Search results

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.

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.

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.

Grønlands udenrigspolitiske repræsentanter benytter den store internationale interesse for Arktis til at positionere Grønland som en mere selvstændig udenrigspolitisk aktør. Det er muligt, da Danmark er afhængig af Grønland for at opretholde sin status som "arktisk stat", og fordi Grønlands udenrigspolitiske kompetence er åben for fortolkning. Denne artikel analyserer, hvordan repræsentanter for skiftende grønlandske regeringer har udvidet det udenrigspolitiske handlerum ved i diskurs og praksis at styrke Grønlands position i en arktisk kontekst. Det er blandt andet opnået ved 1) højlydt at italesætte utilfredshed i Arktisk Råd, 2) stiltiende symbolske handlinger ved Ilulissat-erklæringens tiårs jubilæum, og 3) ved at mime suverænitet ved Arctic Circle konferencen, der pga. sin mere uformelle struktur er særligt nyttig til at styrke bilaterale internationale relationer. ; Greenland's foreign policy representatives use the great international attention to the Arctic to appear and act as a more sovereign foreign policy actor. This is possible due to Denmark's dependence on Greenland to maintain its "Arctic state" status and because Greenland's foreign policy competence is open to interpretation. The article analyzes how representatives of shifting Greenlandic governments have expanded the foreign policy room for manoeuvre in discourse and praxis to strengthen Greenland's position at Arctic-related events. This has been achieved by, among other things, 1) outspoken discontent in the Arctic Council, 2) tacit gestures at the Ilulissat Declaration's 10-year anniversary, and 3) by mimicking full sovereignty at the Arctic Circle conference serving as a particularly useful platform for enhancing bilateral international relations due to its more informal setup.

Andreas Hvidsten (MF vitenskapelig høyskole) anmelder Concepts of International Relations, for Students and Other Smarties, av Iver B. Neumann (University of Michigan Press, 2019).
Abstract in English:Neumann's WorldAndreas Hvidsten (Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society) reviews Concepts of International Relations, for Students and Other Smarties, by Iver B. Neumann (University of Michigan Press, 2019).

11. september-angrepene og USAs svar utfordret folkerettens regler. Basert på et argument om selvforsvar, lanserte Bush-administrasjonen en global krig mot terrorisme, med fangeleirer, bruk av tortur og utenomrettslige henrettelser. Essayet gir en oversikt over tre folkerettslige hovedproblemstillinger som oppsto i årene etter 2001. Folkerettens regimer om samarbeid for å motarbeide terror var for svake, FN-pakten gav lite klare regler om staters selvforsvarsrett mot ikke-statlige aktører på fremmed jord, og angrepene utfordret folkerettens todeling mellom krig og rettshåndhevelse (humanitærrett og menneskerettigheter). Essayet gjør opp status for hvordan folkeretten utviklet seg på disse områdene etter 2001, og tar stilling til om dette gir grunnlag for å betegne 11. september som et vannskille i folkeretten.
Abstract in English:International Law and 9/11 – a Watershed?The 9/11 attacks and the US global response was a challenge to international law. Based on an argument of self-defense, the Bush-administration launched a global war on terror, established prison-camps, opened up for torture and engaged in targeted killings. The essay provides an overview of the main challenges that arose after 9/11 from the perspective of international law. The international regime for prevention of terrorism was weak, it was unclear to what extent the UN Charter provided states with an independent right to self-defense against non-state actors in foreign states, and the attacks challenged the dichotomy between war and crime (humanitarian law and human rights). The essay analyses how these areas of international law have evolved after 2001 and concludes by assessing whether 9/11 can be deemed a watershed in the development of international law.

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.

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.

