Suchergebnisse

Doomsdays preachers suggested that Brexit and Trump would mean the end of the liberal world order as we know it and thus the end of the EU. The research presented here suggests the opposite. Not only have Europeans turned their back to populism by voting yes to reforms and pro-EU-parties and governments in different member states over the past months, but Brexit and Trump also seems to have given a complete new momentum to the European project. This article demonstrates why Brexit cannot be generalized to the rest of the continent but is the result of a complicated and special British conception of what it means to be a sovereign state in the 21st century. Moreover and paradoxically, surveys show that the greatest fear among Europeans today is not more European integration but right wing populism and European Disunion.

I kjølvannet av terrorangrepene 11. september utviklet det seg et partnerskap mellom USA og Putins Russland. I dag synes det selvfølgelig at partnerskapet ikke ville vare. Men hvorfor sprakk det egentlig? Russland forkaster partnerskapet fordi det ikke møter Kremls forventninger om gjensidighet. Dessuten har Russland en helt annen oppfatning av hva årsakene til internasjonal terrorisme er og hvordan krigen mot terror skal utkjempes. Russlands gjenreisning under Putin er en underliggende faktor og innebærer at terrortrusselen etter hvert underordnes den mer tradisjonelle frykten for amerikansk militærmakt og dominans. Selv om en felles kamp mot terror stadig foreslås som bindemiddel for dårlige relasjoner, kan det neppe fungere som det i dagens nye kalde krig.
Abstract in English:The Unsustainable Russia-US Partnership in the War on TerrorRussia and the USA forged a strategic partnership following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Today it seems obvious that such a partnership would not last. But why did it break? The article argues that the Kremlin leaves the partnership because its expectations of mutuality were not met. Russia also fundamentally disagreed with the USA on the sources of international terrorism and how best to conduct GWOT. Russia's revival under Putin's leadership is an underlying cause and implies that the terrorist threat is overshadowed be the traditional fear of NATO and US dominance. Albeit still figuring among the issue-areas suggested for US-Russian collaboration, the common fight against international terrorism will not function as a vehicle for rapprochement in the current cold war climate.

Under 2017 och 2018 ökade Kinas direktinvesteringar i Sverige avsevärt till följd av ett antal stora förvärv, mestadels i fordonsindustrin. Samtidigt har den svenska offentliga debatten kring kinesiska investeringar blivit mer kritisk sedan 2017, då investeringarna överlag talades om i positiva ordalag. Under 2018 och 2019 har en rad aktörer inom statliga myndigheter, politiska partier, media och civilsamhället beskrivit Kinas investeringar som ett potentiellt säkerhetshot. Näringslivsrepresentanter är mindre synliga i debatten men även här finns det en tydlig trend av ökad uppmärksamhet på potentiella säkerhetsrisker kopplade till kinesiska investeringar. Den svenska synen på Kina tycks konvergera allt mer med vad EU har kallat för sin nya "mer realistiska" hållning gentemot Peking. Ett antal policyprocesser har inletts, vilket sannolikt kommer leda till att svensk lagstiftning stärks på flera områden för att öka kontrollen av Kinas investeringar och engagemang i Sverige, särskilt i kritisk infrastruktur såsom telekommunikationsnät men även vad gäller företag vars verksamhet anses som säkerhetskänslig i mer generell bemärkelse.
Abstract in EnglishChinese Investments in Sweden: From Fame to Fear?China's direct investment in Sweden surged in 2017 and 2018 due to a number of large acquisitions, mostly in the automotive industry. At the same time, the public debate on Chinese investments has become more critical since 2017, when they were typically seen in a positive light. Throughout 2018 and 2019, a number of actors in government authorities, political parties, the media and civil society have described China's investments as a potential security threat. Although less prominent in the public debate, business representatives have also become increasingly vocal about potential security risks associated with Chinese investment. The Swedish view of China seems to be aligning with what the EU has called its new "more realistic" approach to Beijing. Meanwhile, a number of policy processes have been launched which are likely to lead to the strengthening of existing legal frameworks to scrutinise Chinese investment and activity in Sweden, especially concerning critical infrastructure such as telecommunications networks, but also more generally concerning companies whose activities are regarded as sensitive from a security perspective.

