DOCSLIB.ORG

Taming the Hydra: How to Resist Kremlin’S Information Aggression

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taming the Hydra: How to Resist Kremlin’S Information Aggression TAMING THE HYDRA: HOW TO RESIST KREMLIN’S INFORMATION AGGRESSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INFORMATION POLICY Kyiv – 2018 TAMING THE HYDRA: HOW TO RESIST KREMLIN’S INFORMATION AGGRESSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INFORMATION POLICY This analytical publication was compiled by NGO Internews Ukraine with the support of the European Union and the International Renaissance Foundation within the framework of the Civic Synergy Project and under the auspices of the Ukrainian National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum. Its content is the exclusive responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union and the International Renaissance Foundation. This project is funded by the European Union. Kyiv – 2018 002 Initiative group (Internews Ukraine) Latvia (Baltic Centre for Media Excellence). Andriy Kulakov — Ukrainian media Author of number of reports on psychological expert, PR consultant, programme director operations, Kremlin propaganda, and media of Internews Ukraine NGO. Editor and in EaP region, Central Europe and Balkans. co-author of “The Reforms Guide” and “Words and Wars: Ukraine Facing Kremlin Igor Solovey — Ukrainian journalist Propaganda” publications. covering international issues, the head of international department at LB.ua. Volodymyr Yermolenko — Ukrainian Media expert, consultant of “How Russian philosopher and journalist, director of Propaganda Works” publication. European projects at Internews Ukraine NGO, editor in chief at UkraineWorld.org, Vitalii Moroz — Head of New Media at journalist at Hromadske.ua. Editor in chief of Internews Ukraine NGO. Responsible for “Words and Wars: Ukraine Facing Kremlin strategy planning and implementation of new Propaganda.” technology and media projects. Oversees programs aimed to promote digital security, Vitalii Rybak — coordinator of EU-related fact-checking, Internet freedom and digital projects at Internews Ukraine, analyst at rights for journalists and civil society. UkraineWorld.org, co-author of “Words and Wars: Ukraine Facing Kremlin Propaganda” Pavlo Belousov — expert of Internews book, contributor to Ukraine Alert (Atlantic Ukraine NGO, consultant of Digital Security Council) and Ukraine Verstehen (Zentrum School 380. Liberale Moderne). Peer reviewer Expert group Ihor Rozkladay — lawyer of the Centre Tetiana Popova — Ukrainian media expert, for Democracy and Rule of Law (CEDEM), blogger, Advisor to the Minister of Defense leading expert of the “Media Reform” group of Ukraine (2014-2015); Deputy Minister of of the Reanimation Package of Reforms, Information policy of Ukraine (2015-2016); member of the Independent Media Council. strategic communication expert at Information Security NGO, managing partner at Arena Media Expert (Havas group). Editor Kateryna Kruk — Ukrainian Volodymyr Yermolenko communications specialist and political scientist focusing on Ukrainian post-Maidan Translators transition, international affairs and analyzing Valeria Mendez, Lesia Dubenko Russian disinformation campaigns in Ukraine. She is an external fellow at European Values Literary editor Kremlin Watch program and an analyst at Jacob Fawcett Stop Fake. Design Roman Shutov — Ukrainian political Nadiya Machkarina-Mykhailichenko scientist and media expert, Advisor of the EED Content Fund. In 2014-18, worked in Illustrations think tanks in Ukraine (Detector Media) and Artem Mykhailichenko 003 TABLE OF CONTENTS 004 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • More Personnel and Resources • Monitoring Efficiency of Public Policy 006 HOW WE MADE THIS DOCUMENT • Public and Cultural Diplomacy • Work in the East and South of Ukraine 008 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: • Work with Technical Giants WEAPONIZING INFORMATION • Cooperation with Civil Society • Support for International Journalists 014 RESPONSE: DE-WEAPONIZING INFORMATION 032 WHAT SHOULD UKRAINE’S PARLIAMENT DO? 015 RECOMMENDATIONS • Legislation on Countering Information Threats 015 WHAT SHOULD THE INTERNATIONAL • Support for Public Broadcasting COMMUNITY DO? • Equal Access to Media • Understanding the Threat and Addressing It 034 WHAT SHOULD EU INSTITUTIONS DO? 017 WHAT SHOULD NATIONAL • Act, Not Just Study PARLIAMENTS DO? • Development of the East Stratcom • Media Transparency, especially Online TaskForce • Transparency of Political and Information • Focus on Information Issues in the EU – Campaigns Ukraine Dialogue • Legislation on Hate Speech and • Common Digital Space Disinformation • Eastern Partnership • EU Programs 020 WHAT SHOULD THE NATIONAL • European Convention on Transfrontier GOVERNMENTS DO? Television • National Information Security Strategies • Sanctions against Information 037 WHAT SHOULD CIVIL SOCIETY Influence Agents AND MEDIA DO? • Branding Russia’s State “Media” • Identify Agents of Information Influence • Follow the Money • Strengthening Democratic Narratives • Media Literacy • Self-regulation and Co-regulation • Fact-checking 026 WHAT SHOULD UKRAINE