Kvifor forhandle fred? Ein analyse av forhandlingsstart i den væpna konflikten i Colombia
(Article available in Norwegian only): The conflict in Colombia has seemed insolvable for decades. Despite several peace attempts, it has always flared up again. In this article, I explain the onset of peace negotiations in 2012 between the Government of Colombia and the FARC, the largest guerrilla group in the country. I claim the fundamental explanation for why they initiated negotiations was the military weakening of the FARC in the 2000s, which led the guerrilla group to appreciate the necessity of ending the conflict through negotiation in order to reach at least some of their goals. The second most important factor was the change in leadership in Colombia, where in 2010 the newly-elected president, Juan Manuel Santos, considered a political solution possible and more attractive than his predecessor did, and took pragmatic measures to create a sustainable process. In addition, third parties contributed to safe and secret proceedings and to trust in the peace process. Negotiations begun in 2012 are – through a structured, focused comparison – compared with the peace dialogue in Caguán (1999-2002) between the same actors, where negotiation did not start. Case studies like this one can help us understand dynamics behind the choices of armed actors to pursue political solutions to armed conflicts. The onset of negotiation, which I analyze, must not be equated with a peace agreement or the end of the conflict. It can, however, provide important answers about where armed actors’ motivation to end conflicts come from, and under what conditions this motivation can bring the parties to the negotiating table.
Measuring the risk of radicalization – is that really possible?
Are tools for gauging the risk of radicalization used correctly?
Ole Martin Stormoen
Ole Martin Stormoen is a doctoral research fellow associated with NUPI's Research group on security and defence and has previously been a research...
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?
Military Power Seminar 2018: New world – new NATO?
How should we ensure credible collective defence of Europe in the Trump era? Welcome to the 20th Military Power seminar, with opening speech from the Minister of Defence, and academic and political debate.
Theory seminar: Face-to-Face Diplomacy: Social Neuroscience and International Relations
Marcus Holmes visits NUPI to talk about his new book on face-to-face diplomacy.
International Cybersecurity: Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark
Tikk and Kerttunen inform new entrants and nonparticipating governments of the discussions and outcomes of the UN First Committee Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) and discuss prospects for the 2019/2020 GGE. They explain why the Group will not able to provide answers to practical cybersecurity issues facing the majority of states. The authors call states to critically review their reasons for and expectations towards the UN First Committee dialogue on international cybersecurity.
Predictive peacekeeping: opportunities and challenges
The time is ripe for the development of a UN early warning tool that estimates the likelihood of instability, intercommunity clashes and armed violence in areas in which UN peacekeepers operate. However, this development would require at least some initial collaboration between the UN and the scientific world. Scientists have developed advanced analytical tools to predict armed violence in recent years.1 Yet, these conflict prediction tools still cannot be utilized to their full potential because of a relatively poor quality of conflict data. It is precisely in the area of high quality conflict data that the UN has a strong comparative advantage,2 especially now that the Situational Awareness Geospatial Enterprise (SAGE) system is being implemented. SAGE is a web-based database system that allows UN military, police and civilians in UN peace operations (both UN peacekeeping operations and special political missions) to log incidents, events and activities. The development of SAGE has made it possible to leverage state of the art methodological tools to enable predictive peacekeeping. This policy brief provides background to the recent turn to using data in UN peacekeeping missions, suggestions for what an early warning tool based on SAGE data would look like, and discusses the practical and ethical challenges of such an early warning tool.
EU, China and the trade war
At this seminar, we will take a closer look at EU’s trade, investment and intellectual property rights policies related to China.
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....