Suchergebnisse

Denne artikkelen undersøker hvorvidt respondenter i norske fylkesadministrasjoner oppfatter at sentrale beslutninger influeres av eksterne aktører – gjennom vertikale relasjoner til sentraladministrative instanser og EU/EØS-institusjoner, samt horisontale relasjoner til andre fylkesadministrasjoner – og hvordan variasjonen i slike relasjoner kan forklares. Artikkelen bygger på data fra en ny spørreundersøkelse i norske fylkesadministrasjoner (N = 893), og viser hvordan fylkesadministrasjonene under visse betingelser kan opptre med to eller flere «hatter», det vil si at beslutningene som treffes influeres av flere eksterne aktører samtidig. Hovedtyngden av respondentene oppgir nasjonale sentraladministrative instanser som den viktigste relasjonen, samtidig som en betydelig andel også oppgir at EU/EØS-institusjoner har betydning når sentrale beslutninger treffes. Mønstrene som avdekkes forklares ved fylkesadministrasjonenes organisatoriske spesialisering og administrative kapasitet. ; This article examines whether respondents in Norwegian county administrations perceive that key decisions are influenced by external actors - through vertical administrative relations to central administrative bodies and EU/EEA institutions, as well as horizontal administrative relations to other county administrations - and how the variation in such relations can be explained. The article is based on data from a new survey in Norwegian county administrations (N = 893), and shows how the county administrations under certain conditions can act with two or more "hats", ie that the decisions made are influenced by several external actors simultaneously. The majority of the respondents consider national central administrative bodies as the most important external actors, while a significant proportion also state that EU/EEA institutions are important when central decisions are made. The patterns that are revealed are explained by the county administrations' organizational specialization and administrative capacity. ; Denne artikkelen undersøker hvorvidt respondenter i norske fylkesadministrasjoner oppfatter at sentrale beslutninger influeres av eksterne aktører – gjennom vertikale relasjoner til sentraladministrative instanser og EU/EØS-institusjoner, samt horisontale relasjoner til andre fylkesadministrasjoner – og hvordan variasjonen i slike relasjoner kan forklares. Artikkelen bygger på data fra en ny spørreundersøkelse i norske fylkesadministrasjoner (N = 893), og viser hvordan fylkesadministrasjonene under visse betingelser kan opptre med to eller flere «hatter», det vil si at beslutningene som treffes influeres av flere eksterne aktører samtidig. Hovedtyngden av respondentene oppgir nasjonale sentraladministrative instanser som den viktigste relasjonen, samtidig som en betydelig andel også oppgir at EU/EØS-institusjoner har betydning når sentrale beslutninger treffes. Mønstrene som avdekkes forklares ved fylkesadministrasjonenes organisatoriske spesialisering og administrative kapasitet. ; Denne artikkelen undersøker hvorvidt respondenter i norske fylkesadministrasjoner oppfatter at sentrale beslutninger influeres av eksterne aktører – gjennom vertikale relasjoner til sentraladministrative instanser og EU/EØS-institusjoner, samt horisontale relasjoner til andre fylkesadministrasjoner – og hvordan variasjonen i slike relasjoner kan forklares. Artikkelen bygger på data fra en ny spørreundersøkelse i norske fylkesadministrasjoner (N = 893), og viser hvordan fylkesadministrasjonene under visse betingelser kan opptre med to eller flere «hatter», det vil si at beslutningene som treffes influeres av flere eksterne aktører samtidig. Hovedtyngden av respondentene oppgir nasjonale sentraladministrative instanser som den viktigste relasjonen, samtidig som en betydelig andel også oppgir at EU/EØS-institusjoner har betydning når sentrale beslutninger treffes. Mønstrene som avdekkes forklares ved fylkesadministrasjonenes organisatoriske spesialisering og administrative kapasitet.

