Suchergebnisse

This brief synthesises the IECEU project's most essential findings on the effectiveness of European Union (EU) missions in four Africa countries: Libya, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR). It describes the main elements and impact of the EU missions in these countries, identifies key strategic and operational shortfalls and offers recommendations on how the EU can improve its effectiveness in future conflict prevention and crisis management missions. The EU missions investigated differ in scale, length, objective, budget, priority and context. However, the EU missions presented in this brief share the main characteristic that they have all been deployed under the union's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)2 with the explicit intent of improving the overall security situation and addressing conflicts in Africa. This brief will start by providing a short overview of each case, describing the conflict(s), security situation, mission objectives and obstacles. In this way, it compares the overall effectiveness of EU operational conflict prevention across the four African countries and discusses what lessons can be learned from them. The brief does not include all factors needed to answer thisquestion, but highlights the IECEU project's most significant findings in these cases.

Den norske klimapolitikken blir stadig tettere knyttet til EUs klimaregelverk. Denne artikkelen analyserer hvordan og hvorfor Norge har koblet klimapolitikken opp mot EU og hvilket handlingsrom samarbeidet med EU gir norske myndigheter. Gjennom EØS-avtalen har det europeiske kvotesystemet (EU ETS) siden 2008 dekket omtrent halvparten av de norske utslippene, i hovedsak fra industri og petroleumsvirksomhet. Siden 2021 er også de ikke-kvotepliktige utslippene fra transport, landbruk, bygg og avfall omfattet av en egen tidsavgrenset avtale med EU, som et tillegg til EØS-avtalen. Dette samarbeidet forplikter Norge til å kutte utslipp hvert år fram til 2030. Avtalen binder også Norge til å følge EUs regelverk for opptak av klimagasser knyttet til skog og annen arealbruk. I praksis er Norge fullt medlem av EUs klimapolitiske samarbeid fram til 2030. Analysen viser at denne tette tilknytningen har økt det politiske presset for å kutte klimagassutslipp innenlands. Samtidig har Norge valgt å holde alle fleksibilitetsmuligheter åpne for å gjennomføre kuttene i EU i stedet. Hvorvidt disse mulighetene vil bli benyttet er i stor grad et politisk spørsmål som trolig vil prege klimadebatten frem mot 2030. Den endelige utformingen og innretningen på EUs grønne giv og Norges tilknytning til denne vil også påvirke handlingsrommet for klimakutt hjemme versus ute.
Abstract in English:Ever Closer Union? Norway's Climate Collaboration with the EUNorwegian climate policy has increasingly become closely linked to EU climate regulations. This article analyzes how and why Norway has linked its climate policy to the EU's and what room for maneuvering the cooperation with the EU gives Norwegian authorities. Through the EEA agreement, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) has covered about half of Norway's emissions, mainly from industry and the petroleum sector, since 2008. Since 2021, non-ETS emissions from transport, agriculture, construction and waste have also been covered by a separate time-limited agreement with the EU, as a supplement to the EEA agreement. This cooperation obliges Norway to cut emissions every year until 2030. The agreement also binds Norway to comply with EU regulations for the emissions and uptake of greenhouse gases related to forests and other land use. In practice, Norway is fully obliged to comply with the EU's climate policy regulations until 2030. The analysis shows that this close connection has increased the political pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions domestically. At the same time, Norway has chosen to keep all flexibility options open to implement the cuts in the EU instead. Whether these opportunities will be used is largely a political question that probably will shape the climate debate until 2030. The final design and structure of the EU's Green Deal and Norway's connection to it will also affect the maneuvering room for climate cuts at home versus abroad.

