Email · kontakt@ine.org.pl
Institute of New Europe Institute of New Europe Institute of New Europe Institute of New Europe
  • About
  • Publications
    • Analyses
    • Video
    • SEE ALL PUBLICATIONS
    • Reports
    • Maps
    • SEE ALL PUBLICATIONS
  • Programmes
    • Europe
    • Security
    • WEBSITE OF THE THREE SEAS PROJECT
    • Indo-Pacific
    • Three Seas Think Tanks Hub
    • WEBSITE OF THE THREE SEAS PROJECT
  • People
  • Contact-Careers
  • 3 SEAS
  • EnglishEnglish
    • PolskiPolski
Institute of New Europe Institute of New Europe
  • About
  • Publications
    • Analyses
    • Video
    • SEE ALL PUBLICATIONS
    • Reports
    • Maps
    • SEE ALL PUBLICATIONS
  • Programmes
    • Europe
    • Security
    • WEBSITE OF THE THREE SEAS PROJECT
    • Indo-Pacific
    • Three Seas Think Tanks Hub
    • WEBSITE OF THE THREE SEAS PROJECT
  • People
  • Contact-Careers
  • 3 SEAS
  • EnglishEnglish
    • PolskiPolski
Jan 03
Analysis, New technologies, Publications

Environmentally harmful technologies —Should they be banned? Can they be banned? Part 1

January 3, 2022
Environmentally harmful technologies – Should they be banned? Can they be banned? Part 1Pobierz

Key points:

– There is no such thing as sustainable technology, as technological development excludes sustainability. It does not mean that all technology efforts directed at improving the ecological status quo are void and created to appease the conscience of some of the more aware scientists.

– One of the paramount roles of law is to regulate behaviour. Hand in hand with ethics and other fundamental principles, the law ought to restrain and permit. In the face of the upcoming climate catastrophe, lawyers and regulators must ask themselves which technologies aid the development of society at a price we still can afford and which must be banned, for the sheer sake of the general present and future well-being.

– The selected technologies can be drawn under bans under similar legislative acts. It shows that despite large differences, the main link they share, that is the fact that they might be unsustainable, is what could make an action against them rather uniform.

Introduction

There is no such thing as sustainable technology, as technological development excludes sustainability. No technology has a negligible impact on the environment and society. It does not mean that all technical efforts, directed at improving the ecological status quo, are void and created to appease the conscience of some of the more aware scientists. Nevertheless, as has been expressed, ‘innovation for sustainable development’ is a complex idea and endeavour[1].

One of the paramount roles of law is to regulate behaviour. Hand in hand with ethics as well as other fundamental principles, law ought to restrain and permit, regulate how and in what manner we act upon in our everyday lives. In the face of the upcoming climate catastrophe, lawyers and regulators must ask themselves which technologies aid the development of society at a price we still can afford and which must be suppressed for the sheer sake of the general present and future well-being. The fact that we need to be thinking of sustainability at this scale, is because the previous generations happily embraced different technologies without remarking what effect they may have on the planet.

The selection procedure of discussed technologies for this article was made based on the amount of damage, as it can only be somewhat measured, of technologies that are only now introduced in most countries. These are: geoengineering, non-fungible tokens (and, by extension, cryptocurrencies), and the controversial 5G. It is, by all means, a free selection, serving as an introduction to the deeper discussion on how the law should approach swiftly and effectively the developments that might bring more harm than good. The article will focus primarily on international laws, providing insight into notable national legislation.

Geoengineering

Geoengineering is an umbrella term that encompasses a plethora of large-scale proposals, interventions to mitigate or even reverse temperature rise. Geoengineering techniques can be divided into two categories: techniques which are to remove the surplus of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the ones, at this stage mostly mere proposals, which would permit reflecting sunlight away from Earth[2]. To provide a clearer picture, the technologies that fall under the title ‘geoengineering’ are BECCS (Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage), DAC (Direct Air Capture), Solar radiation management, cloud brightening and thinning, ocean fertilisation, Ambient Air Capture, and more. Interestingly, also less technical solutions or proposals have been made – for example, covering deserts in plastic sheeting or protecting Arctic ice using hollow reflective glass beads. The latter is even being tested on a smaller scale[3].

