Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

Norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk har ligget ganske fast frem til i dag. På 2020-tallet, i det avgjørende tiåret for klimapolitikken, blir imidlertid den norske linjen utfordret. Det skyldes at en nasjonal forutsetning som hittil har vært Norges fremste styrke, nemlig det fornybare kraftsystemet, ikke lenger opplagt kan ivareta den samme funksjonen i norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk. Det fornybare kraftsystemet og en aktiv utenrikspolitikk for fleksible ordninger i internasjonalt klimasamarbeid har ivaretatt den norske legitimiteten. Fremover vil derimot kravene til hva klimapolitikken skal levere skjerpes kraftig, når elektrifisering og industriell omstilling skal bidra til å nå klimamålene. En energiomstilling som svarer til ambisjonsnivået i klimapolitikken, vil bety at klima-utenrikspolitikken må balansere flere hensyn enn tidligere. Ingenting ved klimapolitikken er lenger kun innenrikspolitikk.
Nordsjøen står overfor en storstilt havvindutbygging. Uavhengig av hva Norge gjør vil europeisk havvindsutbygging dreie Europa i retning av økt gjensidig avhengighet, både fysisk i form av grenseoverskridende infrastruktur, og regulatorisk, gjennom felles regler for salg av kraft over landegrenser. Jo mer omfattende det grønne skiftet blir, jo tydeligere blir det at norsk og europeisk energiomstilling henger sammen, og at denne gjensidig avhengige energiomstillingen er av de aller viktigste komponentene i Norge og andre staters klimapolitikk. Denne omstillingen trigger imidlertid sterke suverenitetsimpulser i mange norske politiske partier. En storstilt norsk havvindutbygging reiser kontroversielle spørsmål om finansiering, ilandføring og kabelforbindelser, som alle med betydelig sannsynlighet åpner for vanskelige politiske dragkamper. Energiomstilling er nå en helt nødvendig del av en videreutviklet norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk. Det innebærer en utenrikspolitikk som utfordrer norsk suverenitet i langt større grad enn tidligere. Det beveger norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk potensielt fra kontinuitet og konsensus til uenighet og strid.
Abstract in English:Power Shortage on the Horizon: Norwegian Climate Foreign Policy from Consensus to Conflict?Until recently, Norwegian climate foreign policy has been relatively consensual. In the 2020s – the decisive decade for climate politics – the Norwegian stance is however being challenged. This is because a national precondition that until now has been Norway's foremost strength, i.e., the renewable power system, can no longer uphold the same function in Norwegian climate foreign policy. The renewable power system and an active foreign policy emphasizing flexible mechanisms in international climate cooperation have preserved the legitimacy of Norwegian climate policies. However, in the future, climate policies will face dramatically sharpened demands, as reaching the climate goals will now also depend on electrification and industrial change. An energy transition that corresponds to the upgraded climate policy ambitions implies a climate foreign policy that needs to balance more concerns than in the past. There is now no element of climate policy that is domestic politics only.
The North Sea is facing a major offshore wind power expansion. Irrespective of what Norway decides, a European offshore expansion will move Europe towards greater mutual interdependence, both physically in terms of border-crossing infrastructure, and regulatory, through common rules and regulations for the sale of power across national borders. The more extensive the green energy transition becomes, the more obvious it is that Norwegian and European energy transitions are connected, and that this mutually interdependent energy transition constitutes one of the most important components of the climate policies of Norway and other states. This transition, however, triggers strong sovereignty impulses in many Norwegian political parties. A major Norwegian offshore wind power expansion raises controversial questions about financing, how and where to connect the wind parks to the grid, and subsea cable connections. There is a considerable likelihood that Norwegian offshore wind policy will be characterized by major political tugs-of-war. Energy transition is now a completely necessary part of the development of Norwegian climate foreign policy. This implies a foreign policy that challenges Norwegian sovereignty to a far greater extent than before, which potentially moves Norwegian climate foreign policy from continuity and consensus to disagreement and strife.

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.

