Suchergebnisse

The aim of this article is to discuss how a weakening transatlantic relationship influences European defence cooperation and integration. It also asks how these observed patterns of weakening EU–US relations can be explained and what the consequences might be for the EU's efforts to build a stronger and more coherent security and defence policy. Building upon a "comprehensive neo-functionalist" approach first coined by the Norwegian scholar Martin Sæter, European security and defence policy should be seen as part of an externalisation of EU integration as a response to weakening transatlantic relations. The debate on European "strategic autonomy," the Strategic Compass, and the European "defence package" should therefore be considered as part of such an externalisation process of actively influencing and reshaping the transatlantic relationship. When analysing European security and defence, the article also shows that it is misleading to regard European integration as something to be subordinated to NATO. Nevertheless, a European security deficit does exist due to differing perspectives among member states on how the EU process should relate to NATO. The article, therefore, concludes that strategic autonomy can only be developed with close EU–NATO cooperation. Furthermore, a more multipolar world order where the EU no longer can rely upon a transatlantic security community to the same extent as before challenges the EU's role as a defender of multilateralism and poses new challenges to the EU's common foreign and security policy.

The aim of this article is to discuss how a weakening transatlantic relationship influences European defence cooperation and integration. It also asks how these observed patterns of weakening EU–US relations can be explained and what the consequences might be for the EU's efforts to build a stronger and more coherent security and defence policy. Building upon a "comprehensive neo-functionalist" approach first coined by the Norwegian scholar Martin Sæter, European security and defence policy should be seen as part of an externalisation of EU integration as a response to weakening transatlantic relations. The debate on European "strategic autonomy," the Strategic Compass, and the European "defence package" should therefore be considered as part of such an externalisation process of actively influencing and reshaping the transatlantic relationship. When analysing European security and defence, the article also shows that it is misleading to regard European integration as something to be subordinated to NATO. Nevertheless, a European security deficit does exist due to differing perspectives among member states on how the EU process should relate to NATO. The article, therefore, concludes that strategic autonomy can only be developed with close EU–NATO cooperation. Furthermore, a more multipolar world order where the EU no longer can rely upon a transatlantic security community to the same extent as before challenges the EU's role as a defender of multilateralism and poses new challenges to the EU's common foreign and security policy. ; publishedVersion

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has created the most precarious security situation in Europe, including the High North, since the Second World War. This article studies how Norway manages High North security dilemmas in the context of this ongoing war. Based on security dilemma theory, we direct our attention to a set of mitigation strategies and discuss the effectiveness of these. We build our arguments on Robert Jervis' article "Cooperation under the Security Dilemma" in World Politics (1978), and his understanding that a security dilemma occurs when an increase in one state's security leads to other states fearing for their own security, thus creating tension or conflict escalation. To limit such dilemmas, Norway has pursued a policy mix of both deterrence and reassurance measures. Our contribution to the research debate is the term mitigation-strategies, derived from security dilemma theory. First, we discuss people-to-people cooperation and analyse how this is a trust-building measure. Secondly, we explore how Norway approaches confidence and security building measures in the High North. Finally, we discuss the implications of letting the Arctic Council become an arena for security- and defence political coordination. Building upon insights from security dilemma theory, we demonstrate how Norway contributes to maintaining lower levels of tension in the High North.

The development of the EU as an actor in the field of security and defence is a challenge for Norway. Being a NATO member, but outside the EU, Norway offers an interesting case study of how a non-member adapts to the growing importance of the EU in security and defence affairs. The war in Ukraine has made the issue even more interesting. The article illustrates and explains two phenomena: how a country outside the EU perceives this development and how it responds to the Union's new status. The article does this by looking into not only Norwegian policy documents on how the country is adapting to the EU's new role, but also how the country's authorities and defence industry have been setting strategy with regard to it. The response from and strategy taken by Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace AS, the largest Norwegian defence firm, regarding this new role for the EU is taken as a case in point.