Mesteparten av norske havområder ligger nord for polarsirkelen og er åsted for noen av verdens rikeste fiskerier. De største fiskebestandene er delt med andre land, og internasjonalt samarbeid om ressursforvaltningen er derfor en viktig dimensjon ved nordområdepolitikken. Slikt samarbeid er basert på globale normer om hvordan levende marine ressurser skal forvaltes og deles og foregår på en rekke arenaer både bilateralt og regionalt. Samtidig er det også utfordringer knyttet til blant annet fordeling av ressurser i Norskehavet og klimaendringer som medfører at fiskebestandenes utbredelse er omskiftelig. Et føre-var tiltak i forhold til det siste er etableringen av en avtale om å forhindre uregulert fiske i Polhavet.
Abstract in English:Oceans, Fish and Resource Management in the Northern AreasMost of Norway's oceans are situated to the north of the Arctic Circle and some of the world's richest fishing grounds are there. The largest fish stocks are shared with other countries, and international cooperation on the management of the resources is therefore an important aspect of Norway's northern policy. Such cooperation is based on the international norms for how living marine resources are to be managed and shared, and it takes place in a number of bilateral and regional fora. There are challenges related to the allocation of pelagic resources in the Norwegian Sea and climate change driving change in the geographical distribution of fish stocks in the ocean. A recent precautionary measure in relation to climate change and its effects on marine ecosystems is the establishment of an international agreement to prevent unregulated fishing in international waters in the central Arctic Ocean.

Tora Sagård, of the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), reviews Hva er Internasjonal Politikk (What Is International Relations), by Benjamin de Carvalho and Halvard Leira.

The region of Southeast Asia is faced with a complex set of challenges stemming from political, economic and religious developments at the national, regional and global level. This paper sets out to examine trade-, foreign- and security policy implications of the issues confronting the region. In ASEAN, the Southeast Asian countries are continuing their ambitious attempts at further integration. Plans outlining deeper security and economic communities have been adopted. However, huge differences in political systems, economic development and ethnic/religious structures are hampering prospects of closer cooperation. The highly controversial conflict case of Burma/Myanmar is testing the much adhered-to principle of non-interference and at the same time complicating relations with external powers. Among these, the United States and China are dramatically strengthening their interests in the region. American influence is not least manifesting itself in light of the war against terrorism, which the region is adapting to in different ways and at different speeds. By contrast, the European Union does not seem to answer Southeast Asian calls for further engagement. A flurry of bilateral and regional trade agreements is another prominent feature of the economic landscape of the region. This is to a certain degree a reflex ion of impatience with trade liberalization in the WTO and within ASEAN itself. Structures of economic cooperation are under rapid alteration in Southeast Asia. The paper analyses the above-mentioned developments with a view to assessing the prospects of future stability, economic development and integration in and among ASEAN countries. It is concluded that although the scope for increased economic benefit and political harmonization through ASEAN integration alone is limited, the organization could still prove useful as a common regional point of reference in tackling more important policy determinants at national and global level.

Som svar på Karsten Friis' kritik af Fokkusspalten, "Når krig blir hverdag", formulerer denne replik en kort begrebslig, empirisk og normativ afklaring af spaltens anvendelse af begrebet militæraktivisme. Begrebsligt påpeger replikken, at militæraktivisme allerede er hyppigt anvendt i litteraturen om skandinaviske landes øgede engagement i internationale militære operationer efter Den Kolde Krig. Empirisk set, er det korrekt, at udviklingen ikke har været lineær, og man kan argumentere for, at Danmark og Norges militæraktivisme var (endnu) større, da Afghanistankrigen var på sit højeste. Dog er begge lande fortsat engageret særligt i NATO-regi, og det er væsentligt at bemærke, at de direkte kampe på landjorden i internationale militære operationer i stigende grad udliciteres til mindre privilegerede lokale og internationale kombattanter. Replikken påpeger, at Friis' påstand om, at militæraktivisme som begreb udgør en slet skjult kritik af Danmark og Norges militære engagement, beror på en misforståelse. Tværtimod stammer aktivisme fra den danske udenrigspolitiske debat, hvor begrebet anvendes politisk med en række positive konnotationer forbundet med at være aktiv (Pedersen & Ringsmose, 2017). I lyset af afpolitiseringen af Danmarks og Norges krigsdeltagelse velkommer vi fremadrettet yderligere forskningsmæssig og politisk diskussion af militæraktivismen.
Abstract in EnglishReply: Military Activism RevisitedIn response to Karsten Friis' critique of the special issue When War Becomes Daily Life, this reply outlines a brief conceptual, empirical and normative clarification of the special issue's use of the concept, military activism. Conceptually, the reply points out that military activism is already a frequently used concept in the academic literature on Scandinavian countries increased engagement in international military operations after the Cold War. Empirically, it is correct that this development has not been linear, and arguably, Denmark and Norway's military activism was (even more) pronounced, when the war in Afghanistan was at its zenith. However, both countries continue to be engaged particularly in NATO, and significantly, direct battles on the ground are increasingly outsourced to local actors to less privileged local and international combatants. The reply points out, that Friis's claim that military activism is a concealed critique of Denmark and Norway's military engagement, is based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, activism as a concept derives from the Danish foreign policy debate, where the term is used to connote a series of positive attributes associated with being active (Pedersen & Ringsmose, 2017). Considering the depoliticisation of Denmark and Norway's military activism we welcome further academic and policy discussions about this important issue.

