Suchergebnisse

This article discusses the recent debate between Jürgen Habermas and Wolfgang Streeck on the relationship between capitalism and democracy in Europe. The article recounts Streeck's analysis of the financial crisis, the transformation of the tax state into the debt state, and the development of the EU towards an international consolidation state, which informs Streeck's call for a retreat from Europe to the nation-state as the last line of defense against neoliberal capitalism. The article proceeds to sketch Habermas's criticism of Streeck's argument, and it illustrates how Habermas' proposal for a reconstitution of the EU as a supranational democracy is motivated by foundational concerns in his critical theory of society. Finally, the article argues that the debate results in an unresolved dilemma: while only a democratized EU can reestablish the supremacy of politics over globalized markets, the EU is more likely to become further entrenched as an international consolidation state.

Artiklen ser nærmere på de forhold, som er blevet beskrevet i analyser af interventionen i Afghanistan, der kan forklare den udvikling, som den amerikanske præsiden, Joe Biden, forsikrede ikke ville finde sted i 2021. Tre forhold står frem i tidligere analyser af årene, der gik, i Afghanistan. For det første, at der var løbende udfordringer med kapacitetsopbygningen. Udfordringer, der ligeledes løbende var blevet påpeget internationalt af analytikere, forskere og i krigens mange evalueringsrapporter og erfaringsopsamlinger. For det andet, at formålet med krigen fra de allieredes side skiftede karakter, som tiden gik. Fra at det fælles formål var lettere at få øje på i starten af krigen, så blev interventionsindsatserne til et formålstæt delta, hvor de involverede lande med skiftende regeringer balancerede hensyn til alliancer, en hjemlig vælgerskare, nationale sikkerhedsinteresser og værdipolitiske rettighedsdagsordner. For det tredje, at Taleban gradvist – og ikke fra den ene dag til den anden – havde opbygget styrke og kontrol, og samtidig havde været involveret i en politisk proces via deres repræsentationskontor i Doha, der var med til at bane vejen for deres overtagelse.
Abstract in English20 Years in Afghanistan: What Do We Know About What We Learned?This article takes a closer look at various analyses of the international intervention in Afghanistan, which point at different reasons for the developments that took take place in August 2021. Developments that the American president Biden shortly before the Taliban takeover assured the world would not take place. Three factors stand out in previous analyses of the years that passed by in Afghanistan. First, that there were ongoing challenges with capacity-building. Challenges that had been pointed out by analysts, researchers and in the many evaluation and lessons-learned reports from the war. Secondly, that the purpose of the war on the part of the allied forces changed character as time went on. The common purpose was easier to see in the beginning of the war, but the intervention efforts turned into a purpose-dense delta, where the countries involved and their successive governments balanced considerations to alliances, domestic support, national security interests and value political agendas. Third, that the Taliban seemingly had gradually – and not overnight – built up strength and control, and at the same time been involved in a political process through their exile office in Doha that helped pave the way for their takeover.