DO? • Primary Approach: Explain, Do Not Lie 040 CONCLUSIONS 026 WHAT SHOULD PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNMENT DO? • Information Security Doctrine • Coordination Among Key Institutions 004 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This publication is a follow-up to the book “Words and Wars: Ukraine Facing Kremlin Propaganda”1 which Internews Ukraine published in 2017 with the support of the EU/IRF Civic Synergy Project. While in “Words and Wars” we aimed at describing the challenge of Russian information warfare with regard to Ukraine, in this publication we discuss what to do about it. Since this question has become increasingly urgent worldwide, it is important for us to give a perspective based upon Ukrainian experience. In this publication we argue that: • Russia is using information as a tool of domination and warfare; this conclusion can be made from both analyzing Russia’s official documents and monitoring its information practices; • In a situation when information is increasingly weaponized, national governments and parliaments, as well as international community should search for ways to de-weaponize it when it is used with malevolent purposes; • As security and disarmament were the key principles of Helsinki process in 1970s, which became a milestone for European security, it is important to pursue an approach of disarmament in the information field, i.e. of fighting against aggressive disinformation practices in the information area; • This “info-disarmament” should take into account that the tools used by the Russian information warfare are extremely flexible. In this regard we address our policy recommendations to the international community as such, to national governments and parliaments, to Ukrainian government and parliament, to civil society (both national and international) and to EU institutions. We advise national governments and parliaments to: • Increase the transparency of media, in particular online media, which can ensure that the traceability of malign influences, and that information resources are held accountable; • Increase the transparency of political and information campaigns, especially during the election period; ensure that internet platforms make the technologies providing for this transparency accessible worldwide; • Increase legislative action against the conscious spread of disinformation and information manipulation; • Increase legislative action against hate speech, in particular systematic hate speech on Russian information resources; • Adopt information security strategies and implement them at the national level; • Impose sanctions (travel ban and asset freeze) on actors of information warfare; • Impose sanctions on Russian “media” companies that violate previous sanction regimes (i.e. the Russian “media” companies that took over Ukrainian media frequencies in Crimea or Donbas); 1 https://ukraineworld.org/articles/infowars 005 • Impose special branding requirements on Russian state-owned “media” (requiring them to disclose that they are “funded by Russian government”); • Better do the “follow the money” research, i.e. checking sources suspected in spreading disinformation, hate speech, with regard to their funding; • Proceed more systematically with media literacy, not only in formal but also in informal and non-formal education. We advise the Ukrainian government and parliament to: • Always follow the approach of telling the truth and explaining. Avoid any temptations to bend the truth; • Fully implement the Ukrainian “information security doctrine”; • Ensure stable coordination of key public institutions with regard to information security issues; create a government office that would monitor, analyze and respond to information attacks; • Provide more personnel and resources to these institutions; • Monitor the efficacy of public policy with regard to measures already taken in order to improve their efficacy in the future; • Work with technical giants (such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google) to establish partnerships which will take into account Ukrainian concerns; • Cooperate with civil society on fact checking, monitoring and naming the agents of malign information influencers; • Facilitate the work of international journalists covering the Ukrainian issues; • Adopt legislation taking into account security concerns, but also ensuring fundamental rights and freedoms; • Increase support of public broadcasting; • Ensure equal access to media, including the oligarchic media. We also advise the EU to: • Inject more resources into the EU East StratCom TaskForce; • Cooperate with national teams (both government and non-government)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inside the Temple of Covert Propaganda: the Integrity Initiative and the UK’S Scandalous Information War
