Suchergebnisse

General Introduction -- 1. Status of Religious Communities -- 2. Relations between the State and Islam -- 3. State Support for Islamic Religious Communities -- 4. Islamic Community -- 5. Muslims in Integration Law -- 6. Mosques and Prayer Houses -- 7. Burialand Cemeteries -- 8. Education and Schools -- 9. Further and Higher (Tertiary) Education -- 10. Islamic Chaplaincy in Public Institutions -- 11. Employment and Social Law -- 12. Islamic Slaughter and Food Regulation -- 13. Islamic Dress -- 14. Criminal Law -- 15. Concluding Remarks -- Bibliography -- Index.

Artikkelen ser på den teknologiske og strategiske rivaliseringen mellom USA og Kina hva gjelder implementeringen av 5G-nettverk, og spør hva som er med å påvirke hvordan andre stater posisjonerer seg mellom de to supermaktene. Ved å bygge på tre grener av politisk realisme – balance-of-threat-teoriens tanke om at trusseloppfatning driver staters valg av allianser, patron–klient-teoriens tro på at USA kan forvente at deres klientstater innretter seg etter amerikansk utenrikspolitikk, og teorien om at handelsrelasjoner kan brukes som maktverktøy – utleder jeg et sett med hypoteser og potensielt relevante forklaringsvariabler. Som avhengig variabel samler jeg 70 staters holdninger til Kinas omstridte telekommunikasjonsgigant Huaweis rolle i 5G. Bivariat analyse avslører tre hovedmønstre: (1) Stater som er små og maktesløse i forhold til Kina, samt statene i Kinas geografiske region, ser ut til å være mer aksepterende til Huaweis 5G. (2) Stater som ser på USA som sin patron og som er avhengige av Washingtons sikkerhetsgaranti ser ut til å være betydelig mer avvisende til selskapets 5G. (3) Handelsrelasjoner til både USA og Kina ser ut til å ha liten eller ingen effekt på staters holdninger. Av de tre realisme-grenene er det altså patron–klient-teorien som veier tyngst når det gjelder å forklare staters holdninger til Huaweis 5G.
Abstract in English:The US way or the Huawei: An analysis of how small and medium states stand on the Chinese giant's role in 5GThis article examines the technological and strategic rivalry between the US and China on the implementation of 5G networks, asking what influences how other states position themselves between the two superpowers. By building on three branches of political realism – balance-of-threat theory's notion that perception of threat drives states' alliance choices, patron-client theory's belief that the US can expect its client states to adhere to American foreign policy, and the theory that trade relations can be used as power tools – I derive a set of hypotheses and potentially relevant explanatory variables. As dependent variable, I measure 70 states' stances on China's controversial telecom giant Huawei's role in 5G. Bivariate analysis reveals three primary patterns: (1) States who are dwarfed by China's power, as well as states in China's immediate geographic region, appear to be more acceptive of Huawei's 5G. (2) States who see the US as their patron and who rely on Washington's security guarantee appear to be much more rejective of the company's 5G. (3) Trade relations to both the US and China appear to have little or no effect on states' stances. Of the three branches of realism, it is the patron-client theory that offers the most weight in explaining states' stances on Huawei's 5G.

"The Atlas of Power" maps organized power in Denmark to show how organizations, companies, associations, state councils, committees, and the whole community are bound together by networks.

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.

