Tre grunner til at Norge bør med i FNs sikkerhetsråd
Norge har meldt seg på i kampen om en plass i FNs Sikkerhetsråd i 2021-2022. Kronikken presenterer 3 grunner til at Norge bør med i Sikkerhetsrådet.
Ideologenes kamp
(Norwegian only): To innflytelsesrike ideologer – en russisk, en amerikansk – bygger høyreradikale nettverk i Europa. Selv om ideologien springer ut fra like kilder, har de ulike visjoner.
Small States vs. Middle Powers — What’s the Difference?
Has Norway taken the step into the Middle Power category?
Cyber security and the protection of critical infrastructure – an American perspective
Michael Chertoff shares his experiences from his time as United States Secretary of Homeland Security, and he will talk about how we best can secure critical infrastructure against cyber attacks.
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.
Brende, Kina, og en skiftende verdensorden
(Norwegian only): Norges normalisering med Kina knytter an til sentrale, strukturelle utviklingstrekk i internasjonal politikk - en trend hvor den liberale verdensordenens vakuum blir fylt av Kina når USA trekker seg ut, men også at denne ordenen blir sakte undergravet ved at Kina sikrer seg «andeler» i lands politiske relasjoner. Det kan være klokt ta slike mer overordnede perspektiver med i beregningen når man skal vurdere betydningen og mulige konsekvenser av det som regnes som den største "suksesshistorien" fra Brendes periode som utenriksminister.
The Balance of Power
The balance of power – the idea that states consciously or unconsciously strive towards an equal distribution of power to avoid dominance by one – is a core concept for the study of international politics. The discipline of international relations (IR) has long debated the standing of the balance of power as a theoretical concept. Some argue that the concept does not fit the historical empirics, whilst others have amended the concept by introducing ideas like “balance of threats,” “bandwagoning,” or “soft balancing.” However, diplomats throughout history have also frequently deployed the balance‐of‐power concept. From the Italian city‐states in the fifteenth century, through Great Power wars in Europe in the 1700s, the Concert of Europe, two world wars, and up until our day, practitioners have used the concept in various ways. The balance of power is therefore as central to the study of diplomatic practice as it is for the theoretical understanding of interstate relations.
Arctic Governance: Power in cross-border cooperation
This book seeks to pose and explore a question that sheds light on the contested but largelyl cooperative nature of Arctic governance in the post Cold-War period: how does power matter - and how has it mattered - in shaping cross-border cooperation and diplomacy in the Arctic? Each chapter functions as a window through which power relations in the Arctic are explored. Issues include how representing the Arctic region matters for securing preffered outcomes, how circumpolar cooperation is marked by regional hierarchies and how Arctic governance has become a global social site in its own right, replete with disciplining norms for steering diplomatic behaviour. This book draws upon Russia's role in the Arctic Council as an extended case study and examines how Arctic cross-border governance can be understood as a site of competition over the exercise of authority. The book was launched at the Stimson Center in Washington DC on 12 September 2018. Watch the launch seminar, Russia and Arctic Governance: Cooperation in Conflict, here: https://youtu.be/bQ0iKwUbims
What, When, and Where, Then, is the Concept of Sovereignty?
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the concept sovereignty for international relations (IR). And yet, understanding the historical emergence of sovereignty in international relations has long been curtailed by the all-encompassing myth of the Peace of Westphalia. While criticism of this myth has opened space for further historical inquiry in recent years, it has also raised important questions of historical interpretation and methodology relevant to IR, as applying our current conceptual framework to distant historical cases is far from unproblematic. Central among these questions is the when, what, and how of sovereignty: from when can we use “sovereignty” to analyze international politics and for which polities? Can sovereignty be used when the actors themselves did not have recourse to the terminology? And what about polities that do not have recourse to the term at all? What are the theoretical implications of applying the concept of sovereignty to early polities? From different theoretical and methodological perspectives, the contributions in this forum shed light on these questions of sovereignty and how to treat the concept analytically when applied to a period or place when/where the term did not exist as such. In doing so, this forum makes the case for a sensitivity to the historical dimension of our arguments about sovereignty—and, by extension, international relations past and present—as this holds the key to the types of claims we can make about the polities of the world and their relations.
The Uses of Comparisons: A Critical Review of Approaches to Comparisons in Development Studies
This article discusses different forms of comparisons in development studies and some of the justifications that are used for making them. The main questions I discuss are the following: First, how are comparisons used in development studies? Second, how should comparisons be carried out? I distinguish between two main forms of comparisons. First; there are what I call asymmetrical comparisons, where one compares a case to an exemplar or model. In development studies, this form of comparison usually takes the form of comparing a given phenomenon in the West with instances of the same phenomenon in countries outside the West (the state, the economy, the family structure, etc.). The aim of the comparison is to understand the non-Western case, while the Western case is used as a means to reach such understanding. Second, there are what I call symmetrical comparisons, where the cases compared are given equal treatment, and where the aim of the comparison is to reach a better understanding of all the cases included in the study. The article discusses three different forms of symmetrical comparisons: comparisons-as-quasi-experiments, interpretive comparisons and comparative historical analysis, and concludes that symmetrical comparisons based on comparative historical analysis are the best approach to comparative studies.