The region of Southeast Asia is faced with a complex set of challenges stemming from political, economic and religious developments at the national, regional and global level. This paper sets out to examine trade-, foreign- and security policy implications of the issues confronting the region. In ASEAN, the Southeast Asian countries are continuing their ambitious attempts at further integration. Plans outlining deeper security and economic communities have been adopted. However, huge differences in political systems, economic development and ethnic/religious structures are hampering prospects of closer cooperation. The highly controversial conflict case of Burma/Myanmar is testing the much adhered-to principle of non-interference and at the same time complicating relations with external powers. Among these, the United States and China are dramatically strengthening their interests in the region. American influence is not least manifesting itself in light of the war against terrorism, which the region is adapting to in different ways and at different speeds. By contrast, the European Union does not seem to answer Southeast Asian calls for further engagement. A flurry of bilateral and regional trade agreements is another prominent feature of the economic landscape of the region. This is to a certain degree a reflex ion of impatience with trade liberalization in the WTO and within ASEAN itself. Structures of economic cooperation are under rapid alteration in Southeast Asia. The paper analyses the above-mentioned developments with a view to assessing the prospects of future stability, economic development and integration in and among ASEAN countries. It is concluded that although the scope for increased economic benefit and political harmonization through ASEAN integration alone is limited, the organization could still prove useful as a common regional point of reference in tackling more important policy determinants at national and global level.

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.

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.

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.

Slik forholdet til Sovjetunionen historisk har vært avgjørende for utformingen av norsk nordområdepolitikk, står forholdet til Russland sentralt også i dag. Artikkelen drøfter tre aspekter ved sikkerhetspolitikkens plass i norsk syn på nordområdene og i norsk nordområdepolitikk etter årtusenskiftet. I første del ser vi overordnet på sammenhengen mellom norsk sikkerhetspolitikk og norsk nordområdepolitikk de siste tjue årene. I andre del analyserer vi russiske perspektiver på sikkerhet Arktis og forholdet til Norge, før vi i siste del tar for oss tillitsskapende samarbeid på det militære området mellom Norge og Russland ved å gi en analyse av hva som karakteriserer den bilaterale Incidents at Sea-avtalen (INCSEA).
Abstract in English:Between Heat Wave and Ice Front: The High North, Security and Great Power PoliticsAs the relationship with the Soviet Union historically was decisive for the development of Norwegian policy towards the European Arctic, the High North, relations with Russia remain a core concern also today. This article analyses three aspects of the significance of security policy in the Norwegian view of the High North in general and in Norwegian High North policy in particular after the turn of the millennium. In the first part, we assess the relationship between Norwegian security policy and High North policy in the last twenty years. The second part examines Russian perspectives on the Arctic and relations with Norway. The third and final analysis assesses the bilateral Incidents at Sea (INCSEA) agreement as part of Russian-Norwegian military confidence building measures.

Norge har samarbeidet tett med EU om utenriks-, sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk siden slutten av 1990-tallet. Det er naturlig å se på dette samarbeidet som supplement til – eller spin-off av – EØS-avtalen. Når dette feltet nå er i endring med nye ambisiøse initiativer, samt at EUs forhold til tredjeland generelt vil revurderes som følge av brexit, vil dette få konsekvenser for Norges tilknytning til EU på dette området. Blant annet ser vi antydninger til det vi her kaller en mulig «EØS-ifisering» av dette feltet. Fokusbidraget analyserer tre utviklingstrekk og mulige konsekvenser av disse for Norge. Det første omhandler EUs beslutninger om det som skjer innenfor EU, nemlig PESCO og beslutningen om å styrke det felles europeiske forsvarsmarkedet. Det andre omhandler initiativer utenfor EU, som det franske europeiske intervensjonsinitiativet (EI2), som må ses i sammenheng med det første. Det tredje er brexit, som etter planen skal ta Storbritannia inn i «tredjelandsklubben», der Norge er en sentral aktør i dag. Hvilke konsekvenser får de nye initiativene tatt innenfor og utenfor EU, for Norge, og hva gjør brexit med Norges handlingsrom som utenriks-, sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitisk samarbeidspartner med EU?
Abstract in English:Spin-off of the EEA? Norway and the European Foreign, Security and Defense PolicyNorway has cooperated closely with the EU on foreign, security and defense policy since the late 1990s. It seems fitting to look at this cooperation as a supplement to – or spin-off of – the EEA agreement. As this field is now changing, with new ambitious initiatives, and that the EU's relations with third countries will generally be reassessed as a result of Brexit, this will have consequences for Norway's relations with the EU in this area. Among other things, we see trends towards what we label a possible "EEA-isation" of this field. This focus article analyses three developments and potential consequences for Norway. The first concerns EU decisions on what is happening within the EU, namely PESCO and the decision to strengthen the common European defense market. The second concerns initiatives outside of the EU, such as the French European Intervention Initiative (EI2), which must be seen in relation to the first. The third is Brexit, which is an attempt to take the UK into the "third country club" where Norway so far has been the key player. What are the consequences of the new initiatives taken within and outside the EU for Norway, and what does Brexit do to Norway's agency as a partner to the EU in the area of foreign, security and defense policy?

