Suchergebnisse

A review essay on books by (1) Mai'a K. Davis Cross, The European Diplomatic Corps. Diplomats and International Cooperation from Westphalia to Maastricht (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); (2) Carne Ross, Independent Diplomat: Dispatches from an Unnaccountable Elite (London: Hurst & Co., 2007); (3) Brian Hocking and David Spence [Eds], Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) & (4) Graham Ziegner [Ed], British Diplomacy: Foreign Secretaries Reflect (London: Politico's, 2007).

2014 marked important milestones for Afghanistan. It gained a new political leadership by a democratic election, the NATO International Stabilisation Force (ISAF) was withdrawn, and the country took the initiative to a wider and more trusting cooperation with its neighbor Pakistan (RFE/RL 2014). 2015 is a crucial year. We will get an indication of whether Afghanistan can stand on its own and if the (partial) military extraction was wise, and to what extent the new administration is viable. Adapted from the source document.

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.

It is well established in International Relations that the modem state & the state system originated at the Peace of Westphalia (1648). In this article, the author argues that there is little evidence to support such an understanding, neither in the texts of the treaties nor in the political situation before or in the wake of 1648. Rather, the Peace of Westphalia can in many ways be understood to be a step backwards from a modem understanding of sovereignty (cuius regio, eius religio: whose region it is, his religion it is), which to some extent was represented in the Peace of Augsburg (1555). International Relations' understanding of the Peace of Westphalia is based on a mythical understanding of historical processes. Furthermore, the author argues, International Relations should abandon the mythical watershed which 1648 represents. However, instead of searching for another myth to explain the origin of its main object of study, one should instead re-conceptualise the discipline in a new & more dynamic way, taking into account the heterogeneous character of the international system. 60 References. Adapted from the source document.

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.