Search results

The article recounts the account from the Árna saga about Loftur Helgason's trip to Bergen in 1282 and his stay there over winter, explained in terms of the formal sources about the organization of the government and changes in the law in the latter half of the 13th century. These changes were aimed at introducing into Iceland the power of both the King and the Church and in fact marked the actual changes throughout the Norwegian state. Loftur was Skálholt's official and the story about him was part of a long-standing dispute about the position of the chieftains versus the new power of the Church and the opposition to its introduction. The article defines the political confusion described in the Árna sagain Bergen in the winter of 1282-1283 as, on the one hand, changes in the constitution and, on the other hand, legislation, and at the same time whether the Kings Hákon Hákonarson and his son Magnús had systematically pursued a policy of having the Church be an independent party to the government of the state from 1247 onward until the death of the latter in 1280. When the disagreement is looked at as continuing, it is seen that Icelanders had made preparations for changes in the constitution with assurances of introduction of the power of the Church beginning in 1253 and the power of the King from 1262, but, on the other hand, the disagreements in both countries disappeared in the 1270s in the face of the conflict of interests that resulted from the laws that followed in the wake of the constiututional changes. Árna saga tell of this and how the disputes were described, but also that their nature changed as King Erikur came to power in 1280, as he gave the power of the King a new policy that was aimed against the power of the Church. Ousting of the archbishop from Norway and the Christian funerals of the excommunicated chieftains are examples of the conditions of government that could not have been, if the King had no longer had executive power over Christian concerns, as he had already conceded power over spiritual issues to the Pope in Rome with the Settlement at Túnsberg in 1277.

Afstaða Íslendinga til öryggismála hefur lítið verið rannsökuð frá því í lok kalda stríðsins. Í þessari grein eru kynntar niðurstöður könnunar um afstöðu til og hugmyndir um utanríkis- og öryggismál, en Félagsvísindastofnun HÍ vann könnunina í nóvember og desember 2016. Niðurstöður könnunarinnar eru settar í samhengi við þróun í öryggisfræðum, þá sérstaklega öryggisgeira (e. security sectors) verufræðilegt öryggi (e. ontological security) og öryggisvæðingu (e. securitization). Helstu niðurstöður eru að almenningur á Íslandi telur öryggi sínu helst stafa ógn af efnahagslegum og fjárhagslegum óstöðugleika og náttúruhamförum, en telur litlar líkur á því að hernaðarátök eða hryðjuverkaárásir snerti landið beint. Þessar niðurstöður eru í takmörkuðu samræmi við helstu áherslur stjórnvalda í öryggismálum og því mikilvægt að stjórnvöld átti sig á því hvernig hægt er að tryggja það að almenningur sé meðvitaður um þær forsendur sem áhættumat og öryggisstefna grundvallast á. ; Icelanders' views on security and foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War are an understudied issue. This article presents the findings of a large scale survey on the position and ideas about foreign affairs and security. The survey was conducted by the Social Science Research Institute of the University of Iceland in November and December 2016. The results of the survey are placed in the context of developments in security studies, with an emphasis on security sectors, ontological security, and securitization. The main findings are that the Icelandic public believes that its security is most threatened by economic and financial instability, as well as natural hazards, but thinks there is a very limited chance of military conflict or terrorist attacks directly affecting the country. These findings are incongruent with the main emphases of Icelandic authorities, as they appear in security policy and political discourse. It is therefore important that the authorities understand how to engage with the public about the criteria upon which risk assessments and security policies are based. ; Peer Reviewed

Icelandic politics are analysed from the perspectives of three normative models of democracy: the liberal, republican and deliberative democratic theories. While the Icelandic constitution is rooted in classical liberal ideas, Icelandic politics can be harshly criticized from a liberal perspective, primarily because of the unclear separation of powers of government and for the extensive involvement of politics in other social sectors. Despite strong nationalist discourse which reflects republican characteristics, rooted in the struggle for independence from Denmark, republicanism has been marginal in Icelandic politics. In the years before the financial collapse, Icelandic society underwent a process of liberalization in which power shifted to the financial sector without disentangling the close ties that had prevailed between business and politics. The special commission set up by the Icelandic Parliament to investigate the causes of the financial collapse criticized Icelandic politics and governance for its flawed working practices and lack of professionalism. The appropriate lessons to draw from this criticism are to strengthen democratic practices and institutions. In the spirit of republicanism, however, the dominant discourse about Icelandic democracy after the financial collapse has been on increasing direct, vote-centric participation in opposition to the system of formal politics. While this development is understandable in light of the loss of trust in political institutions in the wake of the financial collapse, it has not contributed to trustworthy practices. In order to improve Icelandic politics, the analysis in this paper shows, it is important to work more in the spirit of deliberative democratic theory ; Peer Reviewed