The Relevance of the Helsinki Process and the Charter of Paris for Future Security Policies and Institutions

May the Helsinki Process and Charter of Paris provide insights for future security policy and institutions even though they have failed to prevent the escalation of the conflict between Russia and the West or the invasion of Ukraine? Combining historical analysis, conceptual work, and controlled use of counterfactuals, I discuss the concept of common security, the OSCE, and NATO expansion, focusing on the tension between individualistic and communitarian aspects of the OSCE. The unintended consequences of the OSCE did not stop with the end of the Cold War, but this time they have been less positive and more counterproductive. To what extent, or in what ways, is it fair to argue that the war in Ukraine has revealed the weakness of institutional arrangements and organizations such as the OSCE? While this is complicated and the answer may in some ways be counterintuitive, I make the case for being sceptical about military deterrence providing a plausible alternative to a process of establishing the basics of common security. On the contrary, I conclude that some of the key ideas and aspirations of the Helsinki process can be recontextualized and developed further, also in contexts outside Europe, especially in East Asia.