Psykisk helse, terrorisme, ekstremisme og radikalisering
The possible connection between mental health, radicalisation, extremism, and involvement of terror has received a lot of attention as of late. But what do we really know about this connection? What are we unaware of, and how can challenges related to this be handled? This policy brief goes through these questions and gives the knowledge status in this domain a clean-up.
Ad Hoc Crisis Response and International Organisations (ADHOCISM)
International organisations (IOs) are created with the aim of solving collective action problems when a crisis arises. Yet, member states have repeatedly established ad hoc crisis responses in situations where IOs might be expected to play a central role. ADHOCISM asks what is the impact of ad hoc crisis responses on international organisations? In this way, ADHOCISM wants to contribute to filling this knowledge gap through a systematic study of ad hoc crisis responses in two policy domains: security and health. With this paired comparison, ADHOCISM wants to tap into a broader empirical governance phenomenon. Ad hoc crisis responses are here understood as loose groups of actors that agree to solve a particular crisis at a given time and location outside of an existing international organisation in the same policy domain. Ad hoc crisis reponses can, in the short-term, lead to more rapid and effective crisis responses among like-minded states, but if international organisations are no longer seen as the principal instruments to confront global challenges, the risk is also that the relevance of these international organisations will diminish, and similar trends may unfold in other domains.
Anne Funnemark
Anne Funnemark was a Junior Research Fellow at NUPI. She was a part of the Climate-related Peace and Security Risks (CPSR) project and the MCDC Cl...
Huawei, 5G and Security: Technological Limitations and Political Responses
How did Chinese 5G providers, such as Huawei, become a security concern in the USA and Europe? Were the security concerns related to 5G and Chinese suppliers based upon technological features of the systems, or were they a product of geopolitical rivalry? How did European approaches to 5G distinguish themselves from those of the USA? This article addresses these questions using an interdisciplinary approach via the framework of securitization theory. The authors argue that the technological features of 5G made securitization more likely compared to 4G, and that screening and control of software was unlikely to defuse securitization concerns. They also show how Europe chose its own path for the securitization of 5G. In short, the article argues that the American macrosecuritization of China largely failed in Europe, whereas the niche securitization of 5G was more successful.
Nye våpen, gamle vrangforestillinger: Hvordan forstå Boris Johnsons atomvåpen-politikk
If you want to make Britain’s nuclear weapon policy make sense, you need to look inwards not outwards. Just as go-faster stripes please the owner, Britain’s new nuclear policy is better understood as a symbolic gesture performed mainly for its domestic audience. It is crucial here to understand the political function that publicly established force-limits have played British nuclear politics
Commentary: Russia’s ‘nyet’ does not mean climate security is off the Security Council agenda
Security and defence challenges after the coronavirus
What are the implications of the pandemic on security and defence, in the short, medium and long term perspectives?
On digital media in Lebanon’s political crisis
UN Peacekeeping and the Kindleberger Trap
I nærmere et tiår har FN vært under press på grunn av et stort antall fataliteter, samt press fra medlemsstater om å kutte kostnader, særlig fra USA. Siden 2013 har ikke FN iverksatt noen nye store fredsbyggingsprosjekter, mens større prosjekter har blitt avsluttet i Côte d’Ivoire, Darfur, Haiti, Liberia og Sierra Leone. På det afrikanske kontinentet gjenstår fire store prosjekt - i Den sentralafrikanske republikk (SAR, MINUSCA), Den demokratiske republikken Kongo (DR Kongo, MONUSCO), Mali (MINUSMA) og Sør-Sudan (UNMISS). Også disse er under press for å kutte kostnader.
Krigen mot terror - et vanskelig bindemiddel mellom Russland og USA
The Unsustainable Russia-US Partnership in the War on Terror. Russia and the USA forged a strategic partnership following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Today it seems obvious that such a partnership would not last. But why did it break? The article argues that the Kremlin leaves the partnership because its expectations of mutuality were not met. Russia also fundamentally disagreed with the USA on the sources of international terrorism and how best to conduct GWOT. Russia’s revival under Putin’s leadership is an underlying cause and implies that the terrorist threat is overshadowed be the traditional fear of NATO and US dominance. Albeit still figuring among the issue-areas suggested for US-Russian collaboration, the common fight against international terrorism will not function as a vehicle for rapprochement in the current cold war climate.