Bærekraftsmålene har blåst nytt liv i debatten om hvorvidt globale fellesgoder kan og bør finansieres med bistand. I denne replikken til Nikolai Hegertuns essay En stille revolusjon av utviklingspolitikken, argumenterer jeg for at det er liten grunn til å være strengt normativ i dette spørsmålet, blant annet fordi den statistiske definisjonen av bistand ikke utelukker dette; det er presedens for en viss bruk av bistand for slike formål; bistandsvolum uansett ikke er et fullstendig mål på givernes innsats og sier lite om kvaliteten på den; og fordi en rekke nasjonale og regionale fellesgoder – som uten tvil kan finansieres med bistand – er nødvendige for at globale fellesgoder skal kunne produseres eller konsumeres av innbyggere i fattige land. Vi vet heller ikke med sikkerhet at tradisjonell bistand gir større velferdsøkninger i fattige land enn finansiering av globale fellesgoder. Det er mulig å se for seg både at de globale utfordringene sluker bistanden og at de gir støtet til internasjonalt samarbeid i et omfang vi ikke har sett før. Gitt de underliggende drivkreftene – en kombinasjon av altruisme og egeninteresser – er det mer sannsynlig med gradvise endringer i utviklingspolitikken enn en revolusjon.
Abstract in English:Development Policy: Revolution is an Illusion?The Sustainable Development Goals have reinvigorated the debate on whether aid can and should be used to finance global collective goods. In this comment on Nikolai Hegertun's essay Aid's Silent Revolution? (En stille revolusjon av utviklingspolitikken), I argue that the statistical definition of aid does not categorically rule out such financing, for which there are precedents; that aid volumes in any case do not tell the full story about the extent and quality of donor efforts; and that many national and regional collective goods – which certainly can be financed by aid – are necessary for the production and enjoyment of global collective goods by individuals living in developing countries. Moreover, we do not know with certainty that traditional aid produces greater welfare improvements in such countries than global collective goods do. It is possible to envisage both that current global challenges will swamp aid and that they will induce international cooperation on an unprecedented scale. However, given the underlying forces of altruism and national self-interest, a gradual change in development policy is more likely than a revolution.

De siste tiårene har globalisering og digitalisering gjort verden mindre. «Langt borte eksisterer ikke lenger», som tidligere utenriksminister Thorvald Stoltenberg en gang fastslo. Skillet mellom «der ute» og «her hjemme» er blitt vanskeligere å trekke opp; oppfatningen av hva som naturlig hører til i den utenrikspolitiske og diplomatiske sfæren er i endring. Denne utviklingen – og vår forståelse av den – har konsekvenser for hvordan norsk utenrikspolitikk og diplomati tenkes, utformes og praktiseres.
Abstract in English:Changing World, Steady DiplomacyOver the last decades, globalization and digitalization have made the world smaller. "Far away does not exist any more", as former Norwegian foreign minister Thorvald Stoltenberg once put it. The boundaries between "out there" and "here at home" have become more difficult to draw up; our understanding of what naturally belongs in the foreign policy and diplomacy domain is constantly changing. These developments – and our own assessment of them – have implications for how Norwegian foreign policy and diplomacy is formulated and practiced.

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.

USA hadde ingen doktriner for opprørsbekjempelse (COIN) da operasjonene i Afghanistan og Irak startet. Mens krigene pågikk ble det, til tross for stor uenighet, innført en slik doktrine i 2007. Krigene førte også til både endringer i organisering og utrustning av amerikanske styrker, og til store endringer av planlagte investeringer av militært ustyr. Begge krigene endte i nederlag, og i tiden etter har USA på ny fokusert på stormaktsrivalisering. Men utgiftene til krigføringen i Afghanistan og Irak, og endringene i investeringsmønster, har svekket USAs evne til å konkurrere militært med Kina og Russland.
Abstract in EnglishAfghanistan, Iraq and the Development of US Military PowerThe United States had no doctrine for Counterinsurgency Operations (COIN) when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started in 2001 and 2003, respectively. In 2001 the US armed forces were designed for Great Power competition and conflict. During the course of the wars, substantial changes were made in the organization and equipment of the forces, and a COIN doctrine was introduced in 2007. In turn, large scale modernization of, and investments in, equipment suited for Great Power conflict were reduced in scale or cancelled. The cost of the wars and the changes in operational focus have blunted the US's ability to compete militarily with China and Russia.

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.

