Researcher
Karsten Friis
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Dr. Karsten Friis is a Research Professor in NUPIs Research group on security and defence.
His research area is security and defense policies in Europe, with an emphasis on NATO, the Nordic region, the Arctic, transatlantic relations, intelligence, cyber security and the Western Balkans. He has published and led several major projects on these topics. Friis is also a frequently used commentator in the public discourse - not least in relation to Russia’s war against Ukraine.
Friis is a political scientist with a PhD from the University of Groningen, a Cand. Polit from the University of Oslo and an MSc from the London School of Economics. Friis has been associated with NUPI since 2007. Before that, he was a political adviser to the OSCE Mission to Serbia (2004 to 2007), the OSCE in Montenegro (2001) and in Kosovo (1999). Friis was also part of the EU's negotiating team for the referendum on independence in Montenegro in 2006. In addition, Friis has worked for several years in the Norwegian Armed Forces and served at NATO/KFOR in Kosovo.
Expertise
Education
2018 PhD, University of Groningen
1998 Cand Polit, Political Science, University of Oslo
1995 Master, International Relations, London School of Economics
Work Experience
2007- Senior Research Fellow/Senior Advisor/Advisor, NUPI
2004-2007 Political advisor for OSCE, Serbia/Montenegro
2001-2004 Advisor, the Norwegian Armed Forces
2000-2001 Political advisor, OSCE, Montenegro
1999-2000 Analyst/E-off, NATO/KFOR HQ, Kosovo
1999 OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersThe evolving security landscape of northern Europe
Speech about Nordic-Baltic security and defence challenges.
Tilbake til fortiden: Forsvarspolitikken og norsk identitet
Back to the Future: National Identity and the Norwegian Defence Policy The article argues that Norwegian defence policy to a large extent is shaped by Norwegian identity and Norwegian values. This strong link was particularly visible in the 1990’s, when we witnessed a large degree of continuation of the Norwegian defence posture, despite the radical changes in the security environment. Territorial defence remained a key priority. When a new paradigm eventually emerged around the tun of the century – with primary focus on international operations – much of the old elements were nonetheless retained. Hence, when NATO returned to a focus on collective defence after 2014, Norway was more than ready for this change. In short, the defence concept that emerged around the millennium was short-lived and never really challenged the foundations the Norwegian Armed Forces rests on.
Militæraktivisme: Uklare definisjoner og politisk slagside
Military Activism: Vague Definitions and Political Lopsidedness A recent issue of Internasjonal Politikk had a Focus section dedicated to “military activism” in the Scandinavian context. Unfortunately, several of the contributions suffer from vague and partly politicized use of the term. Military activism appears to be applied analogous to international operations, thus failing to contribute with any new analytical insights. The section shows that military activism may be a fruitful term in the Danish context, but fails to demonstrate that this is a Scandinavian phenomenon.
Research group for Security and defence
Research group for Security and defence
Is America turning its back on Europe?
The close relations between North America and Europe faced some severe challenges during the Trump presidency.
Seven new research projects to NUPI
Analyzing Security Subregions: Forces of Push, Pull, and Resistance in Nordic Defense Cooperation
How can we best analyze security subregions? The most commonly used theory of regional security in the discipline of international relations, the regional security complex theory, focuses on large regions, such as Europe, Asia, or the Middle East. It pays less attention to smaller regions within these. This is unfortunate, because the security dynamics of these subregions often are a result of more than their place in the larger region. At the same time, the security of subregions cannot be reduced to a function of the policies of the states comprising them either. In short, security subregions are a level of analysis in their own right, with their own material, ideational, economic, and political dynamics. To capture and understand this, we need an analytical framework that can be applied to security regions irrespective of where and when in time they occur. The aim of this article is to offer such an analytical framework that helps us theorize the forces forging regional security cooperation, by combining external push and pull forces with internal forces of pull and resistance. The utility of the framework is illustrated through the case of Nordic security cooperation. It allows for a systematic mapping of the driving forces behind it and the negative forces resisting it. The Nordic region thus becomes a meeting point between global and national forces, pushing and pulling in different directions, with Nordic Defense Cooperation being formed in the squeeze between them.
A Governance and Risk Inventory for a Changing Arctic
In this chapter, Elana Wilson Rowe, Ulf Sverdrup, Karsten Friis, Geir Hønneland, and Mike Sfraga caution against viewing trends of conflict and cooperation in the Arctic in binary terms. While the US and Europe are determined to confront malign activity in the region, all sides continue to “demonstrate a commitment to cooperation and joint solutions to common challenges.” After reviewing the key factors and drivers supporting and challenging stability in the Arctic, the authors remind us that “cooperation in conflict” has long been the norm in the region, allowing cooperative governance to progress despite the enduring NATO-Russia military rivalry. Ongoing dialogue in the region – essential for addressing the regional and global implications of climate change – is poorly served by focussing on “narratives or practices of strategic competition alone.” To avoid “political tipping points” beyond which cooperation will become too difficult, the authors call on policymakers to be more proactive in how they address emerging governance challenges related to security and economic development.