Suchergebnisse

Artikkelen ser på den teknologiske og strategiske rivaliseringen mellom USA og Kina hva gjelder implementeringen av 5G-nettverk, og spør hva som er med å påvirke hvordan andre stater posisjonerer seg mellom de to supermaktene. Ved å bygge på tre grener av politisk realisme – balance-of-threat-teoriens tanke om at trusseloppfatning driver staters valg av allianser, patron–klient-teoriens tro på at USA kan forvente at deres klientstater innretter seg etter amerikansk utenrikspolitikk, og teorien om at handelsrelasjoner kan brukes som maktverktøy – utleder jeg et sett med hypoteser og potensielt relevante forklaringsvariabler. Som avhengig variabel samler jeg 70 staters holdninger til Kinas omstridte telekommunikasjonsgigant Huaweis rolle i 5G. Bivariat analyse avslører tre hovedmønstre: (1) Stater som er små og maktesløse i forhold til Kina, samt statene i Kinas geografiske region, ser ut til å være mer aksepterende til Huaweis 5G. (2) Stater som ser på USA som sin patron og som er avhengige av Washingtons sikkerhetsgaranti ser ut til å være betydelig mer avvisende til selskapets 5G. (3) Handelsrelasjoner til både USA og Kina ser ut til å ha liten eller ingen effekt på staters holdninger. Av de tre realisme-grenene er det altså patron–klient-teorien som veier tyngst når det gjelder å forklare staters holdninger til Huaweis 5G.
Abstract in English:The US way or the Huawei: An analysis of how small and medium states stand on the Chinese giant's role in 5GThis article examines the technological and strategic rivalry between the US and China on the implementation of 5G networks, asking what influences how other states position themselves between the two superpowers. By building on three branches of political realism – balance-of-threat theory's notion that perception of threat drives states' alliance choices, patron-client theory's belief that the US can expect its client states to adhere to American foreign policy, and the theory that trade relations can be used as power tools – I derive a set of hypotheses and potentially relevant explanatory variables. As dependent variable, I measure 70 states' stances on China's controversial telecom giant Huawei's role in 5G. Bivariate analysis reveals three primary patterns: (1) States who are dwarfed by China's power, as well as states in China's immediate geographic region, appear to be more acceptive of Huawei's 5G. (2) States who see the US as their patron and who rely on Washington's security guarantee appear to be much more rejective of the company's 5G. (3) Trade relations to both the US and China appear to have little or no effect on states' stances. Of the three branches of realism, it is the patron-client theory that offers the most weight in explaining states' stances on Huawei's 5G.

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.

Artikkelen tar utgangspunkt i EØS-avtalens relative anonymitet i samfunnet fra dag til dag. Avtalens fundamentale innvirkning på regeldannelsen er lite synlig. Forfatterne trekker paralleller til integrasjonen av romerretten i europeisk rett på 1100-tallet og til dagens moderne, digitaliserte samfunn der løpende oppdatering av programvare er mer er en nødvendighet enn et reelt valg.
Abstract in English:The EEA Agreement's Significance for Norwegian Lawmaking – Passive Reception of Foreign Law or Pro-active European Policy?The article's starting point is the relative anonymity of the EEA Agreement in day to day society. This renders its fundamental impact on the legislation partially occluded. The authors draw on parallels both to the reception of Roman law into European law in the 12th century and to the digitalisation of modern society, where the decision to update software is a virtual rather than a real choice.