    Inside the Temple of Covert Propaganda: The Integrity Initiative and the UK’s Scandalous Information War By Mohamed Elmaazi and Max Blumenthal Region: Europe Global Research, December 20, 2018 Theme: Intelligence, Politics Gray Zone Project 17 December 2018 Recent hacked documents have revealed an international network of politicians, journalists, academics, researchers and military officers, all engaged in highly deceptive covert propaganda campaigns funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), NATO, Facebook and hardline national security institutions. This “network of networks”, as one document refers to them, centers around an ironically named outfit called the Integrity Initiative. And it is all overseen by a previously unknown England-based think tank registered in Scotland, the Institute for Statecraft, which has operated under a veil of secrecy. The whole operation appears to be run by, and in conjunction with, members of British military intelligence. According to David Miller, professor of political sociology in the school of policy studies at the University of Bristol and the director of the Organization for Propaganda Studies, the Integrity Initiative “appears to be a military directed push.” “The most senior government people are professional propagandists and spooks,” Miller explained. “The ‘charity’ lead on this [Chris Donnelly] was also appointed as a colonel in military intelligence at the beginning of the project — a truly amazing fact that suggests this is a military intelligence cut out.” A minister for the UK FCOhas officially confirmed that it has been funding the Integrity Network. In addition to conducting diplomacy, the FCO oversees both the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) the UK equivalent to the National Security Agency, and the Secret Intelligence Services (SIS) commonly known as MI6.
    [Show full text]
  • Combating Russian Disinformation in Ukraine: Case Studies in a Market for Loyalties
    COMBATING RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION IN UKRAINE: CASE STUDIES IN A MARKET FOR LOYALTIES Monroe E. Price* & Adam P. Barry** I. INTRODUCTION This essay takes an oblique approach to the discussion of “fake news.” The approach is oblique geographically because it is not a discourse about fake news that emerges from the more frequently invoked cases centered on the United States and Western Europe, but instead relates primarily to Ukraine. It concerns the geopolitics of propaganda and associated practices of manipulation, heightened persuasion, deception, and the use of available techniques. This essay is also oblique in its approach because it deviates from the largely definitional approach – what is and what is not fake news – to the structural approach. Here, we take a leaf from the work of the (not-so) “new institutionalists,” particularly those who have studied what might be called the sociology of decision-making concerning regulations.1 This essay hypothesizes that studying modes of organizing social policy discourse ultimately can reveal or predict a great deal about the resulting policy outcomes, certainly supplementing a legal or similar analysis. Developing this form of analysis may be particularly important as societies seek to come to grips with the phenomena lumped together under the broad rubric of fake news. The process by which stakeholders assemble to determine a collective position will likely have major consequences for the * Monroe E. Price is an Adjunct Full Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and the Joseph and Sadie Danciger Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law. He directs the Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research in London, and is the Chair of the Center for Media and Communication Studies of the Central European University in Budapest.” ** Adam P.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom on the Net, Ukraine
    Ukraine https://freedomhouse.org/country/ukraine/freedom-net/2020 The COVID-19 pandemic saw the authorities prosecute users for spreading rumors online and launch several initiatives aimed at stopping the spread of the disease, including an app that monitors individuals in mandatory isolation, that infringe upon users’ privacy rights. Online journalists continued to face extralegal retaliation for their work. Cyberattacks remain a regular occurrence, affecting government and nongovernment targets alike. C1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to 3.003 information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that 6.006 lacks independence? The right to free speech is granted to all citizens of Ukraine under Article 34 of the constitution, but the state may restrict this right in the interests of national security or public order, and it is sometimes restricted in practice. Article 15 of the constitution prohibits censorship.132 Ukrainian courts are hampered by corruption and political interference, and public trust in the judiciary remains low.133 Serious crimes against journalists often remain unresolved (see C7). President Zelenskyy’s administration has at times denied reporters access to information (see B5). The IMI recorded 21 COVID-19–related restrictions on the work of journalists from mid-March 2020 until the end of April 2020, including cases in which journalists were prohibited from attending government meetings or prevented from reporting.134 C2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities? 2.002 4.004 No dedicated law mandates criminal penalties or civil liability specifically for online activities.
