Suchergebnisse

Doomsdays preachers suggested that Brexit and Trump would mean the end of the liberal world order as we know it and thus the end of the EU. The research presented here suggests the opposite. Not only have Europeans turned their back to populism by voting yes to reforms and pro-EU-parties and governments in different member states over the past months, but Brexit and Trump also seems to have given a complete new momentum to the European project. This article demonstrates why Brexit cannot be generalized to the rest of the continent but is the result of a complicated and special British conception of what it means to be a sovereign state in the 21st century. Moreover and paradoxically, surveys show that the greatest fear among Europeans today is not more European integration but right wing populism and European Disunion.

The starting point for this analysis is that there is no 'business as usual' when considering the consequences of the Brexit referendum: there is either the question 'if Brexit?' or the question 'if-not Brexit?' because there is no turning around or comfortable retreat to established positions. Starting with an analysis of the British debate this 'policy-brief paper' looks at the consequences of the Brexit referendum for transatlantic security relations and in particular the consequences for Sweden. The most important arguments are, in brief: (1) That the value conflict inherent in the British debate, essentially between Eurosceptic nationalism and pro-EU integrationism, is mirrored in several European nations and remains a challenge to the EU; (2) that while Britain remains a European power regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the British geo-political outlook is differs from that of other European nations and will have to be taken into account when considering transatlantic security relations; (3) that NATO is likely to be even more important if Britain leaves the EU but that a strengthening of NATO's European pillar is likely regardless of the outcome of the referendum, among other things because of US demands on European nations to improve their military capacity; (4) that Sweden in the case of Brexit is likely to lose influence over the development of European security cooperation in general but might nevertheless be able to gain in influence mainly as a result of Sweden's geo-strategic position. ; Rapport inom ramen för "Transatlantisk säkerhet" som ingår i Forskning för regeringens behov (FORBE)

De nære relationer mellem USA og Europa har i årtier været et centralt element i international politik. Men hvor kommer det transatlantiske forholds holdbarhed og modstandskraft fra? Dette spørgsmål optager mange forskere og aktualiseres nu af de igangværende forskydninger i verdenspolitikken. Bogessayet diskuterer derfor, hvordan de to bøger Special Relationships in World Politics (Haugevik, 2018) og Enduring Alliance (Sayle, 2019) fremmer vores viden om de bånd, der knytter staterne i det nordatlantiske område. Haugevik undersøger bilaterale amerikansk-britiske og britisk-norske 'specielle forhold', mens Sayle ser nærmere på det multilaterale samarbejde i NATO. De tilbyder begge interessante teoretiske argumenter om samspillet mellem diplomatisk praksis og nationale politiske dynamikker samt imponerende empiriske analyser, som underbygger deres pointer. De to bøger rejser samtidig også nye vigtige spørgsmål, herunder om de indbyggede spændinger i liberale normer og værdier samt om betydningen af tillid for det transatlantiske forholds holdbarhed.
Abstract in English: Something Special? The Transatlantic Ties and Their EnduranceFor several decades, the close relationship between the United States and Europe has been a key aspect of international politics. But what are the sources of the endurance and resilience of transatlantic ties? This question preoccupies researchers, and its salience is growing in light of current shifts in world politics. Accordingly, the book essay discusses how the two books Special Relationships in World Politics (Haugevik, 2018) and Enduring Alliance (Sayle, 2019) contribute to our knowledge about the international ties of the North Atlantic area. Haugevik examines bilateral American-British and British-Norwegian 'special relationships', while Sayles studies multilateral cooperation in NATO. They both offer interesting theoretical arguments about the interplay between diplomatic practice and national political dynamics. Moreover, they provide impressive empirical analyses to support their claims. At the same time, the two books raise new important questions, e.g. about the built-in tensions in liberal norms and values as well as about the significance of trust for enduring transatlantic ties.

ParlaMint is a multilingual set of comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after October 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the ParlaMint TEI-encoded corpora with the derived plain text version of the corpus along with TSV metadata on the speeches. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. Note that there also exists the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, which is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1405.

ParlaMint 2.1 is a multilingual set of 17 comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after November 1st 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the ParlaMint TEI-encoded corpora with the derived plain text version of the corpus along with TSV metadata on the speeches. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. Note that there also exists the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, which is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1431.

The purpose of this dissertation is to describe and analyze how the Soviet Union attempted to win the sympathies of the Swedish population during the period 1945-1958 through the All-Union Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (VOKS) and the Sweden-Soviet Union Societies. The dissertation includes the central Soviet decision-making apparatus' general formulation of strategy and what means were to be used to win the sympathies of populations in other countries. Concerning VOKS's work targeting Sweden, this dissertation examines the general strategies and means used in practice. This dissertation links these activities with realism which serves as an analytical framework. Realism focuses states seeking their security in the international system. Security is considered achievable through strategies for using different means of force, in this case, diplomacy and its sub-instruments in the form of soft power and public diplomacy. Immediately after World War II, VOKS was seen by the Soviets as a tool for countering American and British propaganda. VOKS's reorganization in the early 1950s led to more country-specific activities. Increasingly in the 1950s VOKS sought out partners from outside organizations associated with national communist parties. This strategy aimed to optimally convey the message and to popularize the Soviet Union. This also led to a decline in VOKS's importance. VOKS during the period 1945-1958 can be viewed as a collaborative project between the state and the party. The Soviet Union, through VOKS, used the Sweden-USSR Society to popularize the country among the Swedish public. VOKS took increasingly greater control over the societies' activities, which were reviewed and approved by the Soviet Embassy in Stockholm and VOKS in Moscow. To develop these societies, VOKS increased its efforts to influence the Communist Party of Sweden (SKP) to take part in the societies' activities. At the suggestion of VOKS in Moscow, the local Sweden-USSR societies formed a national organization in the autumn of 1950 called the Sweden-Soviet Union Federation. After 1953, VOKS's interest intensified in implementing and developing cultural collaborations with other actors in addition to the societies. Near the end of VOKS's existence, representatives from the Soviet Embassy and VOKS tried to establish an intergovernmental cultural agreement with Sweden. However, no such agreement was ever signed. The Soviet Union continued to channel most of its public diplomacy toward Sweden through the societies.

