WGA 2020 | Austria | Conclusions

Conclusions

Question:
Overall, in what ways and with what success has your country implemented a WGA? What would you consider the success factors underpinning a WGA in your country?

Austria Expert

Christian Strohal

Senior Diplomat, Austria

Christian Strohal is a senior Austrian diplomat. After having served from 2013 to 2016 as Austria’s Permanent Representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, he was nominated to be Special Representative for Austria’s OSCE Chairmanship in 2017. Since retiring, he has been a Senior Adviser to the current Slovak OSCE Chair-in Office and a non-resident Fellow at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination (LISD), which is affiliated with Princeton University. From 2008 to 2013, Christian represented Austria at the UN Office, the Conference on Disarmament and other international organisations in Geneva. From 2003 to 2008, he was Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE. Between 2007 and 2012, he also served as an alternate Member of the Management Board of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. Earlier functions include Ambassador for the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights; Director for Human Rights at Austria’s Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs; and Ambassador to Luxembourg. Christian was educated in Vienna, London and Geneva and holds a Dr.iur. from the University of Vienna. He has also held lecturing positions at various institutions and published a number of articles.

Ursula Werther-Pietsch

Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, Vienna

Ursula Werther-Pietsch works in Austria’s Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs, served as Senior Visiting Fellow at the National Defence Academy, and is one of the founders of Austria’s 3C approach. She is Professor of International Law and International Relations and teaches at various academic institutions, including the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, the National Defence Academy and the Bundeswehr University Munich. Prior to that, she was Head of Unit at the Bureau of the Legal Adviser and the Constitutional Service at the Federal Chancellery. Before entering into public service, she was an Assistant at the universities of Graz and Vienna. Ursula is an Adviser to the master’s degree programme of the Academic Forum for Foreign Policy and a Member of the Scientific Commission of the Ministry of Defence. She is founder of the journal Juristische Ausbildung und Praxis and has published widely, including the books Human Rights and Inclusive Societies (2014), International Crisis and Conflict Management (2017), Women as Drivers for Peace (2019), and The Collective Security System of the UN (forthcoming). Ursula studied Law, Architecture and French, and holds a PhD in Law from the University of Graz.

Markus Gauster

Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management (IFK), National Defence Academy, Vienna

Markus Gauster has been a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management (IFK) of Austria’s National Defence Academy since 2004. He holds a master’s degree in Law and a doctorate in Political Science from the universities of Graz and Vienna, and earned a certificate in Broadcast Journalism from the Danube University Krems. He was also active in the private sector and is a Reserve Officer in the Austrian Armed Forces. His research areas include conflict transformation in Afghanistan, civil-military interaction in peace operations, and innovative concepts for international crisis management (e.g. whole-of-nation approaches for coherent action in situations of conflict and fragility). Gauster undertook fact-finding missions in Afghanistan and its strategic environment, including as a long-term Election Observer for the European Union. He has written various articles and publications, and is a member of the International Society of Military Sciences as well as of the executive board of the Vienna-based Austria-Afghanistan Society.

Hans Lampalzer

Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management (IFK), National Defence Academy, Vienna

Colonel Hans Lampalzer currently works at the Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management (IFK) of Austria’s National Defence Academy in Vienna. After graduating from the Theresian Military Academy in 1991, he held various posts in the Austrian Armed Forces in addition to studying Translation Studies and Political Science at the University of Vienna. He also earned a doctorate in Intervention Research from the University of Klagenfurt, where his studies focused on the links between intercultural questions and security. Lampalzer has lectured to military and civilian audiences at, among others, the European Security and Defence College, the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, the FHS St. Gallen University of Applied Sciences in Switzerland, and several Austrian universities. He served at the Kosovo Force Headquarters in 2002 and 2003, has experience as an ODIHR Election Observer, and worked part-time from 2008 to 2015 for the Austrian Verification Center, especially in Russia and Belarus. From 2016 to 2017, he was Head of the OSCE High-Level Planning Group under the German and Austrian chairmanship. From May 2018 to March 2019, he served as a Liaison Officer to Austria’s Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs. In this position, in the second half of 2018, he served as a National Delegate to the Friends of the Presidency Group for Countering Hybrid Threats while Austria held the presidency of the Council of the European Union. His current research focuses on security-sector reform, and he is also responsible for the implementation of the Ministry of Defence’s contribution to the OSCE Armenia Co-operation Programme.

