes are to be avoided: • equitable sharing of revenues from resource extraction • negotiating with legitimate representatives of local communities • encouraging transparency at the local level • avoiding local eruptions of “the Dutch Disease” • social protection • avoiding damage to the environment
Minimising the risk of government/business disputes: - keeping equity considerations in mind - boosting bargaining power through knowledge acquisition and by drawing on the experience of others - local procurement, local content, local employment, and technology transfer requirements - compliance with social and environmental norms (UN Global Compact) - the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) - requiring advance consultation - the physical protection of extractive installations - dispute resolution provisions - combating anti-competitive business practices
The interface between government and non-state actors: • NGOs can form a useful early warning system • the threat from organised crime networks can be countered by avoiding resource booms and implementing the UN Transnational Organised Crime Convention • engagement with insurgents can be preferable to the use of force (but see also “Negotiating Skills for Conflict Resolution”)
The case for recourse to mediation: • quicker, cheaper and more flexible than arbitration or litigation • shared benefits vs. “winner takes all” • principled bargaining vs. positional bargaining • giving expression to common interests • the human factor