Den här artikeln identifierar och analyserar tre olika reaktioner, i artikeln benämnda »strategisk respons», på amerikansk strategisk återhållsamhet sedan 2017 och mot bakgrund av Brexit: »Liberal övervintring», »Ett starkare Europa» och »En bredare koalition». Analysen kopplar strategisk respons, strategiskt aktörskap och strategisk autonomi och leder till två slutsatser: För det första att Brexit snararare har gynnat än hindrat det europeiska säkerhets- och försvarssamarbetet, såväl inom ramen för EU som mellan EU och stater som står utanför EU, däribland Storbritannien. För det andra att den framväxande säkerhetsordningen innebär nya och annorlunda förutsättningar för det säkerhets- och försvarspolitiska samarbetet i Europa, inte minst i Norden.
Abstract in English:American Strategic Restraint and European Strategic Response: Three Forms of Strategic Response Post-BrexitThis paper describes and analyses three types of European strategic response since the year 2017 by European governments and the EU in response to US strategic restraint and conditioned by Brexit. The three types of response we label "liberal wintering", "a stronger Europe" and "a broader coalition". The paper links strategic response to strategic agency and strategic autonomy leading on to two main conclusions: First, that Brexit has done more to promote than to restrain the development of European common security and defence, both within the EU and when involving nations outside of the EU, such as the UK. Second, that the new broader European security and defence structures open the door to new forms of cooperation, for example between the Nordic countries.

Slik forholdet til Sovjetunionen historisk har vært avgjørende for utformingen av norsk nordområdepolitikk, står forholdet til Russland sentralt også i dag. Artikkelen drøfter tre aspekter ved sikkerhetspolitikkens plass i norsk syn på nordområdene og i norsk nordområdepolitikk etter årtusenskiftet. I første del ser vi overordnet på sammenhengen mellom norsk sikkerhetspolitikk og norsk nordområdepolitikk de siste tjue årene. I andre del analyserer vi russiske perspektiver på sikkerhet Arktis og forholdet til Norge, før vi i siste del tar for oss tillitsskapende samarbeid på det militære området mellom Norge og Russland ved å gi en analyse av hva som karakteriserer den bilaterale Incidents at Sea-avtalen (INCSEA).
Abstract in English:Between Heat Wave and Ice Front: The High North, Security and Great Power PoliticsAs the relationship with the Soviet Union historically was decisive for the development of Norwegian policy towards the European Arctic, the High North, relations with Russia remain a core concern also today. This article analyses three aspects of the significance of security policy in the Norwegian view of the High North in general and in Norwegian High North policy in particular after the turn of the millennium. In the first part, we assess the relationship between Norwegian security policy and High North policy in the last twenty years. The second part examines Russian perspectives on the Arctic and relations with Norway. The third and final analysis assesses the bilateral Incidents at Sea (INCSEA) agreement as part of Russian-Norwegian military confidence building measures.

BILATERAL RELATIONS ON THE MEND: Transforming the Mosaic of Opportunities into Policies of Stability and Reconciliation between Afghanistan & PakistanBilateral reconciliation and trust building between Afghanistan and Pakistan require determined individuals who will prioritize identification of workable solutions to regional instability.This report summarizes recommendations on how to approach such solutions. The recommendations emerged during two rounds of track-II dialogue – one in Kabul in May, and one in Islamabad in September, 2017 - between influential individuals from Afghanistan and Pakistan, organized by the Royal Danish Defence College (RDDC) and the Regional Peace Institute (RPI).In addition to discussing a host of other issues, the two rounds of the conference generated ideas and innovative suggestions on how to deal with peace negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban, the future of Western engagement in Afghanistan, ways to resolve the Afghan refugee crisis and increasing the volume of trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan.The constructive and innovative development of recommendations during both rounds went beyond initial expectations in terms of volume and quality. However, generating innovative policy recommendations, by itself, is insufficient without their effective implementation.This report can be viewed as a mosaic of ideas and opportunities to enter a path of reconciliation and stability. If implemented, these ideas and recommendations can lead to addressing the outstanding issues between Afghanistan & Pakistan.By presenting this mosaic of progress, this report, and the authors behind it aspire to contribute in a meaningful manner to mending the existing relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

