Suchergebnisse

Bilateralt diplomati er ikke en skandinavisk spidskompetence, men det har fået stigende betydning i dagens verden. Et antal cases analyseres her, i hvilke de skandinaviske lande er blevet bilateralt 'disciplineret' af stormagter som Rusland, Kina, Indien eller USA. Sammenlignet med de første ca. 15 år efter Den Kolde Krig med amerikansk hegemoni og EU's normative magt har de nordiske lande måttet erfare en indsnævring af deres handlefrihed. Det er ikke længere muligt, uden betydelige omkostninger, at kritisere stormagter baseret på universelle værdier. Generelt er det selvsagt vigtigt for beslutningstagere at respektere statens eksterne handlefrihed. Men på den anden side må de ikke være overforsigtige og undlade at prøve grænser af, bl.a. af hensyn til den hjemlige arena. 'Bastioner' må etableres og forsvares med troværdighed. Handlefrihedens grænser er svære at identificere, men prøveballoner, paralleladfærd med beslægtede lande eller måske brug af 'historiens lære' kan være gangbare metoder.
Abstract in English:Limits to Action Space: Scandinavians in Bbilateral DiplomacyBilateral diplomacy is not a Scandinavian favourite sport, but it has become increasingly important in today's world. A number of cases are analysed, in which Scandinavian countries have been "disciplined" bilaterally by great powers (Russia, China, India and the US). Compared to the first 15 years, roughly, after the Cold War, with American unipolarity and EU normative power, the Scandinavians have seen a narrowing of their freedom of manoeuvre (action space). It is no longer possible, without significant costs, to criticise great powers based on universal values. In general, it is crucial for decision-makers not to overstep their state's freedom of manoeuvre. But on the other hand, they should not be docile and desist from occasionally challenging its limits, also considering their domestic arena. "Bastions" should be credibly construed and defended. The limits of action space are difficult to discern, but trial balloons, parallel action with related countries, or "lessons of the past" could be helpful.

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.