    [Show full text]
  • International Crimes in Crimea
    International Crimes in Crimea: An Assessment of Two and a Half Years of Russian Occupation SEPTEMBER 2016 Contents I. Introduction 6 A. Executive summary 6 B. The authors 7 C. Sources of information and methodology of documentation 7 II. Factual Background 8 A. A brief history of the Crimean Peninsula 8 B. Euromaidan 12 C. The invasion of Crimea 15 D. Two and a half years of occupation and the war in Donbas 23 III. Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court 27 IV. Contextual elements of international crimes 28 A. War crimes 28 B. Crimes against humanity 34 V. Willful killing, murder and enforced disappearances 38 A. Overview 38 B. The law 38 C. Summary of the evidence 39 D. Documented cases 41 E. Analysis 45 F. Conclusion 45 VI. Torture and other forms of inhuman treatment 46 A. Overview 46 B. The law 46 C. Summary of the evidence 47 D. Documented cases of torture and other forms of inhuman treatment 50 E. Analysis 59 F. Conclusion 59 VII. Illegal detention 60 A. Overview 60 B. The law 60 C. Summary of the evidence 62 D. Documented cases of illegal detention 66 E. Analysis 87 F. Conclusion 87 VIII. Forced displacement 88 A. Overview 88 B. The law 88 C. Summary of evidence 90 D. Analysis 93 E. Conclusion 93 IX. Crimes against public, private and cultural property 94 A. Overview 94 B. The law 94 C. Summary of evidence 96 D. Documented cases 99 E. Analysis 110 F. Conclusion 110 X. Persecution and collective punishment 111 A. Overview 111 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Resisting Foreign State Propaganda in the New Information Environment: the Case of the EU, Russia, and the Eastern Partnership Countries ISBN 978-9934-8536-9-2
    RESISTING FOREIGN STATE PROPAGANDA IN THE NEW INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT: THE CASE OF THE EU, RUSSIA, AND THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP COUNTRIES ISBN 978-9934-8536-9-2 UDK 32.019.5 Re708 This publication is a part of the project “Resisting state propaganda in the new information environment: The case of EU member states and EU Eastern Partnership states vis-à-vis the Russian Federation publication/re- search” organised by the Foundation for European Pro- gressive Studies (FEPS) with the support of Brīvības un Solidaritātes Fonds (BSF). RESISTING FOREIGN STATE PROPAGANDA IN THE NEW INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT: THE CASE OF THE EU, RUSSIA, AND THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP COUNTRIES Table of contents Foreword Dr. Ernst Stetter 11 Foreword Ervins Labanovskis 17 PART I: INCREASING RESISTANCE TO PROPAGANDA WITHIN THE EU Countering propaganda in Europe: Responses and options Ben Nimmo 23 The role of national strategic narrative in raising resilience to hostile foreign propaganda in European societies Māris Cepurītis 39 Increasing the resistance of democratic states to hostile foreign propaganda— what is the right recipe? Elīna Lange-Ionatamišvili 52 The Audiovisual Media Services Directive and propaganda Andris Mellakauls 71 7 Key findings of the EED’s Feasibility PART III: THE VIEW FROM Study on independent Russian- THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP COUNTRIES language media initiatives in the Eastern Partnership and beyond Farther from Russky Mir, Jerzy Pomianowski 89 Closer to the West Tamar Kintsurashvili 173 PART II: THE VIEW FROM THE BALTIC STATES Russian propaganda
    [Show full text]
  • The Kremlin's Irregular Army: Ukrainian Separatist Order of Battle
    THE KREMLIN’S IRREGULARY ARMY: UKRAINIAN SEPARATIST ORDER OF BATTLE | FRANKLIN HOLCOMB | AUGUST 2017 Franklin Holcomb September 2017 RUSSIA AND UKRAINE SECURITY REPORT 3 THE KREMLIN’S IRREGULAR ARMY: UKRAINIAN SEPARATIST ORDER OF BATTLE WWW.UNDERSTANDINGWAR.ORG 1 Cover: A Pro-Russian separatist sits at his position at Savur-Mohyla, a hill east of the city of Donetsk, August 28, 2014. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing or from the publisher. ©2017 by the Institute for the Study of War. Published in 2017 in the United States of America by the Instittue for the Study of War. 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 | Washington, DC 20036 understandingwar.org 2 Franklin Holcomb The Kremlin’s Irregular Army: Ukrainian Separatist Order of Battle ABOUT THE AUTHOR Franklin Holcomb is a Russia and Ukraine Research Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War where he focuses on the war in Ukraine, Ukrainian politics, and Russian foreign policy in Eastern Europe. His current research focuses on studying the development of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Russian-backed separatist formations operating in Eastern Ukraine, as well as analyzing Russian political and military activity in Moldova, the Baltic, and the Balkans. Mr. Holcomb is the author of “The Order of Battle of the Ukrainian Armed Forces: A Key Component in European Security,” “Moldova Update: Kremlin Will Likely Seek to Realign Chisinau”, “Ukraine Update: Russia’s Aggressive Subversion of Ukraine,” as well as ISW’s other monthly updates on the political and military situation in Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • HJS 'Putin Sees and Hears It All' Report.Qxd