Since geoengineering has many faces, it is hard to investigate it systematically. Moreover, some scientists and experts have raised concerns over the whole idea behind geoengineering. It is because there is a risk that the popularisation of such methods, ‘technical fixes’, will divert attention from the preventive efforts, such as cuts in emission[4]. Some go so far as to claim that such techniques could turn the dial on the Earth’s climate and worsen the situation in ways that might be irreplaceable[5]. Environmental ethics does not look favourably at geoengineering[6]. Research on the techniques is limited, which is troubling since some manifold questions and concerns remain unresolved. The willingness to launch trials is, nonetheless, also limited, exactly because of the given uncertainty of what could unfold[7].

When it comes to the law, it is interesting that the climate scientists from Harvard University, admittedly, were not waiting for a green light from the regulators and moved forward with their long-prepared experiment, which was met with some criticism also in the scientific circles. The works were being finalised in 2019 and evaluated by a committee established by the institution to ensure transparency and appropriateness of the procedure. Nonetheless, this was still preceding the development of advanced talks between the regulators[8]. The team was to use a technique falling under solar geoengineering, releasing a balloon which was to discharge calcium carbonate into the atmosphere in hopes of lowering the temperature. Opponents of the method voiced their concerns, pointing out that this could harm the ozone layer and disrupt ecosystems until food supplies are threatened. They also noted that if this practice, even if successfully implemented, was eventually stopped, global temperatures would quickly go back to what they were, if not become higher, due to chemical reactions, which would pose a threat of bigger, sudden catastrophe[9]. It is not far-fetched to see that geoengineering in such a form could be easily weaponised. The Harvard scientists insist the experiment itself is not solar geoengineering but a less invasive, safer procedure[10]. So far, due to the pandemic and some of the procedural issues that needed to be resolved beforehand as well as because of the backlash faced by the scientists and the committee, the experiment has been postponed, most likely, to 2022[11].

Looking at this example, there is no comprehensive, unified ​​international law regulating solar geoengineering or geoengineering in general. Such devices may be reviewed under environmental policies and weather modification regulations. For example, in the USA these could be the National Environmental Policy Act[12] or National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976[13]. The first of the acts sets out a general protective framework. The latter, more directly applicable to researchers, contains provision §330a that requires submission of a report for review if any test has, is, or will be taking place. One might remark on the flexibility of the obligation which might bring detrimental consequences if a possible danger of the experiments is overseen in time.

Returning to international laws — even though the issue was raised already before 2010, with the first regulatory measure at this level being the decision of the Conference of the Parties to the Biodiversity Convention (CBD) in October 2010, there is still no international infrastructure in place. It is particularly troublesome, as it has been recognised that geoengineering, if implemented, might quickly create cross-jurisdictional problems. So far, the existing legal response has been contained in multilateral environmental agreements. These, however, have been deemed insufficient, as leaving some gaps and undesirable leeways. Nevertheless, some commentators have assessed them as the most feasible option, despite the blemishes, because of the political environment and general attitudes towards the technology[14]. Lastly, it cannot be omitted that some geoengineering techniques meet more support than others[15], which might create another regulatory hurdle for the potential drafters of an international act on the matter.

Geoengineering has been temporarily banned in 2010, and then in 2016, under the UN Convention on Biodiversity[16]. One could argue against the technology based on the precautionary principle; nonetheless, this has little merit as the necessity of research, and hence, waiving the rule, can be justified[17]. It was done for marine geoengineering and regulated by an amendment to the London Convention[18], serving as a great example of permission for research activities. A similar provision, yet here this link is a tad far-fetched, can be found in the EU’s Habitat Directive[19].

No matter how one perceives it, the current situation of no clear, uniform regulations creates harm, as little research is done to see what the extent of profitability, or its contrary, is offered by the geoengineering techniques. This leads to stagnation or to conducting rogue, unregulated experiments, which create more harm to the environment[20]. Whether the technology should be banned or not is still unclear, but the problem here seems to be a chicken-egg one. As of now, there is a limited interest of many regulators in the matter which does not forecast a big legislative conflict between those caring for the planet and the potential interest groups in case the technology is deemed too hazardous. More challenging might be the selection of approved techniques, those, which pose less harm than the others; nevertheless, the existing systems and ad hoc reviewing groups can slowly permit a bigger number of experiments and hence increase the state of general knowledge.