Fremstilling av utenrikspolitiske beslutningstakeres psykologi støter på utfordringer. I denne artikkelen argumenteres det for at analyser av politisk psykologi kan komplettere studiet av utenrikspolitikk, både ved å avdekke nye, kausalt betydningsfulle variabler og ved at tilgjengelige fremstillinger av årsakssammenhenger får høyere oppløsning. Gjennom en avgrenset analyse av hvordan konformisme internt i Bush-administrasjonen i kjølvannet av terrorangrepene 11. september 2001 bidro til mangelfull tanke- og meningsutveksling, tilbyr artikkelen en praktisk illustrasjon av dette synspunktet. Illustrasjonen ledsages av prinsipielle argumenter.
Abstract in EnglishPolitical Psychology and the Study of International PoliticsOutlining the mental life of foreign policy decision makers is fraught with challenges. In this article, it is argued that studies of political psychology may supplement foreign policy analysis by revealing undetected causal variables and by giving available interpretations improved micro-level accuracy. The methodological viability of the presented arguments is illustrated through a confined examination of how the psychological mechanism of conformism contributed to deficient sharing of views among members of the Bush-administration in the wake of 9/11. The illustration is backed by principal arguments.

Med fem ulike bidrag fra norske samfunnsforskere setter dette fokusnummeret søkelys på norsk klima- og utenrikspolitikk. Bidragene i fokusnummeret viser at det har skjedd en vesentlig sammenkobling av politikkområder som tidligere har vært atskilt, og at klimapolitikken spiller en stadig større rolle i andre politikkområder, slik som utenriks-, handels- og kraftpolitikken. I tillegg kommer det frem at det internasjonale klimaregimet, til tross for nær universell ratifisering av Parisavtalen, stadig fragmenteres. Norge har reagert på dette med å knytte seg stadig tettere til EU, både når det gjelder klima- og kraftpolitikk. Videre påpeker fokusnummeret at internasjonale omdømmekostnader og økende global etterspørsel etter fornybar energi øker presset på en rask grønn omstilling, også innenlands. I sum fremstår Norges ambisjon om å være en global klimaforkjemper som stadig mer uforenelig med rollen som storskala produsent av olje og gass.
Abstract in English:Norwegian Climate and Foreign Policy: Is the Ambition to Be a Global Climate Leader Compatible with Norway's Role as an Oil Producer?The five contributions in this special issue all focus on various aspects of Norwegian climate and foreign policy. The special issue highlights the interconnectedness of policy areas that previously have been separate in showing how climate policy plays an increasing role in other policy domains, such as foreign, trade and energy politics. Even if the Paris Agreement enjoys near universal ratification, the international climate regime is becoming increasingly fragmented. As a result, Norwegian climate policy is becoming increasingly integrated with the EU in both climate and energy regulation. Moreover, the special issue highlights how international reputational costs and increasing future demand for renewable energy are putting additional pressure on a rapid green transition, also domestically. Taken together, Norway's ambition to be a global climate leader appears more and more incompatible with its role as a large producer of oil and gas.

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.

Aktivisme bruges hyppigt blandt forskere og praktikere som en "overordnet etikette på dansk udenrigspolitik" (Pedersen & Ringsmose, 2017, s. 339). Der er ikke konsensus om, hvornår Danmark blev aktivistisk, eller om etiketten passer lige godt på alle områder af udenrigspolitikken. Ikke desto mindre er der bred enighed om, at Danmarks militære engagement i de seneste årtier, herunder særligt deltagelsen i Irak- og Afghanistan-krigene, udgør et højdepunkt i dansk aktivisme. Vores analyse diskuterer og nuancerer denne karakteristik ved at formulere en alternativ forståelse af politisk aktivisme inspireret af Hannah Arendts politiske teori. Med vores konceptualisering gentænker vi centrale begreber i litteraturen – initiativ, risiko og deltagelse – og sondrer mellem militært engagement og egentlig politisk aktivisme. Ud fra denne begrebslige ramme genbesøger vi Danmarks krigsdeltagelse i 2000'erne. Vi argumenterer for, at dansk udenrigspolitik, selv hvad angår krigsdeltagelsen, har været reaktiv, risikoavers og med begrænset folkelig forankring og derfor mindre aktivistisk, end litteraturen hidtil har antaget. Ved at fjerne den aktivistiske etikette forsøger vi at rejse nye spørgsmål om, hvad udenrigspolitisk aktivisme fremadrettet kan og bør være.
Abstract in English:Military Activism Without Political Action? Towards a New Conception of Activism in Danish Foreign and Security Policy Inspired by Hannah ArendtActivism is frequently used by researchers and practitioners alike as "a general label on Danish foreign policy" (Pedersen & Ringsmose, 2017, p. 339, authors' translation). There is no consensus as to when Denmark became activist or if the label is equally fitting to all foreign policy issue areas. However, there is broad agreement that the military engagements in recent decades, particularly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, constitute a high point in Danish activism. Our analysis challenges and nuances this characterization by exploring an alternative understanding of political activism inspired by Hannah Arendt's political theory. Our alternative concept of activism revisits the central elements of activism; initiative, risk and participation, and distinguishes between military engagement and political activism. Drawing on this conceptual framework, we revisit Denmark's war engagements focusing on Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s. We argue that from a political perspective even Denmark's war engagements have been reactive, risk averse, and with limited popular anchorage, and are therefore, less activist than hitherto argued. By tearing off the activist label we aim to revitalize the discussion about what Danish Foreign and Security policy can and should be at a time when such questions have rarely had more relevance.

