Sårbare stater og valdelege entreprenører: konflikt, klima og flyktningar (FRAGVENT)
Kva er den kombinerte effekten av sårbarhet, konflikt og klimaendringar i Mali og i Sahel-regionen sett under eitt?...
The Joint Force of the G5 Sahel: An Appropriate Response to Combat Terrorism?
The Joint Force of the Group of Five of the Sahel reflects the commitment of African states to cooperate to address common security challenges. Yet, little is known about its counter-terrorism strategy for the region. This article focuses on the security pillar of the G5 Sahel, the Joint Force (FC-G5S), and provides a critical examination of its mandate to combat terrorism in the Sahel. It explains the context into which the force was deployed and provides an overview of its conceptualisation and configuration. It demonstrates that in its current form, there is a danger of advancing a security-first stabilisation strategy that relies heavily on military-led counter-terror operations to contain and deter the threat of terrorist groups which can have serious consequences for local communities living among insurgents. The article argues that while establishing firmer border control and enhanced intelligence-sharing between the G5 Sahel states is important, the current counter-terror response risks depoliticising insurgents, and neglects the sociopolitical and economic grievances and problems of governance that have enabled violent extremism to take root in the first place. Removing the categorisation of jihadist insurgents as terrorists only and understanding their multifaceted identities – some as legitimate social and political actors – would open up more policy responses, including dialogue and conflict resolution.
The risks of being an ally
States join security alliances to increase their level of security vis-à-vis neighbours that may pose a threat. The deterrence logic that was the main rationale for joining NATO in 1949 still represents the cornerstone of Norway’s security policy. However, belonging to a military alliance can also pose challenges. This policy brief focuses on some possible negative spillover effects that could emerge from being member of a military alliance. The focus here is on current challenges within NATO, and the possible implications for Norway. First, we present a broader conceptual framework. What are the internal and external challenges facing NATO? How do NATO and its members deal with them? We then proceed to the implications for Norway. Due to structural factors that shape relations in Norway’s strategic environment – including the location of Russian strategic bases close to the border, and the clear asymmetry in capabilities – negative developments in other regions and theatres may influence Norwegian security directly. We argue that, in order to minimize the likelihood of negative trends spilling over to Norway’s strategic neighbourhood, it is important to communicate the special features of this neighbourhood clearly to other members of the alliance. Further, to facilitate intra-alliance trust and cohesion, Norway should also emphasize NATO’s internal, shared value-base, in order to make the alliance better prepared to meet external security challenges.
Donor-driven state formation: friction in the World Bank–Uganda partnership
The chapter explores the partnership relation between the World Bank and Uganda from 2000 and onwards. It demonstrates how the notion of politics frames apolitical development discourses, and argues for how the formation of partnership entails specific tacit governance mechanisms that have been central to the formation of neoliberal Uganda, the latter being the anthology's overall topic. The donor's governance mechanisms mediated through partnership are indeed powerful, but this does not mean that the aid recipient is prostrate and without any theoretical or empirical possibilities for resistance. The formation of neoliberal Uganda in the context of development aid should thus be understood in the nexus between external governance mechanisms and local means for translation and resistance.
Kor effektive har eigentleg FNs fredsoperasjonar i Somalia, Kongo og Mali vore?
Ekspertar frå heile verda skal i eit nytt nettverk sjå nærare på kor godt fredsoperasjonar faktisk fungerer.
Er Putins Russland eit populistisk regime?
Kva er likskapane, forskjellane og sambanda mellom Putin's Russland og Orban's Ungarn, Duterte's Filippinane, USA under Trump eller Brasil med Bolsonaro?
EU i Midtøsten - hvordan forhindre terrorisme og voldelig ekstremisme?
Hva EU bør gjøre for å stabilisere stater i Midtøsten var hovedtema da forskere fra NUPI og det NUPI-koordinerte prosjektet EUNPACK deltok på MERI Forum 2018.
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.
China's notion of cybersecurity: The importance of strategic cultures for cyber deterrence
This paper debates the importance of different strategic cultures in cyberspace through the example of China. More than any other form of security cyber security is interpreted and acted on differently by different states. While the idea that the Internet would be a liberalizing force throughout the globe was dominant for a long time, over the last few years it has become evident that states have different interpretations and values attached to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). These differences in valuation in turns leads to different conceptualizations of cyber security, giving the term different meanings for different actors. As states disagree over what cyber security is, they are also likely to disagree on how it is to be achieved. This paper evaluates the impact of these differences in light of a frequently used concept in security studies, namely that of deterrence.
Nettverk for forskning på fredsoperasjoners effektivitet (EPON)
NUPI har sammen med 40 partnere over hele verden etablert et internasjonalt nettverk for å forske på fredsoperasjoners effektivitet....