Search results

Throughout the course of the last decade, international events have pushed the development of the Danish foreign affairs department in previously unseen ways. As a result, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has undertaken an extensive re-structuring & revitalization of the department. While these changes were first influenced by external conditions, demand to have full control over its operations has led the department to carry on this evolution internally. Encouraging a merit-driven culture within the department reflects Denmark's growing focus on expanding its reach as a global actor. With emphasis on new developments in information management, transparency, globalization, & commerce, this article reviews some of the adaptive measures taken by the department & the relative degrees of success that have resulted. References. C. Brunski

It is well established in International Relations that the modem state & the state system originated at the Peace of Westphalia (1648). In this article, the author argues that there is little evidence to support such an understanding, neither in the texts of the treaties nor in the political situation before or in the wake of 1648. Rather, the Peace of Westphalia can in many ways be understood to be a step backwards from a modem understanding of sovereignty (cuius regio, eius religio: whose region it is, his religion it is), which to some extent was represented in the Peace of Augsburg (1555). International Relations' understanding of the Peace of Westphalia is based on a mythical understanding of historical processes. Furthermore, the author argues, International Relations should abandon the mythical watershed which 1648 represents. However, instead of searching for another myth to explain the origin of its main object of study, one should instead re-conceptualise the discipline in a new & more dynamic way, taking into account the heterogeneous character of the international system. 60 References. Adapted from the source document.

Norway's security & defence policy was justified with reference to Cold War arguments well into the 1990s. The Norwegian NATO discourse, which is the topic of the article, is still focused on territorial defence, with allied support in an emergency situation, interoperability & alliance loyalty at its core. NATO increasingly is considered as a political instrument in which Norwegian force contributions to international operations are converted into political influence vis-a-vis Norway's allies. Some fear, however, that international engagement will reduce the national defence capacity, leaving Norway in a vulnerable situation with Russia in the northern areas. This view also reflects the opposition against defence reform, where NATO has been a central external driving force. NATO is still seen as the main arena for transatlantic relations in the Norwegian debate, whereas little attention is being paid to the ever more ambitious & capable EU. More striking, maybe, is that the attitude towards Norway's close relationship with the US, even after its unilateral turn since nine-eleven, does not seem to have changed. 64 References. Adapted from the source document.

The ramifications for Norwegian foreign policy, as a non-member of the European Union, are radically changed since the Cold War. The world has changed from a bipolar order with the US as a conserving superpower, to a unipolar world with the US as a radical superpower. 11 September 2001, & the following war on terrorism, has been a catalyst in this respect. As a result the US is today relating to international institutions as far as they are instrumental in the enhancement of American values & interests. The alliance between the US & Norway today lacks a common denominator. The threat from the east is gone. Still, Norwegian foreign policy & alliance orientation is very much the same as before. Why? Is it because reorientation for foreign policy comes harder in Norway than elsewhere? Historically, foreign policy in Norway has been more a question of administration than one of policy making. Furthermore, broad political consensus on foreign policy is a main political objective in itself. This has left little room for public & political discourse on foreign policy. The benefit is stability. The cost is reduced ability to adapt to radical international changes. A third factor is the ever-lasting question of Norwegian EU membership, which has made interest-based foreign policy more difficult. Norway outside the power blocs of international politics must balance on the interests of other states. Therefore, a clear understanding of Norwegian interests in 2005 -- outside the EU & dc-linked from the reflexes of the Cold War -- is needed. 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

1970s military dictatorship in Latin America was followed by a democratization process in the 1980s, at a point when military powers had devastated the economy & more than doubled foreign debt. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, the region finds itself in a period marked by governments that, perhaps more than ever before, are characterized by their reaction to the neo-liberal policies of the 1990s. Of particular concern in this respect is the changing relationship between the region & the United States, which in turn opens opportunity for the involvement of other international actors in the sphere. This brings about a high degree of uncertainty both for Latin America itself as well as for the international community. Some of the many cases of Latin American economies & politics in crisis are described here in detail. C Brunski

Investigations carried out over the course of the last decade have revealed that during much of the Cold War, Sweden espoused a Janus-like policy in which there stood an open non-alignment & neutrality doctrine alongside a secret arrangement to cooperate with Western powers in the event of a Soviet invasion or a European war. This article focuses on what is here suggested to be a series of attempts to rewrite or edit this particular phase of Swedish political history, given the incompatibility of the two stances that Sweden assumed during this period. The author treats some of the highly controversial Swedish policies concerning alignment with the West, in particular with the United States & NATO. References. C. Brunski