Artikkelen diskuterer EUs nye forsvarspakke med særlig vekt på CARD (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) og EDF (European Defence Fund). Formålet er å styrke EU som sikkerhetspolitisk aktør og legge grunnlaget for europeisk strategisk autonomi. Forsvarspakken utfordrer norsk sikkerhets-, forsvars- og forsvarsindustripolitikk. Problemstillingene artikkelen besvarer er: Hvilke konsekvenser får de nyere EU-initiativene for norsk forsvarsindustri- og forsvarsforskningspolitikk? Hvordan opptrer myndighetene (Forsvarsdepartementet; FD) slik at Norge er i stand til å opprettholde en nasjonal forsvarsindustri? Vi legger instrumentelle og institusjonelle teorier og perspektiver til grunn for analysen. Instrumentelle teorier forteller at aktørene handler formålsrasjonelt etter en konsekvenslogikk. Institusjonelle teorier forteller at aktørene søker legitimitet, og handler i tråd med etablert kultur og forventninger i omgivelsene. EU får en økende betydning der unionens sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk blir likere EUs andre politikkområder. Et flernivåperspektiv blir derfor relevant for et område som tidligere var forbeholdt medlemsstatene. Våre intervjuer med representanter for norske myndigheter og forsvarsindustri forteller at de har fragmentert kunnskap om og forventninger til betydningen av EUs forsvarspakke. Vi konkluderer at aktørene har en instrumentell tilnærming, men at manglende helhetlig forståelse gjør det vanskelig å svare formålsrasjonelt. Aktørene handler derfor også i tråd med et kulturperspektiv.
Abstract in English:What Now, Norwegian Defence Industry? Instrumental and Institutional Answers to the EU's New Security and Defence PoliciesThe article discusses the EU's new defence package with emphasis on CARD (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) and EDF (European Defence Fund). The aim is to strengthen the EU as a security actor and encourage strategic autonomy. This package challenges Norwegian security-, defence-, and defence industrial policies. The research questions are: What consequences will these EU-initiatives have for Norwegian defence industry- and defence research policy? How will the authorities (Ministry of Defence; MoD) act to maintain a national defence industry? We apply instrumental and institutional theories. Instrumental theories expect rational actions in accordance with logic of consequences. Institutional theories expect appropriate actions in line with established culture and expectations in their surroundings. The EU's security and defence policy becomes more similar with other fields of EU policies. Therefore, a multilevel governance approach is relevant. Our interviews with representatives for Norwegian authorities and defence industry tell that they have fragmented knowledge and expectations about the significance of the defence package. We conclude that the authorities act instrumentally, but lack of a comprehensive understanding makes it difficult to answer rationally. The authorities therefore also act according to a cultural perspective.

Utenlandske investeringer er en viktig del av økonomien i mange land. Det gjelder også Norge, hvor utenlandskontrollerte foretak sysselsetter 21 prosent av arbeidstakerne i privat næringsliv. Samtidig vet vi at strømmene av investeringer internasjonalt er i endring, med vekst i aktiviteten fra stater som tidligere har investert lite utenlands. Det gjelder spesielt Kina, men også India, Russland og noen andre ikke-tradisjonelle investorland. I denne artikkelen studerer vi hvordan Norges posisjon som destinasjon for investeringer endrer seg. Vi diskuterer utviklingen i lys av etablerte teorier innen samfunnsøkonomi og statsvitenskap.
Abstract in English:Norway as a Destination for Foreign Investment: Trends and ExplanationsForeign investment is an important component of the economy of many countries. This is the case for Norway too, where foreign-controlled enterprises employ 21 percent of the workers in the (private) business sectors. We know that foreign investment flows are changing, with increased activity from countries that have traditionally invested little abroad. This is true for China, especially, but also for India, Russia, and some other non-traditional investor countries. In this article, we study how Norway's position as a destination for investment is changing. We discuss the developments in relation to established theories within economics and political science.

