Suchergebnisse

Hensikten med denne artikkelen er å bidra til diskusjonen om idealismens betydning for USAs utenrikspolitikk. Utgangspunktet er at ideelle hensyn synes å ha fått redusert betydning under Obama og siden Trump. Ettersom den amerikanske idealismen angivelig skriver seg fra en særegen politisk historie og ideologiske tradisjoner med dype røtter i amerikansk samfunnsliv, er denne endringen til å undres over. I teksten lanseres og diskuteres fem hypoteser som kan forklare idealismens bortfall: anti-idealisme, overflodsidealisme, personlighetstrekkidealisme, strukturselektert idealisme og tidsåndsidealisme. Det konkluderes med at bortfallet av idealisme ikke nødvendigvis betyr at USAs egeninteresse blir bedre ivaretatt.
Abstract in English:Idealism's Disappearing ActThe aim of this article is to contribute to the discussion on the role of idealism in U.S. foreign policy. During the Obama and Trump presidencies, the significance of idealistic considerations in U.S. foreign policy has dwindled. The change is remarkable, as the idealistic impulse allegedly stems from ideological traditions deeply rooted in American society as well as a unique political history. From this observation, five hypotheses, apt to explain the diminishing impact of idealism, are suggested and discussed: anti-idealism, abundance induced idealism, idealism by personal bent, structurally selected idealism and zeitgeist idealism. The article concludes that U.S. self-interest is not necessarily better off with a cessation of idealism.

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.

In the coming decade, Denmark will initiate replacement of its current fleet of F-16 fighters. In the spring Of 2009, most indicators suggest that politicians will have a choice of one of three options: the American F-35 joint Strike Fighter (JSF) & F-18 Super Hornet, produced by Lockheed Martin & Boeing, respectively, & the Swedish Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Denmark is thus on the verge of taking the first step in a process broadly similar to the one preceding the purchase of the F-16 in 1975. Also back then there was a choice between three candidates: the American F-16, the Swedish Saab 37E Viggen & the European Dassault Mirage FiE (of French origin). The purpose of the present article is to analyze the foreign policy considerations preceding the purchase of the F-16 in 1975 & to discuss their relevance in regard to the present pending decision. Adapted from the source document.

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.

The Nordic countries have long been renowned for their contribution to international peace and security. This contribution – occasionally viewed by both Nordic and non-Nordic policy-makers and academics as a particular model for facilitating peace and development in international affairs – is based on a combination of active contributions to peaceful conflict resolution, a high level of development aid and a continuous commitment to strengthening international society. However, recently Scandinavians have been making headlines for reasons that seem to contrast with their well-established brand as humane internationalist peacemakers. This article identifies the characteristics of the Nordic model for international peace and security and discusses how and why it has changed.

This article analyzes Sweden's foreign policy 2011–2018. The article is part of a special issue on how the Nordic countries have responded to recent geopolitical change. The international context in which Sweden finds itself has in a number of ways changed drastically during the time of analysis. The foundations of Sweden's foreign policy, however, have seen less change. The Swedish policy adjustments we see are rather the effects of radical change taking place in the previous two decades: the EU membership, the partnership with NATO, and the abandonment of the policy of neutrality. Sweden is thus learning how to adapt to this transformation of its international orientation during a turbulent time in global politics. The article includes an overview of Swedish foreign policy and the literature on the topic. We discuss the major actors, institutions, tools and frameworks in the foreign policy making process. A detailed analysis of the Foreign Minister's Statement of Government Policy provides a temporal comparison over the last decade.