Search results

Claims of inter-state 'specialness' are commonplace in international politics. But how do some relationships between states come to be seen and categorized as 'special' in the first place? And what impact, if any, do recurring public representations of specialness have on states' political and diplomatic interaction? While much scholarly work exists on alleged instances of special relationships, and on inter-state cooperation and alliances more generally, little systematic and theory informed research has been conducted on how special relationships evolve and unfold in practice. This book offers such a comprehensive study. Theorizing inter-state relations as ongoing social processes, it makes the case for approaching special relationships as constituted and upheld through linguistic representations and bilateral interaction practices. Haugevik explores this claim through an in-depth study of how the bilateral relationship most frequently referred to as 'special' - the US-British - has unfolded over the last seventy years. This analysis is complemented with a study of Britain's relationship with a more junior partner, Norway, during the same period. The book offers an original take on inter-state relations and diplomacy during the Cold War and after, and develops an analytical framework for understanding why some state relationships maintain their status as 'special', while others end up as 'benignly neglected' ones

This article makes the case for integrating informal, social and minilateral dynamics in analyses of 'differentiated integration' in the European Union (EU) context. In EU studies, differentiated integration has mainly served as an analytical lens for studying variation in states' degree of formalized commitment to the European integration project or in organizational decision-making procedures across policy areas. While this focus has generated important analytical and empirical insights, three dimensions tend to be lost when limiting the study of differentiated integration to negotiated outcomes manifest in legal documents and decision-making procedures. First, informal processes of integration precede and concur with formal ones. Second, European integration is an inherently social process, and member states integrate with the EU identity-building project in different ways and to different degrees. Third, member states enjoy heterogeneous social ties with one another, routinely forming informal bi- and minilateral coalitions in everyday decision-shaping processes. More knowledge about these informal and social dynamics can give us a better understanding of how differentiated integration manifests itself in practice and where the European integration process is heading. The theoretical argument is buttressed by data from the 2020 European Council of Foreign Relations' 'Coalition Explorer' survey, showing how partner preferences within the EU continue to reflect stable social sub-orders.

This article makes the case for integrating informal, social and minilateral dynamics in analyses of 'differentiated integration' in the European Union (EU) context. In EU studies, differentiated integration has mainly served as an analytical lens for studying variation in states' degree of formalized commitment to the European integration project or in organizational decision-making procedures across policy areas. While this focus has generated important analytical and empirical insights, three dimensions tend to be lost when limiting the study of differentiated integration to negotiated outcomes manifest in legal documents and decision-making procedures. First, informal processes of integration precede and concur with formal ones. Second, European integration is an inherently social process, and member states integrate with the EU identity-building project in different ways and to different degrees. Third, member states enjoy heterogeneous social ties with one another, routinely forming informal bi- and minilateral coalitions in everyday decision-shaping processes. More knowledge about these informal and social dynamics can give us a better understanding of how differentiated integration manifests itself in practice and where the European integration process is heading. The theoretical argument is buttressed by data from the 2020 European Council of Foreign Relations' 'Coalition Explorer' survey, showing how partner preferences within the EU continue to reflect stable social sub-orders.

De siste tiårene har globalisering og digitalisering gjort verden mindre. «Langt borte eksisterer ikke lenger», som tidligere utenriksminister Thorvald Stoltenberg en gang fastslo. Skillet mellom «der ute» og «her hjemme» er blitt vanskeligere å trekke opp; oppfatningen av hva som naturlig hører til i den utenrikspolitiske og diplomatiske sfæren er i endring. Denne utviklingen – og vår forståelse av den – har konsekvenser for hvordan norsk utenrikspolitikk og diplomati tenkes, utformes og praktiseres.
Abstract in English:Changing World, Steady DiplomacyOver the last decades, globalization and digitalization have made the world smaller. "Far away does not exist any more", as former Norwegian foreign minister Thorvald Stoltenberg once put it. The boundaries between "out there" and "here at home" have become more difficult to draw up; our understanding of what naturally belongs in the foreign policy and diplomacy domain is constantly changing. These developments – and our own assessment of them – have implications for how Norwegian foreign policy and diplomacy is formulated and practiced.

Summary
States alternate between the roles of 'caretaker' and 'rescuer' when providing care to citizens abroad. This article suggests that they are more likely to assume the 'rescuer' role when core values underpinning their self-identity are at stake. This dynamic is explored by examining a case where a Norwegian mother re-abducted her two children from Morocco. In the process, Norway's foreign minister authorized shielding the children at the Norwegian Embassy in Rabat, citing 'Norway's duty to protect two Norwegian minors in fear of their lives'. A diplomatic conflict between Norway and Morocco followed. The Norwegian response must be seen in light of Norway's self-identity as a frontrunner for children's rights. Ultimately, helping the children 'had' to trump concerns about diplomatic costs. The broader dilemmas that this case exemplifies should be relevant also to other cases where a state's concern for a child citizen is pitted against its obligation to diplomatic conventions.

AbstractThis article discusses what role regional organisations can and should play in ensuring implementation of the international Responsibility to Protect (R2P). What formal responsibility and which enabling capabilities do regional organisations have for assuming a role in protecting populations from mass atrocities? The article begins by discussing the formal role projected for regional organisations in the implementation of R2P, individually and vis-à-vis the UN, in the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document. The description of this role is then compared to the one depicted in the advisory 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). The second part of the article offers an overview of relevant capabilities held by key regional organisations in Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia, capabilities that could enable them to take part in protection tasks prior to, during, or in the aftermath of mass atrocities. In the third part of the report, the capability aspect is seen in relation to the constitutive and constraining impact that individual member states' interests may have on the ability of regional organisations to act within the context of R2P.

This article examines how Norway, a veteran EU outsider by choice, works on a day-to-day basis to compensate for its lack of formal voice in EU institutions. After Norwegian voters' second rejection of EU membership in a national referendum in 1994, Prime Minister Brundtland observed that Norway now must be prepared to use "the back door" to reach EU policy-makers. I suggest that for Norway, a key alternative route to the EU decision-making table has gone through bilateral partnerships. I identify two chief variants of this bilateral trajectory, what I term long-term and rotating bilateralism. Firstly, Norway has pursued long-term ties with selected bilateral partners within the EU system. Secondly, it has systematically strengthened its diplomatic presence in the member state holding or about to take over the rotating presidency of the EU Council. I conclude with some reflections on the relevance of Norway's "bilateral experience" for Britain, as a future EU outsider. ; publishedVersion