OSCE AS AN INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM FOR CONFIDENCE-BUILDING, MILITARY TRANSPARENCY, ARMS CONTROL AND CONFLICT PREVENTION IN EUROPE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/2519-481X/2025/89-07Keywords:
OSCE, military transparency, trust-building, arms control, Vienna Document 2011, conflict prevention, early warning, mediation, European security, verificationAbstract
Introduction. In the contemporary European security environment marked by geopolitical fragmentation and the erosion of traditional arms control regimes, trust between States can no longer be viewed as a derivative of political declarations or shared values. It emerges through institutional mechanisms of predictability, in which military transparency plays a central role. The article examines the OSCE as a comprehensive institutional mechanism that integrates military transparency regimes, confidence- and security-building measures, early warning instruments, and conflict resolution tools.
Methods. The study combines the institutional approach with security studies methodology. It employs qualitative comparative analysis of key OSCE documents (Vienna Document 2011, Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security 1994), as well as the activities of the Conflict Prevention Centre, field operations, and the High Commissioner on National Minorities. The instruments are decomposed according to normative, verification, analytical, and mediation dimensions, with emphasis on their interaction.
Results. The effectiveness of the OSCE is shown to stem not from isolated tools but from their interaction, which ensures procedural predictability and reduces the risk of escalation. Key limitations identified include the consensus-based decision-making model, formalization of transparency regimes, fragmentation of military activities below notification thresholds, and insufficient integration between verification data, early warning, and mediation. An original optimization model is proposed, encompassing modernization of notification thresholds, strengthening the analytical autonomy of the Conflict Prevention Centre, introduction of digital verification tools, and closer linkage between monitoring and mediation practices.
Conclusions. The OSCE retains a unique position in the European security architecture as a platform of procedural predictability, yet requires urgent institutional adaptation to conditions of geopolitical fragmentation. Its continued relevance depends on updating military transparency regimes, enhancing analytical and mediation components, and restoring the political will of participating States. The findings are of practical relevance for Ukrainian policy in the fields of European security and arms control.
References
1. Engvall, J. (2021). Transparency and risk reduction in European security. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
2. Guliyev, F., & Gawrich, A. (2021). OSCE mediation strategies in Eastern Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh: A comparative analysis. European Security, 30(4), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1900121
3. Gurkovskyi, V. I., Romanenko, Ye. O., & Pavlii, N. I. (2026). Teoretychni zasady kontroliu nad zvychainymy ozbroienniamy v Yevropi v umovakh transformatsii bezpekovoho seredovyshcha [Theoretical foundations of conventional arms control in Europe in the conditions of security environment transformation]. Natsional’ni interesy Ukrainy, 2(19), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.52058/3041-1793-2026-2(19)-132-151
4. Härtel, A., Pisarenko, A., & Umland, A. (2021). The OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine: The SMM’s work in the Donbas and its Ukrainian critique in 2014–2019. Security and Human Rights, 31(1-4), 121–154. https://doi.org/10.1163/18750230-03101004
5. Klymenko, N., & Taran, Ye. (2026). Global and regional security: Control over conventional armaments, humanitarian, social and economic components. Natsional’ni interesy Ukrainy, 2(19), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.52058/3041-1793-2026-2(19)-263-275
6. Kulesa, L. (2020). The future of conventional arms control in Europe. Polish Institute of International Affairs.
7. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (1994). Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security. https://www.osce.org/fsc/41355
8. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2011). Vienna Document 2011 on confidence- and security-building measures. https://www.osce.org/fsc/41355
9. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2014). OSCE handbook on confidence- and security-building measures. Vienna.
10. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2022a). Forum for Security Co-operation: Overview and functions. Vienna.
11. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2022b). Revitalizing European security architecture. OSCE Network of Think Tanks and Academic Institutions. Vienna.
12. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2023a). Conflict Prevention Centre. OSCE Secretariat. Vienna.
13. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. (2023b). High Commissioner on National Minorities: Mandate and activities. The Hague.
14. OSCE Yearbook 2021: European security and cooperation. (2022). Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748911456
15. Pundziūtė-Gallois, E. (2023). The OSCE and the Minsk Process for Ukraine. How diplomatic innovation transforms international organisations. European Review of International Studies, 10(2), 136–165. https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-10020006
16. Sossai, M. (2013). Transparency as a cornerstone of disarmament and non-proliferation regimes. In A. Bianchi & A. Peters (Eds.), Transparency in international law (pp. 392–416). Cambridge University Press.
17. Wolff, S. (2018). Conflict management in the OSCE area. Routledge.
18. Zellner, W. (2017). OSCE confidence- and security-building measures: Evolution and challenges. Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg.
