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.

Artikkelen gir en oversikt over den «visuelle vendingen» innen IP-faget og diskuterer noen av de mest sentrale teoretiske argumentene som har blitt lagt frem i denne sammenheng, med særlig vekt på studiet av «internasjonale ikoner». Denne diskusjonen leder videre til en empirisk studie, nærmere bestemt en kasusstudie med utgangspunkt i bildet av Omran Daqneesh, også kjent som «Syrian boy in an ambulance». Dette bildet, som ble tatt under beleiringen av Aleppo i august 2016, oppnådde raskt ikonisk status i den bredere vestlige debatten, og det er nettopp samspillet mellom bilde og fortolkning i form av tekst jeg ser nærmere på i analysen. Ved hjelp av en diskursanalyse viser jeg hvordan debatten bar preg av uklarhet og en slags ubestemmelighet når det gjaldt hvordan en burde respondere til ikonet i utenrikspolitisk forstand. Dette funnet leder meg videre til artikkelens teoretiske bidrag: å anskueliggjøre hvordan begrepet apori kan bidra til å teoretisere debatten rundt borgerkrigen i Syria. Mer konkret argumenter jeg for at debattens innramming leder til et selvkonstruert paradoks, som kommer til uttrykk i ulike krav om at noe må gjøres, uten at dette «noe» spesifiseres. Dermed blir kravet i seg selv et symbol på en utveisløshet; det ender i en apori. Formålet med artikkelen er derfor todelt: For det første å undersøke hvilken rolle bilder spiller i internasjonal politikk og, for det andre, å belyse hvordan møtet med en apori fordrer refleksjon, som derfor kan bidra til å åpne opp for alternative tilnærminger til de forståelsesrammene som preget, eller kanskje rettere sagt fremdeles preger, diskursen rundt borgerkrigen i Syria.
Abstract in English:Icons and Aporias in the Western Debate on the Civil War in Syria
This article provides an overview of the 'visual turn' in IR and reflects on some of the key theoretical arguments put forward with particular attention paid to the proposed study of 'international icons'. This discussion provides the basis for an empirical study in which I examine the photograph of Omran Daqneesh, also known as the Syrian boy in an ambulance, as a case study. This photo, which was taken during the siege of Aleppo in August 2016, quickly reached an iconic status in the broader Western debate on the Syrian Civil War. The ensuing analysis zooms in on and accentuates the interplay between the visual and (textual) interpretation. This is done by way of discourse analysis, through which I demonstrate how the debate was characterized by an ambiguity and an undecideability regarding what should be done in terms of foreign policy as a response to the icon. Building on this finding, I advance this article's theoretical contribution: to suggest that the concept of aporia can help us theorize the debate on the Syrian civil war. More specifically, I argue that the current framing of the debate leads to a self-constructed paradox, which finds its expression in the various demands that 'something must be done', without this 'something' being specified. As such, the demand becomes a symbol of a undecidability; it ends in an aporia. Thus, the purpose of this article is two-fold: First, to understand the role of images in international politics and, second, to illuminate how the aporetic encounter demands reflection, which therefore can open up thinking space for alternative approaches to the frames of interpretation that dominated, or rather, continues to dominate the discourse around the civil war in Syria.

I dette fokusnummeret ser vi tilbake på utviklingen på noen utvalgte områder innenfor internasjonal politikk (temaet) og Internasjonal Politikk (faget) i løpet av de 20 årene som har gått siden 11. september, 2001. Dette innledningsessayet presenterer de fire bidragene som belyser hvert sitt konkrete tema: bruken av narrativer i internasjonal politikk, faget Internasjonal Politikk, forholdet mellom USA og Russland, og folkeretten. Essayet tar et skritt tilbake og ser på helheten i arven fra 11. september og krigen mot terror som fulgte, med fokus på internasjonal politikk og internasjonal sikkerhet. I tillegg gir essayet et overblikk over de målbare kostnadene knyttet til krigen mot terror, status for krigen i dag, og status for fienden man har kjempet mot de siste 20 årene. Angrepene og responsen på dem gikk naturlig nok også på bekostning av noe, og visket ut andre, alternative handlingsforløp. Dette essayet beskriver noen av disse tapte mulighetene, og belyser også utfordring med å gjøre opp et «regnskap» 20 år etter 11. september-angrepene.
Abstract in English:International Politics and the Legacy of 9/11This special issue looks back at the developments within international relations since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, 2001, with a particular focus on four specific themes: the use of strategic narratives in international relations, International Relations as academic discipline, US-Russian relations, and international law. This introductory essay present the four contributions to the issue, while also zooming out to present a panoramic view of the many legacies of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent War on Terror that were to make an imprint on both international relations and international security in general. The essay presents the measurable costs associated with the War on Terror, its current status, as well as that for the enemy against which the two-decades long campaign has been fought. The 9/11 attacks and the forceful response resulted in other potential opportunities being passed up or neglected, making it difficult to chart the actual cost of the war. Finally, the essay examines the difficulty in arriving at an agreed-upon metric for assessing whether the war has been a success.

Med fem ulike bidrag fra norske samfunnsforskere setter dette fokusnummeret søkelys på norsk klima- og utenrikspolitikk. Bidragene i fokusnummeret viser at det har skjedd en vesentlig sammenkobling av politikkområder som tidligere har vært atskilt, og at klimapolitikken spiller en stadig større rolle i andre politikkområder, slik som utenriks-, handels- og kraftpolitikken. I tillegg kommer det frem at det internasjonale klimaregimet, til tross for nær universell ratifisering av Parisavtalen, stadig fragmenteres. Norge har reagert på dette med å knytte seg stadig tettere til EU, både når det gjelder klima- og kraftpolitikk. Videre påpeker fokusnummeret at internasjonale omdømmekostnader og økende global etterspørsel etter fornybar energi øker presset på en rask grønn omstilling, også innenlands. I sum fremstår Norges ambisjon om å være en global klimaforkjemper som stadig mer uforenelig med rollen som storskala produsent av olje og gass.
Abstract in English:Norwegian Climate and Foreign Policy: Is the Ambition to Be a Global Climate Leader Compatible with Norway's Role as an Oil Producer?The five contributions in this special issue all focus on various aspects of Norwegian climate and foreign policy. The special issue highlights the interconnectedness of policy areas that previously have been separate in showing how climate policy plays an increasing role in other policy domains, such as foreign, trade and energy politics. Even if the Paris Agreement enjoys near universal ratification, the international climate regime is becoming increasingly fragmented. As a result, Norwegian climate policy is becoming increasingly integrated with the EU in both climate and energy regulation. Moreover, the special issue highlights how international reputational costs and increasing future demand for renewable energy are putting additional pressure on a rapid green transition, also domestically. Taken together, Norway's ambition to be a global climate leader appears more and more incompatible with its role as a large producer of oil and gas.

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.