Throughout the course of the last decade, international events have pushed the development of the Danish foreign affairs department in previously unseen ways. As a result, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has undertaken an extensive re-structuring & revitalization of the department. While these changes were first influenced by external conditions, demand to have full control over its operations has led the department to carry on this evolution internally. Encouraging a merit-driven culture within the department reflects Denmark's growing focus on expanding its reach as a global actor. With emphasis on new developments in information management, transparency, globalization, & commerce, this article reviews some of the adaptive measures taken by the department & the relative degrees of success that have resulted. References. C. Brunski

The article presents an outline of Syrian domestic & foreign policy after the ascendancy of Bashar al-Assad to power last summer, following the death of his father, Hafiz al-Assad. It emphasizes the continuity that has marked Syrian politics despite expectations that Bashar al-Assad's presidency would lead to a more reform-oriented & moderate Syrian regime. The article focuses on the challenges facing Bashar al-Assad at home & abroad. It discusses Bashar al-Assad's consolidation of power & the half-hearted reform process in Syria. A larger emphasis, however, is put on the challenges stemming from abroad, notably the growing challenge to Syria's presence in Lebanon & the tensions with Israel. 28 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author concentrates on the development of Norway's relations with Central America. From virtually non-existing connections, the 1980s have seen the establishment of a Norwegian embassy in Costa Rica, and a substantial growth in aid to Sandinist Nicaragua. The political debate in Norway over Nicaragua is outlined, as is the anger provoked in the US government by the Central American policy of its NATO ally

During the Cold War the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was almost uncontested in its foreign policy role, a position that has become challenged since the 1990's due to the internationalization, globalization and europeanization of the world. In its European policy the ministry is challenged by business, non-profit organizations, political parties and regional/local governments. Due to Norway's role in peace operations, the foreign policy leeway of NGOs and the Norwegian Ministry of Development Cooperation has grown, and in addition the Norwegian Ministry of Defence has taken a stronger foreign policy position. All of these events have reduced the political power of the Norwegian foreign ministers, who have largely responded by emphasizing their role in the bigger picture of promoting security and peace throughout the world. Adapted from the source document.

This article summarizes and draws conclusions from a series of articles on the topic of empires. The article emphasizes the need to understand the history of empires to fully understand the complexity of the concept and to utilize the framework of imperial theories to analyze present day international relations. Four elements of empires are emphasized and reviewed. The four elements of empires are applied to the argument of imperial tendencies in America and the European Union. The main conclusion is that various empires throughout history have differed in areas of government, legitimacy, assimilation and integration, and duration, but that they also have certain fundamental similarities that can be applied to the analysis of imperial tendencies in current international relations. References. E. Sundby

Norwegian peace initiatives in Eritrea The Norwegian Model is defined as flexible cooperation between government authorities, NGOs and academia applying personal networks and informal settings. The model was coined as a concept in relation to the back-channel that led to the Oslo Accord in 1993. However, similar practices within Norwegian foreign policy were manifest in previous instances as well. Through a discussion of empirical data, this article argues that Norwegian mediation in regard to the Eritrean liberation struggle was a precursor to the Norwegian Model. Adapted from the source document.

Graham White's recent book, entitled Indigenous Empowerment through Co-management: Land Claims Boards, Wildlife Management, and Environmental Regulation, is a balanced, accessible, and honest discussion of a very complex realm of Crown-Indigenous relations and institutions in Canada. The book is very well researched and clearly communicated by one of Canada's leading experts on the topic. Co-management has been the subject of scholarly attention for many years in Canada; however, perspectives vary widely with respect to appropriateness and effectiveness. White's book is a bold project that tackles the complexities, sensitivities, and diverse contexts head-on. It ought to be at the top of the reading list for all academics, practitioners, and government officials with an interest in modern treaties.

In Canada, comprehensive land claims agreements – often called modern treaties – between the government and Indigenous nations include provisions prescribing how disputes between treaty parties are to be resolved. Experiences with these dispute resolution mechanisms vary across treaty contexts and there is substantial variance in the terms of these treaties. To date, this dimension of modern treaty implementation has received minimal scholarly attention, despite calls for such research. Drawing on specific examples, this article sets a foundation for further research by examining the significant variation across different treaties' dispute resolution mechanisms and commenting on key differences, similarities and other notable features. A key focus of the analysis is on the observable evolution of these mechanisms from a relatively narrow arbitration board model to a more flexible "staged approach". The analysis suggests that the latter may provide a stronger basis for joint problem-solving and integrative bargaining, notwithstanding open questions about the extent to which such approaches are warranted in fraught Crown-Indigenous relationships in Canada. The article also discusses the conspicuous absence of dispute resolution mechanisms that accommodate, let alone require, approaches rooted in the traditional or cultural practices of Indigenous treaty parties. Observations throughout are contextualized in relation to a growing body of jurisprudence and a broader context of fast-changing federal law and policy in Canada, which may set the stage for amendments to the dispute resolution provisions of modern treaties.