Symbolism and Regime Change in Russia
In: Internasjonal politikk, Band 72, Heft 2, S. 285-290
ISSN: 0020-577X
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Internasjonal politikk, Band 72, Heft 2, S. 285-290
ISSN: 0020-577X
In: Social skriftserie / Den Sociale Højskole i Aarhus 5
In: Internasjonal politikk, Band 78, Heft 2, S. 142-166
ISSN: 1891-1757
Kor godt rusta er internasjonale ressursforvaltingsregime til å tilpasse seg klimaendringar? Klarar slike regime å inkludere nykommarar på ein konstruktiv måte, eller vinn realpolitiske vurderingar fram og ein hegnar om eigne ressursar? Denne artikkelen vil utforske dette og sjå på korleis klimaforsking blir brukt politisk til å legitimere krav på ressursar. Til dette blir makrellkonflikten i Nordaust-Atlanteren frå 2008–2014 undersøkt. Etter at makrellen endra vandringsmønster lenger nord og vest, vart det konflikt mellom Noreg og EU på eine sida og Island og Færøyane på andre sida. Folkeretten gjev eit stort rom for å tolke denne tvisten ulikt hjå partane. Dette spelerommet, kombinert med ein låg grad av tilpassing til nykommarstatar, førte til at det etablerte forvaltingsregimet braut saman. I løpet av konflikten vart det tydeleg at partane hadde svært ulike forklaringar på endringa i makrellens vandringsmønster. Klima- og miljøforsking vart trekt i tvil og brukt strategisk av aktørane i konflikten, og makrellen vart overfiska. Dette tyder på at realpolitiske omsyn framleis står sterkt i internasjonal ressursforvaltingspolitikk, også i møte med det som verkar som opplagte konsekvensar av klimaendringar. Fiskeriforvaltingsregime treng å konkretisere reglar for korleis ein skal handtere endringar i vandringsmønster, og korleis nykommarar til fisket kan inkluderast på ein konstruktiv måte. Slik unngår ein overfiske og framtidig bestandskollaps.
Abstract in EnglishThe Mackerel War: How Climate Change Impacts Fishery Negotiations and RegimesHow well are international resource management regimes equipped to handle climate change? Are such regimes able to adapt to and include new players, or do the stakeholders prefer status quo? This article will explore this phenomenon by using the case of the Mackerel War in the Northeast-Atlantic during 2008–2014. The mackerel stock in the Northeast-Atlantic changed its migratory pattern, which triggered the Faroe Islands to renegotiate its deal with Norway and the EU. Simultaneously, Iceland became a new major player in the mackerel fisheries. The mackerel regime consisting of Norway, EU and the Faroe Islands experienced a temporary breakdown during the conflict. This led to substantial overfishing. Due to differing interpretations of international conventions as well as the addition of a newcomer, the regime was not able to adapt well to the changing situation. Research on climate change was doubted by the states and was used strategically to legitimize resource claims. The fisheries regime needs stricter and more consistent rules regarding the inclusion of newcomers in fisheries, as well as how to handle dramatic changes in migratory patterns.
In: Mandrup , T 2009 , ' South Africa and the SADC Stand-by Force ' , Scientia Militaria : South African Journal of Military Studies , bind 37 , nr. 2 , s. 1-24 .
The regional powerhouse, South Africa, has since the introduction of the nonracial democratic dispensation in 1994, played a central and important role in the formation of both the regional and continental security architecture. With the establishment of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in 1992, one of the central areas of collaboration for the community was envisioned to be security, understood within a broadened human security framework. Security was therefore from the outset one of the cornerstones of integration in the SADC. It was believed that the formation of a security community would help dismantle the enmities that had plagued regional relations during the apartheid era. For some parties, institutionalisation of relations pointed to a means of stabilising and disseminating a particular order. Such institutions depict the power relations prevailing at the time of their establishment, which, however, can change over time (Cox 1981:136). The integration ambition surrounding security correlated with the ambitions of South Africa, the new democratic government in the regional powerhouse. South Africa and its overall foreign policy ambitions desired the pursuit of peace, democracy and stability for economic growth and development in the region and within South Africa itself. Since South Africa's acceptance into the SADC in 1994, the organisation has attempted to set up the required institutional framework to enable co-operation on security, both in terms of narrow military co-operation and regarding designated 2 softer security issues, such as migration and cross-border crime. The military cooperation moved forward in the early years after 1994 with the 1996 decision of creating an Organ for Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation (OPDSC)1 and later the signing of the Mutual Defence Pact (MDP) in 2003, and eventually the creation of the Strategic Indicative Plan for the Organ (SIPO) in 2004, which operationalised the OPDSC (SADC 2004). However, the actual military cooperation, e.g. military exercises, came close to a standstill. Several developments obstructed military co-operation of which the evolving crisis in Zimbabwe and the subsequent withdrawal of donor support to, for instance, the Regional Peacekeeping Training Centre (RPTC) in Harare are but two examples. The RPTC constituted the backbone of the co-operation, but political differences between member states illustrated during the Zimbabwean crisis and following the mandate of the interventions in especially the DR Congo and partly Lesotho in 1998 all contributed to regional tensions.2 Despite the crisis, SADC members, and in particular South Africa, declared that the organisation would be able to form a regional stand-by brigade for the use of the African Union (AU) as part of its wider security architecture. On 17 August 2007, the SADC declared its stand-by-force operational at a large parade in Lusaka, Zambia and at the same occasion signed a memorandum of understanding on the SADCBRIG (SADC 2007). According to the timeline provided by the AU, the brigade should be fully operational by June 2010. Former South African deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad stated after the launch that this was an important step, but that now there was much to be done securing joint levels and types of training, interoperability, etc. (Pahad 2007). The question that continues to linger is to what extent this brigade is operational and for what purpose. Is this new regional military formation in its present form just a paper tiger, or is it "real progress" and an example of "successful" regional cooperation and integration? This article scrutinises the security co-operation and integration in SADC and asks whether an apparent lack of common values between SADC member states are blocking the security integration process, the creation of a security community, and thereby the establishment of an effective stand-by brigade, the so-called SADCBRIG. The article furthermore attempts to scrutinise the role played by South Africa in establishing the SADCBRIG.
BASE
The Arctic is characterized by a well-functioning international governance regime. Arctic and non-Arctic states aim to solve the challenges following climate change in concert. However, certain challenges and processes may destabilize the intergovernmental order in the long run. This report distinguishes between global and regional dynamics. Future global struggles between the great powers may have repercussions in the high north. On the regional level itself, four questions may destabilize Arctic governance: the status of the North-East Passage, unresolved border disputes, the role of China, and the introduction of more military capabilities. The report offers two guidelines for the strategic approach of the Commonwealth of Denmark towards the Arctic. Firstly, the Commonwealth can play a constructive role for the future stability of the Arctic by aiming, to the extent possible, to solve the four regional challenges. Secondly, the approach of the Commonwealth towards the question of Arctic stability cannot be disentangled from Copenhagen's global priorities.
BASE