"10 years after NATO Membership. An Anniversary in the Shadow of a Crisis", indeholder artikler fra politiske aktører, diplomater og forskere, der alle bidrog til til konferencen af samme navn, hvor den 10-året for baltisk medlemskab af NATO var omdrejningspunktet. Udover den danske forsvarsminister, er den estiske og litauiske forsvarsminister og NATO's vicegeneralsekretær blandt bidragyderne. Konferencens formål var at fejre, inddrage og diskutere 10 års forsvarspolitisk NATO-samarbejde i Østersøområdet. Den internationale udvikling i Europa betød at konferencens dagsorden i stedet for kom til at stå i skyggen af krisen i Ukraine, og det anspændte europæiske forhold til Rusland. Dette afspejledes ikke kun på selve konferencen, men har også sat et dybt fodaftryk på publikationen, der dels belyser det forsvarspolitiske samarbejde mellem Danmark og de baltiske stater, dels tegner et billede af hvordan den russiske aggression på Krimhalvøen blev italesat af de repræsenterede landes Forsvarsministre samt fra hovedkvarteret i NATO. Konferencen blev afholdt tidligere i år i København, og var et resultat af et tæt samarbejde mellem Forsvarsakademiet, Forsvarsministeriet og ambassadørerne for Estland, Letland og Litauen i Danmark. ; Since the recognition of their independence in 1921, the three Baltic States Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have enjoyed a special status in Danish foreign policy that has continued into present-day times. Being one of the few countries that never officially recognized the Soviet annexation in 1940, Denmark became an early advocate in relation to Baltic membership of NATO in the wake of the Cold War. Defence cooperation, such as the joint contribution to the missions in the Balkans in the early 1990s, as well as the present air policing mission, first initiated in 2004, has been an important part of the political relationship. A conference celebrating and evaluating the first ten years of NATO membership was quite naturally a high-level event to be placed in Copenhagen. As progress with planning the conference proceeded, the international security community suddenly faced a crisis in Crimea, when separatists, with Russian support, gradually took control of the Crimean Peninsula. In only 24 days, what had initially been demonstrations and protests evolved into a complete Russian annexation, through a very dubious local democratic election, where independence from Ukraine, as well as affi liation to Russia, was declared with 96% of voters in favor of joining Russia. These events naturally had a massive impact on this conference, which resulted in an anniversary in the shadow of a crisis. This turn of events forced a new discussion upon the member states of NATO: What is the main purpose of the Alliance? This question became a focal point for the conference, as well as the articles presented here.

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.

Norges relasjon til Kina har siden anerkjennelsen av Folkerepublikken i januar 1950 blitt utøvd i et spenn mellom småstatsrealisme og småstatsidealisme. Norges handlingsrom og politikk overfor stormakten Kina utformes i et samspill mellom nasjonale og internasjonale faktorer, men i tråd med teoriretningen ny-klassisk realisme har strukturene i det internasjonale systemet størst forklaringskraft. Som en liten stat må Norge manøvrere i forhold til stormaktenes maktbalanse og rivalisering for å sikre sin egen velferd og sikkerhet. Norge valgte i 1949 å inngå i en allianse med USA gjennom NATO, og dette har siden vært bærebjelken i norsk sikkerhetspolitikk. Norges handlingsrom vis-a-vis Kina er dermed til enhver tid påvirket av USAs forhold til Kina. Denne artikkelen trekker de lange linjer i norsk Kina-politikk over syv tiår, fra 1950 til 2020. Med en ambisjon om global orden som et ekstra sikkerhetsnett var Norge tidlig ute med å anerkjenne Kina og støttet landets inntreden i FN-systemet, men den kalde krigen begrenset relasjonene. USAs engasjement av Kina på begynnelsen av 1970-tallet var et vendepunkt i norsk Kina-politikk. Den tiltakende rivaliseringen mellom USA og Kina de siste år gjør at norsk Kina-politikk nå igjen står overfor et vendepunkt, i retning av redusert handlingsrom og engasjement.
Abstract in English: Norway's relationship with China over the Past 70 Years: A Small State's Idealism and Realism with Respect to a Great PowerFrom recognizing the People's Republic of China in 1950 until today, both realism and idealism as well as domestic and international level factors have informed Norway's relationship with China. Nonetheless, this article finds that in accordance with neo-classical realism, international system variables have the strongest explanatory value on Norway's China policy. Since joining NATO in 1949, Norway's alliance with the United States has been the pillar in Norway's defence and security policy. Norway's room for maneuver crafting and implementing its China policy is consequently strongly affected by the ups and downs in Sino-U.S. relations. Unlike the United States, Norway recognized the PRC in 1950 and supported China's entry into the UN system, but the Cold War restricted Norway from further developing its relations with China. The Sino-U.S. rapprochement in the early 1970s enabled Norway to engage China, and the end of the Cold War in 1989 enabled Norway to widen its engagement to include issues such as environment and climate change, human rights and welfare policies. Nevertheless, after five decades of engagement, Norway's approach to China is currently once again changing as the result of an intensified Sino-U.S. rivalry and a changing threat perception of China across Europe.