Norge har samarbeidet tett med EU om utenriks-, sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk siden slutten av 1990-tallet. Det er naturlig å se på dette samarbeidet som supplement til – eller spin-off av – EØS-avtalen. Når dette feltet nå er i endring med nye ambisiøse initiativer, samt at EUs forhold til tredjeland generelt vil revurderes som følge av brexit, vil dette få konsekvenser for Norges tilknytning til EU på dette området. Blant annet ser vi antydninger til det vi her kaller en mulig «EØS-ifisering» av dette feltet. Fokusbidraget analyserer tre utviklingstrekk og mulige konsekvenser av disse for Norge. Det første omhandler EUs beslutninger om det som skjer innenfor EU, nemlig PESCO og beslutningen om å styrke det felles europeiske forsvarsmarkedet. Det andre omhandler initiativer utenfor EU, som det franske europeiske intervensjonsinitiativet (EI2), som må ses i sammenheng med det første. Det tredje er brexit, som etter planen skal ta Storbritannia inn i «tredjelandsklubben», der Norge er en sentral aktør i dag. Hvilke konsekvenser får de nye initiativene tatt innenfor og utenfor EU, for Norge, og hva gjør brexit med Norges handlingsrom som utenriks-, sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitisk samarbeidspartner med EU?
Abstract in English:Spin-off of the EEA? Norway and the European Foreign, Security and Defense PolicyNorway has cooperated closely with the EU on foreign, security and defense policy since the late 1990s. It seems fitting to look at this cooperation as a supplement to – or spin-off of – the EEA agreement. As this field is now changing, with new ambitious initiatives, and that the EU's relations with third countries will generally be reassessed as a result of Brexit, this will have consequences for Norway's relations with the EU in this area. Among other things, we see trends towards what we label a possible "EEA-isation" of this field. This focus article analyses three developments and potential consequences for Norway. The first concerns EU decisions on what is happening within the EU, namely PESCO and the decision to strengthen the common European defense market. The second concerns initiatives outside of the EU, such as the French European Intervention Initiative (EI2), which must be seen in relation to the first. The third is Brexit, which is an attempt to take the UK into the "third country club" where Norway so far has been the key player. What are the consequences of the new initiatives taken within and outside the EU for Norway, and what does Brexit do to Norway's agency as a partner to the EU in the area of foreign, security and defense policy?

Artikkelen gir en oversikt over den «visuelle vendingen» innen IP-faget og diskuterer noen av de mest sentrale teoretiske argumentene som har blitt lagt frem i denne sammenheng, med særlig vekt på studiet av «internasjonale ikoner». Denne diskusjonen leder videre til en empirisk studie, nærmere bestemt en kasusstudie med utgangspunkt i bildet av Omran Daqneesh, også kjent som «Syrian boy in an ambulance». Dette bildet, som ble tatt under beleiringen av Aleppo i august 2016, oppnådde raskt ikonisk status i den bredere vestlige debatten, og det er nettopp samspillet mellom bilde og fortolkning i form av tekst jeg ser nærmere på i analysen. Ved hjelp av en diskursanalyse viser jeg hvordan debatten bar preg av uklarhet og en slags ubestemmelighet når det gjaldt hvordan en burde respondere til ikonet i utenrikspolitisk forstand. Dette funnet leder meg videre til artikkelens teoretiske bidrag: å anskueliggjøre hvordan begrepet apori kan bidra til å teoretisere debatten rundt borgerkrigen i Syria. Mer konkret argumenter jeg for at debattens innramming leder til et selvkonstruert paradoks, som kommer til uttrykk i ulike krav om at noe må gjøres, uten at dette «noe» spesifiseres. Dermed blir kravet i seg selv et symbol på en utveisløshet; det ender i en apori. Formålet med artikkelen er derfor todelt: For det første å undersøke hvilken rolle bilder spiller i internasjonal politikk og, for det andre, å belyse hvordan møtet med en apori fordrer refleksjon, som derfor kan bidra til å åpne opp for alternative tilnærminger til de forståelsesrammene som preget, eller kanskje rettere sagt fremdeles preger, diskursen rundt borgerkrigen i Syria.
Abstract in English:Icons and Aporias in the Western Debate on the Civil War in Syria
This article provides an overview of the 'visual turn' in IR and reflects on some of the key theoretical arguments put forward with particular attention paid to the proposed study of 'international icons'. This discussion provides the basis for an empirical study in which I examine the photograph of Omran Daqneesh, also known as the Syrian boy in an ambulance, as a case study. This photo, which was taken during the siege of Aleppo in August 2016, quickly reached an iconic status in the broader Western debate on the Syrian Civil War. The ensuing analysis zooms in on and accentuates the interplay between the visual and (textual) interpretation. This is done by way of discourse analysis, through which I demonstrate how the debate was characterized by an ambiguity and an undecideability regarding what should be done in terms of foreign policy as a response to the icon. Building on this finding, I advance this article's theoretical contribution: to suggest that the concept of aporia can help us theorize the debate on the Syrian civil war. More specifically, I argue that the current framing of the debate leads to a self-constructed paradox, which finds its expression in the various demands that 'something must be done', without this 'something' being specified. As such, the demand becomes a symbol of a undecidability; it ends in an aporia. Thus, the purpose of this article is two-fold: First, to understand the role of images in international politics and, second, to illuminate how the aporetic encounter demands reflection, which therefore can open up thinking space for alternative approaches to the frames of interpretation that dominated, or rather, continues to dominate the discourse around the civil war in Syria.