Russisk påvirkning av presidentvalget i 2016 har skapt frykt for manipulasjon av valg i Vesten. Både EU og USA forventer at trusselen vedvarer, og at nye metoder og kapasiteter utvikles. Artikkelen beskriver hva valgpåvirkning er, og hvordan slik påvirkning gjennomføres. Den gjør en systematisk gjennomgang av litteratur om beskyttelse av valg, og funnene sammenfattes i seks temaer med til sammen 38 mulige tiltak for å hindre valgpåvirkning: 1) bevisstgjøring; 2) forebygging; 3) samarbeide og koordinering; 4) beskyttende tiltak; 5) aktive mottiltak og avskrekking; 6) forskning, læring og kompetansebygging. Alle tiltak krever nøye vurdering av økonomiske, politiske, juridiske, praktiske og andre implikasjoner, samt særlig forholdet til demokrati og ytringsfrihet. Avslutningsvis påpekes fire problemstillinger som særlig aktuelle for videre vurdering: 1) bevisstgjøring via medier, samt målrettet mot partier og valgorganisasjon; 2) en helhetlig gjennomgang av trusler, sårbarhet og beskyttelsestiltak, særlig datasikkerhet; 3) forskning og utvikling; 4) avskrekking og eksponering av påvirkning. Mange tiltak er inngripende, særlig i forhold til demokrati, ytringsfrihet, sensur og selvsensur, og de viktigste utfordringer, begrensninger og kritikk mot restriktive tiltak gjennomgås. Vi må unngå at tiltak for å beskytte demokratiet i seg selv undergraver demokratiet.
Abstract in English:How Can Elections Be Protected Against Foreign Interference?Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election have caused fear for manipulation of elections in the West. Both the EU and the US see this as a persistent threat and expect new methods and capabilities to emerge. This article describes election interference and how it has been conducted. It reviews literature about protection of elections, and summarises the findings in six themes with a total of 38 possible measures: 1) awareness, 2) prevention, 3) cooperation and coordination, 4) protective measures, 5) active countermeasures and deterrence, 6) research and competence building. All measures require careful consideration of economic, political, legal, practical and other implications, and especially consequences for democracy and freedom of speech. Finally, four issues are proposed as particularly relevant for further consideration: 1) awareness through media, and also especially targeted at political parties and the election organisation, 2) a comprehensive assessment of threats, vulnerabilities and protective measures, especially in terms of data protection, 3) research and development, 4) deterrence and exposure of interference. Many of the measures are far-reaching when it comes to democracy, freedom of speech, censorship and self-censorship, and the article reviews challenges, limitations and critique of such restrictive measures. It is essential that measures to protect democracy in themselves do not undermine democracy.

Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "capturing", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization-focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they collaborate in peace and friendliness. So far, the IR liberalism discourse has set the trend of the Russian policy carried out in relation to the Arctic. Thus, it has primarily been the Russian Foreign Ministry and, above all, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that have drawn the overall lines of the Arctic policy, well aided by the Transport Ministry and the Energy Ministry. On the other side are the Russian national Security Council led by Nikolai Patrushev and the Russian Defence Ministry headed by Sergey Shoygu, which both have embedded their visions of Russia and the Arctic in the IR realism/geopolitical discourse. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, does the same. Nevertheless, he has primarily chosen to let the Foreign Ministry set the line for the Arctic policy carried out, presumably out of a pragmatic acknowledgement of the means that have, so far, served the Russian interests best. Moreover, it is worth noting that both wings, even though they can disagree about the means, in fact are more or less in agreement about the goal of Russia's Arctic policy: namely, to utilize the expected wealth of oil and natural gas resources in the underground to ensure the continuation of the restoration of Russia's position as a Great Power when the capacity of the energy fields in Siberia slowly diminishes – which the Russian Energy Ministry expects to happen sometime between 2015 and 2030. In addition to that, Russia sees – as the polar ice slowly melts – great potential for opening an ice-free northern sea route between Europe and Asia across the Russian Arctic, with the hope that the international shipping industry can see the common sense of saving up to nearly 4,000 nautical miles on a voyage from Ulsan, Korea, to Rotterdam, Holland, so Russia can earn money by servicing the ships and issuing permissions for passage through what Russia regards as Russian territorial water. The question is whether Russia will be able to realize its ambitious goals. First, the Russian state energy companies Gazprom and Rosneft lack the technology, know-how and experience to extract oil and gas under the exceedingly difficult environment in the Arctic, where the most significant deposits are believed to be in very deep water in areas that are very difficult to access due to bad weather conditions. The Western sanctions mean that the Russian energy companies cannot, as planned, obtain this technology and know-how via the already entered-into partnerships with Western energy companies. The sanctions limit loan opportunities in Western banks, which hit the profitability of the most cost-heavy projects in the Arctic. However, what hits hardest are the low oil prices – at present 50 dollars per barrel (Brent). According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the fields in the Arctic are not profitable as long as the oil price is under 120 dollars per barrel. Whether Russia chooses to suspend the projects until the energy prices rise again – and until it has again entered into partnerships that can deliver the desired technology and know-how – or whether the Russian state will continuously pump money into the projects is uncertain. The hard-pressed Russian economy, with the prospects of recession, increasing inflation, increasing flight of capital, rising interest rates and a continuously low oil price, provides a market economic incentive for suspending the projects until further notice. Whether the Kremlin will think in a market economic way or a long-term strategic way is uncertain – but, historically, there has been a penchant for the latter. One of the Kremlin's hopes is that Chinese-Russian cooperation can take over where the Western-Russian cooperation has shut down. Russia has long wanted to diversify its energy markets to reduce its dependence on sales to Europe. At the same time, those in the Kremlin have had a deeply-rooted fear of ending up as a "resource appendix" to the onrushing Chinese economy, which so far has been a strong contributing reason for keeping the Russian-Chinese overtures in check. The question now is whether the Western sanctions can be the catalyst that can make Russia overcome this fear and thus, in the long term, support the efforts to enter into a real, strategic partnership with China. ; Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, Russia have an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "exploring", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization- focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they cooperate peacefully.