Norsk diplomati har mange hverdagshelter, men få som er helter i den forstand at de har skapt noe unikt. Artikkelen diskuterer kandidat nummer en til rollen, Fridtjof Nansen. Nansens diplomatiske virksomhet var mangslungen og inkluderte vitenskapsdiplomati, sportsdiplomati, bakkanaler mellom tredjeparter og oppdrag for den norske stat og internasjonale organisasjoner. Ikke mindre enn fire av hans bidrag er unike. Det første er hans utvidelse av Norges utenrikspolitiske spillerom ved å få en engelsk-gift konge på Norges trone i 1905. Det andre er hans ferdigforhandling av stormaktenes sikkerhetsgaranti til Norge i 1907, som norsk minister til London. Den tredje er ferdigforhandlingen av forsyningsavtalen med amerikanerne i 1918. Det fjerde er hans innsats for hundretusener av flyktninger på 1920-tallet, da særlig det strukturelle grepet med å gjøre dem til juridiske subjekter ved å utstyre dem med såkalt Nansen-pass. For dette arbeidet fikk Nansen også Nobels fredspris for nøyaktig 100 år siden. Nansens svakhet som diplomat var den massive selvsentrertheten og egenrådigheten som gjorde ham til en problematisk representant for et kollektiv som den norske stat. Svakheten ble mer enn veiet opp av Nansens virtuose håndtering av diplomatiets to andre kjerneoppgaver, informasjonssanking og forhandling, som alle hans fire unike innsatser bygger på.
Abstract in EnglishThe Diplomat as Hero: Fridtjof NansenNorwegian diplomacy has seen many everyday heroes, but few who have done something unique. The article discusses the main candidate for the role, Fridtjof Nansen. Nansen carried out a number of different diplomatic functions at the behest of the Norwegian state and International Organisations, no less than four of which were unique. He increased Norway's room for manoeuvre by contributing to placing a Danish king with a British-born wife on the throne upon the country's independence in 1905. He then successfully negotiated a Great Power-guaranteed Integrity Treaty for the new state. Nansen also secured a treaty on vital goods delivery with the United States for Norway in 1918. Most famously, in the1920s, he helped hundreds of thousands of refugees with disaster relief, but also by manipulating structural preconditions so that they received identity papers and could cross borders, for which he received the 1922 Nobel Peace prize. Nansen's weakness as a diplomat was his egocentrism, complete with a programmatic aversion against seeing his specific mission as part of a united foreign policy orchestrated elsewhere. He more than made up for this by his expert handling of diplomacy's other two basic functions, information gathering and negotiation, which underlay all his four unique successes.

The first part of this report provides an overview of the history of nuclear weapons doctrine, as it evolved in parallel to the practice of warfare and war planning in the mid-1940s and subsequently as an integral element of the cold war. A distinction is made between the early development of nuclear weapons doctrine, when United States held a dominant position in the field, and the near-parity situation that ensued in the late 1960s and onwards. The second part of the report consists of an analysis of American, British, French and Russian nuclear weapons doctrine between 1991 and 2018, illustrating how a period of low tension was gradually replaced with a reinvigoration of mutual suspicion after the year 2000. A third part briefly examines recent contributions to the American scholarly debate about the utility of nuclear weapons for strategic thought in a world moving toward polycentrism, as it revisits earlier theoretical insights and challenges conventional wisdoms. The fourth and final part elicits lessons for Sweden in particular. Overall, the report demonstrates that nuclear weapons consistently have represented an integral element of managing security risks in the Western hemisphere but that domestic political and defense industry considerations play in as well. It also suggests that doctrinal adjustments mirror the major concerns of policymakers in this regard and that nuclear powers are well aware of special obligations and privileges ascribed to them by countries that lack this category of weapons. A world in which the United States wields the greatest share of this power (unipolarity) will nonetheless be quite different from one in which two countries possess roughly the same capacity (bipolarity), and yet fundamentally different from one in which three or more countries compete to gain, or sustain, an edge toward others (multipolarity). To the extent that the world is moving toward greater security competition including the dimension of nuclear power, it will inevitably be more difficult for individual states to remain on the sidelines, unless they are ready to compromise their political autonomy. In terms of options for aligning Sweden with a broader security arrangement in the near future, there are only three feasible alternatives that may offset the risk of nuclear coercion: responding within the framework of the EU, forge closer ties to NATO, or build a bilateral relationship to the United States. Each such option comes with its own set of assets and liabilities, as does remaining a passive bystander. ; Transaltantisk och europeisk säkerhet , FORBE