Suchergebnisse

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.

The aim of this study is trying to interpret the crisis of legitimacy which faced the political system in Libya after the events of 2011, including the multiple legislative and executive bodies, based on specified theoretical perception is Crisis Theory for Jürgen Habermas, which he is trying to linking between the political system has legitimacy and its ability to overcome the different crises and challenges that faced, is a reliable perception in the case of Libya, in particular, every political party in the Libyan scene is consider himself the legal and legitimate representatives of the Libyan community, in light of political division and multiple parliamentary bodies and executive Governments in the country,the researcher adopted in this trying to analytical reading emphasize on specific points in many official and non-official studies and reports on the Libyan situation, study found that all successive political parties that topped the Libyan political scene form 2011, had failed to counter the various challenges whether security or constitutional, and were unable to manage the different crisis suffered by the Libyan citizen, specially economic, living and service, this place it in a real crisis of legitimacy at the level of society as a whole, in light of decrease what they have done in the past and what they can do in the future under the current situation, which contributed in create a case of distrust among the citizens in their programs and plans and lost motivation to participate in the various activities that they supervise on the one hand, and in increasing cases of disrespect for laws and decisions that represent their authority on the other hand,this leads us to say that the political system in Libya after the events of 2011, is faces a national crisis of legitimacy, accompanied by crises in motivation and non-normality, according to Habermas societal crisis theory, this is reflected in our reading of studies and reports that have been exposed to the Libyan crisis.

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.

Selv om det kan hevdes at de ulike elementene som utgjør cyberoperasjoner – undergraving, sabotasje, manipulering, tyveri og desinformasjon – ikke er noe nytt, sprer de seg i dag med en hastighet og i et omfang som er uten historisk sidestykke. Cybersikkerhet er tett sammenvevd med det 21. århundres politiske og militære konflikter. Som NATOs generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg påpeker, har de fleste konflikter og kriser i våre dager en cyberdimensjon, og det er vanskelig å forestille seg en militær konflikt i dag uten (Stoltenberg, 2016). Av denne grunn har såkalt cyberavskrekking blitt tema for en omfattende militær, politisk og akademisk debatt som kretser rundt et sett av viktige operasjonelle konsepter og overveielser. Et sentralt tema er hvorvidt det kan avskrekkes i cyberspace, gitt attribusjons utfordringene som preger etterdønningene av et cyberangrep. Denne artikkelen stiller spørsmål ved om «cyberavskrekking» er mulig og hensiktsmessig, og drøfter nye mulige måter å tenke rundt avskrekking i cyberspace på.
Abstract in English
Cybersecurity is deeply intertwined with every aspect of today's political and military conflict. In conjunction with the growing acceptance of cyberspace as a military domain, so called "cyber deterrence" has become the subject of extensive military, political and academic debates. Revolving around a set of important strategic and operational concepts the debates are questioning whether deterrence can be achieved in cyberspace. In line with current debates, this article examines if "cyber deterrence" is possible, appropriate, and desirable, yet extends the debate by including new possible ways to think about deterrence and defense in cyberspace. By drawing attention to cyberspace's idiosyncrasies while questioning the orthodoxy of deterrence as a concept, a reconceptualization of "cyber deterrence" that focuses on cyberspace itself is argued for, one which incorporates new outlooks and ideas, some of which may challenge the established boundaries of deterrence theory.