Is the EU ready to handle the major challenges it is facing?
Ivan Krastev reflects on the future of the EU, and whether the union is ready to handle major challenges such as migration, the spread of right-wing populism, and instability in the east.
Same word, same idea? Sustainable development talk and the Russian Arctic
Sustainable development has become an ‘obligatory’ concept that can encompass many kinds of policies and practices, including in the Russian Arctic. Russia inherited a set of ‘home-grown’ science-policy vocabularies and practices relating to environmental risk and a strong focus on protected areas/national parks from the Soviet Union. Likewise, a preoccupation with questions of equality – particularly in response to obvious economic inequalities generated by natural resource extraction projects – is another trademark of the post-Soviet era in local debates. Therefore, while it is an easy assumption to make that ‘sustainability talk’ functions primarily to appeal to international financial institutions, mirror the Arctic policies of other Arctic states and/or mitigate the reputational risks of Russian and international extractive companies, these historical factors alone suggest that it is worth taking a look at the rhetorical work the concept does in a Russian policymaking context. This chapter examines kind of high-level political work the concept of sustainability is doing in Arctic policymaking in Moscow through an analysis of Russian policy documents and political statements and the statements of RAIPON, the organization for the indigenous peoples of the Russian North.
Effectiveness of Peace Operations Network (EPON)
NUPI together with 40 partners from across the globe have established an international network to undertake research into the effectiveness of peace operations....
Skjerpet lobbykamp
(Available in Norwegian only): Etter brexit vil Storbritannia måtte påvirke EU fra utsiden. Norge får konkurranse. Storbritannia vil mest sannsynlig gå ut av EU mars 2019. De mister da også stemmerett og mange muligheter for innflytelse. Hvordan vil livet bli som lobbyist? spør Ulf Sverdrup i denne kronikken, først publisert i Dagens Næringsliv.
Visions of an Illiberal World Order? The National Right in Europe, Russia and the US
The rise of a national Right in both Europe and the US is disrupting the security agendas of Western foreign– and defense ministries. Long accustomed to directing the gaze and measures of Western security only outwards – towards Africa, the Middle East, China – these centers of policy formulation now find themselves forced to confront a more introspective line of questioning: Is the identity of ‘the liberal West’ and its agenda of a rule-based, institutionalized world order under threat from within? In this brief we unpack the visions of world order espoused by the new Western Right, its ideological overlap with conservative ideas in Putin’s Russia, as well as the built-in tensions and uncertainties of that emerging alliance. Our focus is on potential implications of these political developments for i) international institutionalism, and ii) interventionism. In short, we argue that anti-globalism must not be mistaken for anti-internationalism. The most basic political agenda of the national Right – from the Trumpian US to Putin’s Russia – is one of battling globalism and its liberal vision of a trans-national or cosmopolitan world order, by defending older Western concepts of sovereignty-centred, inter-national co-existence. In contrast to the extreme Right, the current European-US-Russian alliance of national Right politicians largely want to fight this battle from the inside and through, not outside, established institutions such as the UN and the EU.
UN Peace Operations in a Changing Global Order
Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix will talk about the status of UN Peace Operations.
New book: UN Peace Operations in a Changing Global Order
In this book launch interview, editors Mateja Peter and Cedric de Coning reflect upon findings from their most recent book, identifying four global transformations and their implications for UN peace operations.
Four global transformations are changing UN peace operations
The global order is changing – how will that uncertainty impact UN peace operations?
Parabasis: Cyber-diplomacy in Stalemate
Governments and industry around the world are working together to bring the next billion users online,1 but their synergies fade when it comes to how to keep online populations safe and secure. Further, the third and fourth billion of Internet users will enter a terrain very different from that available to their predecessors. Vulnerabilities in ICTs as well as de facto exploitation of these vulnerabilities by state and non-state actors has been acknowledged and problematized. Evidence of malicious and hostile operations involving ICTs and the Internet abounds. Uncertain about the true potential of ICTs, governments and users have focused on rules and responsibilities for protecting against cyberattacks, espionage and data manipulation. But where is there an understanding of how to remedy and improve the situation? The first part of this report analyzes and contextualizes the UN First Committee process. The second part offers the authors’ extensions to the theme, analyzing the relative successes and failures of the leading cyberpowers in promoting the world order of their liking. In particular, we analyze how Russia, as the initiator of the First Committee process, has created momentum and gathered support for its calls for specific international regulation and institutionalization of the process on the one hand, and stronger governmental control of the development and use of ICTs and the flow of information on the other. In conclusion, we offer some recommendations for governments wishing to pursue the goal of free and open cyberspace—indeed a rule-based world order. The full text can be read here: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2569401
Implementation in practice: The use of force to protect civilians in United Nations peacekeeping
Since the failures of the United Nations of the early 1990s, the protection of civilians has evolved as a new norm for United Nations peacekeeping operations. However, a 2014 United Nations report found that while peacekeeping mandates often include the use of force to protect civilians, this has routinely been avoided by member states. What can account for this gap between the apparently solid normative foundations of the protection of civilians and the wide variation in implementation? This article approaches the question by highlighting normative ambiguity as a fundamental feature of international norms. Thereby, we consider implementation as a political, dynamic process where the diverging understandings that member states hold with regard to the protection of civilians norm manifest and emerge. We visualize this process in combining a critical-constructivist approach to norms with practice theories. Focusing on the practices of member states’ military advisers at the United Nations headquarters in New York, and their positions on how the protection of civilians should be implemented on the ground, we draw attention to their agency in norm implementation at an international site. Military advisers provide links between national ministries and contingents in the field, while also competing for being recognized as competent performers of appropriate implementation practices. Drawing on an interpretivist analysis of data generated through an online survey, a half-day workshop and interviews with selected delegations, the article adds to the understanding of norms in international relations while also providing empirical insights into peacekeeping effectiveness.