Researcher
Kari M. Osland
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Kari Margrethe Osland (PhD) is the Director of NUPI.
Osland’s work has predominantly focused on conflict dynamics, insurgencies, peace operations and peace building. Osland wrote her PhD on the impact of international assistance to police reform in post-conflict countries, comparing Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia and South Sudan. She wrote her MPhil on genocide, applying the securitization theory on the cases of Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
She has done consultancy work for the UN, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and for the Norwegian Police Directorate, in particular on international policing, rule of law and Security Sector Reform. She has field work experience from the Balkans (30+), Afghanistan (2) and a number of African countries (Niger, South Sudan, Sudan).
Expertise
Education
2014 PhD, Political Science, University of Oslo
2000 Cand. polit., (political science and social anthroplogy), University of Bergen
Work Experience
2023- Director, NUPI
2014-2023 Senior Research Fellow, NUPI
2014-2020 Head of the Research group for peace, conflict and development, NUPI
2008-2014 PhD candidate (incl. 33 months of maternity leave)
2004-2008 Research Fellow, UN Programme/Department of International Affairs, NUPI
2001-2002 Coordinator for the Nordic research group on Peace Support Operations
2000-2004 Researcher & head of UN Programme, Department of International Politics, NUPI
1998-2000 Coordinator and scientific assistant, UN Programme, NUPI
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersWorking Paper on a comparison of ‘enabling environments’, drivers and occurrence/nonoccurrence of violent extremism in the Balkans and the MENA region
The following working paper presents a cross-sectional and cross-regional comparison of the findings by PREVEX project partners across their three respective regional domains: the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the Balkans, and the Maghreb-Sahel, as stemming from their studies into the question of the occurrence and non-occurrence of violent extremism (VE). PREVEX deals with both ethno-nationalist and Islamic violent extremism (IVE).
Policy brief summarising the lessons learned from assessing the EU’s measures to prevent violent extremism in a comparative perspective
Elapsing 30 months into the PREVEX consortium’s work, synchronizing results from both PREVEX-generated and external research outputs, this policy brief presents three key lessons from the analysis of the EU’s measures to prevent violent extremism (PVE) across its three regional focal areas: MENA, Maghreb/ Sahel and the Balkans. It then teases out three policy recommendations emanating from these lessons. While lesson #1 speaks to the broader framework of the EU’s PVE efforts, lessons #2 & #3 are more specifically geared toward the regions under PREVEX’ scrutiny: The Balkans (#2) and MENA and Maghreb/Sahel (#3).
How can the EU promote democracy in Eastern Europe and Western Balkans in a time of war?
Human Rights Violations in the Taliban’s Afghanistan
HRRL presents the report "Revenge Killings and Other Serious Human Rights Violations in Afghanistan in the Aftermath of the Taliban’s Seizure of Power." The findings will be discussed by Afghanistan experts such as Richard Bennett, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Afghanistan, and HRW researcher Fereshta Abbasi.
Kari M. Osland is NUPI's new Director
The Sahel - fragile states and violent entrepreneurs
The Sahel has recently gotten attention from the international community because of the many challenges this realm faces. This webinar marks the end of a three-year long project that has taken a closer look at the Sahel.
Securitisation of the EU approach to the Western Balkans: from conflict transformation to crisis management.
This chapter analyses the EU’s crisis response in the Western Balkans through the lens of EULEX. By exploring how those immediately responsible for mandate execution and those directly affected by its outcomes perceive EULEX, we discover gaps that highlight the pitfalls of direct and ingrained political interference in the mission’s work. While EULEX has been seen as an important watchdog for preventing further human rights abuses, the EU’s approach to Kosovo and the region continues to be characterised by competing priorities: the EU’s broader political objectives impact the mission’s legal work and hamper the EU in achieving a coherent and impactful rule of law policy. In turn, this decreases the local populations’ trust and approval of EULEX and ultimately undermines the EU’s overall goals of promoting good governance and a European perspective for Kosovo. This tension highlights the incompatibility of the EU’s short-term focus on crisis management and the more longterm focus on crisis transformation. We see this as particularly problematic for an actor whose self-image as a ‘normative power’, is underpinned by an assumption that its influence in the world in gained through ‘the power of ideas’.
Strengthening Fragile States through Taxation (FRAGTAX)
How is the political authority to tax established, exercised and maintained over time? State-building requires predictable income. Without a domestic revenue base, even core activities states are expe...
UN peace operations in a multipolar order: Building peace through the rule of law and bottom-up approaches
UN peace operations need a new peacebuilding agenda that acknowledges both the transboundary nature of conflict drivers and the multipolar nature of the global order. This means casting aside the current stabilization approach, but also abandoning the pursuit of liberal peacebuilding of the unipolar era. Such a conflict transformation agenda would require UN peace operations to prioritize the rule of law and bottom-up approaches, thus creating the potential to be embraced by a much broader range of member states. In this article, we bring liberal peacebuilding critiques into a discussion with debates on the nature of the global order. Liberal peacebuilding critiques are rooted in the bottom-up problematization of international interventions and show what kind of peacebuilding is desirable. Conversely, the debates on the multipolar nature of the global order expose the top-down constraints as to what kind of peacebuilding is feasible.