Conclusion for part 1

The technologies that fall under the umbrella of geoengineering are ambiguous —  they may happen to be solutions to the problem of climate change or its accelerators. Examining them in the first place allows for unveiling the complexity of the problem of balancing the developmental arguments with the duty to consider environmental protection. Other technologies are less equivocal on this plane, yet as, if not more, troublesome, taking their general perception. The next part of the article will focus on non-fungible tokens and 5G.


[1] Kemp. R. 2010. “Sustainable technologies do not exist!”. EKONOMIAZ. Revista vasca de Economía, Gobierno Vasco / Eusko Jaurlaritza / Basque Government, vol. 75(04), pages 22-39.

[2] Timperley J. 2020.  “How to stop global warming? The most controversial solutions explained”. China Dialogue. https://chinadialogue.net/en/climate/geoengineering-how-to-stop-global-warming-most-controversial-solutions-explained/ accessed 7 October 2021.

[3] Timperley J. 2020.  “How to stop global warming? The most controversial solutions explained”. China Dialogue. https://chinadialogue.net/en/climate/geoengineering-how-to-stop-global-warming-most-controversial-solutions-explained/ accessed 7 October 2021.

[4] Timperley J. 2020.  “How to stop global warming? The most controversial solutions explained”. China Dialogue. https://chinadialogue.net/en/climate/geoengineering-how-to-stop-global-warming-most-controversial-solutions-explained/ accessed 7 October 2021; Pearce F. 2010. “What the UN ban on geoengineering really means”. News Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19660-what-the-un-ban-on-geoengineering-really-means/ accessed 10 October 2021.

[5] Temple J. 2019. “Geoengineering is very controversial. How can you do experiments? Harvard has some ideas”. MIT Technology Review.

[6] Scott D. 2012. “Geoengineering and Environmental Ethics”. Nature Education. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/geoengineering-and-environmental-ethics-80061230/ accessed 7 October 2021.

[7] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2012. “66 geoengineering in relation to the convention on biological diversity: technical and regulatory matters”. CBD Technical Series No. 66, 13-14; 2019. “Geoengineering-Governance”. Umwelt Bundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/sustainability-strategies-international/environmental-law/international-environmental-law/geoengineering-governance#what-is-geoengineering accessed 10 October 2021.

[8] Temple J. 2019. “Geoengineering is very controversial. How can you do experiments? Harvard has some ideas”. MIT Technology Review.

[9] Kotecki P. 2018. “Harvard scientists will soon send chemicals into the atmosphere to test whether a last-ditch planet-hacking plan could keep Earth habitable”. Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-scientists-to-release-chemicals-into-sky-in-2019-to-cool-earth-2018-12 accessed 7 October 2021.

[10] Mullins L. 2020. “Harvard Scientists Plan First-Ever Field Experiment Related To Solar Geoengineering”. Wbur. https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/07/22/harvard-solar-geoengineering-climate-change accessed 7 October 2021.

[11] Doyle A. 2020. “Planned Harvard balloon test in Sweden stirs solar geoengineering unease”. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-geoengineering-trfn-idUSKBN28S232 accessed 7 October 2021.

[12] National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Pub.L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 852.

[13] National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976 10/13/76 S3383.

[14] Kuokkanen T and Yamineva Y. 2013. “´Regulating Geoengineering in International Environmental Law”. Carbon & Climate Law Review Volume 7(3). https://cclr.lexxion.eu/article/CCLR/2013/3/261 accessed 10 October 2021.

[15] Proells A. 2012. “Geoengineering and International Law”. Sicherheit und Frieden (S+F) / Security and Peace Vol. 30, No. 4, 205.

[16] 2019. “Geoengineering-Governance”. Umwelt Bundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/sustainability-strategies-international/environmental-law/international-environmental-law/geoengineering-governance#what-is-geoengineering accessed 10 October 2021.