FNs totalforbud mot atomvåpen er innlysende riktig. Forpliktelsene går neppe lenger enn Ikkespredningsavtalen, som Norge sluttet seg til allerede i 1970. Avskrekking med atomvåpen forutsetter at de må være klare til bruk for å bli umulige å bruke. Særlig i kriser blir en slik tankegang lett farlig fordi den kan utløse atomkrig ved misforståelser. Likevel er den norske regjeringens motstand mot FNs totalforbud rasjonell fordi hensikten er å forebygge en endring i oppfatning om maktbalanse som kunne undergrave Norges selvstendighet. Spørsmålet blir derfor om risiko for atomkrig kan reduseres uten å øke fare for press, og i verste fall angrep? Artikkelen presenterer egen forskning om hvordan konfrontasjonen i første halvdel av 1980-tallet mellom de to tyske stater førte til risiko for storkrig utløst av gjensidige misforståelser på begge sider av det daværende jernteppet. Teorier om tankeprosesser forklarer misforståelsene som universelle kognitive begrensninger. Forholdene i dag er på vesentlige punkter sammenliknbare med første halvdel av 1980-årene, da det på tross av spenninger likevel var rom for initiativ til felles sikkerhet. Artikkelen konkluderer derfor med at Norge bør slutte seg til FNs totalforbud mot atomvåpen, og sammen med Sverige ta initiativ til en felleseuropeisk dialog med Russland om en europeisk sikkerhetsordning bygd på forestillinger om felles sikkerhet.
Abstract in English:Norwegian Support for the UN's Total Ban on Nuclear Weapons?The article argues that while the UN ban on nuclear arms is obviously sensible, the Norwegian Government's objections are still rational. Rejecting the US nuclear arms umbrella undermines deterrence to the degree that is the perception. The article sets out how cognitive processes determine perceptions of deterrence and risks of war. Shifting nuclear strategies are attempts to cope with the contradiction between deterrence and the inherent impossible choice of nuclear war. The Cold War in the first half of the 1980s shows how nuclear arms, though intended as deterrence, in a confrontation may be misperceived as a looming attack. This misperception almost caused nuclear war by inadvertence, as it could again. The fear of attack may prompt a compelling sense of urgency for a preemptive strike. This is the only real risk of large-scale war in Europe. Therefore, the Norwegian Government should join the UN ban on nuclear arms to reduce tensions in Europe. In a joint initiative with Sweden, which has already endorsed the ban, Norway should persuade other European states to enable a political process with Russia towards a European common security without the looming threat of nuclear arms. Military force should not exceed the minimum required to block intimidation, coercion, and low-intensity aggression.