Igennem de sidste to år (2018–2019) er den førte danske politik i forhold til Kina blevet mere ambivalent. Særligt når det gælder kinesiske investeringer, er Danmark blevet mere forsigtig. Denne artikel undersøger hvilke faktorer, der har haft betydning for Danmarks skiftende politik i forhold til kinesiske investeringer, gennem to større case-studier: Kinesiske investeringer i Grønland og Huawei i Danmark. Kort fortalt udpeges her tre faktorer, der er afgørende for Danmarks politik i forhold til kinesiske investeringer: for det første landets langvarige økonomiske ideologi som en lille, åben økonomi, svarende til øvrige nordiske lande og som medlem af EU, med et pragmatisk behov for udenlandske markeder; for det andet en stærk, national tro på demokrati og statens forsvarsalliance med USA, herunder dets dedikerede medlemskab af NATO; og for det tredje opkomsten af fremmedfjendske og nationalistiske politiske partier, der udfordrer den tidligere mere afbalancerede og pragmatiske tilgang kendetegnende for større partier samt går ind for et mere anti-kinesisk standpunkt.
Abstract in English:Denmark's Policy on Chinese Investments: Pragmatism Balancing with Increasing Threat PerspectivesDuring the past two years (2018–2019), Denmark's policy towards China has become more ambivalent. In particular, Denmark has become more cautious about inward Chinese investments. This article examines the factors that have affected Denmark's changing policy on Chinese investment, with two major case studies: Chinese investments in Greenland, and Huawei in Denmark. In a nutshell, it points out three decisive factors: first, the country's long-term ideology as a small, open economy, similar to other Nordic countries and as a member of the EU, with a pragmatic need for foreign markets; second, a strong national belief in democracy and the state's defense alliance with the United States, including its dedicated NATO membership; and third, the rise of xenophobic and nationalist political parties, challenging the earlier more balanced and pragmatic approach characteristic of larger parties as well as advocating a more anti-Chinese stance.

Av historiska, ekonomiska och säkerhetspolitiska orsaker är Finland ett "minst sannolikt fall" (least likely case) vad gäller oro över kinesiska investeringar. Finland har inom EU haft det högsta relativa handelsberoendet av Kina. Sedan år 2016 är Finland även ett av de EU-länder som fått mest investeringar från Kina absolut sett. Finland, som inte är NATO-medlem, har oproblematiska relationer till Kina och en öppen ekonomi, som ännu för några år sedan välkomnade kinesiska investeringar. Landet har också en ovanligt lång obruten tradition av inhemsk lagstiftning om utländska investeringar som sedan 1992 kan betecknas som liberal. Under de senaste två åren har det emellertid bland policyeliten och i den allmänna diskussionen skett en drastisk förändring i synen på kinesiska investeringar som närmast kan betecknas som en gestalt shift. En påföljd av detta är att behovet av en bättre helhetsbild om kinesiska investeringar har identifierats. Informationsutbyte och koordinering mellan olika myndigheter har förbättrats på många sätt. Samtidigt har man även fördjupat nordiskt myndighetssamarbete och informationsutbyte om relevant lagstiftning och praxis inom området. Även om samarbete kring utländska investeringar inte ingick i Stoltenberg-rekommendationerna år 2009, så kan man se det som ett naturligt led i intensifierat nordiskt säkerhetssamarbete.
Abstract in English:The Canary That Fell Silent. Finland's Gestalt Shift on Chinese InvestmentsFor a mixture of historical, economic and security policy reasons Finland can be regarded as a least likely case with regard to apprehensiveness over Chinese investments. Within the EU, Finland has had the highest relative trade dependence on China. Since 2016, Finland is also one of the EU member states that have attracted the most Chinese investment in absolute terms. Finland, which is not a NATO member, has unproblematic relations with China and an open economy that up until a few years ago welcomed Chinese investments. The country also has an unusually long unbroken tradition of domestic legislation regarding foreign investments, which since 1992 can be characterised as liberal. However, during the last two years, there has been a drastic change in views on Chinese investments, both among the policy elite and in the public debate. This change can be regarded as a veritable gestalt shift. As a corollary, a need for a better overview of Chinese investments has been identified. Information exchange and coordination between various governmental departments has been improved in several ways. Simultaneously, cooperation and information exchange between relevant Nordic authorities regarding relevant legislation and praxis has also deepened. Although the 2009 Stoltenberg recommendations did not encompass cooperation on foreign investments, this can be seen as a natural leg in intensified Nordic security cooperation.