[17] 2019. “Geoengineering-Governance”. Umwelt Bundesamt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/sustainability-strategies-international/environmental-law/international-environmental-law/geoengineering-governance#what-is-geoengineering accessed 10 October 2021.

[18] 2013 Amendment to the 1996 protocol to the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter, to regulate marine geoengineering, 1972 Adopted in London, United Kingdom on 18 October 2013.

[19] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal L 206 , 22/07/1992 P. 0007 – 0050, Article 18.

[20] Fecht S. 2018. “We Need Laws on Geoengineering, ASAP”. Columbia Climate School. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/03/20/geoengineering-climate-law-book/ accessed 10 October 2021.

IF YOU VALUE THE INSTITUTE OF NEW EUROPE’S WORK, BECOME ONE OF ITS DONORS!

Funds received will allow us to finance further publications.

You can contribute by making donations to INE’s bank account:

95 2530 0008 2090 1053 7214 0001

with the following payment title: „darowizna na cele statutowe”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr
  • Pinterest
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • E-Mail
Lena Anna Kuklińska Lena Anna Kuklińska. Cum Laude Honours graduate of LLB Global Law at Tilburg University, student of IT and IP law at the University of Goettingen. Editor for Dublin Law and Politics Review. She is involved socially. Lena is interested in comparative law, in particular the interconnection of animal rights, environmental law and the law of new technologies. She is also fond of politics, history, marketing, language learning, travelling and art.

Related Posts

See All Publications
  • Europe, News, Publications, Serbia, The Balkans

Jakub Bielamowicz comments for TRT World on local elections in northern Kosovo boycotted by Kosovo Serbs [Video]

Our Balkans analyst Jakub Bielamowicz comments for Turkish TRT World on the results of local elections in northern Kosovo, which…
  • Jakub Bielamowicz
  • April 24, 2023
  • Analysis, Indo-Pacific, North Korea, Publications, South Korea

The sinusoid of South Korea’s foreign relations with North Korea in light of the nuclear issue – what lies ahead?

Nuclear development in North Korea is the most often raised issue within Inter-Korean relations. Considering the mercurial nature of the…
  • Agnieszka Lewczuk
  • April 7, 2023
  • Publications, Reports, Security, Ukraine

The [Ninth] Year of The Russo-Ukrainian War. INE Analysis

One year after Russia's full-scale aggression against Ukraine, we present you an in-depth analysis in which Aleksy Borówka (in cooperation…
  • Aleksy Borówka
  • April 6, 2023
See All Publications

Comments are closed.

Lena Anna Kuklińska Lena Anna Kuklińska. Cum Laude Honours graduate of LLB Global Law at Tilburg University, student of IT and IP law at the University of Goettingen. Editor for Dublin Law and Politics Review. She is involved socially. Lena is interested in comparative law, in particular the interconnection of animal rights, environmental law and the law of new technologies. She is also fond of politics, history, marketing, language learning, travelling and art.
Program Europa tworzą:

Marcin Chruściel

Dyrektor programu. Absolwent studiów doktoranckich z zakresu nauk o polityce na Uniwersytecie Wrocławskim, magister stosunków międzynarodowych i europeistyki Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prezes Zarządu Instytutu Nowej Europy.

dr Artur Bartoszewicz

Przewodniczący Rady Programowej Instytutu Nowej Europy. Doktor nauk ekonomicznych Szkoły Głównej Handlowej. Ekspert w dziedzinie polityki publicznej, w tym m. in. strategii państwa i gospodarki.

Michał Banasiak

Specjalizuje się w relacjach sportu i polityki. Autor analiz, komentarzy i wywiadów z zakresu dyplomacji sportowej i polityki międzynarodowej. Były dziennikarz Polsat News i wysłannik redakcji zagranicznej Telewizji Polskiej.

Maciej Pawłowski

Ekspert ds. migracji, gospodarki i polityki państw basenu Morza Śródziemnego. W latach 2018-2020 Analityk PISM ds. Południowej Europy. Autor publikacji w polskiej i zagranicznej prasie na temat Hiszpanii, Włoch, Grecji, Egiptu i państw Magrebu. Od września 2020 r. mieszka w północnej Afryce (Egipt, Algieria).

