FN 75 år
In 2020, the UN marks its 75th anniversary. In this programme (around 1,20 into the programme) we take a historical look at the establishment of the UN; what the UN has achieved during this period, as well as challenges ahead.
Sluttspurt for Norge. Kjemper om plass i Sikkerhetsrådet
Forskningsassistent Jenny Nortvedt og Utenriksminister Ine Eriksen Søreide om Norges kandidatur til FNs sikkerhetsråd og småstaters mulige innflytelse.
Norge holder pusten foran FN-avgjørelse
Norge ruster seg til den aller siste innspurten i kampen om et sete i FNs sikkerhetsråd. Å tape blir et antiklimaks, fastslår forsker.
Politisk Kvarter - Norge vil inn i FNs Sikkerhetsråd, men hvorfor?
(Interview in Norwegian): NUPI-forsker Niels Nagelhus Schia og Utenriksminister Ine Marie Eriksen Søreide om det norske kandidaturet til FNs Sikkerhetsråd, hvorfor er dette interessant for Norge? Hvilke dilemmaer vil Norge møte i forhold til stormaktene? Hvilke land konkurrerer Norge med?
Kjemper om en plass i FNs Sikkerhetsråd
Wednesday 17 June 2020 we will know if Norway gets one of the two available seats that we are fighting for in the UN Security Council. What does this involve and why should Norway sit around the horseshoe table? Senior researcher Niels Nagelhus Schia was interviewed about this on NRK News.
Er vi iboende gode?
(Available in Norwegian only): Mektige stater anklager hverandre for være dobbeltmoralske, og verden blir et dårligere sted, skriver Minda Holm i denne Klassekampen-kronikken.
On the Double Exceptionalism of Liberal States
This chapter deals with dilemmas of current European Security Politics in relation to freedom of speech and liberal values more broadly, in what I call the ‘double exceptionalism’ of liberal security policy. Empirically, I focus on the Norwegian balance after the terrorist attack on 22 July 2011. The political foundation of West European societies is based in part on a set of liberal political values, whereby freedom of speech is central. As a value, it is seen as foundational to who “we” as members of a nation are, exemplified through a speech the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg gave in response to the attack: “With the strongest of all of the weapons of the world, the free word and democracy, we will find the course for Norway after 22 July 2011”. At the time, the rhetorical response was applauded by commentators as an exemplary alternative to the typical security-centric response of governments to terrorist attacks. When faced with internal security dilemmas, the response from liberal-democratic states is typically to either enter into a “state of exception”, where some of the normal governing rules no longer apply, or where the laws are altered to enable non-liberal policies. The period after 9/11 and the increased focus on preventive security has been marked by a systematic role-back of liberal values in European societies, justified with the overarching need to protect lives first, values second. Since liberal values are seen as foundational attributes of the state, illiberal actions do not alter their liberal self-perception. This is the double exceptionalism of liberal states: the exceptionalism to transgress law and “normal politics”, and the exceptionalism to not let that transgression alter the identity one has construed as a liberal polity. This chapter discusses these dilemmas in the Norwegian, and how Norwegian governments dealt with the tension of differing logics between liberal identity and the politics of security.
What Liberalism? Russia’s Conservative Turn and the Liberal Order
Through a regime that increasingly promotes a conservative domestic agenda and at times portrays the West as decadent and lost, the Russian state has been cast as the front man in a new international conservative revolt. Yet, calling the Russian state ‘anti-liberal’ misses the complexity of its critique of liberal international politics. This essay argues that the ‘anti-liberalism’ of the current and in many ways radically conservative Russian state is one directed at the particular form of anti-pluralist and internationalist liberalism associated with the ‘benchmark date’ of 1989 and the period of liberal triumphalism that followed – not at the system of regulated state sovereignty laid down after 1945, known as ‘liberal order’. While the current Russian state clearly challenges central aspects of liberalism at home, and echoes Schmittian realism in several regards, the state also relies on a specific interpretation of concepts such as sovereignty and non-interference that historically were part of a more stability-oriented, conservative liberal international vision. Exploring exactly ‘what liberalism’ it is that Russia is increasingly defying, the essay opens up an important space to historicize and interrogate what post-1945 liberal memory is, how such memory is currently being re-negotiated by a New Western Right, and what Russia has got to do with it.
Slow Stagnation, Sudden Revolution? Post-Covid-19 Prospects for Political Change in Russia and Belarus
The Covid-19 pandemic and the impending economic crisis may exacerbate instability in Belarus and Russia. To reduce the risks of regional instability and help to prepare for a possible transition of power, the international community should continue its support for democratic initiatives in the region. To better understand and predict future political development, close and nuanced knowledge of Russian and Belarusian societies is necessary. Monitoring and academic research should therefore be encouraged. In the case of a transition, the international community should demand free and fair elections. It should also issue strong and clear statements against foreign interference and consistently react to any violations of sovereignty.