Suchergebnisse

This article discusses the recent debate between Jürgen Habermas and Wolfgang Streeck on the relationship between capitalism and democracy in Europe. The article recounts Streeck's analysis of the financial crisis, the transformation of the tax state into the debt state, and the development of the EU towards an international consolidation state, which informs Streeck's call for a retreat from Europe to the nation-state as the last line of defense against neoliberal capitalism. The article proceeds to sketch Habermas's criticism of Streeck's argument, and it illustrates how Habermas' proposal for a reconstitution of the EU as a supranational democracy is motivated by foundational concerns in his critical theory of society. Finally, the article argues that the debate results in an unresolved dilemma: while only a democratized EU can reestablish the supremacy of politics over globalized markets, the EU is more likely to become further entrenched as an international consolidation state.

FNs totalforbud mot atomvåpen er innlysende riktig. Forpliktelsene går neppe lenger enn Ikkespredningsavtalen, som Norge sluttet seg til allerede i 1970. Avskrekking med atomvåpen forutsetter at de må være klare til bruk for å bli umulige å bruke. Særlig i kriser blir en slik tankegang lett farlig fordi den kan utløse atomkrig ved misforståelser. Likevel er den norske regjeringens motstand mot FNs totalforbud rasjonell fordi hensikten er å forebygge en endring i oppfatning om maktbalanse som kunne undergrave Norges selvstendighet. Spørsmålet blir derfor om risiko for atomkrig kan reduseres uten å øke fare for press, og i verste fall angrep? Artikkelen presenterer egen forskning om hvordan konfrontasjonen i første halvdel av 1980-tallet mellom de to tyske stater førte til risiko for storkrig utløst av gjensidige misforståelser på begge sider av det daværende jernteppet. Teorier om tankeprosesser forklarer misforståelsene som universelle kognitive begrensninger. Forholdene i dag er på vesentlige punkter sammenliknbare med første halvdel av 1980-årene, da det på tross av spenninger likevel var rom for initiativ til felles sikkerhet. Artikkelen konkluderer derfor med at Norge bør slutte seg til FNs totalforbud mot atomvåpen, og sammen med Sverige ta initiativ til en felleseuropeisk dialog med Russland om en europeisk sikkerhetsordning bygd på forestillinger om felles sikkerhet.
Abstract in English:Norwegian Support for the UN's Total Ban on Nuclear Weapons?The article argues that while the UN ban on nuclear arms is obviously sensible, the Norwegian Government's objections are still rational. Rejecting the US nuclear arms umbrella undermines deterrence to the degree that is the perception. The article sets out how cognitive processes determine perceptions of deterrence and risks of war. Shifting nuclear strategies are attempts to cope with the contradiction between deterrence and the inherent impossible choice of nuclear war. The Cold War in the first half of the 1980s shows how nuclear arms, though intended as deterrence, in a confrontation may be misperceived as a looming attack. This misperception almost caused nuclear war by inadvertence, as it could again. The fear of attack may prompt a compelling sense of urgency for a preemptive strike. This is the only real risk of large-scale war in Europe. Therefore, the Norwegian Government should join the UN ban on nuclear arms to reduce tensions in Europe. In a joint initiative with Sweden, which has already endorsed the ban, Norway should persuade other European states to enable a political process with Russia towards a European common security without the looming threat of nuclear arms. Military force should not exceed the minimum required to block intimidation, coercion, and low-intensity aggression.

A current ambition in welfare states across Europe and in the US is for political decision-making to be based on rigorous research (Bason 2010; Cartwright et al 2009; Mulgan 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008). Promoted as 'evidence-based policy-making', 'good analysis, or 'better governance' (Nilsson et.al. 2008) the aspiration finds its roots in the governance paradigm generally referred to as 'new public management' (Hartley 2005) and the central concern for developing a cost-effective and agile public sector (Rod 2010). . Sound as this ambition may seem, it has nevertheless been problematized from within the civil services and from the research community (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Cartwright et al. 2009; Elliott & Popay 2000; House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008; Whitty 2006; Rod 2010, Vohnsen 2011). Some warn that the term 'evidence-based' is used too lightly, and often in cases where 'evidence' has not fed into the policy processes but rather has been invoked after the fact to support already agreed upon policy (House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008); others warn that politics and science are – if not incompatible – then at odds with one another (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Whitty 2006). The article pin-points the friction points between science and policy-making and discuss why it is that evidence rarely feeds into policy-making and how the evidence-based paradigm effectively challenges the traditional craftsmanship of the civil service.

