‘Brothers in arms’. Kinship, gender and military organizations
Kinship arguably is a particularly useful concept for studying the social structures, relations and culture of military organizations, both in exceptional situations and during ordinary service. Kinship helps us identify and understand how masculine values and fellowship among male soldiers are embedded in practice (e.g. rules, codes, rituals, communities) as well as in discourse (e.g. specific gendered lingo). When taking into account the male dominance in military organizations over time and the share numbers of male soldiers, compared to female soldiers, gender gaps are likely. Both conditions also help explain why government efforts in many countries aimed at improving the gender balance and creating equal opportunities for women in military organizations have met a lot of obstacles. Introducing kinship, this chapter seeks to identify how kinship as a social category of identity may represent the social glue that keeps military organizations together, as well as the exclusion mechanisms kinship entails through discourse and practice.
Managing a Digital Revolution - Cyber Security Capacity Building in Myanmar
Digitalization is exposing developing countries to a growing number of risks, as well as opportunities associated with connecting to the Internet. Myanmar stands out as a critical case of both the pitfalls and the benefits Internet connection can bring. Amidst a political transition from military rule to a functioning democracy Myanmar is adding ICT to key areas like banking and e-government. Having been one of the least connected countries in the world only five years ago the country is now connecting to the Internet at an unprecedented pace, with little or no institutions in place to ensure the transition goes smoothly. Using the framework of Cyber Security Capacity Building (CCB) we examine the risks and potential benefits of Myanmar’s embracement of digital technologies.
Korleis førebur Russland seg på eit maktskifte?
I samsvar med grunnloven er dette Putins siste presidentperiode. Korleis førebur det russiske politiske systemet seg på eit maktskifte?
From Liberal Peacebuilding to Stabilization and Counterterrorism
Since the end of the Cold War, international interventions have increasingly been deployed to deal with internal conflict. Liberal peacebuilding has been a guiding concept for many of these interventions, in particular those deployed by the UN. This article argues that liberal peacebuilding is waning in importance, both as a guiding concept and in practice. After long engagements in Afghanistan and the enduring effects of the financial crisis, Western states are shifting their strategy from liberal peacebuilding to stabilization and counterterrorism. In Africa, regional ad hoc coalitions set up to fight terrorists and other armed groups are on the rise, and progressively included in UN peacekeeping operations. To examine these shifts more closely, the article focuses on the crisis in Mali since 2012 and the growing Western security presence in neighbouring Niger. The article concludes that the turn from liberal peacebuilding to stabilization and counterterrorism is likely to be counterproductive, as it will lead to more oppressive governments and more disillusioned people joining the ranks of opposition and terrorist groups, as well as undermine the UN in general and UN peace operations in particular.
Tre grunner til at Norge bør med i FNs sikkerhetsråd
Norge har meldt seg på i kampen om en plass i FNs Sikkerhetsråd i 2021-2022. Kronikken presenterer 3 grunner til at Norge bør med i Sikkerhetsrådet.
The Function of Myths in International Relations: Discipline and Identity
Myths, understood as forms of narrative, providing meaning and significance, are an inescapable part of the life of human collectives. Thus, myths are central to any academic discipline. They tell us who we are and what we should be concerned with, and provide blueprints for arguments about policy choices. However, they also constrain our thinking and limit our choices. Although mythic thinking might be inescapable, it is nevertheless necessary to critically engage the central myths of any discipline, to denaturalise what is taken for granted. In this chapter, we tackle three central sets of myths in IR. The first two form the backbone of the discipline; the ontological myth of 1648 and the epistemological myth of 1919. Together they tell the story of a discipline which is concerned with states in an anarchical system, which grew out of the desire to end war and which is steadily progressing towards a more realistic representation of the object of study. Our final set of myths are the praxeological ones, the myths where academic commonplaces shade into policy-prescriptions. We end by cautioning against reading all historical misrepresentation as myth-making, and against the belief that we can create a myth-free discipline.