    Putin SeeS and HearS it all: How ruSSia’S intelligence agencieS Menace tHe uK BY DR ANDREW FOXALL DEMOCRACY | FREEDOM | HUMAN RIGHTS November 2018 First published in 2018 by The Henry Jackson Society. The Henry Jackson Society Millbank Tower 21-24 Millbank London SW1P 4QP Registered charity no. 1140489 Tel: +44 (0)20 7340 4520 www.henryjacksonsociety.org © The Henry Jackson Society, 2018. All rights reserved. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its Trustees. Title: “PuTiN SEES AND HEARS iT ALL: HOW RuSSiA’S iNTELLigENcE AgENciES MENAcE THE uK” By: Dr Andrew Foxall Putin SeeS and HearS it all: How ruSSia’S intelligence agencieS Menace tHe uK BY DR ANDREW FOXALL November 2018 PuTiN SEES AND HEARS iT ALL “Dr. Foxall’s report forcefully reminds us that Russian Intelligence activity in the West is still large scale and intrusive, and that we need to devote significant resources and expertise ourselves to monitoring and blunting this threat to our national security. As during the Cold War an effective counterintelligence capability remains an essential part of our own intelligence and security community.” Sir richard dearlove KcMg oBe chief of the Secret intelligence Service (Mi6) (1999-2004) “Anyone who is relaxed or complacent about Russian intelligence activity in the United Kingdom should read this Report. Not only have we experienced the murder of Litvinenko and the attempted murder of the Skripals on British soil, Britain and the West as a whole face an unrelenting assault from Putin’s bloated intelligence and security agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Constituency Report (January 2019) Foreign Office Questions
    Constituency Report (January 2019) Foreign Office Questions At Foreign Office Questions this week I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he still believes that the British people should be the ones to decide whether or not the government’s Brexit deal is acceptable. After the referendum in 2016 Jeremy Hunt made it clear that he believed either a General Election or a referendum on the final deal should be held . This government continues to hold the threat of a No Deal Brexit hanging over the heads of MPs. When appealing to the public, the government claims that we are intent on ignoring the “will of the people” and trying to sabotage Brexit in any way possible. The reality is that the government has wasted precious months of negotiating time attempting to bypass Parliament. It is Visiting new homes on Dover Court Estate, time for the government to take No Deal off the table 21st Dec and finally engage Parliament in the process. Tory Brexit Deal On the 15th of January, the government’s Brexit deal was voted down by the House of Commons, after being delayed for five weeks. This was the largest defeat of a government in British history, and the result is indicative of the widespread dissatisfaction with the Tory’s handling of the Brexit process. Ahead of the vote I wrote an article laying out the historical precedent for holding a General Election when the government of the day can’t govern. We are heading towards a disastrous No-Deal Brexit, led by a zombie government which has allowed these failed negotiations to consume all of the government’s resources and bring Parliament to a standstill.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Freedom of Speech and Opinion in Ukraine: Threats and Opportunities This Report Was Prepared by the Ukrainian Human Rights Platform “Uspishna Varta”
    ALL-UKRAINIAN ASSOCIATION "SUCCESSFUL GUARDS" Human Rights Platform uspishna-varta.com The right to freedom of speech and opinion in Ukraine: threats and opportunities This report was prepared by the Ukrainian human rights platform “Uspishna Varta”. This report assesses the observance of rights and freedoms on the territory controlled by the government of Ukraine. This report is based on data obtained by the human rights platform “Uspishna Varta” via conducting detailed interviews with victims and witnesses of human rights violations and infringements, experts and human rights defenders, as well as via carrying out activities to assist in the protection of human rights in documented cases. Among them - the monitoring of trials, advocacy work with the duty bearers on respecting human rights, non-governmental organizations, and the media. General recommendations on the right to freedom of speech and opinion in Ukraine In order to ensure the right to freedom of speech and opinion enshrined in Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as well as in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the state of Ukraine, the following measures should be taken. The President of Ukraine: 1. To take measures to stop pressure being put on the media and provide explanations for the intervention of the head of state or his subordinates in the activities of issuing licenses and the organization of media inspections. 2. Recall the representatives of the National Council of Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting, appointed by the quota of the President.
