Kazakhstan: Civil Society and Natural Resource Policy in Kazakhstan
In Kazakhstan, civil society is held back and has had a limited role in the management of the petroleum sector. As this chapter notes, civil society has had little experience of promoting its own interests vis-à-vis the state, and public discussion of natural resource issues has been mainly government-driven. The fact that Kazakhstan made a notable step forward—from being a collapsing socialist economy in the 1990s to becoming a regional economic player with improved social and economic performance—has helped to legitimize non-transparent natural resource policies. As long as the socio-economic situation continues to improve or remains stable, the non-transparent management of natural resources is likely to be accepted by the population, which, like the Russian population, puts a premium on stability. The relative passivity of civil society has been compensated by Kazakhstan’s exposure to international initiatives and organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and numerous UN agencies. As in Azerbaijan, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) has provided a platform for some civil society engagement with industry and government.
Public Brainpower: Civil Society and Natural Resource Management
This book discusses how civil society, public debate and freedom of speech affect the management of natural resources. Drawing on the work of Robert Dahl, Jürgen Habermas and Robert Putnam, the book introduces the concept of public brainpower. Good governance of natural resources requires fertile public debate – to conceive new institutions, to provide checks and balances on existing institutions and to ensure their continuous dynamic evolution as the needs of society change. The book explores the strengths and weaknesses of these ideas through case studies of 18 oil and gas-producing countries: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Libya, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the UK and Venezuela. The concluding chapter presents 10 tenets on how states can maximize their public brainpower, as well as a ranking of how well 33 resource-rich countries have succeeded in doing so. Four of the chapters – ‘Introduction’, ‘Norway’, ‘Kazakhstan’ and ‘Russia’ – are available under a CC BY 4.0 Open Access license at ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320656629_Introduction_Civil_Society_Public_Debate_and_Natural_Resource_Management (Introduction) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320657120 (Norway) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320657015 (Kazakhstan) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320657842 (Russia)
The Duty of Care for Citizens Abroad: Security and Responsibility in the In Amenas and Fukushima Crises
This article analyses the state’s duty of care (DoC) for citizens who fall victim to unforeseen catastrophic or violent events abroad. The DoC highlights the challenges, dynamics and relations involved in diplomatic practice that is aimed at protecting citizens outside of state borders and where traditional security concepts have little relevance. How has a globalized, more insecure world — with shifting relations and responsibilities among states, their subordinates and other carers — affected the provision of DoC? How do governments and private actors act on the DoC during and after crises? To illustrate, the article draws on the terrorist attack at a gas facility in Algeria in 2013 and the nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, focusing particularly on the Norwegian framework and approach to protecting citizens abroad. In both crises, implementing the DoC required practical skills and measures beyond traditional diplomacy and institutionalized crisis mechanisms.
NY BOK: Offentlig hjernekraft kritisk for naturressurser
Hvilken rolle spiller sivilsamfunn, offentlig debatt og ytringsfrihet for olje- og gassressurser?
Geopolitikk og fornybar energi - hva betyr et grønt skifte for geopolitikken?
(Dagens Næringsliv): Storpolitikk har i lang tid vært knyttet til den strategiske betydningen av olje og gass. Kontroll med ressursene har gitt makt, avhengighet har gitt avmakt. Historien er full av militære kampanjer som har hatt som mål å få kontroll med petroleumsressurser, eller håndtere avhengigheten. Vil et stort innslag av fornybar energi endre storpolitikken? Dersom verden blir grønn, vil konflikter og globale spenninger bli borte, eller vil nye oppstå? Det finnes noe forskning omkring de sikkerhetspolitiske effektene av at vi ikke klarer å stoppe klimaendringene. De peker i retning av konflikt om knappe ressurser, som vann og mat, med nød og migrasjon som konsekvenser. Dersom havnivået stiger i den takt ekspertene tror, vil også verdens mange kystbyer stå overfor enorme utfordringer. Den finansielle risikoen er også formidabel. Vi vet også at å bremse klimaendringen vil stille store krav til internasjonale institusjoner og internasjonalt lederskap. Utfordringen er å fremme radikal endring fort, men samtidig gjøre det riktig og uten for mange negative bieffekter. Det kreves klare mål, regulering, samt en god dose tillit på tvers av landegrensene. Vi vil også måtte mobilisere offentlige og private ressurser for store og langsiktige internasjonale satsinger på infrastruktur, forskning og teknologiutvikling. Selv om Trump har varslet at USA vil gå ut av Parisavtalen, skjer det mye annet positivt på dette feltet. Kanskje lykkes den globale klimakampen. Det er mye mindre forskning på hva den geopolitiske situasjonen vil være dersom vi faktisk lykkes med å få til et raskt og radikalt skifte. Kolleger ved NUPI ser derfor i samarbeid med universitetene Columbia og Harvard nærmere på denne tematikken i en ny rapport. Der drøfter de den litteraturen som foreligger, og ser på noen mulige konsekvenser av en overgang til fornybar energi. La meg trekke frem noen av observasjonene... forts...
Korleis kan Sørøst-Asia møte klimaendringane?
Forskarar har studert konsekvensane klimaendringar har for internasjonale forhold.
Impact of Climate Change on ASEAN International Affairs: Risk and Opportunity Multiplier
This study examines the implications of climate change for international affairs in Southeast Asia and for ASEAN as a multilateral organization. Climate change and efforts to mitigate climate change give rise to major risks as well as opportunities in international affairs. It is therefore in the interest of all countries to be aware of the risks and prepare for them, and the overarching purpose of this study is to support ASEAN and its member states in this area. Given Southeast Asia’s complex geography—with numerous archipelagoes, long coastlines, intricate borders, and great-power neighbors—climate change is especially likely to affect interstate relations in the region.Climate change may impact on international affairs among the ASEAN countries at several levels. Firstly, changing climatic conditions may affect interstate relations through humanitarian crises, migration, and/or the need for greater imports of vital goods. Secondly, reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires international coordination and cooperation. Thirdly, the global energy transition driven by climate policy may lead to an altered geopolitical situation in the world, including ASEAN.
Networks of Practice at the Margins of Empire
Dr Jeppe Mulich besøkjer NUPI for å presentere den pågåande forskinga si på imperium og kaperfart i Karibien