Researcher
Nina Græger
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Nina Græger is research professor at NUPI, in the Research group on global order and diplomacy and professor in international relations at the University of Copenhagen. From September 2019, she is on leave, holding a part time position at NUPI while she is Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen. Her research interests are security practices, interorganizational relations, IR, European, transatlantic and Norwegian security and defence, and military sociology.
Nina has appeared in journals such as Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of European Integration and Cooperation and Conflict. She has extensive management (e.g. Head of Department 2008-2012) and project management experience (e.g. EUPERFORM - Measuring the EU’s Performance in International Institutions 2010-2014, and GR:EEN - Global Reordering: Evolution through European Networks 2011-2015).
The title of Græger’s Ph.D. thesis is: Norsk forsvarsdiskurs 1990-2005: Internasjonaliseringen av forsvaret.
Expertise
Education
2007 Ph.D. (dr. polit.), University of Oslo
1994 M. Phil. (cand. polit), political science, University of Oslo. Title, Mphil thesis: The legitimation of supranational power
Work Experience
2019- Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen
1998-2019 Research Fellow/PhD student/Senior research fellow/Research Professor (part time), NUPI
2013-2017 Associate Professor II at The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, where she is lecturer, course convenor and supervisor at the MSc-programme in IR studies
2012-2013 Head of Research group on security and defense, NUPI
2009-2012 Head of Departement of International Politics, NUPI
1996 Political/personal advisor to the Minister of Industry and Energy.
1994-1995 and 1997-1998 Research fellow, PRIO
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersVeivalg og spenninger i norsk sikkerhetspolitikk: Norges forhold til NATO og EU
(Full article available in Norwegian only): Norway’s security policy has been firmly anchored in its NATO membership and close bilateral relationship with the US since the 1950s. In parallell, the EU has regularly popped up on the Norwegian security political agenda. The balancing between the transatlantic and European pillar has created tensions in Norway’s security policy over the years, and especially with the strengthening of the EU’s common security and defence policy and shifting US foreign policy. The article also discusses how today’s more unpredictable and uncertain security environment, the decline in Western hegemony and global power shift towards Asia, geopolitical rivalry, and anti-liberal and anti-EU sentiments challenge established institutions and cooperation patterns that Norway has relied on for security and what the effects of these developments might be.
Illiberalism, geopolitics, and middle power security: Lessons from the Norwegian case
Middle powers have played a key role in supporting global governance, a rules-based order, and human rights norms. Apart from conveying and effectuating global solidarity and responsibility, multilateral cooperation has been an arena where middle powers seek protection and leverage relatively modest power to greater effect, sometimes as “helpful fixers” to great powers. This article argues that geopolitical revival and the contestation of the liberal order are challenging middle powers' traditional sheltering policies, based on empirical evidence from the Norwegian case. First, the weakening of multilateral organizations is making middle powers more vulnerable to great power rivalry and geopolitics, and Norway's relationship with Russia is particularly pointed. Second, existing shelters such as NATO and bilateral cooperation with the US are negatively affected by the latter's anti-liberal foreign policies, making looser sheltering frameworks important supplements. While Norway's and other middle powers' traditional policies within the “soft power” belt may continue, “doing good” may become less prioritized, due to the need for security.
Sheltering, security and small states: Nordic responses to a changing geopolitical context
How do Nordic states respond to current geopolitical changes in their neighborhood, and what are their options?
Protecting citizens abroad – who is responsible when crisis hits, and at what costs?
Who is responsible when Norwegians are in trouble abroad, such as Frode Berg in Russia or French and Moland in DR Congo, or in case of natural disasters and terrorist attacks?
Balancing between integration and autonomy. Understanding the drivers and mechanisms of EU's foreign, security and defense policy (EUFLEX)
The project will investigate the ongoing process towards differentiated integration in European foreign, security and defence policy....
