Suchergebnisse

For tjue ar siden pavirket utgivelsen av rapporten 'New Dimensions of Security' fra FNs utvikhngsprogram, UNDP, en allerede gryende debatt om sikkerhet. I denne artikkelen undersokes dagens status for human security som et komplekst og mangfoldig kunnskapsfelt. I fire steg diskuterer jeg begrepets fleksibilitet, vektleggingen av subjektivitet og kontekstuelle og helhetlige forstaelser av sikkerhet. Videre droftes human security som del av en etisk utenrikspolitikk og militaere intervensjoner i tiden etter den kalde krigen. Human security har som kunnskapsfelt en iboende spenning mellom analyser av usikkerhet og sosial organisering pa lokalt niva og human security som retorisk instrument for a legitimere fred/krigforing. A undersoke og forsta den symbolske makten i det vage og abstrakte begrepet human security, bade slik det framstar og brukes i konkrete sammenhenger, kan vaere en vei til kritiske analyser i dette kunnskapsfeltet Twenty years ago the release of the UNDP report 'New Dimensions of Security' stimulated what was already a sprawling debate on security. This article explores the status of human security today as a complex and diverse field of knowledge. In four steps I discuss the flexibility of the concept, the emphasis on subjectivity, contextual and holistic understandings of security as well as how human security is part of an ethical and interventionist foreign policy in the post-cold-war era. I argue that human security as a field of knowledge is characterized by tension. A key tension is between an analytical approach to insecurities and social organization on the local level and analyses of human security as a rhetorical tool legitimizing peace-/war-making. Exploring the symbolic power in the vague and abstract notion of human security, how it is represented and employed in concrete contexts, is one approach to critical analysis in this field. Adapted from the source document.

New uncertainties in international relations have presented several states in the West with important choices regarding their national strategies for the Arctic. This article analyzes security challenges in the Arctic and North Atlantic region, as understood by some key North-Atlantic states, namely: the USA, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the UK, Germany and France. By analyzing how, or to what degree, the colder east-west security landscape since 2014 is reflected in these selected North Atlantic states' Arctic security strategies, this article seeks to improve our understanding of how the security situation in the northernmost part of the world is developing and being understood. Through applying a traditional understanding of security, the article identifies similarities but also significant differences among the Arctic and North-Atlantic states. Most notable when comparing the strategies is the rather unique global perspective laid out in the US security strategy for the region. The British, Norwegian, Danish and Canadian perspectives, on the other hand, stand out as more regional in nature. Germany displays a rather low profile in its approach to international security in the Arctic, considering its economic status in Europe. France reveals a strong concern for Arctic shipping and freedom of navigation, a perspective similar to the USA's, but with less global ambition.

In this paper we explore how post-petroleum security is continually shaped by both the micropolitical practices of everyday life as well as the changing geopolitics of energy landscapes. We focus in particular on the two-decade long struggle over access to hydrocarbon deposits outside the Lofoten, Vesterålen and Senja archipelago groups (LoVeSe), and show how local security perspectives permeate both national and international debates concerning the future of oil and the global climate challenge. These developments, we argue, are taking place in a paradoxical conjunction with Norwegian political establishment who along with the oil and gas industry insist on continued petroleum dependency as the only viable future. We further investigate how particular controlling measures have determined past, present and future narratives, and assess how alternative ideas that include multiple possible trajectories have found their way into national and global debates despite these efforts. The argument permeating this paper states that while oil remains a security concern to both proponents and opponents to oil development in the Arctic, the extent to which this situation is seen as a threat or a security provider varies greatly.