Suchergebnisse

This article summarizes and draws conclusions from a series of articles on the topic of empires. The article emphasizes the need to understand the history of empires to fully understand the complexity of the concept and to utilize the framework of imperial theories to analyze present day international relations. Four elements of empires are emphasized and reviewed. The four elements of empires are applied to the argument of imperial tendencies in America and the European Union. The main conclusion is that various empires throughout history have differed in areas of government, legitimacy, assimilation and integration, and duration, but that they also have certain fundamental similarities that can be applied to the analysis of imperial tendencies in current international relations. References. E. Sundby

A discussion of the book by Marin Saeter, Det politiske Europa -- Europeisk integrasjon: Teori, ide og praksis ([Political Europe -- European Integration: Theory, Ideas, and Praxis] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1971), as an illustration of the importance of Norsk Utenrikpolitisk Institutt (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs [NUPI]) to political sciences. Adapted from the source document.

Many changes, both internally & externally, have been felt during the 20 yrs that a Democratic majority governed the US. Since Eisenhower's election in 1952 & re-election in 1956, it would be interesting to know to what extent the Republican majority can be considered to be stable. In 1956, the Democrats won the elections, the presidential party having failed, for the 1st time since 1848, to carry a majority to Congress in a Presidential election yr. PO polls show that there are 3 Democrats for every 2 Republicans. Stevenson was defeated because the Republicans were better organized than the Democrats, many of whom voted for Eisenhower or did not vote at all. Finally, the Republicans control almost all of the press & the media of propaganda & information, & the SS of Republicanism is more a matter of prestige than one of soc pressure. The Wc, while still almost exclusively Democratic in 1948, is becoming more & more Republican, while the moderates are gradually drifting from the Democratic party. Cath's, Ru voters, & individuals living in small towns are tending toward Republicanism, while the younger age groups of the New Deal generation are remaining faithful to the Democratic Party. The qualities of the candidates in 1952 & 1956 certainly played a role in the division of the votes, but if the prestige of the General was a factor, Stevenson also had traits in his favor. Domestic issues, especially the Negro question, had their influence, but foreign affairs is the area in which the diff's in the parties is most apparent. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

A long time researcher of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) discusses the rich history of the institute including changes in its tasks, working methods, publications and leadership. While the model for NUPI has been around since the establishment of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in 1920, it took almost four decades before the Norwegian equivalent was finally founded in 1959. In the early years NUPI focused on studying East-West relations, security policy and the UN, but towards the late 20th century this focus shifted towards the research of European policy, developmental policy and international economics. L. Pitkaniemi

Abstract not available. 16 References.

If the struggle for power becomes a matter of decision for a pol'al party or pol'al figure in a democracy, the ensuing action may not be in accord with previous behavior. The British pol'al scene shows an actual example of this kind of applied psychol. The Suez affair & its subsequent crisis created a serious psychol'al crisis in GB, a crisis so severe that Harold Macmillan had to deal with it by original methods. Forced to take measures, such as the one giving British shipowners the right to again use the canal, which really indicate the decline in British power, he nevertheless succeeded in restoring public confidence. He took his cabinet ministers in hand by allowing them a large measure of individual initiative, unlike Eden who supervised the most minute details of admin'tion. His authority over the Conservative party was very rapidly reaffirmed, to the point where he was able to force Lord Salisbury to leave the Cabinet. In the end he managed to get the Conservatives in Parliament behind him, by channeling their dislike toward the Labor Party, & by also directing their animosity toward the US & the UN. His apparent calm & indifference allowed him to take a neutral position toward these scapegoats, leaving vindictiveness to his partisans by this device. All of his efforts, however, did not succeed in restoring his prestige with the public who are less sensitive to the psychol'al techniques of the leader than the politicians, & who measure a politician in terms of his accomplishments, which have not been, so far very favorable. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

"This book addresses political conflicts in Norway through an extended time span, from the late autocracy of the 18th century until the democratic challenges of today. The book holds eight articles focusing on historical phases which have been particularly influenced by social and political mobilization. Thus, the book traces an oppositional tradition across borders in time and space. Although the articles are based on limited studies, the authors write with ambition to include their research into this wider context.

