Background study: Cross-regional comparison of ‘DOs and DON’Ts’ in the EU’s PVE Measures: Balkans, Maghreb/ Sahel & Middle East
The following report presents the research findings of a cross-societal comparison of PREVEX-related regions, with the aim of providing ideas about what has been successful and what has proven detrimental to the EU’s preventing violent extremism (PVE) efforts. As per the PREVEX consortium’s project architecture, structured comparisons serve as a central pillar for the extrapolation and generation of cross-cutting lessons and policy recommendations concerning PVE. While sporadic, intra-regional, comparative elements are already apparent within three PREVEX regional Policy Briefs – on the Balkans (D5.1), the Maghreb/Sahel (D6.1) and the Middle East (D7.1) – these documents are confined to countries within these respective regions that partly share territorial, societal, and cultural similarities. In contrast, the explicit mandate for the research to be undertaken here under Work Package 8 is to conduct cross-cutting comparisons between these radically different regions – all without losing sight of domestic-specific PVE aspects, the highlighting of which might help to generate ideas for other contexts. The conduct of such cross-regional comparisons is premised upon the methodological prerequisite of being aware, as the comparisons are being conducted, of some wide qualitative differences between the regions compared. The identification of lessons for policymaking will be considerably stronger if one can demonstrate that, despite considerable divergences, certain PVE strategies continue to perform well across the board. The consolidation of such lessons – based on validations from across different cultures, structural contexts, and radically divergent Islamic traditions – provides for an additional measure of confirmation as to their pertinence. The overt attempt of the authors of this study has been to search diligently for such ‘across-the-board’ lessons.
Working Paper on a comparison of ‘enabling environments’, drivers and occurrence/nonoccurrence of violent extremism in the Balkans and the MENA region
The following working paper presents a cross-sectional and cross-regional comparison of the findings by PREVEX project partners across their three respective regional domains: the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the Balkans, and the Maghreb-Sahel, as stemming from their studies into the question of the occurrence and non-occurrence of violent extremism (VE). PREVEX deals with both ethno-nationalist and Islamic violent extremism (IVE).
Policy brief summarising the lessons learned from assessing the EU’s measures to prevent violent extremism in a comparative perspective
Elapsing 30 months into the PREVEX consortium’s work, synchronizing results from both PREVEX-generated and external research outputs, this policy brief presents three key lessons from the analysis of the EU’s measures to prevent violent extremism (PVE) across its three regional focal areas: MENA, Maghreb/ Sahel and the Balkans. It then teases out three policy recommendations emanating from these lessons. While lesson #1 speaks to the broader framework of the EU’s PVE efforts, lessons #2 & #3 are more specifically geared toward the regions under PREVEX’ scrutiny: The Balkans (#2) and MENA and Maghreb/Sahel (#3).
Frokostseminar: Terrorisme og kunstig intelligens
Hva kan kunstig intelligens lære oss om terrorister? Og hvordan kan terrorister bruke kunstig intelligens for å ramme oss?
Naturalisation through mainstreaming Counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation in UN and EU discourse
Etter terrorangrepene mot USA 11. september 200, ble kontraterror en viktigere form for “hard sikkerhet” for land verden over. I vesten omtaler mange myndigheter terrorisme som et unikt trusselfenomen som legitimerer dedikerte budsjetter, systemer og strukturer innen politi og forsvar. Men med det etterhvert økte fokuset på radikalisering som en antatt forløper for terrorisme, og kontraradikalisering som en sentral del av kontraterror, spredte feltet seg langt utover det som vanligvis forstås som “hard sikkerhet”. Kontraradikalisering gjorde at kontraterror som felt spredte seg til “mykere” deler av samfunnet. Dette bokkapitlet agrumenterer for at dette skiftet bør forstås som en type “mainstreaming”. Kapitlet starter med å se på begrepet “mainstreaming” og hvordan det favner utviklingen beskrevet ovenfor. Deretter analyserer kapittelet antiradikaliseringsdiskursen i EU- og FN-dokumenter om kontraterror. På grunnlag av dette konkluderer kapitlet kontraradikalisering og kontraterror er blitt “mainstreamet” som naturlige foretak for områder langt utenfor sikkerhetssektoren.
Vad är frihet?
”Frihet” är på allas läppar i dagens offentliga samtal – och lyfts då särskilt som ett värde som tillhör den politiska högern. Rita Augestad Knudsen tar i den här artikeln sin utgångspunkt i Lea Ypis bok Fri. En uppväxt vid historiens slut, och läser den som ett möjligt bidrag till debatten. Augestad Knudsen diskuterar hur Ypis bok kan förstås som ett försök att flytta frihetsbegreppet närmare den politiska vänstern, och att säga något om vad frihet innebär som ett politiskt värde idag. Författaren tar också upp hur boken fungerar som text och litteratur, med tonvikt på de idéer om frihet som framträder i den, och hur den skildrar Albaniens nära förflutna ”vid historiens slut” och övergången från auktoritär kommunism till marknadskapitalism. Trots att Fri är både spännande och intressant läsning så uppfyller den tyvärr inte fullt ut sina implicita löften om att utveckla dagens politiska frihetsdiskurs.
Why Terrorism Researchers Should Care about Criminal Responsibility
Criminal responsibility is a basic principle in holding individuals to account for criminal actions. Making exemptions to criminal responsibility when individuals cannot be held responsible for their actions is equally central, and most countries have frameworks allowing for such exemptions for reasons of serious mental health problems. However, despite the recent years’ enormous interests in the possible links between individual ‘mental health’ and involvement in terrorism, the issue of criminal responsibility has apparently so far not been the subject of much interest in the field of terrorism research. This Research Note makes the simple point that criminal responsibility should be of particular interest to terrorism researchers, for two main reasons: the centrality of (political, religious, ideological) motivations for defining a crime as terrorism-related and the sometimes-difficult boundary-setting between such motivations and (psychotic) delusions; and the political nature of terrorism-related crimes.
Hvordan kan EU fremme demokrati i Øst-Europa og på Vest-Balkan?
KRONIKK: Hvilke politiske utfordringer står norsk økonomi overfor? Her er fem av dem.
PODKAST: Algoritmens voktere