Researcher
Ole Jacob Sending
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Ole Jacob Sending is Research Professor in the Research group for global order and diplomacy at NUPI.
Sending does research on global governance, with a particular focus on the role of international and non-governmental organizations in peacebuilding, humanitarian relief, and development. His publications have appeared, inter alia, in International Studies Quarterly, European Journal of International Relations, and International Theory.
Expertise
Education
2004 Dr. Polit., Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen
1998 Master of Science, Political Science. Department of Political Science, SUNY, Albany, New York
1997 Cand. Mag., University of Bergen, Norway. (Economics, Political Science, Sociology)
Work Experience
2023- Research Professor, NUPI
2012-2023 Research Director, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI)
2008-2009 Visiting Scholar, Fulbright Scholarship, Dept. of Sociology, UC Berkeley
2008- Senior Researcher, NUPI
2008-2014 Adjunct Senior Researcher, Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen
2006-2008 Senior Adviser, Policy Analysis Unit, Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
2003- Senior Researcher, NUPI
2002 Visiting Research Fellow, Stanford University (SCANCOR)
1999-2003 Research Fellow, NUPI, PhD Student, University of Bergen
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filters
The pulling power of Paris: Unpacking the role of ‘pledge & review’ in climate governance (PullP)
Will the Paris Agreement deliver on its promise and will the international community be able to avoid dangerous climate change? This project analyses the role of the governance architecture of the Par...
Norges klimaomdømme på Twitter
In this article we explore whether oil and gas industry negatively affects Norway’s climate reputation by analyzing tweets posted during the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow. To make our findings more reliable, we compare tweets about Norway with tweets about Sweden. The results of our study reveal that there is no significant difference in negative sentiment between tweets about Norway compared with tweets about Sweden. However, we find that tweets about the two states differ thematically. While dominant topics in tweets mentioning Sweden are about promotion of the green transition and climate activism, tweets about Norway are mostly about climate financing and the need to phase out fossil fuel production. Furthermore, negative tweets about Sweden are of a more general nature, similar to criticism of all countries not meeting their climate goals, while negative tweets about Norway are specific and related to fossil fuel industry.
Chinese Anger Diplomacy (ANGER)
Do liberal-democratic states yield to public criticism by China? ANGER approaches this question by focusing on China's use of "anger diplomacy" - public, vehement displays at the state ...
Afterword: International Organizations and Technologies of Statehood
The afterword discusses the contributions to the symposium by drawing links to cognate fields such as international relations, international law, and organisational studies. It reflects on the many insightful observations and arguments in the different contributions, and points to areas for future research, but also to areas where more extensive engagement with cognate fields may have been warranted.
Performing Statehood through Crises: Citizens, Strangers, Territory
This article applies the growing International Relations literature on state performance and performativity to the question of how practitioners categorize different kinds of crises. The aim is to add value to the crisis literature by paying more attention to how performances are staged for multiple audiences, how statehood is produced as a collective (as opposed to an individual) body, and how and why one and the same state actor performs statehood in different ways. Drawing on interviews and participant observation, we discuss how one state apparatus, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), performs statehood during different types of crisis. The MFA has institutionalized crisis management in three very different ways, depending on whether it defines the crisis as a security crisis, a humanitarian crisis, or a civilian crisis. Different crises have different audiences, are performed in different repertoires, and produce three different aspects of the state that we name, respectively, caretaking, do-gooding, and sovereignty. Bringing the performativity literature to the study of crises gives us a better understanding of the statecraft that goes into using crises as opportunities to make visible and strengthen the state as a presence in national and global social life. Conversely, our focus on the specificity of various state performances highlights how the performance literature stands to gain from differentiating more clearly between the straightforward performing of practices, on the one hand, and the performing of state identity by means of the same practices, on the other.
Why the Nordic states maintain differentiated foreign policies
Nordic governments frequently broadcast their ambition to do more together on the international stage. In this blog post, Kristin Haugevik and Ole Jacob Sending explain why we still shouldn’t expect to see any profound increase in joint Nordic foreign policy positions and actions – and especially not when it comes to relations with greater powers.