11. september-angrepene og USAs svar utfordret folkerettens regler. Basert på et argument om selvforsvar, lanserte Bush-administrasjonen en global krig mot terrorisme, med fangeleirer, bruk av tortur og utenomrettslige henrettelser. Essayet gir en oversikt over tre folkerettslige hovedproblemstillinger som oppsto i årene etter 2001. Folkerettens regimer om samarbeid for å motarbeide terror var for svake, FN-pakten gav lite klare regler om staters selvforsvarsrett mot ikke-statlige aktører på fremmed jord, og angrepene utfordret folkerettens todeling mellom krig og rettshåndhevelse (humanitærrett og menneskerettigheter). Essayet gjør opp status for hvordan folkeretten utviklet seg på disse områdene etter 2001, og tar stilling til om dette gir grunnlag for å betegne 11. september som et vannskille i folkeretten.
Abstract in English:International Law and 9/11 – a Watershed?The 9/11 attacks and the US global response was a challenge to international law. Based on an argument of self-defense, the Bush-administration launched a global war on terror, established prison-camps, opened up for torture and engaged in targeted killings. The essay provides an overview of the main challenges that arose after 9/11 from the perspective of international law. The international regime for prevention of terrorism was weak, it was unclear to what extent the UN Charter provided states with an independent right to self-defense against non-state actors in foreign states, and the attacks challenged the dichotomy between war and crime (humanitarian law and human rights). The essay analyses how these areas of international law have evolved after 2001 and concludes by assessing whether 9/11 can be deemed a watershed in the development of international law.

Covid-19-pandemien har tydeliggjort hvordan grensekryssende helse-trusler har samfunnsmessige konsekvenser. Epidemier ute av kontroll og andre ikke-kontrollerte grensekryssende helsetrusler kan sees som trusler mot fred og sikkerhet. Slike helsekriser kan ha store negative konsekvenser på helse, sosiale forhold og økonomisk utvikling, og har derfor potensiale for å bli både lokale, regionale og globale sikkerhetskriser. Stor ulikhet i tilgang til virkemidler for å kunne håndtere en helsekrise – eksempelvis medisinske mottiltak som vaksiner, legemidler og diagnostikk – kan skape eller forverre ustabilitet og være en sikkerhetsutfordring i seg selv. Med fokus på erfaringer fra covid-19-pandemien vektlegger vi i denne artikkelen global helsesikkerhet som et globalt fellesgode. En økende interesse for grensekryssende helsetrusler i FNs sikkerhetsråd gir muligheter og handlingsrom, men utfordrer også hvordan helsetrusler tolkes og tilnærminger til den internasjonale responsen.
Abstract in English:Outbreaks with Cross-border Potential and the UN Security CouncilThe Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted how outbreaks with cross-border potential have broader macroeconomic consequences. Uncontrolled epidemics and other uncontrolled outbreaks with cross-border potential can be seen as threats to peace and security. Such health crises can have severe consequences for health, social conditions and economic development, and have the potential to impact local, regional and global security. Inequality in access to medical countermeasures, such as vaccines, medicines and diagnostics, can impact or exacerbate instability and be a security threat in itself. Using lessons learned from the covid-19 pandemic, this article emphasizes global health security as a global public good. Increasing interest in outbreaks with cross-border potential in the UN Security Council might open windows of opportunity, but also challenges how global health threats are understood and the international responses to such outbreaks.

Når regjeringen legger fram en ny stortingsmelding om nordområdene høsten 2020, er det nesten et tiår siden forrige melding ble presentert. Veldig mye har endret seg siden da, ikke minst i form av Kinas fremvekst, økt spenning mellom NATO og Russland, og en reaksjonær amerikansk president. Nordområdene og hele det sirkumpolare Arktis har blitt en arena for symbolpolitikk og militær øvelsesaktivitet, samtidig som de arktiske landene fortsetter å samarbeide om en rekke saker. Midt i dette står Norge. Denne introduksjonsartikkelen til fokusnummeret om Norge, nordområdene og utenrikspolitikk trekker de store linjene i utviklingen de seneste årene med hensyn på Norges posisjon og rolle. Den introduserer også de andre bidragene og peker på noen av de mest aktuelle funnene som vi bli diskutert.
Abstract in English:Introduction to Focus Issue: Norway, the High North and Foreign PolicyWhen the Norwegian government presents a new report to the parliament on its High North policy in the autumn of 2020, almost a decade has passed since the previous report was presented. A lot has changed since then, not least in the form of China's emergence, increased tensions between NATO and Russia, and a reactionary US president. The High North and the entire circumpolar Arctic have become an arena for symbol politics and military exercise activity, while the Arctic countries continue to co-operate on a number of issues. In the middle of this is Norway. This introductory article to the focus issue on Norway, the High North and foreign policy examines the broad lines of developments in recent years with regard to Norway's position and role in the north. It also introduces the other contributions and points to some of the most relevant findings that are being discussed.

