Publikasjoner

Benefits and Pitfalls of Google Scholar

Google Scholar (GS) is an important tool that faculty, administrators, and external reviewers use to evaluate the scholarly impact of candidates for jobs, tenure, and promotion. This article highlights both the benefits of GS—including the reliability and consistency of its citation counts and its platform for disseminating scholarship and facilitating networking—and its pitfalls. GS has biases because citation is a social and political process that disadvantages certain groups, including women, younger scholars, scholars in smaller research communities, and scholars opting for risky and innovative work. GS counts also reflect practices of strategic citation that exacerbate existing hierarchies and inequalities. As a result, it is imperative that political scientists incorporate other data sources, especially independent scholarly judgment, when making decisions that are crucial for careers. External reviewers have a unique obligation to offer a reasoned, rigorous, and qualitative assessment of a scholar’s contributions and therefore should not use GS.

Colombia between peace and war : The 2018 presidential elections and the way forward

The presidential elections of 2018 are expected to have significant implications for the matter of peace, justice and conflict resolution in Colombia. Since conflict intensity rose considerably in the 1980s, presidential elections have been greatly influenced by the candidates’ approaches to the conflict and how to deal with illegal armed groups, particularly the FARC. What visions of peace do the 2018 presidential candidates have, and what could the implications be for the current peace agreement with the FARC? The candidates, rightwing and frontrunner Iván Duque and left-wing candidate Gustavo Petro, promote dissimilar visions of peace for Colombia. These reflect a deeper political polarization within the country, a key issue the next president will have to deal with.

Can the AU finance its own peace operations, and if so, what would the impact be?

Withdrawal under article 50 TEU: an integration-friendly prosess

Article 50TEU acknowledges the right of Member States to withdraw from the EU, and contains a specific procedure. It also constitutes the legal basis of an exceptional EU competence whose purpose is to ensure that a Member’s departure is “orderly”. This qualification entails the conclusion of an agreement between the parties on the terms of the withdrawal, but also presupposes that the withdrawal does not undermine the integrity of the EU legal order, while contributing to the fulfilment of the Union’s integration objective. The unprecedented exercise of that competence has enriched the law of European integration: core components of the constitutional identity of the EU have been (re)affirmed, the role of its institutions bolstered, and Union membership law further articulated. Paradoxically, withdrawal may therefore be envisaged as an integration-friendly process.

A Place in the Sun? IRENA’s Position in the Global Energy Governance Landscape

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), created in 2009, is the only intergovernmental organization dedicated to renewable energy. Drawing on several new datasets, this article explores IRENA in the context of three other major international energy organizations: the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Energy Agency and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Through this analysis, several empirical approaches to comparing international energy organizations are tried out. Direct comparison between IRENA other international energy organizations is found to be problematic as each organization is different and comparisons inevitably encounter apples and oranges type issues. The study finds that IRENA’s niche in international renewable energy governance is not yet fully carved out, but that the organization’s mandate and institutional structure, as well as recent international developments, indicate that it may grow rapidly in importance.

Mer inne enn ute

Brexit synes å ha endret Norges status i EU. Resultatet er at Norge er oppgradert, ikke nedgradert.

Nye toner i norsk europapolitikk

Regjeringen varsler taktskifte for Norges EU-strategi. Det kommer til rett tid og med forfriskende begrunnelser.

Polen mellom fortid, notid og framtid

2015 markerer eit viktig skilje i Polens nyare historie. For fyrste gong etter den store politiske omveltinga i 1989 fekk landet ei rein fleirtalsregjering og ein president frå same politiske parti.

Nordic responses to Brexit: Making the best of a difficult situation

This policy brief examines how the British decision to withdraw from the EU has influenced the political debates in and foreign policies of the five Nordic states – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. With the exception of Iceland, all these countries had a stated preference for Britain to remain in the EU – not least due to historical ties and the tendency of Britain and the Nordic countries to have similar approaches to European integration. Three general findings can be highlighted: First, Brexit has featured prominently in political debates in all the Nordic countries since the British referendum, and the causes and consequences of the Brexit vote continue to be discussed with vigour. In all the Nordic countries, Brexit has also stirred debates about their current relationships with the EU, prompting EU critics to demand new privileges or opt-outs. Overall, however, the Nordic governments, supported by a stable majority among their populations, have signalled that they wish to preserve their EU membership or current forms of association models, with the access and benefits these provide. Second, for all the Nordic countries, securing good relations with Britain post-Brexit is a key priority, but they have generally indicated that maintaining good relations with the EU must come first. Finally, the Nordic governments are well aware that Brexit could create a vacuum in EU policy-making, perhaps tipping the balance among internal clusters. Britain has been a highly visible member of the ‘Northern’ grouping in the EU, and its absence is likely to be noticed. As the Nordic countries are about to lose what has at times been a powerful ally in EU decision-making, they may have to forge new coalitions to safeguard their interests.

European security as practice: EU–NATO communities of practice in the making?

This book aims to show practice approaches at work in the fields of European diplomacy and security broadly conceived. It sets out to provide readers with a hands-on sense of where research on social practices and European diplomacy, security and foreign policy currently stands. The book reviews how practice approaches have evolved in International Relations (IR) and brings together an unique set of contributions which highlights how insights from practice approaches can be applied to advance research on a number of key issues in these fields. While the debate about practices in IR goes beyond the case of diplomacy, the latter has become a showcase for the former and this book continues the debate on practices and diplomacy by zooming in on the European Union. Examples of issues covered include the evolution of EU-NATO relations seen from the perspective of communities of practice, burden sharing as an anchoring practice for European states’ involvement in crisis management operations, the practical knowledge shaping the EU’s responses to the Arab Uprisings, agency as accomplished in and through EU counter-piracy practices and the political resistance to Israeli occupation and the non-official recognition of Palestine performed by EU diplomats. Thus, by focusing on specific practices and analytical mechanisms that contribute to understand the transformations of European diplomacy, security and foreign policy, this book provides essential readings to anyone interested in innovative ways to grasp the contemporary challenges that face the EU and its member states. The chapters originally published as a special issue of European Security.