EUs grønne giv – implikasjoner for norsk europapolitikk
EU lanserte mot slutten av 2019 European Green Deal. Dette er en klimastrategi for å nå målene i Parisavtalen, men også en økonomisk vekststrategi, og forventes å definere EUs sentrale prioriteringer i årene fremover. Hvordan vil dette påvirke Norge, og norsk europapolitikk? En ny NUPI-rapport, forsøker å gi svar. Norge er tett koblet til EU via EØS avtalen og en lang rekke andre avtaler, herunder Klimaavtalen som definerer rammene for norsk klimapolitikk frem mot 2030. Når EU endrer sine mål og sin virkemåte, så vil dette også påvirke Norge i stor grad. Noen sentrale observasjoner i rapporten er at: • Det er en spenning i Norge mellom energipolitikken i form av fortsatt olje- og gassproduksjon, på den ene siden, og ambisiøse klimamål, på den andre. EUs grønne giv løfter klimapolitikken til politikkens elitedivisjon og kan gjøre det mer krevende å håndtere denne spenningen. Tradisjonelle allierte i EU - som Sverige og Danmark - har f.eks et annet syn på gass som del av løsningen enn det Norge har. • Grønn Giv innebærer at EU utvikler nye regler med potensielt stor betydning for Norge, men det forvaltningsmessige oppsettet for vurdering og håndtering av nye EU regler i Norge er ikke tilpasset en slik økning i volumet på nye regler. • Grønn giv er "sektorovergripende" og trekker EU Kommisjonen i retning av større integrasjon på tvers av ulike saksfelt. Norsk forvaltning er imidlertid definert av et sektor-prinsipp. Dette innebærer en betydelig økning av behovet for koordinering på tvers av ulike departementer og etater i Norge. • Fordi Norge står utenfor EU, har Norge størst mulighet til å påvirke innretting på nye regler og tiltak tidlig i prosessen, gjennom deltakelse i ekspertgrupper i en forberedende fase. Tempoet og omfanget av nye regler som nå utarbeides gjør dette arbeidet krevende. • Grønn giv innebærer en serie med endringer som potensielt griper inn i eksisterende konfliktlinjer i norsk politikk knyttet til EØS og suverenitetsavståelse. • Det er behov for økt kunnskap og dialog mellom forvaltningen, næringslivet, akademia og sivilt samfunn om hvilke muligheter og utfordringer EUs grønne giv innebærer. Et "grønn giv forum" kan være nyttig for å sikre at ulike norske aktører utnytter de muligheter som ligger i EUs grønne giv. • Grønn giv viser at EØS avtalen har sine begrensninger som det sentrale tilkoblingspunktet til EU. En mer institusjonalisert dialog på øverste politiske nivå mellom Norge og EU vil kunne bidra til å bøte på disse utfordringene. Rapporten er finansiert av Utenriksdepartementet.
Research group for Global Order and Diplomacy
Research group for Global Order and Diplomacy
Climate Change and Security in the Arctic
A new report by the Center for Climate and Security (CCS), an Institute of the Council on Strategic Risks (CSR), together with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), assesses the security risks posed by a warming climate in the Artcic. The analysis looks at two future warming scenarios (curbed and uncurbed) to project security threats alongside potential environmental changes deemed likely in the High North by 2030. The analysis identifies a number of key climate security risks across both warming scenarios, but notes that the risks are more severe and more likely in an “uncurbed” warming scenario. In a “curbed” scenario in which the world takes rapid action to curb climate change, including by transforming energy use, decarbonizing the global economy, and building international institutions to manage climate risks, the Arctic is likely to see fewer opportunities for severe security risks. The report recommends integrating this climate risk analysis into Arctic planning strategies into the coming years, and avoiding the uncurbed warming scenario. Specifically, the analysis highlights five key findings: 1) A warmer and increasingly navigable Arctic will lead to more commercial, civilian, and military activity, rendering the region more prone to accidents and misunderstandings between major players. 2) Increased commercial activity significantly expands the likelihood of states like Russia and China using civilian and commercial actors as vehicles for strategic positioning, dual-use data collection, and for gray zone operations which may escalate to direct confrontation. 3) The institutions that have helped depoliticize and produce stability in the Arctic for several decades may not have sufficient mandates and authorities, or be resilient enough to withstand new demands resulting from climate change. 4) To manage a more complex operating environment in the Arctic, with ever more state and non-state actors, governments will need an integrated toolbox that includes legal, economic, diplomatic, and military instruments. Robust mechanisms for cooperation and communication with civilian and commercial actors will be particularly useful. 5) States are likely to place higher demands on their military forces in the Arctic, particularly as regards to monitoring, assertions of sovereignty, search and rescue, and other Coast Guard duties given higher levels of overall activity in the region. New climatic realities may also reduce the constraints for force projection in the region. At the same time, over-reliance on military approaches in the region could risk escalating conflicts. To build resilience to the above threats, the report recommends that allied Arctic nations begin to advance the elaboration of a “Military Code of Conduct for Arctic Forces,” or other form of renewed dialogue among regional security actors, to address joint security risks.