Jędrzej Błaszczak

Absolwent studiów prawniczych Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach. Jego zainteresowania badawcze koncentrują się na Inicjatywie Trójmorza i polityce w Bułgarii. Doświadczenie zdobywał w European Foundation of Human Rights w Wilnie, Center for the Study of Democracy w Sofii i polskich placówkach dyplomatycznych w Teheranie i Tbilisi.

Program Bezpieczeństwo tworzą:

dr Aleksander Olech

Dyrektor programu. Wykładowca na Baltic Defence College, absolwent Europejskiej Akademii Dyplomacji oraz Akademii Sztuki Wojennej. Jego główne zainteresowania badawcze to terroryzm, bezpieczeństwo w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej oraz rola NATO i UE w środowisku zagrożeń hybrydowych.

dr Agnieszka Rogozińska

Członek Rady Programowej Instytutu Nowej Europy. Doktor nauk społecznych w dyscyplinie nauki o polityce. Zainteresowania badawcze koncentruje na problematyce bezpieczeństwa euroatlantyckiego, instytucjonalnym wymiarze bezpieczeństwa i współczesnych zagrożeniach.

Aleksy Borówka

Doktorant na Wydziale Nauk Społecznych Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Przewodniczący Krajowej Reprezentacji Doktorantów w kadencji 2020. Autor kilkunastu prac naukowych, poświęconych naukom o bezpieczeństwie, naukom o polityce i administracji oraz stosunkom międzynarodowym. Laureat I, II oraz III Międzynarodowej Olimpiady Geopolitycznej.

Karolina Siekierka

Absolwentka Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego na kierunku stosunki międzynarodowe, specjalizacji Bezpieczeństwo i Studia Strategiczne. Jej zainteresowania badawcze obejmują politykę zagraniczną i wewnętrzną Francji, prawa człowieka oraz konflikty zbrojne.

Stanisław Waszczykowski

Podoficer rezerwy, student studiów magisterskich na kierunku Bezpieczeństwo Międzynarodowe i Dyplomacja na Akademii Sztuki Wojennej, były praktykant w BBN. Jego zainteresowania badawcze obejmują m.in. operacje pokojowe ONZ oraz bezpieczeństwo Ukrainy.

Leon Pińczak

Student studiów drugiego stopnia na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim na kierunku stosunki międzynarodowe. Dziennikarz polskojęzycznej redakcji Biełsatu. Zawodowo zajmuje się obszarem postsowieckim, rosyjską polityką wewnętrzną i doktrynami FR. Biegle włada językiem rosyjskim.

Program Indo-Pacyfik tworzą:

Łukasz Kobierski

Dyrektor programu. Współzałożyciel INE oraz prezes zarządu w latach 2019-2021. Stypendysta szkoleń z zakresu bezpieczeństwa na Daniel Morgan Graduate School of National Security w Waszyngtonie, ekspert od stosunków międzynarodowych. Absolwent Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego oraz Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Wiceprezes Zarządu INE.

dr Joanna Siekiera

Prawnik międzynarodowy, doktor nauk społecznych, adiunkt na Wydziale Prawa Uniwersytetu w Bergen w Norwegii. Była stypendystką rządu Nowej Zelandii na Uniwersytecie Victorii w Wellington, niemieckiego Institute of Cultural Diplomacy, a także francuskiego Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques.

Paweł Paszak

Absolwent stosunków międzynarodowych (spec. Wschodnioazjatycka) na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim oraz stypendysta University of Kent (W. Brytania) i Hainan University (ChRL). Doktorant UW i Akademii Sztuki Wojennej. Jego zainteresowania badawcze obejmują politykę zagraniczną ChRL oraz strategiczną rywalizację Chiny-USA.

Jakub Graca

Magister stosunków międzynarodowych na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim; studiował także filologię orientalną (specjalność: arabistyka). Analityk Centrum Inicjatyw Międzynarodowych (Warszawa) oraz Instytutu Nowej Europy. Zainteresowania badawcze: Stany Zjednoczone (z naciskiem na politykę zagraniczną), relacje transatlantyckie.