Austria
Report
PDF

Austria’s strategic culture concerning international engagement is evolving towards a more coordinated and coherent approach. However, overall, it continues to be fragmented to a certain degree owing to the various mechanisms of coordination at different levels as well as budgetary regulations. In addition, Austria’s WGA still seems to be inspired to a considerable degree by informal gatherings and personal leadership.

Austria’s Federal Ministries Act (National Council 1986), which sets out the administrative architecture of the ministries, does not explicitly propel inter-ministerial cooperation in a WGA sense, as it is designed to delineate competencies between the various ministries (i.e. to build boundaries rather than bridges). The only body with the power to coordinate all relevant governmental players is the federal chancellor (via the ‘Kompetenz-Kompetenz’ of the Federal Chancellery). This setup legally puts a constraint on the implementation of the full spectrum of WGA. However, policy-wise, Austria’s Comprehensive Security Provision (discussed above) represents a layer of the WGA at the strategic level.

There is a mix of instruments in Austria to support the implementation of its WGA. This includes institutional arrangements (e.g. the Foreign Disaster Relief Fund (AFDRF) managed by the BMEIA, the Austrian Platform of Development and Humanitarian Aid, and evaluations of guidelines and programmes) and ad hoc mechanisms (e.g. pooled funding for Austria’s civil-military engagement in Mali). However, a certain weakness lies in the fact that there is no overarching strategic platform, stabilisation fund or task force. Pooled funding has been met with political resistance and, due to budget-law constraints, a compromise at the inter-ministerial level has yet to be achieved. The humanitarian angle of external engagement (e.g. the AFDRF, for which the federal cabinet makes decisions) reflects an existing imbalance between short-term political decision-making needed to respond to crises and a needs-based human-security approach stressing pre vention tools. A more coherent and strategic approach regarding a transparent, foreseeable and sustainable allocation of financial means would minimise the risk of political instrumentalisation as well as enhance the financial predictability for implementing partners.

As far as the concrete functioning of a WGA-oriented setup is concerned, work on a practical basis can be assessed positively despite constitutional gaps and a certain disconnect that persists between the working and political levels. Moreover, in practice, a compulsory implementation of a WGA is hampered by a certain degree of reluctance, which has prevented full political backing. But since it is a relatively young working method, and one that often depends on engagement by individuals (‘champions’), a WGA would need constant political backing.

International debate contributes to sustaining joint efforts to establish a WGA (e.g. the EUGS, but also the SDGs, the UNDP and World Bank policies). Inter-departmental coordination and the effectiveness and quality of institutional arrangements varies and is predominantly driven by individual leadership as well as the significance of the respective policy for Austria. Furthermore, departments in different ministries with a key role in implementing a WGA are often understaffed, and personnel-training efforts are often undertaken on an ad hoc basis. Indeed, more human resources should be dedicated to a WGA, as more staff could administer more programmes, thereby creating a leverage effect for certain prioritised areas. There is a strong willingness among experts and staff at the working level across the line ministries to implement a WGA, but the necessary political leadership at the strategic level has yet to live up to its full potential.

In conclusion, regarding Austria’s WGA-like approach, the current state of play can be summarised as follows: First, without any doubt, the spirit of a WGA is shared by Austrian stakeholders (especially in the administration) as well as at the level of experts and NGOs. However, a systematic WGA is limited to a certain degree by the existing legal framework (e.g. division of competencies among ministries and the deployment of personnel) as well as by budgetary legislation (i.e. the ‘budget sovereignty’ of the ministries involved). Second, coherence issues under the umbrella of a WGA can and should be improved through a number of measures (e.g. comprehensive political guidance, prioritisation of a WGA at the political level, specialisation of personnel, inter-ministerial trainings and pooled funding) and by having a more consistent institutional framework. Third, enhanced political backing of a WGA could contribute to a more proactive management as well as to higher and more sustained funding to address conflicts and crises. Fourth, prioritisation based on joint assessments and analyses of all stakeholders in given contexts could be improved to substantially promote coherent action. Fifth, strategic communication would be a prerequisite for the successful implementation of a WGA. And, lastly, the establishment of WGA focal points drawing on, for example, expertise from respective country teams in the lead ministries would certainly improve the preparation of joint action, and this work should be interlinked with the NSC and/or the federal cabinet.

Altogether, one can expect that Austria will continue its interactions at the EU level related to further strengthening WGA and comprehensive cooperation and thereby benefit, in turn, from an enhanced WGA at the national level.

Austria Report