The region of Southeast Asia is faced with a complex set of challenges stemming from political, economic and religious developments at the national, regional and global level. This paper sets out to examine trade-, foreign- and security policy implications of the issues confronting the region. In ASEAN, the Southeast Asian countries are continuing their ambitious attempts at further integration. Plans outlining deeper security and economic communities have been adopted. However, huge differences in political systems, economic development and ethnic/religious structures are hampering prospects of closer cooperation. The highly controversial conflict case of Burma/Myanmar is testing the much adhered-to principle of non-interference and at the same time complicating relations with external powers. Among these, the United States and China are dramatically strengthening their interests in the region. American influence is not least manifesting itself in light of the war against terrorism, which the region is adapting to in different ways and at different speeds. By contrast, the European Union does not seem to answer Southeast Asian calls for further engagement. A flurry of bilateral and regional trade agreements is another prominent feature of the economic landscape of the region. This is to a certain degree a reflex ion of impatience with trade liberalization in the WTO and within ASEAN itself. Structures of economic cooperation are under rapid alteration in Southeast Asia. The paper analyses the above-mentioned developments with a view to assessing the prospects of future stability, economic development and integration in and among ASEAN countries. It is concluded that although the scope for increased economic benefit and political harmonization through ASEAN integration alone is limited, the organization could still prove useful as a common regional point of reference in tackling more important policy determinants at national and global level.

Bærekraftsmålene har gitt klassiske spørsmål innenfor utviklingspolitikken ny relevans: Hvem skal betale for globale fellesgoder? Kan man bruke bistand til dette formålet, eller bør den reserveres for innsats i spesifikke fattige land? I denne artikkelen undersøker vi hvordan DAC-landene, som kollektiv og hver for seg, forholder seg til disse temaene. Vi finner at de sliter med å følge en konsistent linje. Vi mener norske myndigheter kan tjene på å konseptualisere internasjonale fellesgoder bedre. Da blir det for det første enklere å ha en prinsipiell holdning til finansieringen av dem. For det andre kan en slik forståelse gi grunnlag for en strategisk tilnærming til nye initiativer. Det er liten grunn til å tro at man vil ha mye større budsjetter til rådighet fremover. Teorien viser dessuten at man må forvente at det er optimalt å bruke skreddersøm for å fremskaffe ulike fellesgoder. Det krever detaljkunnskap. Vi trenger større forståelse av hvordan eksisterende multilaterale organisasjoner og mekanismer som håndterer både bistand og globale fellesgoder virker. Vi trenger dessuten mer innsikt i hvordan dagens multilaterale system fungerer på ulike felt. Norge kan og bør bidra til det globale fellesgodet som denne typen kunnskap utgjør.
Abstract in EnglishBetween Politics and Statistics: Global Collective Goods and Development PolicyThe adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals has revived some classical issues in development policy: Who should pay for global collective goods? Can foreign aid be used for this purpose, or should such financing be reserved for efforts in specific poor countries? In this article we investigate how the members of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, collectively as well as individually, approach these questions. We find that they struggle to be consistent. In our opinion, the Norwegian government could gain from developing a better conceptualisation of global collective goods. This will first of all make it easier to have a consistent policy with respect to financing them. Secondly, such a conceptualisation will allow for a more strategic approach to new initiatives. Going forward, aid budgets are unlikely to grow much. Moreover, theory demonstrates that it is in general optimal to tailor the provision of different collective goods to the peculiarities of each case. This implies that expertise is essential. We need a better understanding of the functioning of existing multilateral organisations and mechanisms that manage both aid and global collective goods. In addition, more knowledge about the workings of the current multilateral system in different fields is required. Such knowledge is a global collective good and Norway could and should contribute to its provision.