In Norway, the Constitution of 1814 marks the shift from autocratic rule to early democracy. 18th century peasant riots may be interpreted as expressions of impotence of the common people, but also as an opportunity for action with the potential to influence the authorities. The 19th century peasant opposition shows the potential for change through parliamentary representation. Around 1850 the first attempts at worker's organizations were criminalized – around 1950, however, the Labour Party dominated Norwegian politics. These trending lines reflect an increasingly developed democracy. The political system is in principle opening for broad popular participation. However, democracy is still being challenged by opposition in ways and by means that occasionally raise concerns about the stability of our political culture.

The book is divided into three parts. Part I is dedicated to the age of late autocracy, part II provides insights into the 19th century democratization processes, while Part III includes articles dealing with opposition and confrontations in the last century, focusing the interwar period, the 1970s, and today's multicultural society.The book is aimed both at researchers, students and the general audience." - "Denne boka tar opp politiske konflikter i Norge gjennom et langt tidsspenn, fra det seine eneveldet til vår tids demokratiske utfordringer. De åtte kapitlene representerer punktnedslag i historiske faser som i særlig grad har vært preget av sosial og politisk mobilisering. Slik bidrar boka til å belyse en opposisjonell tradisjon.

Historikere er blitt kritisert for å fokusere ensidig på avgrensede perioder og hendelser, og være for lite opptatt av å spore linjer på tvers av grenser i tid og rom. Forfatterne av denne boka skriver med bakgrunn i avgrensede studier, men alltid med ambisjon om å sette sine forskningstema inn i en videre kontekst.

I Norge markerer Grunnloven av 1814 skiftet fra eneveldig styre til begynnende demokrati. 1700-tallets bondeopprør kan tolkes som uttrykk for allmuens avmakt, men også som handlingsrom med potensiale til å påvirke myndighetene. 1800-tallets bondeopposisjon viser mulighetene for å nå fram gjennom parlamentarisk opposisjon. Rundt 1850 ble de første forsøk på organisering av arbeidere kriminalisert – rundt 1950 dominerte Arbeiderpartiet norsk politikk. Dette er linjer som speiler et stadig mer utviklet demokrati. Det politiske systemet åpner i prinsippet for bred folkelig medvirkning. Men fortsatt blir demokratiet utfordret av opposisjon i ytringsformer som til tider vekker bekymring for stabiliteten i vår politiske kultur."

1970s military dictatorship in Latin America was followed by a democratization process in the 1980s, at a point when military powers had devastated the economy & more than doubled foreign debt. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, the region finds itself in a period marked by governments that, perhaps more than ever before, are characterized by their reaction to the neo-liberal policies of the 1990s. Of particular concern in this respect is the changing relationship between the region & the United States, which in turn opens opportunity for the involvement of other international actors in the sphere. This brings about a high degree of uncertainty both for Latin America itself as well as for the international community. Some of the many cases of Latin American economies & politics in crisis are described here in detail. C Brunski

The role of think tanks in American politics has been increasingly subjected to systematic analysis over the last 10-15 years. In this article I review some of this literature, focusing mainly on the questions of what think tanks are, why this phenomenon is so strongly associated with the US, & what influence think tanks have on US policy-making. Think tanks comprise a wide range of organizations, from pure research institutions to the ideologically-based "advocacy think tanks" characterized by their combination of a strong political agenda & aggressive marketing techniques. The American political system has several features that allow think tanks access to the decision-making process, such as a fragmented structure with a weak party system, a central role for the mass media, & an issue-dominated political agenda. There is no good measure of the general influence of think tanks in US politics, but case studies indicate that the central role of the ideologically-based advocacy think tanks may serve to undermine the role of experts in American politics in the long term. References. Adapted from the source document.