| dc.description.abstract | With fifty-seven member states and a remarkably broad definition of security, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) offers an unparalleled platform for crisis management across Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Despite its unique advantages and a history of successful crisis intervention, however, the organization has long been plagued by transparency issues, wide-ranging criticism, and a broad lack of support. These issues can be seen clearly by examining its involvement in the international response to the 2013-14 Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine. This less-than-successful intervention stands in sharp contrast to the OSCE’s more effective crisis management efforts during the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. This study aims to examine two of the organization's best practices in the field of crisis management, monitoring and mediation, and to identify the factors which may influence the effectiveness of these tools. Relying on a combination of scholarly articles, OSCE documents, and statements from politicians, political analysts, and popular media sources, I will these two of examples of twenty-first century Ukrainian revolutions to show that using its best practices of crisis monitoring and mediation the OSCE has the potential to positively influence intrastate crises which occur within its area of operation, but that the organization loses considerable effectiveness when it lacks consensus among its members, international support, public trust, or a reasonable response time | en_US |
