Suchergebnisse

In this chapter we outline the Danish and Scandinavian experiences with coalition governments and coalition governance. We do so by first briefly describing the historical path that has led to the political system we see working today in these countries. Then we tell about the political culture and institutional factors that lead to coalition governments. In the third section, we look at the nature of political agreements. We discuss the preconditions for coalition governments or coalition governance and its pros and cons. We focus on the trade-offs between including different interests into legislative coalitions and the possible lack of clarity of responsibility or of party identity that this inclusion entails. ; In this chapter we outline the Danish and Scandinavian experiences with coalition governments and coalition governance. We do so by first briefly describing the historical path that has led to the political system we see working today in these countries. Then we tell about the political culture and institutional factors that lead to coalition governments. In the third section, we look at the nature of political agreements. We discuss the preconditions for coalition governments or coalition governance and its pros and cons. We focus on the trade-offs between including different interests into legislative coalitions and the possible lack of clarity of responsibility or of party identity that this inclusion entails.

Iver Neumann has been an inter-disciplinary entrepreneur for political science in Norway. For Neumann, interdisciplinarity has been coupled with an understanding of politics as the search for meaning and identity. These features are well-developed in European political science, particularly within the field of international relations, but they are more rarely encountered in Norway. This brief article provides a sketch of political science as it evolved and matured in its Norwegian incarnation. In situating Iver Neumann within the discipline, I emphasise his international and eclectic orientation. The personal, national and international meet in Neumann's works, as do popular culture and politics.

I denne fokusspalten tar vi for oss hvordan den norske nordområdepolitikken har blitt kommunisert gjennom bruk av politiske «narrativer». Ved bruk av narrativ politisk analyse belyser vi bruk av ideer om fortid, nåtid og fremtid i og som «nord». Innenriks har dette betydd en gjenfortelling av identitet og økt oppmerksomhet på elementer som hav- og kysthistorie, og utenriks har det betydd en reevaluering av Norges posisjon i verden. Ikke minst har landets internasjonale rolle i dette narrativet blitt karakterisert av ideer om lederskap, bærekraft og ansvar. Vi konkluderer med at nordområdenarrativet har utviklet seg over tid, men at fortellingen slett ikke er over ennå. Den fortsetter i ubrutt takt nordover – og mot havrommet.
Abstract in English:Norwegian High North Narratives and Identity Construction in the NorthIn this short article we consider how Norwegian High North policies have been communicated through political "narratives". Through Narrative Political Analysis, we highlight the use of ideas about past, present and future in and as "the north". Domestically, this has meant a renarrativisation of identity and an increased focus on elements such as ocean and coastal histories; and internationally, it has meant a reassessment of Norway's position in the world. No least the country's international role has in this narrative been characterised by ideas of leadership, sustainability, and responsibility. We conclude that the High North narrative has evolved over time, but that the story is far from over; it continues at steady pace northwards – and towards the ocean.

Denne artikkelens hovedargument er at norsk forsvarspolitikk i stor grad er formet av norsk identitet og av norske verdier. Denne sterke koblingen ble særlig tydelig på 1990-tallet, da den bidro til kontinuitet i Forsvarets oppgaver og innretting til tross for store endringer i Norges sikkerhetspolitiske omgivelser. Som et resultat av fremveksten av en ny norsk forsvarspolitisk diskurs inntraff et forsvarspolitisk paradigmeskifte rundt årtusenskiftet. Resultatet ble overgangen fra invasjonsforsvar til «innsatsforsvar». For å styrke legitimiteten til det nye paradigmet ble likevel mange av særtrekkene med det gamle paradigmet forsøkt innskrevet i det nye. Imidlertid svingte Forsvaret seg meget raskt om da primærfokuset igjen ble kollektivt forsvar etter 2014. Endringen rundt år 2000 var dermed egentlig ikke så dyp. Det dominerende narrativet om Forsvarets rolle forble primært nasjonalt og territorielt forankret.
Abstract in English:Back to the Future: National Identity and the Norwegian Defence PolicyThe article argues that Norwegian defence policy to a large extent is shaped by Norwegian identity and Norwegian values. This strong link was particularly visible in the 1990's, when we witnessed a large degree of continuation of the Norwegian defence posture, despite the radical changes in the security environment. Territorial defence remained a key priority. When a new paradigm eventually emerged around the tun of the century – with primary focus on international operations – much of the old elements were nonetheless retained. Hence, when NATO returned to a focus on collective defence after 2014, Norway was more than ready for this change. In short, the defence concept that emerged around the millennium was short-lived and never really challenged the foundations the Norwegian Armed Forces rests on.

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.