This study takes a novel approach to the study of threatening communications by arguing that they can be characterized as a genre – a genre that generally carries strong connotations of intimidation, fear, aggression, power, and coercion. We combine the theoretical framework of Rhetorical Genre Studies (RGS) with results from theoretical and empirical analyses of threats to arrive at a more comprehensive perspective of threats. Since threats do not form part of any regular curriculum of genres, we designed a survey to test how recognizable they are. While scholars on threats describe threatening communications as remarkably varied in form and contextual features, the majority of our respondents categorized test items as threats without prompts of any kind, indicating that threats are a recognizable genre. We propose that threatening communications belong to a wider category of illicit genres: i.e. genres that generally disrupt and upset society and commonly affect their targets negatively. The uptakes of illicit genres are very different from those of other genres, as the users of the genres often actively avoid naming them, making uptake communities significant shapers of illicit genres. The present study contributes to research on threatening communications, since genre theory sheds light on important situational factors affecting the interpretation of a text as a threat – this is a particularly contentious question when it comes to threats that are indirectly phrased. The study also contributes to genre theory by pointing to new territory for genre scholars to examine, namely illicit genres. Studies of illicit genres also have wider, societal benefits as they shed light on different kinds of problematic rhetorical behavior that are generally considered destructive or even dangerous. ; Denne artikel anlægger et nyt perspektiv på studiet af sproglige trusler ved at argumentere for at de kan karakteriseres som en genre – en genre der generelt giver stærke konnotationer til intimidering, frygt, aggression, magt og tvang. Vi kombinerer Retoriske Genrestudiers (RGS) teoretiske ramme med resultater fra teoretiske og empiriske analyser af trusler for at nå frem til en mere nuanceret og fyldestgørende forståelse af trusler. Sproglige trusler er som udgangspunkt ikke at finde i gængse oversigter over genrer, og man lærer heller ikke om dem i skolen. Derfor designede vi et spørgeskema der skulle teste hvor genkendelige trusler egentlig er. Selvom trusselsforskere rapporterer at trusler har en bemærkelsesværdig variation i deres formmæssige og kontekstuelle træk, kategoriserede størstedelen af vores respondenter testemnerne som trusler, på trods af at de ikke fik præsenteret nogen tekstuel, kontekstuel eller layoutmæssig ramme for fortolkningen. Dette indikerer at truslen er en genkendelig genre. Vi argumenterer for at truslen hører under en bredere kategori af illegitime genrer: genrer der generelt set har skadelige eller ubehagelige konsekvenser for samfundet, og som almindeligvis påvirker deres ofre negativt. Den måde illegitime genrer tages op på i samfundet, deres uptake, adskiller sig meget fra hvordan andre genrer tages op. De der benytter illegitime genrer, undgår ofte aktivt at navn-give dem, hvilket indebærer at de grupper der reagerer på illegitime genrer, på ganske betydelig vis er med til at definere dem. Dette studie bidrager til forskning i sproglige trusler, idet genreteori kaster lys over vigtige situationelle faktorer der påvirker fortolkningen af en tekst som en trussel – dette er et særligt omstridt spørgsmål i forhold til trusler der er indirekte formuleret. Studiet bidrager også til genreteori ved at pege på et nyt område genreforskere kan undersøge, nemlig illegitime genrer. Undersøgelser af illegitime genrer har også bredere samfundsmæssig relevans da de belyser forskellige slags problematisk, retorisk opførsel der kan have destruktive konsekvenser for det enkelte menneske og for den demokratiske samfundsorden bredt set. ; Denne artikel anlægger et nyt perspektiv på studiet af sproglige trusler ved at argumentere for at de kan karakteriseres som en genre – en genre der generelt giver stærke konnotationer til intimidering, frygt, aggression, magt og tvang. Vi kombinerer Retoriske Genrestudiers (RGS) teoretiske ramme med resultater fra teoretiske og empiriske analyser af trusler for at nå frem til en mere nuanceret og fyldestgørende forståelse af trusler. Sproglige trusler er som udgangspunkt ikke at finde i gængse oversigter over genrer, og man lærer heller ikke om dem i skolen. Derfor designede vi et spørgeskema der skulle teste hvor genkendelige trusler egentlig er. Selvom trusselsforskere rapporterer at trusler har en bemærkelsesværdig variation i deres formmæssige og kontekstuelle træk, kategoriserede størstedelen af vores respondenter testemnerne som trusler, på trods af at de ikke fik præsenteret nogen tekstuel, kontekstuel eller layoutmæssig ramme for fortolkningen. Dette indikerer at truslen er en genkendelig genre. Vi argumenterer for at truslen hører under en bredere kategori af illegitime genrer: genrer der generelt set har skadelige eller ubehagelige konsekvenser for samfundet, og som almindeligvis påvirker deres ofre negativt. Den måde illegitime genrer tages op på i samfundet, deres uptake, adskiller sig meget fra hvordan andre genrer tages op. De der benytter illegitime genrer, undgår ofte aktivt at navn-give dem, hvilket indebærer at de grupper der reagerer på illegitime genrer, på ganske betydelig vis er med til at definere dem. Dette studie bidrager til forskning i sproglige trusler, idet genreteori kaster lys over vigtige situationelle faktorer der påvirker fortolkningen af en tekst som en trussel – dette er et særligt omstridt spørgsmål i forhold til trusler der er indirekte formuleret. Studiet bidrager også til genreteori ved at pege på et nyt område genreforskere kan undersøge, nemlig illegitime genrer. Undersøgelser af illegitime genrer har også bredere samfundsmæssig relevans da de belyser forskellige slags problematisk, retorisk opførsel der kan have destruktive konsekvenser for det enkelte menneske og for den demokratiske samfundsorden bredt set.