Publikasjoner
Nordic–Baltic Support to Military and Security Capacity Building? Current Agendas and Options
Support to Military and Security Capacity Building is expanding as a way to strengthen the resilience of states and enhance their ability to manage conflict and insecurity constructively. It offers new openings for Nordic and Baltic engagements and partner-ships.
No exit: The decline of the international administration in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Between doctrine and practice: The United Nations peacekeeping dilemma
The Limits and Achievements of Regional Governance in Security: NORDEFCO and the V4
Both Norway and Poland have engaged in regional security and defence cooperation projects: NORDEFCO and the Visegrad Group (V4), respectively. Such initiatives are seen as a promising method for reinforcing military capabilities in a time of deep cuts in defence budgets among the EU Member States. The record of NORDEFCO and the V4 remains, though, rather modest, particularly when compared to the ambitious declarations made at their beginnings. Both cooperation formats have proved effective with regards to less-complicated projects, such as those involving military education, training or logistics. However, common procurement and real integration in some capability areas has turned out to be too difficult. Yet, these failures have helped to identify factors that may make success more likely, and this result is shared by both NORDEFCO and the V4, despite the structural differences between these two mechanisms of security governance.
The Limits and Achievements of Regional Governance in Security: NORDEFCO and the V4
To look or not to look to Norway? Brexit and the tales of Norwegian outsidership
Institutionalizing peace and reconciliation diplomacy: third-party reconciliation as systems maintenance
Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, Introduction
In this Introduction, we accomplish two main goals. First, we provide theoretical tools to better grasp the role and character of diplomacy and how it may be changing in the contemporary era. We develop a relational framework focused on two dimensions: the evolving configurations of state and non-state actors and the competing authority claims that underpin diplomatic practices on the world stage. Second, we begin to theorize the ways in which diplomacy makes and remakes world politics. The remainder of the book offers rich case studies to empirically substantiate our broad argument about the constitution of world politics in practice. In this Introduction, our more limited objective is to explain the significance of our argument for key debates in international relations (IR).
“Roving Elites and Sedentary Subjects: The Hybridized Origins of the State”
In the introduction to this volume, Hurt and Lipschutz ask about historical precedents for the present-day hybridization of state power and capitalist accumulation strategies and practices. As is well known, the emergence of capitalism was marked by a number of earlier and relevant shifts of governmental rationality, leading back to the break with mercantilism, which was decisive in singling out economics as a separate sphere in western societies. This process was a key drama in western state building during the mercantilist seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and it was indigenous to those states. Similar processes emerged in other states only as a result of contact (trade, conquest, colonization etc.) with western states. Characteristically, at present non-western states have a less clear division of political and economic spheres than do western states, and in some states, it makes little sense to talk about separate spheres at all. One of the defining features of what are often called “fragile states” is precisely that the public and the private is not separate, thus contradicting the ideal-typical model of a Weberian state on which the category rests (Eriksen 2011).