Utenlandske investeringer er en viktig del av økonomien i mange land. Det gjelder også Norge, hvor utenlandskontrollerte foretak sysselsetter 21 prosent av arbeidstakerne i privat næringsliv. Samtidig vet vi at strømmene av investeringer internasjonalt er i endring, med vekst i aktiviteten fra stater som tidligere har investert lite utenlands. Det gjelder spesielt Kina, men også India, Russland og noen andre ikke-tradisjonelle investorland. I denne artikkelen studerer vi hvordan Norges posisjon som destinasjon for investeringer endrer seg. Vi diskuterer utviklingen i lys av etablerte teorier innen samfunnsøkonomi og statsvitenskap.
Abstract in English:Norway as a Destination for Foreign Investment: Trends and ExplanationsForeign investment is an important component of the economy of many countries. This is the case for Norway too, where foreign-controlled enterprises employ 21 percent of the workers in the (private) business sectors. We know that foreign investment flows are changing, with increased activity from countries that have traditionally invested little abroad. This is true for China, especially, but also for India, Russia, and some other non-traditional investor countries. In this article, we study how Norway's position as a destination for investment is changing. We discuss the developments in relation to established theories within economics and political science.

A current ambition in welfare states across Europe and in the US is for political decision-making to be based on rigorous research (Bason 2010; Cartwright et al 2009; Mulgan 2009; Nilsson et al. 2008). Promoted as 'evidence-based policy-making', 'good analysis, or 'better governance' (Nilsson et.al. 2008) the aspiration finds its roots in the governance paradigm generally referred to as 'new public management' (Hartley 2005) and the central concern for developing a cost-effective and agile public sector (Rod 2010). . Sound as this ambition may seem, it has nevertheless been problematized from within the civil services and from the research community (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Cartwright et al. 2009; Elliott & Popay 2000; House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008; Whitty 2006; Rod 2010, Vohnsen 2011). Some warn that the term 'evidence-based' is used too lightly, and often in cases where 'evidence' has not fed into the policy processes but rather has been invoked after the fact to support already agreed upon policy (House of Commons 2006; Nilsson et al. 2008); others warn that politics and science are – if not incompatible – then at odds with one another (e.g. Boden & Epstein 2006; Whitty 2006). The article pin-points the friction points between science and policy-making and discuss why it is that evidence rarely feeds into policy-making and how the evidence-based paradigm effectively challenges the traditional craftsmanship of the civil service.