Den här artikeln identifierar och analyserar tre olika reaktioner, i artikeln benämnda »strategisk respons», på amerikansk strategisk återhållsamhet sedan 2017 och mot bakgrund av Brexit: »Liberal övervintring», »Ett starkare Europa» och »En bredare koalition». Analysen kopplar strategisk respons, strategiskt aktörskap och strategisk autonomi och leder till två slutsatser: För det första att Brexit snararare har gynnat än hindrat det europeiska säkerhets- och försvarssamarbetet, såväl inom ramen för EU som mellan EU och stater som står utanför EU, däribland Storbritannien. För det andra att den framväxande säkerhetsordningen innebär nya och annorlunda förutsättningar för det säkerhets- och försvarspolitiska samarbetet i Europa, inte minst i Norden.
Abstract in English:American Strategic Restraint and European Strategic Response: Three Forms of Strategic Response Post-BrexitThis paper describes and analyses three types of European strategic response since the year 2017 by European governments and the EU in response to US strategic restraint and conditioned by Brexit. The three types of response we label "liberal wintering", "a stronger Europe" and "a broader coalition". The paper links strategic response to strategic agency and strategic autonomy leading on to two main conclusions: First, that Brexit has done more to promote than to restrain the development of European common security and defence, both within the EU and when involving nations outside of the EU, such as the UK. Second, that the new broader European security and defence structures open the door to new forms of cooperation, for example between the Nordic countries.

I denne artikkelen deler Bjørn Tore Godal sine erfaringer fra da han, som handelsminister, undertegnet EØS-avtalen i Porto i Portugal den 2. mai 1992 på Norges vegne. Han viser hvordan EØS avtalen kan forstås som en forlengelse av en norsk utenrikspolitisk tradisjon der forholdet til Europa alltid har vært komplisert og sammensatt. Mens internasjonalt samarbeid har hatt stor støtte, har det også vært en dyp skepsis mot unioner og stormakter. Som AUF-leder tidlig på 1970-tallet kjempet han også mot norsk medlemskap i EF. Som handelsminister mente han lenger enn en del andre politiske aktører at EØS kunne være et varig alternativ til EU-medlemskap. I dette bidraget viser Godal hvordan EØS-avtalen har fungert, og særlig hvordan han har erfart avtalen i sine ulike roller.
Abstract in English:EEA – in RetrospectIn this article, Bjørn Tore Godal shares his experiences from when he, as Minister of Commerce, signed the EEA Agreement in Oporto, Portugal on May 2, 1992, on behalf of Norway. He shows how the EEA Agreement can be understood as a natural prolongation of Norwegian foreign policy tradition where relations with Europe always have been complex and complicated. While international cooperation has been highly supported, there has also been a deep skepticism of unions and great powers. As a leader of AUF (the social-democratic youth league) in the early 1970s, he also fought against Norwegian membership in the EC. As a Minister of Commerce, he believed that the EEA could be a lasting alternative to EU membership. In this contribution, Godal shows how the EEA Agreement has worked and how he has experienced the functioning of this agreement in his various roles.

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.