Global helse har stått sentralt i norsk utenriks-, utviklings- og helsepolitikk i en årrekke. Norge er anerkjent som en synlig aktør på global helse gjennom vesentlige finansielle bidrag, men også som en aktør som har bidratt til etablering av nye institusjoner og mekanismer som vaksinealliansen Gavi, Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF) og Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). Norge spiller også en aktiv rolle i det internasjonale helsepolitiske samarbeidet, og er en aktiv deltaker i Verdens helseorganisasjon (WHO). Norge er – og har vært – gjenkjennelig på global helse over lang tid, og i alle internasjonale fora. Vi mener det er viktig å bidra til – og sikre – at konsekvensene av pandemier og globale helseutfordringer på internasjonal fred og sikkerhet også hører hjemme på dagsordenen til FNs sikkerhetsråd.
Abstract in English:Pandemic Response and Global Health in Norwegian Foreign Policy – and in the UN Security CouncilGlobal health has been a priority for Norway and for Norwegian foreign, development and health policies for the past decades. Norway is recognized as an active and consistent partner in global health questions, both through substantial financial contributions and as an advocate for establishing new institutions and mechanisms such as Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF) and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). Norway is also playing a leading role in the international cooperation in global health issues and in promoting a coordinated and effective humanitarian response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Norway actively participates and firmly supports the leading role played by the World Health Organization (WHO) in this regard. Norway will continue to be a consistent and recognizable partner in global health issues in all international fora. We firmly believe that it is important to contribute to – and secure – that the implications of pandemics and global health crises can be seen as threats to international peace and security and thus belong on the agenda of the UN Security Council.

I denne studien ser vi nærmere på hva som har skjedd med det som en gang var et utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitisk fokus, rettet mot våre umiddelbare nærområder i nord. Vi spør: I hvilken grad er dagens nordområdepolitikk egnet til å ivareta aktuelle sikkerhetspolitiske utfordringer i våre nordlige nærområder? Svaret denne gjennomgangen gir, er nedslående. Over flere år er norsk nordområdepolitikk blitt så utvannet og strukket at den i dag omhandler nær sagt alt. Dagens nordområdepolitikk er ispedd vel så mye regional- og næringspolitikk som utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitikk. Satsingen er i beste fall redusert til en slags samordningspolitikk, men uten entydige mål. Konfrontert med en rekke tunge sikkerhetspolitiske utfordringer i nord kan norske myndigheter fort oppleve at en altomfattende strategi bare blir en distraksjon. For en nordområdemelding om alt er gjerne også en nordområdemelding om ingenting.
Abstract in EnglishA Norwegian High North Policy about Everything – or Nothing?This study examines what happened to Norway's nordområdepolitikk, or High North policy, erstwhile a targeted effort to address foreign and security policy challenges in Norway's immediate neighboring northern areas. It finds that the current High North policy, after rounds of extensive revision, has become less suited to cope with Norway's pressing security challenges in the said areas. Over the years, the Norwegian High North policy has become so diluted and all-including that it encompasses virtually anything and everything with a northern dimension, including regional development and industrial policies, to the neglect of foreign and security policy considerations. The High North initiatives have, at best, gradually transformed into a broad policy coordination effort, but without clear or prioritized policy objectives. Faced with a number of weighty security challenges in its immediate neighboring northern areas, Norway is currently guided by a policy that has metamorphosed into a distraction. A High North white paper about everything resembles a white paper about nothing.