Patryk Szczotka

Absolwent filologii dalekowschodniej ze specjalnością chińską na Uniwersytecie Wrocławskim oraz student kierunku double degree China and International Relations na Aalborg University oraz University of International Relations (国际关系学院) w Pekinie. Jego zainteresowania naukowe to relacje polityczne i gospodarcze UE-ChRL oraz dyplomacja.

The programme's team:

Marcin Chruściel

Programme director. Graduate of PhD studies in Political Science at the University of Wroclaw and Master studies in International Relations at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. President of the Management Board at the Institute of New Europe.

PhD Artur Bartoszewicz

Chairman of the Institute's Programme Board. Doctor of Economic Sciences at the SGH Warsaw School of Economics. Expert in the field of public policy, including state and economic strategies. Expert at the National Centre for Research and Development and the Digital Poland Projects Centre.

Michał Banasiak

He specializes in relationship of sports and politics. Author of analysis, comments and interviews in the field of sports diplomacy and international politics. Former Polsat News and Polish Television’s foreign desk journalist.

Maciej Pawłowski

Expert on migration, economics and politics of Mediterranean countries. In the period of 2018-2020 PISM Analyst on Southern Europe. Author of various articles in Polish and foreign press about Spain, Italy, Greece, Egypt and Maghreb countries. Since September 2020 lives in North Africa (Egypt, Algeria).

Jędrzej Błaszczak

Graduate of Law at the University of Silesia. His research interests focus on the Three Seas Initiative and politics in Bulgaria. He acquired experience at the European Foundation of Human Rights in Vilnius, the Center for the Study of Democracy in Sofia, and in Polish embassies in Tehran and Tbilisi.

PhD Aleksander Olech

Programme director. Visiting lecturer at the Baltic Defence College, graduate of the European Academy of Diplomacy and War Studies University. His main research interests include terrorism, international cooperation for security in Eastern Europe and the role of NATO and the EU with regard to hybrid threats.

PhD Agnieszka Rogozińska

Member of the Institute's Programme Board. Doctor of Social Sciences in the discipline of Political Science. Editorial secretary of the academic journals "Politics & Security" and "Independence: journal devoted to Poland's recent history". Her research interests focus on security issues.

Aleksy Borówka

PhD candidate at the Faculty of Social Sciences in the University of Wroclaw, the President of the Polish National Associations of PhD Candidates in 2020. The author of dozen of scientific papers, concerning security studies, political science, administration, international relations. Laureate of the I, II and III International Geopolitical Olympiad.

Karolina Siekierka

Graduate of International Relations specializing in Security and Strategic Studies at University of Warsaw. Erasmus student at the Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1) and the Institut d’Etudes Politique de Paris (Sciences Po Paris). Her research areas include human rights, climate change and armed conflicts.

Stanisław Waszczykowski

Reserve non-commissioned officer. Master's degree student in International Security and Diplomacy at the War Studies University in Warsaw, former trainee at the National Security Bureau. His research interests include issues related to UN peacekeeping operations and the security of Ukraine.

Leon Pińczak

A second-degree student at the University of Warsaw, majoring in international relations. A journalist of the Polish language edition of Belsat. Interested in the post-Soviet area, with a particular focus on Russian internal politics and Russian doctrines - foreign, defense and information-cybernetic.

Łukasz Kobierski

Programme director. Deputy President of the Management Board. Scholarship holder at the Daniel Morgan Graduate School of National Security in Washington and an expert in the field of international relations. Graduate of the University of Warsaw and the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń

PhD Joanna Siekiera

International lawyer, Doctor of social sciences, postdoctor at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen, Norway. She was a scholarship holder of the New Zealand government at the Victoria University of Wellington, Institute of Cultural Diplomacy in Germany, Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques in France.

Paweł Paszak

Graduate of International Relations (specialisation in East Asian Studies) from the University of Warsaw and scholarship holder at the University of Kent (UK) and Hainan University (China). PhD candidate at the University of Warsaw and the War Studies University. His research areas include the foreign policy of China and the strategic rivalry between China and the US in the Indo-Pacific.