De fem nordiske landene har alle gjort suksess som små og økonomisk åpne stater på verdensmarkedet. Denne åpenheten har tillatt kapital, varer og ideer å flyte relativt uhindret fra verdens økonomiske kraftsentre til Europas nordligste utkant. Kinas fremvekst som et økonomisk kraftsenter har imidlertid medført et nytt dilemma: Hvordan forholder man seg til en autoritær, men investeringsvillig, økonomisk stormakt man ikke har sikkerhetspolitisk samarbeid med? I denne fokusspalten presenterer forskere fra hvert av de nordiske landene hvordan debatten rundt dette dilemmaet har kommet til uttrykk i de ulike nordiske offentligheter. I sum fremviser de fem kapitlene noen brede nordiske fellestrekk. I alle land har sikkerhetsproblematikken ved kinesiske investeringer blitt mer fremtredende, men det har kommet til uttrykk på noe ulikt vis i henholdsvis dansk, finsk, islandsk, norsk og svensk debatt. Kapitlene viser samlet sett at det har skjedd en betydelig endring i de ulike nasjonale debattene. Denne endringen har skjedd både svært nylig, svært raskt og i stor grad samtidig på tvers av den nordiske offentligheten, i takt med at de nordiske landene har måttet tilpasse seg en internasjonal situasjon hvor økonomi og sikkerhetspolitikk i økende grad har blitt sammenflettet.
Abstract in English:Chinese Investments in the NordicsThe five Nordic countries have all enjoyed considerable success as small, economically open countries on the world market. This openness has allowed capital, goods and ideas to flow relatively unimpeded from the economic power centres of the world to the northernmost fringe of Europe. China's rise as an economic hub has, however, resulted in a novel dilemma; how to relate to an authoritarian economic great power that is outside of one's security alliances, but is very willing to invest. In this focus section, researchers from each of the Nordic countries present how the debate over this dilemma has proceeded in the respective Nordic publics. In sum, the five chapters demonstrate certain broad common traits amongst the Nordics. In all of the countries the potential security issues concerning Chinese investments have lately become a substantially more prominent feature of the national debate, although the modality of this shift showcases some slight varieties in the Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish debates, respectively. The chapters demonstrate that there has been a substantial shift in the debate in all of the five public spheres. This shift has both happened quite recently, quite fast, and to a large extent quite simultaneously across all of the Nordic countries, as they have had to rapidly adjust to a new international environment where economy and security have become increasingly interlinked.

Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "capturing", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization-focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they collaborate in peace and friendliness. So far, the IR liberalism discourse has set the trend of the Russian policy carried out in relation to the Arctic. Thus, it has primarily been the Russian Foreign Ministry and, above all, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that have drawn the overall lines of the Arctic policy, well aided by the Transport Ministry and the Energy Ministry. On the other side are the Russian national Security Council led by Nikolai Patrushev and the Russian Defence Ministry headed by Sergey Shoygu, which both have embedded their visions of Russia and the Arctic in the IR realism/geopolitical discourse. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, does the same. Nevertheless, he has primarily chosen to let the Foreign Ministry set the line for the Arctic policy carried out, presumably out of a pragmatic acknowledgement of the means that have, so far, served the Russian interests best. Moreover, it is worth noting that both wings, even though they can disagree about the means, in fact are more or less in agreement about the goal of Russia's Arctic policy: namely, to utilize the expected wealth of oil and natural gas resources in the underground to ensure the continuation of the restoration of Russia's position as a Great Power when the capacity of the energy fields in Siberia slowly diminishes – which the Russian Energy Ministry expects to happen sometime between 2015 and 2030. In addition to that, Russia sees – as the polar ice slowly melts – great potential for opening an ice-free northern sea route between Europe and Asia across the Russian Arctic, with the hope that the international shipping industry can see the common sense of saving up to nearly 4,000 nautical miles on a voyage from Ulsan, Korea, to Rotterdam, Holland, so Russia can earn money by servicing the ships and issuing permissions for passage through what Russia regards as Russian territorial water. The question is whether Russia will be able to realize its ambitious goals. First, the Russian state energy companies Gazprom and Rosneft lack the technology, know-how and experience to extract oil and gas under the exceedingly difficult environment in the Arctic, where the most significant deposits are believed to be in very deep water in areas that are very difficult to access due to bad weather conditions. The Western sanctions mean that the Russian energy companies cannot, as planned, obtain this technology and know-how via the already entered-into partnerships with Western energy companies. The sanctions limit loan opportunities in Western banks, which hit the profitability of the most cost-heavy projects in the Arctic. However, what hits hardest are the low oil prices – at present 50 dollars per barrel (Brent). According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the fields in the Arctic are not profitable as long as the oil price is under 120 dollars per barrel. Whether Russia chooses to suspend the projects until the energy prices rise again – and until it has again entered into partnerships that can deliver the desired technology and know-how – or whether the Russian state will continuously pump money into the projects is uncertain. The hard-pressed Russian economy, with the prospects of recession, increasing inflation, increasing flight of capital, rising interest rates and a continuously low oil price, provides a market economic incentive for suspending the projects until further notice. Whether the Kremlin will think in a market economic way or a long-term strategic way is uncertain – but, historically, there has been a penchant for the latter. One of the Kremlin's hopes is that Chinese-Russian cooperation can take over where the Western-Russian cooperation has shut down. Russia has long wanted to diversify its energy markets to reduce its dependence on sales to Europe. At the same time, those in the Kremlin have had a deeply-rooted fear of ending up as a "resource appendix" to the onrushing Chinese economy, which so far has been a strong contributing reason for keeping the Russian-Chinese overtures in check. The question now is whether the Western sanctions can be the catalyst that can make Russia overcome this fear and thus, in the long term, support the efforts to enter into a real, strategic partnership with China. ; Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, Russia have an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "exploring", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization- focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they cooperate peacefully.