Artikkelen diskuterer forholdet mellom den europeiske integrasjonsprosessen og det atlantiske samarbeidet under USAs ledelse. Problemstillingen artikkelen besvarer er hvilke tilnærminger Trump-administrasjonen har hatt til EUs sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk, og hvordan vi kan forklare denne tilnærmingen. I særlig grad dreier dette seg om balansegangen mellom europeisk strategisk autonomi på den ene siden, og amerikansk lederskap i Nato på den andre. Dette forholdet må forstås i lys av spørsmålet om lederskap i euroatlantisk sikkerhetspolitikk, noe som har vært et gjennomgangstema i europeisk integrasjon siden starten på 1950-tallet. Med en organisasjonsteoretisk tilnærming søker artikkelen å forklare hvorfor USA inntar et mer instrumentelt perspektiv overfor EU. Et slikt perspektiv innebærer at USA prioriterer ressurser til de områdene i verden der USA står overfor de største sikkerhetspolitiske utfordringene. For å forklare denne utviklingen diskuterer artikkelen USAs holdninger til EUs nyere forsvarsinitiativer og supermaktens ambivalens i forhold til disse. I møte med den nye Biden-administrasjonen blir det derfor viktig å avklare grunnlaget for det transatlantiske sikkerhetsfellesskapet. Et slikt fellesskap dreier seg ikke bare om felles interesser, men også om delte normer og verdier om hvordan en skal håndtere felles sikkerhetsutfordringer.
Abstract in English:Why So Ambivalent? US Policies Towards the EU's Defence AmbitionsThe article discusses the relationship between the European integration process and Atlantic cooperation under US leadership. The research question the article answers is what kind of approaches the Trump Administration has had towards the EU's security and defence policies and how we can explain these approaches. More precisely, the article discusses the balances between European strategic autonomy on the one hand and American leadership in NATO on the other. This has all to do with the question of leadership in Euro-Atlantic security politics, which has been an enduring question ever since the European integrations process was initiated during the 1950's. By utilising an organisation theoretical approach, the article seeks to explain why the US approaches the EU from an instrumental point of view. Such a perspective implies that the US priorities resources to those areas in the world where the US faces its greatest challenges. To explain this development the article discusses the US' attitudes towards the EU's defence package and the superpower's ambivalence towards it. When assessing the new Biden Administration, it therefore becomes important to explain the foundation for the transatlantic security community. Such a community is not about common interests only, but also about shared norms and values on how to handle common security challenges.

Artikkelen diskuterer EUs nye forsvarspakke med særlig vekt på CARD (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) og EDF (European Defence Fund). Formålet er å styrke EU som sikkerhetspolitisk aktør og legge grunnlaget for europeisk strategisk autonomi. Forsvarspakken utfordrer norsk sikkerhets-, forsvars- og forsvarsindustripolitikk. Problemstillingene artikkelen besvarer er: Hvilke konsekvenser får de nyere EU-initiativene for norsk forsvarsindustri- og forsvarsforskningspolitikk? Hvordan opptrer myndighetene (Forsvarsdepartementet; FD) slik at Norge er i stand til å opprettholde en nasjonal forsvarsindustri? Vi legger instrumentelle og institusjonelle teorier og perspektiver til grunn for analysen. Instrumentelle teorier forteller at aktørene handler formålsrasjonelt etter en konsekvenslogikk. Institusjonelle teorier forteller at aktørene søker legitimitet, og handler i tråd med etablert kultur og forventninger i omgivelsene. EU får en økende betydning der unionens sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk blir likere EUs andre politikkområder. Et flernivåperspektiv blir derfor relevant for et område som tidligere var forbeholdt medlemsstatene. Våre intervjuer med representanter for norske myndigheter og forsvarsindustri forteller at de har fragmentert kunnskap om og forventninger til betydningen av EUs forsvarspakke. Vi konkluderer at aktørene har en instrumentell tilnærming, men at manglende helhetlig forståelse gjør det vanskelig å svare formålsrasjonelt. Aktørene handler derfor også i tråd med et kulturperspektiv.
Abstract in English:What Now, Norwegian Defence Industry? Instrumental and Institutional Answers to the EU's New Security and Defence PoliciesThe article discusses the EU's new defence package with emphasis on CARD (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence), PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) and EDF (European Defence Fund). The aim is to strengthen the EU as a security actor and encourage strategic autonomy. This package challenges Norwegian security-, defence-, and defence industrial policies. The research questions are: What consequences will these EU-initiatives have for Norwegian defence industry- and defence research policy? How will the authorities (Ministry of Defence; MoD) act to maintain a national defence industry? We apply instrumental and institutional theories. Instrumental theories expect rational actions in accordance with logic of consequences. Institutional theories expect appropriate actions in line with established culture and expectations in their surroundings. The EU's security and defence policy becomes more similar with other fields of EU policies. Therefore, a multilevel governance approach is relevant. Our interviews with representatives for Norwegian authorities and defence industry tell that they have fragmented knowledge and expectations about the significance of the defence package. We conclude that the authorities act instrumentally, but lack of a comprehensive understanding makes it difficult to answer rationally. The authorities therefore also act according to a cultural perspective.