Publikasjoner
Russian foreign policy as an instrument for domestic mobilization
Despite numerous declarations, the Russian authorities have done very little about domestic reforms, such as economic modernization. By contrast, Russia’s external policy has been extremely active, and is extensively debated within Russia itself. On the surface, it may seem that the domestic agenda is fully suppressed by the external one. In reality, however, foreign policy plays an important instrumental role, as the main tool for achieving domestic consensus and mobilization. It is public approval of the country’s foreign policy, together with ‘Russia-friendly’ interpretations of international processes, that create openings for the political elite to postpone domestic reforms. Various strategies for domestic reforms have recently been elaborated on the order of the President – but there are no indications that they will be realized anytime soon.
Forskning vs. synsing
Børge Brende burde vite bedre enn å avvise kunnskapsbasert kritikk som synsing.
Changing representations of Poles in Norway: what can this mean for the future of Polish diaspora?
The aim of this chapter was to examine how the perception of Polish migrants had evolved in Norway in a longer historical perspective and how this evolution of perceptions may influence the situation of the Polish diaspora in Norway. The study is based on the analysis of the content of Norwegian media in two periods – prior to the 2004 EU enlargement and in 2014. The study maps how the situation of Poles in Norway has been presented in main media outlets, how the Polish community in Norway has been framed and how those perceptions have evolved during the last decade. The chapter maps whether the issue of Polish migration to Norway has been politicised in the aftermath of the massive inflow of Polish labour migrants after 2004 and how those attempts at politicisation of the issue of Polish migration in particular, and migration in more general terms, may impact on the situation of the Polish diaspora in Norway.
A humanitarian mission in line with human rights? Assessing Sophia, the EU’s naval response to the migration crisis
This article adds to our understanding of the role of norms in the European Union’s (EU) response to the migration crisis by conducting a critical assessment of the EU’s anti-smuggling naval mission “Sophia”. Is Sophia in line with the normative standards the EU has set for itself in its foreign policies? Conducting the analysis in two steps in line with the main criteria of a humanitarian foreign policy model – first exploring Sophia’s launch and then assessing Sophia’s in theatre behaviour – findings suggest that although concerns for migrants at sea mobilised the initial launch of the mission, the mission is not conducted in line with key human rights principles. As the operation mandate is amended and updated with new tasks, and as the EU-NATO in theatre cooperation increases, the EU is moving further away from what one would expect of a humanitarian foreign policy actor.
Article 127 and Article 128 EEA
The provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) determine the relations of the EFTA countries Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein with the EU and its Member States. On its basis, these three countries participate extensively in the internal market. The EEA is also discussed as a possible model for relations between the EU and the United Kingdom after Brexit. The new commentary, article by article, explores the importance of the legal practice agreement. It incorporates the extensive annexes and protocols to the agreement, which unlocks key secondary EEA law and establishes links with EU law. The current state of EEA law in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is summarized by legislation and case law. The focus of the presentations lies in the commentary of the EEA regulations on the free movement of goods, the movement of persons, services and capital, transport policy and competition law. The tasks and procedures of the two EEA bodies European Surveillance Authority and EFTA Court, which are used for monitoring and dispute resolution, are explained by commenting on the EEA Regulations and the supplementary agreement concluded between Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
Article 118 EEA
The provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) determine the relations of the EFTA countries Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein with the EU and its Member States. On its basis, these three countries participate extensively in the internal market. The EEA is also discussed as a possible model for relations between the EU and the United Kingdom after Brexit. The new commentary, article by article, explores the importance of the legal practice agreement. It incorporates the extensive annexes and protocols to the agreement, which unlocks key secondary EEA law and establishes links with EU law. The current state of EEA law in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is summarized by legislation and case law. The focus of the presentations lies in the commentary of the EEA regulations on the free movement of goods, the movement of persons, services and capital, transport policy and competition law. The tasks and procedures of the two EEA bodies European Surveillance Authority and EFTA Court, which are used for monitoring and dispute resolution, are explained by commenting on the EEA Regulations and the supplementary agreement concluded between Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
Old diplomacy
Old diplomacy is a term which has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. Politically, it emerged as a term of abuse, used to criticize all which had been wrong with interstate interaction before 1789, in particular secrecy, duplicity, and the reliance on aristocracy. Thus, it was often contrasted with a desired new diplomacy. Political versions of the term have persisted until the present day, although the target changed. A particular spike in criticism happened in 1918–20, when old diplomacy was blamed for the outbreak of the Great War. Analytically, old diplomacy has been used to refer more neutrally to earlier forms of diplomacy. This usage emerged in the nineteenth century, but has been more prevalent from the middle of the twentieth century.
New Diplomacy
New diplomacy is a term which has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. It was introduced as a positive contrast to the old diplomacy of kings and intrigues, and was concerned primarily with trade. Such a liberal understanding has remained predominant – new diplomacy has typically been associated with democratic control over diplomacy, international organization, and free trade, and with openness and honesty in diplomatic practice. An alternative radical interpretation, where new diplomacy implied the complete overthrow of the old, can trace its roots to the French Revolution, and was expressed fully during the Russian Revolution. Although new diplomacy has also been used as a term of abuse by those who prefer traditional forms of diplomacy, the term has primarily signified an ongoing or desired change in a positive direction. Currently, it is being used as a label for most of the non‐state‐centric diplomacy.
Myths in the Russian Collective Memory: The “Golden Era” of Pre-Revolutionary Russia and the “Disaster of 1917”
This paper examines shared ideas, values and interpretations of the past in the “collective memory” of the 1917 October Revolution. Employing a qualitative approach to examine collective memory “from below,” two age cohorts were interviewed in three Russian cities from a variety of social groups in 2014–2015. What was revealed was the existence of a strong positive myth about the pre-revolutionary era of 1900–1914, as well as positive references to the current Putin era. Both eras were “positive” in that Russia was/is a “normal European power,” “on the rise economically” and “respected by the other powers.” In terms of the definitive national trauma, an overwhelming majority viewed the 1917 October Revolution as a break or rupture in Russian history that caused appalling destruction. This view of 1917 as catastrophic leads to certain key “lessons”: that revolutionary change is inherently destructive and wasteful and that external forces had (and have) a vested interest in weakening Russia from without whenever she is at her most vulnerable. Overall, at the heart of myths over 1917 we find a central occupation with the threat of disintegration and a yearning for stability and normality, highlighting how collective memory interacts with political values and social identity.