‘Brothers in arms’. Kinship, gender and military organizations
Kinship arguably is a particularly useful concept for studying the social structures, relations and culture of military organizations, both in exceptional situations and during ordinary service. Kinship helps us identify and understand how masculine values and fellowship among male soldiers are embedded in practice (e.g. rules, codes, rituals, communities) as well as in discourse (e.g. specific gendered lingo). When taking into account the male dominance in military organizations over time and the share numbers of male soldiers, compared to female soldiers, gender gaps are likely. Both conditions also help explain why government efforts in many countries aimed at improving the gender balance and creating equal opportunities for women in military organizations have met a lot of obstacles. Introducing kinship, this chapter seeks to identify how kinship as a social category of identity may represent the social glue that keeps military organizations together, as well as the exclusion mechanisms kinship entails through discourse and practice.
Need to have or nice to have? Nordic cooperation, NATO and the EU in Norwegian foreign, security and defence policy
Nordic-ness and Nordic values clearly are embedded in Norway's conception of its foreign policy role. Nordic cooperation is also important for seeking information about EU policies for non-EU country Norway. While supporting and participating in Nordic Defence Cooperation, Norway's NATO-membership has trumped its relations with the Nordic countries as well as with the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. A stronger policy of self-interest facilitated by its petroleum economy has also moved Norway further away from traditional Nordic peacekeeping and towards status seeking vis-à-vis key European allies. To what extent may recent global and regional political and strategic developments forge a Nordic «turn» in Norwegian foreign and security policy? What has Nordic cooperation to offer in terms of security and international status for Norway? The Norwegian case suggests that in the field of security and defence, Nordic cooperation is «nice to have» and more important than earlier but not necessary.
European security as practice: EU–NATO communities of practice in the making?
This book aims to show practice approaches at work in the fields of European diplomacy and security broadly conceived. It sets out to provide readers with a hands-on sense of where research on social practices and European diplomacy, security and foreign policy currently stands. The book reviews how practice approaches have evolved in International Relations (IR) and brings together an unique set of contributions which highlights how insights from practice approaches can be applied to advance research on a number of key issues in these fields. While the debate about practices in IR goes beyond the case of diplomacy, the latter has become a showcase for the former and this book continues the debate on practices and diplomacy by zooming in on the European Union. Examples of issues covered include the evolution of EU-NATO relations seen from the perspective of communities of practice, burden sharing as an anchoring practice for European states’ involvement in crisis management operations, the practical knowledge shaping the EU’s responses to the Arab Uprisings, agency as accomplished in and through EU counter-piracy practices and the political resistance to Israeli occupation and the non-official recognition of Palestine performed by EU diplomats. Thus, by focusing on specific practices and analytical mechanisms that contribute to understand the transformations of European diplomacy, security and foreign policy, this book provides essential readings to anyone interested in innovative ways to grasp the contemporary challenges that face the EU and its member states. The chapters originally published as a special issue of European Security.
Need to have or nice to have? Nordic cooperation, NATO and the EU in Norway’s foreign and security policy
Nordic-ness and Nordic values clearly are embedded in Norway's conception of its foreign policy role. Nordic cooperation is also important for seeking information about EU policies for non-EU country Norway. While supporting and participating in Nordic Defence Cooperation, Norway's NATO-membership has trumped its relations with the Nordic countries as well as with the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. A stronger policy of self-interest facilitated by its petroleum economy has also moved Norway further away from traditional Nordic peacekeeping and towards status seeking vis-à-vis key European allies. To what extent may recent global and regional political and strategic developments forge a Nordic «turn» in Norwegian foreign and security policy? What has Nordic cooperation to offer in terms of security and international status for Norway? The Norwegian case suggests that in the field of security and defence, Nordic cooperation is «nice to have» and more important than earlier but not necessary.
The Duty of Care for Citizens Abroad: Security and Responsibility in the In Amenas and Fukushima Crises
This article analyses the state’s duty of care (DoC) for citizens who fall victim to unforeseen catastrophic or violent events abroad. The DoC highlights the challenges, dynamics and relations involved in diplomatic practice that is aimed at protecting citizens outside of state borders and where traditional security concepts have little relevance. How has a globalized, more insecure world — with shifting relations and responsibilities among states, their subordinates and other carers — affected the provision of DoC? How do governments and private actors act on the DoC during and after crises? To illustrate, the article draws on the terrorist attack at a gas facility in Algeria in 2013 and the nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, focusing particularly on the Norwegian framework and approach to protecting citizens abroad. In both crises, implementing the DoC required practical skills and measures beyond traditional diplomacy and institutionalized crisis mechanisms.