Forsker
Ole Jacob Sending
Kontaktinfo og filer
Sammendrag
Ole Jacob Sending er forsker 1 i Forskningsgruppen for global orden og diplomati.
Han forsker på global styring, med særlig fokus på internajonale og ikke-statlige organisasjoners rolle i fredsbygging, humanitær bistand og utvikling. Sending har publisert i blant annet International Studies Quarterly, European Journal of International Relations og International Theory.
Ekspertise
Utdanning
2004 Dr. polit, Universtitet i Bergen: How does knowledge matter?
1998 Mastergrad i statsvitenskap, State University of New York, Albany
1997 Cand.mag., UiB (økonomi, statsvitenskap og sosiologi)
Arbeidserfaring
2023- Forsker 1, NUPI
2012-2023 Forskningssjef, NUPI
2008-2009 Gjesteforsker (Fulbright-stipendiat), Institutt for Sosiologi, UC Berkeley
2008-2014 Tilknyttet seniorforsker, Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen
2008- Seniorforsker, NUPI
2006-2008 Seniorrådgiver, Utenriksdepartementet
2003 Seniorforsker, NUPI
2002 Gjesteforsker, Stanford University (SCANCOR)
1999-2003 Forsker, NUPI, doktorgradsstipendiat, UiB
Aktivitet
Filter
Tøm alle filtreIntroduksjon: Nordiske svar på geopolitiske utfordringer
Denne artikkelen introduserer et temanummer om hvordan de fem nordiske landene – Danmark, Finland, Island, Norge og Sverige – fremstiller og responderer på geopolitiske utfordringer i sine omgivelser. Nordens strategiske beliggenhet – i Europas nordlige utkant, med grense mot Russland på den ene siden og store havområder på den andre – gjør at endringer i sikkerhetspolitikken og i maktbalansen mellom stormaktene er av umiddelbar relevans. Artiklene drøfter hovedtrekk ved de nordiske landenes nåværende utenrikspolitikk, hver for seg, men til dels også sammen, sett i lys både av historiske linjer og nåværende geopolitiske rammebetingelser. Med særlig vekt på de enkelte lands relasjoner til stormaktene USA, Russland, EU og Kina, og til sikkerhetsinstitusjonene FN og NATO, fremhever bidragene noen særtrekk ved den hjemlige utenrikspolitiske debatten i de enkelte land, og kartlegger hvilke ressurser og virkemidler det enkelte land typisk velger å ta i bruk i møte med ulike utfordringer.
Frukostseminar: Ei verd av mistillit – Midtausten
Ny seminarserie tar for seg den globale tillitskrisa ein har sett tydelegare teikn på den siste tida, og første tema ut er korleis denne utviklinga påverkar Midtausten.
KRONIKK: Den store tillitskrisen
Global uorden kan bli den nye normen, skriver Morten Bøås og Ole Jacob Sending i DN.
Teoriseminar: The Emergence of Hyper-real Politics of Truth
Andreas Aagaard Nøhr, Phd-kandidat ved International Relations, LSE, besøkjer NUPI for å snake om ‘post-truth politics'.
Internasjonal intervensjon og lokal politikk: Innsikt frå Aceh
Fabio Scarpello gjestar NUPI for å presetere boka "International Interventions and Local Politics: Fragmented States and the Politics of Scale".
Teoriseminar: Contestation, norms and normativitiy. What's at stake and what empirics can tell us about it
Professor Nicole Deitelhoff skal snakke om forskinga si på konsepta "contestation", normer og normativitet.
Nordiske svar på geopolitiske utfordringer (GEONOR)
Hvilke utenrikspolitiske verktøy har de nordiske lands regjeringer, når de nå står overfor en ny og mer utfordrende geopolitisk situasjon?...
Contested Professionalization in a Weak Transnational Field
I analyse the contested emergence of so-called needs assessments and the push towards ‘evidence-based action’ within humanitarian organisations. The introduction of evidence-based action since the late 1990s inaugurated a systematic change within humanitarian organisations: it implied that practical experience from humanitarian crises - since long a hallmark of authority among humanitarian professionals - was no longer sufficient alone to establish authority and dominate humanitarian organisations. The push to use ‘objective’ methods to assess humanitarian needs came primarily from donors, who demanded that humanitarian organisations better demonstrate efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. While humanitarian professionals across different organisations can be said to share moral commitments and expertise, they were nonetheless not able to push back against the introduction of standardised needs assessments. The explanation for this is to be found in the fact that the humanitarian field lacks autonomy: Because humanitarian organisations rely extensively on outside actors (donors) for financial and political support, their internal organisation and outlook is heavily shaped by non-humanitarian actors. As a result, the ability of transnationally organised humanitarian professionals - operating in humanitarian crises - to shape humanitarian priorities and modes of work is undercut by their respective organisations´ relative dependence on outside actors. Present-day humanitarian organisations are thus marked by two different strands of professionalism: one with basis in practical experience from humanitarian crises, emphasising proximity to those in need and the role of bearing witness, and one with basis in more abstract models of knowledge of management, resource-mobilisation, and measuring needs through standardised methods.
Wielding influence in a new governance architecture: Norway, the G20 and the 2030 Agenda
The G20 is by dint of its membership – the 20 largest economies in the world – an important decision-making body. Moreover, the challenges currently facing established inter-governmental organi- zations (IGOs) arguably make the G20 even more important. The G20 is perceived as agile, e ective and powerful whereas established IGOs – such as the UN and the World Bank - appear to be bogged down by overly bureaucratic rules, organizational inertia, and a lack of resources to ful l their mandates. This was on display when the G20 convened in Washington DC during the global nancial crisis, and its swift actions, in all likelihood, prevented a more severe glo- bal crisis. For Norway, the power of the G20 as an arena for shaping global gov- ernance represents both a challenge and an opportunity. It is a chal- lenge because Norway has for the last half-century invested heavily in multilateral institutions both as an end in itself, and as a means to embed Norwegian interest within multilateral rules. This was made clear in the government ́s recent White Paper “Veivalg i Utenriks- og Sikkerhetspolitikken.” The G20 may pose a challenge if its seen to undermine the credibility of multilateral institutions with regard to uphold established rules. This in turn, may reduce Norway ́s ability to in uence global governance through these multilateral institutions. It is an opportunity to the degree that the G20 can strengthen global governance on key areas of importance for Norway, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The G20 also rep- resents an underexplored channel for wielding in uence on other issues, which requires a different type of strategy than the one pur- sued vis a vis multilateral institutions.
Consequences of integrating foreign policy and development policy
There has in recent years been a clear trend among OECD countries to integrate their development and foreign policies. This paper has two parts. Part one reviews how some key donor countries have approached such integration, and examines what we know about their effects on the overall coherence and effectiveness of development and foreign policy. The working paper finds that there is a clear knowledge gap on the consequences of integrating development and foreign policy.