Jakub Graca

Master of International Relations at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. He also studied Arabic therein. An analyst at the Center for International Initiatives (Warsaw) and the Institute of New Europe. Research interests: United States (mainly foreign policy), transatlantic relations.

Patryk Szczotka

A graduate of Far Eastern Philology with a specialization in China Studies at the University of Wroclaw and a student of a double degree “China and International Relations” at Aalborg University and University of International Relations (国际关系学院) in Beijing. His research interests include EU-China political and economic relations, as well as diplomacy.

Three Seas Think Tanks Hub is a platform of cooperation among different think tanks based in 3SI member countries. Their common goal is to strengthen public debate and understanding of the Three Seas region seen from the political, economic and security perspective. The project aims at exchanging ideas, research and publications on the region’s potential and challenges.

Members

The Baltic Security Foundation (Latvia)

The BSF promotes the security and defense of the Baltic Sea region. It gathers security experts from the region and beyond, provides a platform for discussion and research, promotes solutions that lead to stronger regional security in the military and other areas.

The Institute for Politics and Society (Czech Republic)

The Institute analyses important economic, political, and social areas that affect today’s society. The mission of the Institute is to cultivate the Czech political and public sphere through professional and open discussion.

Nézöpont Institute (Hungary)

The Institute aims at improving Hungarian public life and public discourse by providing real data, facts and opinions based on those. Its primary focus points are Hungarian youth, media policy and Central European cooperation.

The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (Austria)

The wiiw is one of the principal centres for research on Central, East and Southeast Europe with 50 years of experience. Over the years, the Institute has broadened its expertise, increasing its regional coverage – to European integration, the countries of Wider Europe and selected issues of the global economy.

The International Institute for Peace (Austria)

The Institute strives to address the most topical issues of the day and promote dialogue, public engagement, and a common understanding to ensure a holistic approach to conflict resolution and a durable peace. The IIP functions as a platform to promote peace and non-violent conflict resolution across the world.

The Institute for Regional and International Studies (Bulgaria)

The IRIS initiates, develops and implements civic strategies for democratic politics at the national, regional and international level. The Institute promotes the values of democracy, civil society, freedom and respect for law and assists the process of deepening Bulgarian integration in NATO and the EU.

The European Institute of Romania

EIR is a public institution whose mission is to provide expertise in the field of European Affairs to the public administration, the business community, the social partners and the civil society. EIR’s activity is focused on four key domains: research, training, communication, translation of the EHRC case-law.

The Institute of New Europe (Poland)

The Institute is an advisory and analytical non-governmental organisation active in the fields of international politics, international security and economics. The Institute supports policy-makers by providing them with expert opinions, as well as creating a platform for academics, publicists, and commentators to exchange ideas.

YouTube

Latest publications

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
  • Jakub Bielamowicz comments for TRT World on local elections in northern Kosovo boycotted by Kosovo Serbs [Video]
    by Jakub Bielamowicz
    April 24, 2023
  • The sinusoid of South Korea’s foreign relations with North Korea in light of the nuclear issue – what lies ahead?
    by Agnieszka Lewczuk
    April 7, 2023
  • The [Ninth] Year of The Russo-Ukrainian War. INE Analysis
    by Aleksy Borówka
    April 6, 2023

Categories

THE MOST POPULAR TAGS:

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

China economy European Union International politics International security Poland Russia Security terrorism Ukraine USA

  • About
  • Publications
  • Europe
  • Security
  • O nas
  • Publikacje
  • Europa
  • Bezpieczeństwo
  • Indo-Pacific
  • Three Seas Think Tanks Hub
  • People
  • Contact – Careers
  • Indo-Pacyfik
  • Trójmorze
  • Ludzie
  • Kontakt – Kariera

Financed with funds from the National Freedom Institute - Center for Civil Society Development under the Governmental Civil Society Organisations Development Programme for 2018-2030.

Sfinansowano ze środków Narodowego Instytutu Wolności – Centrum Rozwoju Społeczeństwa Obywatelskiego w ramach Rządowego Programu Rozwoju Organizacji Obywatelskich na lata 2018-2030.



© 2019-2023 The Institute of New Europe Foundation · All rights reserved · Support us