Artikkelen tar utgangspunkt i EØS-avtalens relative anonymitet i samfunnet fra dag til dag. Avtalens fundamentale innvirkning på regeldannelsen er lite synlig. Forfatterne trekker paralleller til integrasjonen av romerretten i europeisk rett på 1100-tallet og til dagens moderne, digitaliserte samfunn der løpende oppdatering av programvare er mer er en nødvendighet enn et reelt valg.
Abstract in English:The EEA Agreement's Significance for Norwegian Lawmaking – Passive Reception of Foreign Law or Pro-active European Policy?The article's starting point is the relative anonymity of the EEA Agreement in day to day society. This renders its fundamental impact on the legislation partially occluded. The authors draw on parallels both to the reception of Roman law into European law in the 12th century and to the digitalisation of modern society, where the decision to update software is a virtual rather than a real choice.

Forholdet mellom Kina og Island er blitt stadig viktigere på 2000-tallet, og det er inngått betydningsfulle avtaler knyttet til frihandel og valutautveksling, i tillegg til arktisk og geotermisk samarbeid. Island ble i 2005 det første vesteuropeiske landet som anerkjente Kina som en utviklet markedsøkonomi, og var i 2013 det første europeiske landet som undertegnet en frihandelsavtale med Kina. Samtidig som bilateral handel og strømmen av kinesiske turister til Island har økt kraftig, forblir kapitalstrømmen meget liten. Kinesiske investeringer på Island forblir minimal, og det er p.t. bare én aktiv utenlandsk direkteinvestering fra Kina på Island. Dette står i sterk kontrast til den betydelige offentlige debatten om kinesisk påvirkningskraft knyttet til store investeringer på Island, med hovedfokus på potensielle sikkerhetstrusler i forbindelse med Arktis' geostrategiske betydning. Den formodentlig største potensielle investeringen fra Kina kom i 2011, da Zhongkun Group kom med et bud om å investere i land for å utvikle et turistkompleks nordøst på Island, noe som førte diskusjonen inn på kontroversielle temaer som eiendomsrett og til en viss grad nasjonal sikkerhet. Selv om artikkelen ikke finner tegn til sikkerhetstrusler som en følge av utenlandske direkteinvesteringer på Island, kan det likevel være på sin plass med en gjennomgang av lovverket knyttet til investeringer på Island fra land utenfor EØS, for å øke forutsigbarheten. En slik analyse kunne utføres i lys av relevante prosesser i andre nordiske land, inkludert for å få på plass standardisert investeringsscreening.
Abstract in English:China, Investments, and National Security: Nordic Policies and Perspectives – IcelandRelations between Iceland and China have increased significantly during the 21st century, with landmark agreements reached regarding free trade and currency swap, as well as Arctic and geothermal cooperation. Iceland became the first western European country to acknowledge China as a developed market economy in 2005 and was the first European country to sign an FTA with China in 2013. While bilateral trade and the inflow of Chinese tourists to Iceland have seen steep growth figures, the flow of capital remains very low. Chinese investments in Iceland remain minimal, with only one currently active FDI from China in Iceland. This contradicts the widely discussed influence of large-scale Chinese investments in Iceland, largely focused on potential security aspects regarding the geostrategic importance of the Arctic region. Arguably, the highest profiled proposed investment case from China came in 2011 with a bid from Zhongkun Group to invest in land for the development of a tourism resort in northeast Iceland, stirring up contentious issues on ownership of land and to some extent national security. While the article does not find detectable security threats from FDI in Iceland, it might however be timely to review the legal process of investments from outside of the EEA into Iceland to increase predictability. Such an analysis could be carried out with regards to compatible cases in the other Nordic countries, including standardized investment screening processes in place.

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.