    [Show full text]
  • ∗2004181∗ A/Hrc/43/Crp.7
    A/HRC/43/CRP.7 18 March 2020 Original: English Human Rights Council Forty-third session 24 February–20 March 2020 Agenda item 10 Technical assistance and capacity-building Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine (16 November 2019–15 February 2020)* * Reproduced as received in the language of submission only. GE.20-04181(E) ∗2004181∗ A/HRC/43/CRP.7 2 A/HRC/43/CRP.7 I. Executive summary 1. This twenty-ninth report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the human rights situation in Ukraine covers the situation from 16 November 2019 to 15 February 2020. It is based on the work of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU).1 2. During the reporting period, OHCHR recorded two civilian deaths (both men) and 17 civilian injuries (13 men, three women, and one boy), a 54.8 per cent decrease compared with the previous reporting period (six killed and 36 injured). The total civilian casualties recorded in 2019 (27 killed and 140 injured) were 40.6 per cent lower than in 2018 (55 killed and 226 injured), and were the lowest annual civilian casualty figures for the entire conflict period. 3. Parliament continued to develop draft laws on remedy and reparation for deaths and injuries of civilians, and for the loss of property, including housing, which could lead to a comprehensive state policy of remedy and reparation to civilian victims of the conflict.2 This has been lacking since 2014. 4. The armed conflict continued to negatively impact the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the civilian population, especially the more than five million residents of the conflict-affected area and internally displaced persons (IDPs).3 Children, older persons and persons in vulnerable situations are at increased risk of being left behind in achieving sustainable development because of the conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Association Agreement with Ukraine
    European Parliament 2019-2024 TEXTS ADOPTED P9_TA(2021)0050 EU Association Agreement with Ukraine European Parliament resolution of 11 February 2021 on the implementation of the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine (2019/2202(INI)) The European Parliament, – having regard to Article 8 and Title V, notably Articles 21, 22, 36, 37 and 49, of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as well as Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), – having regard to the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (AA/DCFTA), which entered into force on 1 September 2017, and to the related Association Agenda, – having regard to the entry into force on 11 June 2017 of a visa-free regime for citizens of Ukraine, as a result of the amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 made by the European Parliament and the Council, – having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from their requirement1, – having regard to its previous resolutions relating to Ukraine, in particular those of 12 December 2018 on the implementation of the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine2, and of 21 January 2016 on Association Agreements / Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine3, as well as to its recommendation of 19 June 2020 to the Council, the Commission and the Vice- President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the Eastern Partnership, in the run-up to the June 2020 Summit4, 1 OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Information and Guidance Ukraine: Background Information, Including Actors of Protection and Internal Relocation
    Country Information and Guidance Ukraine: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation Version 1.0 August 2016 Preface This document provides country of origin information (COI) and guidance to Home Office decision makers on handling particular types of protection and human rights claims. This includes whether claims are likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave and whether – in the event of a claim being refused – it is likely to be certifiable as ‘clearly unfounded’ under s94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Decision makers must consider claims on an individual basis, taking into account the case specific facts and all relevant evidence, including: the guidance contained with this document; the available COI; any applicable caselaw; and the Home Office casework guidance in relation to relevant policies. Country Information The COI within this document has been compiled from a wide range of external information sources (usually) published in English. Consideration has been given to the relevance, reliability, accuracy, objectivity, currency, transparency and traceability of the information and wherever possible attempts have been made to corroborate the information used across independent sources, to ensure accuracy. All sources cited have been referenced in footnotes. It has been researched and presented with reference to the Common EU [European Union] Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information (COI), dated April 2008, and the European Asylum Support Office’s research guidelines, Country of Origin Information report methodology, dated July 2012. Feedback Our goal is to continuously improve the guidance and information we provide. Therefore, if you would like to comment on this document, please email the Country Policy and Information Team.
    [Show full text]