Researcher
John Karlsrud
Contactinfo and files
Summary
John Karlsrud is a Research Professor in the Research group on peace, conflict and development, where he works on coalitions in international security, UN peacekeeping as well as issues related to change in global governance more broadly. He has published a number of books, articles and policy reports on these topics.
Karlsrud earned his PhD at the University of Warwick, and has been a Visiting Fulbright Fellow at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University and a visiting fellow at the European University Institute. He has worked in Bosnia and Hercegovina, Chad, Palestine (West Bank), Norway and USA, and conducted field research and shorter missions to Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Mozambique, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Ukraine.
Expertise
Education
2014 Senior Executive Course 13, Norwegian Defence University College, Aug-Nov 2014
2010-2014 Ph.D., Politics and Internationals Studies, University of Warwick. Title: Linked Ecologies and Norm Change in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations
2005 Master of Peace and Conflict Studies / International Affairs with Distinction Joint Master from Institute for Graduate Studies in International Affairs, Australian National University and the Peace Research Centre of Oslo
Work Experience
2020- Head of the Reserach group on peace, conflict and development
2015- External Associate, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick 2015 Fulbright Visiting Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, New York University
2012 Lecturer, IR Master
2010- Programme Manager and Senior Research Fellow at Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI)
2010- Senior Research Fellow, NUPI
2008-2010 Special Assistant to the Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG), United Nations Mission in Chad and the Central African Republic (MINURCAT), Chad
2006-2008 Policy and Strategy Analyst, Strategic and Regional Initiatives Unit (SRIU), Regional Bureau for Africa (RBA), UNDP New York HQ
2005-2006 Researcher and Assistant to the Managing Director, Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies (AIS)
2002-2003 Liaison and Operations Officer for NATO in Bosnia and Hercegovina (BiH), seconded by the Norwegian Army
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filters
G20 and emerging powers: What does the development mean for Norway?
Emerging powers are becoming increasingly important in international politics. What does this mean for organizations like the G20? And how can and should Norway respond to this development? NUPI is pleased to invite you to an open event with the participation of Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide at Sentralen in Oslo.
How should the EU navigate multilateral cooperation?
This special episode of The World Stage is the first of a series that will give insight to the research from the NUPI-led research project The EU...
Norske interesser og multilateralt samarbeid. Multimeldingen – fem år etter
The White Paper 'Norway’s role and interests in multilateral cooperation' (Report to the Storting No. 27 – 2018-2019) – hereafter called 'the Multilateral Report' – contains a thorough analysis of multilateral cooperation and Norwegian interests. It describes the various functions of multilateral cooperation, how disagreements between major powers affect such cooperation, and how this impacts Norwegian interests. The White Paper was submitted to the Storting in June 2019. By that time, Russia had already annexed Crimea, the U.S., under President Trump, had shown a more negative attitude towards multilateral cooperation, and China’s desire to influence multilateral cooperation was evident. At the same time, the report preceded the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent criticism from low- and middle-income countries of how Western nations handled the pandemic, as these countries did not have the same access to vaccines. And, not least: the report came before Russia’s 2022 attack on Ukraine, Hamas’ attack on Israel, and the ensuing war in Gaza. Although the rivalry between the U.S. and China was already increasing in 2019, five years later, it has a more defining character for international politics. The developments in recent years show even more clearly than before that the norm that international problems are best solved through multilateral cooperation has weakened. The Multilateral Report pointed to several causes for this, primarily increased rivalry and the preference of major powers for bilateral solutions, and how, for example, China has succeeded in influencing the interpretation of human rights in multilateral forums. In this report, we discuss how the analysis and conclusions of the White Paper hold up five years later. The short version is that they hold up well: the analysis of increased rivalry and the growing 'bilateralization' of international cooperation has proven to align more with the reality than one might wish. At the same time, we paint a somewhat more complex picture than what was described in the Multilateral Report, focusing on fragmentation and the emergence of a significant ecosystem of informal governance initiatives that supplement but also alter the nature of the multilateral system. We also discuss in some detail the importance of analyzing how the various functions of the multilateral system are affected by rivalry, bilateralization, and fragmentation. Such a discussion is relevant in order to assess which multilateral functions are most important for safeguarding Norwegian interests. For example, it is not a given that support for a multilateral organization is an effective measure to promote a 'rules-based' order. We conclude with a discussion on how Norway should relate to the fact that our interest in a rules-based order will not be the same if the content of the rules reflects less of the values they do today. The report focuses on changes in the multilateral system and does not analyze specific multilateral organizations. Rather, we use examples from various multilateral organizations to try to illustrate more general trends. For example, we do not have a specific analysis of NATO or the EU as multilateral organizations. Both can be characterized as multilateral since both have three or more members, but the distinctive nature of the EU and NATO reflects less the developments in multilateral organizations more generally.