Iver Neumann has been one of the most productive and visible foreign policy and IR scholars of his generation. He has had great influence both internationally and at NUPI. He has, however, not become a prophet in his own country. Norway's political science community has expressed little interest in the three traditions that have been the lasting anchor points in Neumann's works: the English School, the German tradition of critical theory and French post-modernism. This article suggests that Norwegian political studies have expressed a lack of curiosity – if not an active skepticism – towards political theory in general and continental approaches in particular. The errand here is not to wonder why. Rather, it is to provide the briefest of glimpses into some of the perspectives that lie outside the Anglo-American, methodological mainstream of Norwegian political science.

Tre tiår etter det ble etablert, står Barentssamarbeidet overfor en politisk kontekst preget av økende spenning og et Russland i krig. Ved starten i 1993 signaliserte det en ny politisk linje i Arktis, Nordområdene og norsk Russland-politikk. I et område som utgjorde Vestens nordligste grense mot Sovjetunionen under den kalde krigen og der militariseringen var sterk, skisserte Norge sammen med Finland, Sverige og Russland et felles utenrikspolitisk engasjement der fred og stabilitet stod øverst på agendaen. Utviklingen bidro til nye internasjonale roller og aktiviteter for regionale og lokale aktører. I denne artikkelen har vi deres erfaringer i fokus når vi undersøker legitimeringspraksiser. Vi spør: Hvordan har legitimeringen av Barentssamarbeidet blitt påvirket av endringer i det sikkerhetspolitiske klimaet? Ved å fremheve lokale aktører i Barentssamarbeidet tar vi et steg inn i et utenrikspolitisk felt preget av politiske spenninger, ulike argumenter og et mangfold av meninger. Vi har en diskursanalytisk og praksisorientert tilnærming når vi identifiserer tre legitimeringsdiskurser: en geopolitisk oppdatert legitimering, en motvekt til dominerende representasjon av Russland, og en representasjon av aktøregenskapene til Barentssamarbeidet i lys av framtidig norsk-russiske relasjoner.
Abstract in EnglishThe Barents Cooperation Amid Geopolitical Tensions: A Discourse Analysis of Norwegian ExperiencesBack in 1993 the formalization of the Barents-cooperation signaled a new political approach in the Arctic region, High North, and Norwegian Russia-policy. In the area where militarization was strong and which formed the Wests northernmost border with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Norway, together with Finland, Sweden and Russia, outlined a joint foreign policy engagement where peace and stability were at the top of the agenda. Today, almost 30 years later, the Barents-cooperation is surrounded by growing geopolitical tension – especially highlighted in the period after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. In this article we try to answer the question: What is the Barents-cooperation in the context of today's international political situation? By emphasizing the voices of the actors in the cooperation, as this article does, we take a step into a field characterized by political tensions, by arguments, and a diversity of opinions within the Norwegian foreign policy field. Based on interviews with actors from the Barents-cooperation, the article presents three different discourses: a geopolitically updated legitimization; a counterweight to the dominant representation of Russia; and a representation of the agency of the Barents-cooperation in light of future Norwegian-Russian relations.