Norges relasjon til Kina har siden anerkjennelsen av Folkerepublikken i januar 1950 blitt utøvd i et spenn mellom småstatsrealisme og småstatsidealisme. Norges handlingsrom og politikk overfor stormakten Kina utformes i et samspill mellom nasjonale og internasjonale faktorer, men i tråd med teoriretningen ny-klassisk realisme har strukturene i det internasjonale systemet størst forklaringskraft. Som en liten stat må Norge manøvrere i forhold til stormaktenes maktbalanse og rivalisering for å sikre sin egen velferd og sikkerhet. Norge valgte i 1949 å inngå i en allianse med USA gjennom NATO, og dette har siden vært bærebjelken i norsk sikkerhetspolitikk. Norges handlingsrom vis-a-vis Kina er dermed til enhver tid påvirket av USAs forhold til Kina. Denne artikkelen trekker de lange linjer i norsk Kina-politikk over syv tiår, fra 1950 til 2020. Med en ambisjon om global orden som et ekstra sikkerhetsnett var Norge tidlig ute med å anerkjenne Kina og støttet landets inntreden i FN-systemet, men den kalde krigen begrenset relasjonene. USAs engasjement av Kina på begynnelsen av 1970-tallet var et vendepunkt i norsk Kina-politikk. Den tiltakende rivaliseringen mellom USA og Kina de siste år gjør at norsk Kina-politikk nå igjen står overfor et vendepunkt, i retning av redusert handlingsrom og engasjement.
Abstract in English: Norway's relationship with China over the Past 70 Years: A Small State's Idealism and Realism with Respect to a Great PowerFrom recognizing the People's Republic of China in 1950 until today, both realism and idealism as well as domestic and international level factors have informed Norway's relationship with China. Nonetheless, this article finds that in accordance with neo-classical realism, international system variables have the strongest explanatory value on Norway's China policy. Since joining NATO in 1949, Norway's alliance with the United States has been the pillar in Norway's defence and security policy. Norway's room for maneuver crafting and implementing its China policy is consequently strongly affected by the ups and downs in Sino-U.S. relations. Unlike the United States, Norway recognized the PRC in 1950 and supported China's entry into the UN system, but the Cold War restricted Norway from further developing its relations with China. The Sino-U.S. rapprochement in the early 1970s enabled Norway to engage China, and the end of the Cold War in 1989 enabled Norway to widen its engagement to include issues such as environment and climate change, human rights and welfare policies. Nevertheless, after five decades of engagement, Norway's approach to China is currently once again changing as the result of an intensified Sino-U.S. rivalry and a changing threat perception of China across Europe.

Norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk har ligget ganske fast frem til i dag. På 2020-tallet, i det avgjørende tiåret for klimapolitikken, blir imidlertid den norske linjen utfordret. Det skyldes at en nasjonal forutsetning som hittil har vært Norges fremste styrke, nemlig det fornybare kraftsystemet, ikke lenger opplagt kan ivareta den samme funksjonen i norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk. Det fornybare kraftsystemet og en aktiv utenrikspolitikk for fleksible ordninger i internasjonalt klimasamarbeid har ivaretatt den norske legitimiteten. Fremover vil derimot kravene til hva klimapolitikken skal levere skjerpes kraftig, når elektrifisering og industriell omstilling skal bidra til å nå klimamålene. En energiomstilling som svarer til ambisjonsnivået i klimapolitikken, vil bety at klima-utenrikspolitikken må balansere flere hensyn enn tidligere. Ingenting ved klimapolitikken er lenger kun innenrikspolitikk.
Nordsjøen står overfor en storstilt havvindutbygging. Uavhengig av hva Norge gjør vil europeisk havvindsutbygging dreie Europa i retning av økt gjensidig avhengighet, både fysisk i form av grenseoverskridende infrastruktur, og regulatorisk, gjennom felles regler for salg av kraft over landegrenser. Jo mer omfattende det grønne skiftet blir, jo tydeligere blir det at norsk og europeisk energiomstilling henger sammen, og at denne gjensidig avhengige energiomstillingen er av de aller viktigste komponentene i Norge og andre staters klimapolitikk. Denne omstillingen trigger imidlertid sterke suverenitetsimpulser i mange norske politiske partier. En storstilt norsk havvindutbygging reiser kontroversielle spørsmål om finansiering, ilandføring og kabelforbindelser, som alle med betydelig sannsynlighet åpner for vanskelige politiske dragkamper. Energiomstilling er nå en helt nødvendig del av en videreutviklet norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk. Det innebærer en utenrikspolitikk som utfordrer norsk suverenitet i langt større grad enn tidligere. Det beveger norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk potensielt fra kontinuitet og konsensus til uenighet og strid.
Abstract in English:Power Shortage on the Horizon: Norwegian Climate Foreign Policy from Consensus to Conflict?Until recently, Norwegian climate foreign policy has been relatively consensual. In the 2020s – the decisive decade for climate politics – the Norwegian stance is however being challenged. This is because a national precondition that until now has been Norway's foremost strength, i.e., the renewable power system, can no longer uphold the same function in Norwegian climate foreign policy. The renewable power system and an active foreign policy emphasizing flexible mechanisms in international climate cooperation have preserved the legitimacy of Norwegian climate policies. However, in the future, climate policies will face dramatically sharpened demands, as reaching the climate goals will now also depend on electrification and industrial change. An energy transition that corresponds to the upgraded climate policy ambitions implies a climate foreign policy that needs to balance more concerns than in the past. There is now no element of climate policy that is domestic politics only.
The North Sea is facing a major offshore wind power expansion. Irrespective of what Norway decides, a European offshore expansion will move Europe towards greater mutual interdependence, both physically in terms of border-crossing infrastructure, and regulatory, through common rules and regulations for the sale of power across national borders. The more extensive the green energy transition becomes, the more obvious it is that Norwegian and European energy transitions are connected, and that this mutually interdependent energy transition constitutes one of the most important components of the climate policies of Norway and other states. This transition, however, triggers strong sovereignty impulses in many Norwegian political parties. A major Norwegian offshore wind power expansion raises controversial questions about financing, how and where to connect the wind parks to the grid, and subsea cable connections. There is a considerable likelihood that Norwegian offshore wind policy will be characterized by major political tugs-of-war. Energy transition is now a completely necessary part of the development of Norwegian climate foreign policy. This implies a foreign policy that challenges Norwegian sovereignty to a far greater extent than before, which potentially moves Norwegian climate foreign policy from continuity and consensus to disagreement and strife.