Danmark har i årene siden den kolde krigs afslutning udviklet sig til at være en permanent krigsførende nation. Den militære aktivisme er karakteriseret ved meget forskellige typer af engagementer, både hvad angår antallet af udsendte og deres mandat, indlejring i forskellige internationale organisationer og koalitioner, og udsendelser til forskellige dele af verden. Den danske vilje til aktivt at fastholde en status som bidragende og konstruktiv allieret gennem deltagelse i internationale operationer er drevet af en opfattelse af USA som afgørende for Danmarks nationale sikkerhed og understøttet af en aktivistisk og pragmatisk strategisk kultur. Den militære aktivisme er på den baggrund robust. Samtidig er der tegn på forandring i finansiering, geografisk fokus og valg af samarbejdspartnere.
Abstract in EnglishConstant Activism in a War with No End: Security, Status and Strategic Culture in Danish Foreign PolicyDanish foreign policy is militarily activist. Danish military activism is characterized by very different types of engagements and deployments regarding the number of troops and their legal mandate, political aims, institutional frameworks and geographical focus. The continuing Danish will to actively maintain its status as a contributing and constructive ally through participation in international military operations is driven by a perception of the United States as crucial to Denmark's national security and supported by an activist and pragmatic strategic culture. For these reasons, Danish military activism is robust, despite indications of change in financing, geographical focus and choice of partners.

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.

Global helse har stått sentralt i norsk utenriks-, utviklings- og helsepolitikk i en årrekke. Norge er anerkjent som en synlig aktør på global helse gjennom vesentlige finansielle bidrag, men også som en aktør som har bidratt til etablering av nye institusjoner og mekanismer som vaksinealliansen Gavi, Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF) og Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). Norge spiller også en aktiv rolle i det internasjonale helsepolitiske samarbeidet, og er en aktiv deltaker i Verdens helseorganisasjon (WHO). Norge er – og har vært – gjenkjennelig på global helse over lang tid, og i alle internasjonale fora. Vi mener det er viktig å bidra til – og sikre – at konsekvensene av pandemier og globale helseutfordringer på internasjonal fred og sikkerhet også hører hjemme på dagsordenen til FNs sikkerhetsråd.
Abstract in English:Pandemic Response and Global Health in Norwegian Foreign Policy – and in the UN Security CouncilGlobal health has been a priority for Norway and for Norwegian foreign, development and health policies for the past decades. Norway is recognized as an active and consistent partner in global health questions, both through substantial financial contributions and as an advocate for establishing new institutions and mechanisms such as Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF) and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). Norway is also playing a leading role in the international cooperation in global health issues and in promoting a coordinated and effective humanitarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway actively participates and firmly supports the leading role played by the World Health Organization (WHO) in this regard. Norway will continue to be a consistent and recognizable partner in global health issues in all international fora. We firmly believe that it is important to contribute to – and secure – that the implications of pandemics and global health crises can be seen as threats to international peace and security and thus belong on the agenda of the UN Security Council.