Selv om Svalbard er en del av Norge, byr øygruppen på spesielle utenrikspolitiske utfordringer. Nedbyggingen av den norske kulldriften kom brått på og har store konsekvenser for Svalbard-samfunnet og forutsetningene for norsk politikk på øygruppen, og kanskje også utenrikspolitiske implikasjoner. Russlands grunnleggende interesser på Svalbard er stabile, men det konkrete grunnlaget for det russiske nærværet endrer seg. Det skaper gnisninger i forholdet til norske reguleringer, både innenfor naturvern og helikoptertransport. Rivende utvikling av turisme og forskning har medført at flere land har fått øynene opp for Svalbard. Samtidig har den generelt økende interessen for Arktis gjort at tilstedeværelse på Svalbard tillegges større betydning enn før. Det kan være en utfordring for Norge, men også for Russland, som ønsker å ha en særstilling. I havområdene utenfor territorialfarvannet rundt Svalbard gjelder ikke de spesielle bestemmelsene i Svalbardtraktaten, etter norsk syn. Enkelte andre stater ytrer seg imidlertid av og til annerledes. Dette er ikke nytt. Men snøkrabben som dukket opp på sokkelen rundt øygruppen satte plutselig jurisdiksjonsforholdene på spissen. EU ble bragt inn, noe motvillig, i en disputt med Norge.
Abstract in English:Svalbard and the Surrounding Ocean Spaces – New Foreign Policy Challenges for Norway?Developments over the last decade have created new challenges for execution of Norwegian sovereignty over the islands. The radical downsizing of coal mining has been rapid and has affected the composition of the Norwegian community that has become increasingly dominated by tourism, with a large share of the employees being non-Norwegian. Russia's fundamental interests on Svalbard are stable: keeping a presence, aiming for special treatment, but not undermining the Svalbard treaty regime. Frictions with Norwegian authorities are related to Russia's plans to diversify away from increasingly loss-making coal mining into tourism and research support, where Norwegian environmental legislation and restrictions on helicopters are obstacles. The positions of various states on the status of the maritime zones and the continental shelf around Svalbard have not changed much, but the appearance of the snow crab – a sedentary species – on the shelf provoked a legal dispute where the EU reluctantly became involved.

I marts 2005 var det 20 år, siden Mikhail Gorbatjov kom til magten i Sovjetunionen som generalsekretær for Sovjetunionens Kommunistiske Parti og fremlagde sit program til reform af det sovjetiske system. Nøgleordene i reformen var perestrojka, glasnost og demokratisering. De fik ikke alene betydning indadtil, men også udadtil i forholdet til omverdenen, der hurtigt fattede lid til Gorbatjov og hans nyskabelser. Dette working paper giver et overblik over Gorbatjovs og hans meningsfællers opfattelse af udviklingen siden da og deres vurdering af reformernes skæbne og skildrer Ruslands stilling på verdensscenen i dag. Dette indebærer også en kritisk vurdering af præsident Vladimir Putins indenrigs- og udenrigspolitik. Der tegnes et billede af et svagt Rusland, der ikke har frigjort sig fra den sovjetiske arvs byrde, men tværtimod på mange måder søger tilbage til den autoritære styreform, et Rusland, der ved inertiens kraft stadig nyder en vis respekt, om end ikke anseelse i det internationale samfund. ; In March 2005 it was 20 years since Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union as Secretary-General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and presented his programme for reform of the Soviet system. Key words in the reform were perestroika, glasnost and democratization. They became important not only internally but also externally in the relations to the outside world that swiftly put its trust in Gorbachev and his innovations. This working paper gives an overview of the perception that Gorbachev and his like-minded have of the development since then, presents their evaluation of the fate of the reforms and of the position of Russia on the world scene today. This also includes a critical evaluation of the domestic and foreign policies of President Vladimir Putin. The paper outlines a weak Russia that has not released itself from the burden of the Soviet heritage but on the contrary in many ways goes back to the authoritarian form of government, a Russia that by inertia still enjoys a certain respect although not esteem in the international community.

