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.

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.

The Nordic countries have long been renowned for their contribution to international peace and security. This contribution – occasionally viewed by both Nordic and non-Nordic policy-makers and academics as a particular model for facilitating peace and development in international affairs – is based on a combination of active contributions to peaceful conflict resolution, a high level of development aid and a continuous commitment to strengthening international society. However, recently Scandinavians have been making headlines for reasons that seem to contrast with their well-established brand as humane internationalist peacemakers. This article identifies the characteristics of the Nordic model for international peace and security and discusses how and why it has changed.

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.

Denne artikkelen undersøker diskursens rolle i konsolidering av autoritære regimer. Gjennom å etablere en dialog mellom Jacques Rancières arbeider om politikk og avpolitisering og poststrukturalistisk diskursanalyse argumenterer artikkelen for at diskursiv avpolitisering bidrar til at autokratier befester seg, og viser at autoritær konsolidering ofte finner sted i skjæringsfeltet mellom nasjonal og internasjonal politikk. Artikkelen retter et særskilt søkelys på Rancières begrep om kløfter som politikkens scene, og teoretiserer hvordan slike kløfter nøytraliseres i avpolitisering. Artikkelen fremsetter så en metode for å analysere diskursiv avpolitisering empirisk ved å konseptualisere Rancières logikker som idealtypiske avpolitiseringsdiskurser, og illustrerer denne analytiske strategien ved å anvende den på russisk offisiell diskurs i senere år (2015–2020). Slik forklarer artikkelen hvordan diskursive konstruksjoner har befestet Russland som autokrati: Den viser at autoritær konsolidering i Russland under Putin muliggjøres av rotfestede avpolitiserende diskurser som (re)produseres og forsterkes i et sammenvevet innenriks- og utenrikspolitisk felt. Artikkelen fremmer begrepet diskursiv avpolitisering som et nytt perspektiv på fagdebatter om den liberale verdensordens utfordringer og såkalte hybridregimer.
Abstract in English:Depoliticizing Democracy Through Discourse: Understanding Authoritarian Consolidation in Russia through Jacques Rancière's Political TheoryThis article investigates the role of discourses in processes of authoritarian consolidation. By bringing Jacques Rancière's works on politics and depoliticization into dialogue with poststructuralist discourse analysis, the article argues that discursive depoliticization contributes towards authoritarian consolidation, and displays how authoritarianism deepens in a co-dependent nexus of domestic and international politics. Focusing in particular on Rancière's concept of gaps as the stage for politics, the article theorizes how gaps are neutralized in depoliticization. The article offers a method for unpacking discursive depoliticization empirically by conceptualizing Rancière's logics as ideal-typical depoliticizing discourses, and illustrates this analytical strategy through analysis of Russian official discourse in recent years (2015–2020). The article thereby explains how discursive constructions have strengthened Russian autocracy: Entrenched depoliticizing discourses, produced and reinforced in a co-constitutive internal/external sphere, makes possible authoritarian consolidation in Russia under Putin. The article puts forward the concept of discursive depoliticization as a novel perspective on challenges to the liberal international order, and on "hybrid" regimes.

Det er ingen tvil om at hendelsesforløp som ble igangsatt 11. september 2001 har vært med på å prege global politikk i de to tiårene som har gått. Men ble terrorangrepene mot USA 11. september 2001 definerende for hvordan vi forstår internasjonal politikk og hvordan vi studerer det? Basert på en gjennomgang av studiet av internasjonal politikk over de siste 20 årene argumenterer vi i denne artikkelen at svaret her er mer tvetydig. Tvetydig fordi det utvilsomt har skjedd endringer og fordi det er lett å peke på utviklingstrekk i faget Internasjonal Politikk (IP) som har direkte eller indirekte utspring i hendelsene høsten 2001. Terrorismestudier fikk for eksempel et umiddelbart oppsving, og med den amerikanske invasjonen av Irak i 2003 kom en øket interesse for emner som imperial makt, opprørsbekjempelse og normativ internasjonal teori. Mer tvetydig fordi vi slett ikke er sikre på at de viktigste utviklingstrekkene i IP de siste tiårene kan forklares med 11. september. Vi er også usikre på hvor varige endringene i kjølvannet av 11. september kan sies å være. Vår tentative hypotese er at 11. september på kort og mellomlang sikt hadde betydelig effekt på vektleggingen av forskjellige emner innen IP. På lengre sikt var terrorangrepene og ettervirkningene av dem viktigst for fagutviklingen på de områdene der det umiddelbare sjokket bidro til å forsterke allerede eksisterende trender.
Abstract in English:The Study of International Politics After 11 September 2001To what extent did 9/11 impact the discipline of International Relations (IR)? In the current article, we argue that while the impact of 9/11 on global politics is undeniable, the verdict when it comes to the discipline in charge of studying these events, IR, is more ambiguous. For while IR and the study of global politics has changed over time, the discipline is, we argue, as much prone to "internal" changes as it is to external shocks. Thus, we suggest a model for understanding the sociology of science of IR which takes into account both internal and external sources of change. While IR would have looked quite different today without the attacks of 9/11, we argue that we would still have been able to recognize it.

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.

Kina har de senere årene fått en sterkere stemme i internasjonal politikk og har rettet oppmerksomhet og interesse mot nordområdene og mulighetene som finnes der. Inntredenen i regionen av en voksende supermakt har ikke gått upåaktet hen og har reist en rekke spørsmål blant de arktiske landene. Mange har fremmet ulike syn på og spekulasjoner om Kinas handlinger og retorikk i Arktis, og felles for disse er at de ønsker å forstå Kinas intensjoner. Denne artikkelen presenterer Kinas arktiske politikkutforming, hvordan Kina presenterer sine interesser i Arktis, og beskriver viktige kinesiske handlingsområder i Arktis. Artikkelen forsøker å svare på spørsmålene: Hvordan ser Kinas interesser i nordområdene ut i dag, og hva kan vi forvente av fremtidig kinesisk aktivitet i nord? Avslutningsvis reflekterer vi over betydningen dette kan ha for Norge.
Abstract in English:The 'New Superpower': What Does China Want in the Arctic?In recent years, China has gained a stronger voice in international politics and has turned its attention and interest to the High North and the opportunities that exist there. The entry into the region of a growing superpower has not gone unnoticed, and has raised a number of questions among the Arctic states. Many observers have put forward different views and speculations about China's actions and rhetoric in the Arctic, and what they have in common is that they want to understand China's intentions. This article introduces China's Arctic policy-making, how China formulates its interests in the Arctic, and describes key areas of action in the Arctic. What do China's interests in the High North look like today? In conclusion, we reflect on the significance this may have for Norway.

This article analyzes Sweden's foreign policy 2011–2018. The article is part of a special issue on how the Nordic countries have responded to recent geopolitical change. The international context in which Sweden finds itself has in a number of ways changed drastically during the time of analysis. The foundations of Sweden's foreign policy, however, have seen less change. The Swedish policy adjustments we see are rather the effects of radical change taking place in the previous two decades: the EU membership, the partnership with NATO, and the abandonment of the policy of neutrality. Sweden is thus learning how to adapt to this transformation of its international orientation during a turbulent time in global politics. The article includes an overview of Swedish foreign policy and the literature on the topic. We discuss the major actors, institutions, tools and frameworks in the foreign policy making process. A detailed analysis of the Foreign Minister's Statement of Government Policy provides a temporal comparison over the last decade.