How ad hoc coalitions deinstitutionalize international institutions
As ad hoc coalitions (AHCs) proliferate, particularly on the African continent, two questions crystallize. First, what consequences do they bring...
Assessing the Effectiveness of the United Nations Mission in Mali (MINUSMA)
Until 2016 MINUSMA managed to strengthen stability in northern Mali, decreasing the number of civilians killed in the conflict, and allowing large numbers of displaced persons to return home. MINUSMA also assisted the peace process, culminating in the 2015 Algiers Agreement. Many of these achievements are still standing. However, since 2016 MINUSMA’s effectiveness in terms of stabilisation and the protection of civilians has decreased. In the North, the signatory parties have been making slow progress in the implementation of the Algiers Agreement and the 2018 Pact for Peace. In addition, central Mali has destabilised significantly, as Jihadist activities have stoked a vicious cycle of inter-communal violence that has reached unprecedented levels. MINUSMA has only been mandated to help the Malian government address the situation since June 2018. As one of the largest multidimensional peacekeeping operations – currently including nearly 13,000 soldiers and 1,800 police officers from 57 contributing countries, and almost 750 civilians – MINUSMA has been provided with significant resources and an extraordinarily ambitious mandate. However, the Mission finds itself at a crossroads. It needs time to succeed, but this is valuable time Mali does not have. Civilians have come under increasing attack, and the US, in particular, is losing interest in supporting a costly UN peace operation that is not able to deliver quick results. This report considers the degree to which there is an alignment between the mission’s resources and its mandate. It also makes an assessment of the options available to the Mission to increase its effectiveness in the face of extremely challenging circumstances.
How Ad Hoc Coalitions Deinstitutionalize International Institutions
As ad hoc coalitions (AHCs) proliferate, particularly on the African continent, two questions crystallize. First, what consequences do they bring about for the existing institutional security landscape? And second, how can the trend of AHCs operating alongside instead of inside regional organizations be captured and explored conceptually? To answer these questions, we closely examine the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) fighting Boko Haram and its changing relationship to the African Union (AU). Through the case study and a review of policy and academic literatures, the article launches the concept of deinstitutionalization and how it can be characterized. We identify three features of deinstitutionalization – AHCs can bypass standard procedures for decision-making processes; whittle down established institutional scripts, and shift resource allocations. We detail how the AHCs contribute to changing practices of financing international peace and security operations, with an examination of EU and UN policies and practices. In sum, the paper unwraps the processes of deinstitutionalization and identifies three forms of rationales for this process – lack of problem-solving capacity, limited adaptability and path dependency.
Is liberal internationalism worth saving? Ad hoc coalitions and their consequences for international security
Slow responses and blocked decision-making of international organizations provide opportunities for ad hoc coalitions to fill functional and political gaps. Compared to UN peace operations, ad hoc coalitions avoid gridlock and high transaction costs, they are fast to set up, can be task and time specific, flexible and easily dissolved. However, they also have much lighter human rights and financial accountability frameworks, a patchy record of longer-term impact and can contribute to a more fragmented response to armed conflicts and threats to international peace and security.
UN Peacekeeping Operations in a Multipolar Era
How is multipolarity impacting on UN peacekeeping operations? This article sets out to answer this question by examining the ongoing decline in UN peacekeeping operations and the concurrent rise of regional and ad hoc coalitions in an era of increasing geopolitical competition. The article argues that coalitions have significantly less focus on human rights, international humanitarian law, and the protection of civilians. They thus represent a shift away from the liberal values that have marked UN peacekeeping operations, and are coherent with current geopolitical shifts where China is chipping away at human rights at the UN and African states are increasingly voicing a need for more robust operations. The article concludes that the likely outcome of these trends is a continued decline of UN multidimensional peacekeeping, but that coalitions may receive logistical and administrative support from the UN peace operations machinery.