Av historiska, ekonomiska och säkerhetspolitiska orsaker är Finland ett "minst sannolikt fall" (least likely case) vad gäller oro över kinesiska investeringar. Finland har inom EU haft det högsta relativa handelsberoendet av Kina. Sedan år 2016 är Finland även ett av de EU-länder som fått mest investeringar från Kina absolut sett. Finland, som inte är NATO-medlem, har oproblematiska relationer till Kina och en öppen ekonomi, som ännu för några år sedan välkomnade kinesiska investeringar. Landet har också en ovanligt lång obruten tradition av inhemsk lagstiftning om utländska investeringar som sedan 1992 kan betecknas som liberal. Under de senaste två åren har det emellertid bland policyeliten och i den allmänna diskussionen skett en drastisk förändring i synen på kinesiska investeringar som närmast kan betecknas som en gestalt shift. En påföljd av detta är att behovet av en bättre helhetsbild om kinesiska investeringar har identifierats. Informationsutbyte och koordinering mellan olika myndigheter har förbättrats på många sätt. Samtidigt har man även fördjupat nordiskt myndighetssamarbete och informationsutbyte om relevant lagstiftning och praxis inom området. Även om samarbete kring utländska investeringar inte ingick i Stoltenberg-rekommendationerna år 2009, så kan man se det som ett naturligt led i intensifierat nordiskt säkerhetssamarbete.
Abstract in English:The Canary That Fell Silent. Finland's Gestalt Shift on Chinese InvestmentsFor a mixture of historical, economic and security policy reasons Finland can be regarded as a least likely case with regard to apprehensiveness over Chinese investments. Within the EU, Finland has had the highest relative trade dependence on China. Since 2016, Finland is also one of the EU member states that have attracted the most Chinese investment in absolute terms. Finland, which is not a NATO member, has unproblematic relations with China and an open economy that up until a few years ago welcomed Chinese investments. The country also has an unusually long unbroken tradition of domestic legislation regarding foreign investments, which since 1992 can be characterised as liberal. However, during the last two years, there has been a drastic change in views on Chinese investments, both among the policy elite and in the public debate. This change can be regarded as a veritable gestalt shift. As a corollary, a need for a better overview of Chinese investments has been identified. Information exchange and coordination between various governmental departments has been improved in several ways. Simultaneously, cooperation and information exchange between relevant Nordic authorities regarding relevant legislation and praxis has also deepened. Although the 2009 Stoltenberg recommendations did not encompass cooperation on foreign investments, this can be seen as a natural leg in intensified Nordic security cooperation.

De nære relationer mellem USA og Europa har i årtier været et centralt element i international politik. Men hvor kommer det transatlantiske forholds holdbarhed og modstandskraft fra? Dette spørgsmål optager mange forskere og aktualiseres nu af de igangværende forskydninger i verdenspolitikken. Bogessayet diskuterer derfor, hvordan de to bøger Special Relationships in World Politics (Haugevik, 2018) og Enduring Alliance (Sayle, 2019) fremmer vores viden om de bånd, der knytter staterne i det nordatlantiske område. Haugevik undersøger bilaterale amerikansk-britiske og britisk-norske 'specielle forhold', mens Sayle ser nærmere på det multilaterale samarbejde i NATO. De tilbyder begge interessante teoretiske argumenter om samspillet mellem diplomatisk praksis og nationale politiske dynamikker samt imponerende empiriske analyser, som underbygger deres pointer. De to bøger rejser samtidig også nye vigtige spørgsmål, herunder om de indbyggede spændinger i liberale normer og værdier samt om betydningen af tillid for det transatlantiske forholds holdbarhed.
Abstract in English: Something Special? The Transatlantic Ties and Their EnduranceFor several decades, the close relationship between the United States and Europe has been a key aspect of international politics. But what are the sources of the endurance and resilience of transatlantic ties? This question preoccupies researchers, and its salience is growing in light of current shifts in world politics. Accordingly, the book essay discusses how the two books Special Relationships in World Politics (Haugevik, 2018) and Enduring Alliance (Sayle, 2019) contribute to our knowledge about the international ties of the North Atlantic area. Haugevik examines bilateral American-British and British-Norwegian 'special relationships', while Sayles studies multilateral cooperation in NATO. They both offer interesting theoretical arguments about the interplay between diplomatic practice and national political dynamics. Moreover, they provide impressive empirical analyses to support their claims. At the same time, the two books raise new important questions, e.g. about the built-in tensions in liberal norms and values as well as about the significance of trust for enduring transatlantic ties.