Search results

The Iraq War in 2003 represented a conflict of interest for the Norwegian government, as the situation called for them to choose between the relationship with the United States & international law. Being a small nation, it was in Norway's interest to protect both these interests. In the end, the government decided not to support the American-led invasion, with reference to international law. This decision has by some been interpreted as a shift away from Norway's traditional Atlanticist policy. This article illustrates how the second Bondevik Government succeeded in balancing different national interests in the decision-making process. On the one hand, it supported the UN & met the demands of the Norwegian public opinion. On the other hand, it managed to uphold its relationship with the United States. This balancing act illustrates that small states have limited room for manoeuvre in international politics, & will most likely continue to have so in the future. References. Adapted from the source document.

The article compares the Norwegian & the German political debate on changes to the respective countries' citizenship laws. The Norwegian law will come into force in September 2006, while the German law was introduced in 2000. In citizenship laws we can find a contrast between an ethnic & cultural understanding of political community & a rights-based understanding. This contrast was hardly touched upon in the Norwegian debate. Among the Norwegian political parties there was broad agreement to carry on with the principle of ethnic decent. Moreover, all parties, with an exception of the Socialist Left Party (SV), wanted to introduce more restrictions on the established Norwegian practice to accept dual citizenship. The German debate dealt with the contrasting principles, & the conflict followed the left/right cleavages. The main difference found between the two countries refers to the left parties. Both with regard to the principle of ethnic decent/territorial principle & the acceptance of dual citizenship, the Social Democrats in Norway & Germany presented opposite standpoints. References. Adapted from the source document.

Certification according to private sustainability standards (ecolabelling) has become an important addition to public fisheries management in recent years. The major global ecolabel in terms of comprehensiveness and coverage is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. Under the MSC Standard, the status of the fishery's target stocks, its impact on the wider ecosystem and the effectiveness of its management system are assessed. Becoming and remaining certified requires continuous behavioural adaptation from fisheries through a fine-meshed system of conditions attached to certification. In this article, MSC certification of two clusters of fisheries in Arctic waters is discussed, one large- and one small-scale. In the Barents Sea cod and haddock fisheries, the main obstacle to certification has been the fisheries' impact on endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species and bottom habitats, and in order to remain certified beyond the first five-year certification period, the fishing companies have had to introduce a number of voluntary measures beyond what is required by law. In the local lumpfish fisheries in Greenland, Iceland and Norway, conditions attached to certification have been related to the effects of these fisheries on seabirds and marine mammals. Here essential parts of a management regime, such as biological reference points and harvest control rules, have come about as a direct result of MSC certification. MSC certification is no panacea, but it seems to have found a niche as a supplement to national legislation and international agreements.

The chief objective of the Iraq War has been branded as US control of the Middle East. Rising oil imports, stronger pro-Israeli interests & the demise of a Soviet rival power have resulted in a US Middle East policy more based on force than on diplomacy. Both for the US & Israel important interests are at stake. The reconstruction of Iraq's large oil industry is likely to influence the world oil market for decades. For Israel an alliance of Iraq & Syria might be critical. Israel does not have the resources to control its strategic environment, & any Israeli use of force requires US support. Thus the US occupation of Iraq & any plans to invade Iran dampen pressure on Israel to find a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, Lebanon & Syria, while a US withdrawal from Iraq would increase pressure. While it might be in the US interest to weaken the Arab states & their control over oil, a fragmentation could be in Israel's interest. The draft Iraqi oil law suffers from a lack of clarity that might compromise the government's bargaining position. Iraq can rebuild its oil industry through service contracts that eventually might be paid in oil. Many large, proven fields with a low geological risk preclude any need to explore for new prospects or grant equity shares in fields already indicated, or to enter into long-term oil contracts as long as the war lasts. The US occupant has, however, a pressing need to kick-start the Iraqi oil industry. Finally, the article discusses prospects for US policy on the Middle East in the years to come. References. Adapted from the source document.