Researcher
Kristin Haugevik
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Kristin Haugevik is Research Professor in the Research Group on Global Order and Diplomacy. She holds a PhD in political science from the University of Oslo (2014). An International Relations scholar, Haugevik’s research at NUPI revolves around international diplomacy, inter-state cooperation and friendship with a geographical focus on the Euro-Atlantic region and the foreign policies of Britain and the Nordic states. Her work has appeared in, inter alia, European Journal of International Relations, Cooperation and Conflict, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Journal of European Integration, Politics and Governance and Global Affairs. She is also the author of Special Relationships in World Politics: Inter-State Friendship and Diplomacy After the Second World War (Routledge, 2018).
Kristin is Editor in Chief of the journal Cooperation and Conflict, 2023-2027.
Recent academic publications:
- 2022: United clubs of Europe: Informal differentiation and the social ordering of intra-EU diplomacy. Cooperation and Conflict (Online First).
- 2021: Reputation Crisis Management and the State: Theorising Containment as Diplomatic Mode (w/Cecilie Basberg Neumann). European Journal of International Relations, 27 (3), 708-729.
- 2020: The Nordic Balance Revisited: Differentiation and the Foreign Policy Repertoires of the Nordic States (w/Ole Jacob Sending). Politics and Governance, 8 (4), 441-450.
- 2019: Kith, kin and inter-state relations: International politics as family life. In Haugevik, Kristin & Iver B. Neumann (Eds) Kinship in International Relations. Routledge.
- 2019: Kinship in International Relations: Introduction and framework. In Haugevik, Kristin & Iver B. Neumann (Eds) Kinship in International Relations. Routledge (w/ Iver B. Neumann & Jon Harald Sande Lie).
- 2018: Special Relationships in World Politics: Inter-State Friendship and Diplomacy After the Second World War (monograph). Routledge.
- 2018: Parental Child Abduction and the State: Identity, Diplomacy and the Duty of Care, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 13, 1-21.
- 2017: Diplomacy through the back door: Norway and the bilateral route to EU decision-making. Global Affairs, 3(3), 277-291.
- 2017: Autonomy or integration? Small-state responses to a changing European security landscape. Global Affairs, 3(3), 211-221 (w/Pernille Rieker).
Full publication list here.
Expertise
Education
2014 PhD, Political Science, University of Oslo
2005 MA, Political science, University of Oslo
Work Experience
2018-2022 Head, Global Order and Diplomacy, NUPI
2014- Senior Research Fellow, NUPI
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersResearch group for Global Order and Diplomacy
More alignment in Nordic states’ security and defence policies
How states manage international censure: Norway's response to criticism of its Child Welfare Services
When states are criticised, they normally recognise, reject or counter the critique. Yet they could listen to and contain criticism without directly rejecting or recognising it. Using criticism of Norway’s Child Welfare Services as an example, Kristin Haugevik and Cecilie Basberg Neumann show that diplomatic containment can prevent conflict accelerating and then damaging bilateral relations
Slik takler stater internasjonal kritikk (forskning.no)
When states and their leaders encounter international criticism, they normally employ one of three strategies: recognition, rejection or countering. Diplomats, however, often take a fourth approach, according to a new study by Senior Research Fellow Kristin Haugevik (NUPI) and Professor Cecilie B. Neumann (OsloMet).
Globale Storbritannia? Britisk utenrikspolitikk etter brexit
Lecture about Brexit and the implications for British, European and Norwegian foreign policy.
Reputation crisis management and the state: Theorising containment as diplomatic mode
This article theorises containment as a diplomatic response mode for states when faced with potentially harmful attacks on their international identity and reputation. Despite widespread agreement in International Relations (IR) scholarship that identities matter in the context of state security, studies of crisis management have paid little attention to ontological security crises. Scholarly literature on public diplomacy has concerned itself mainly with proactive nation branding and reputation building; work on stigma management has privileged the study of how ‘transgressive’ states respond to identity attacks by recognising, rejecting or countering criticism. Our contribution is two-fold. First, we make the case that states do not perform as uniform entities when faced with ontological security crises – government representatives, bureaucratic officials and diplomats have varying roles and action repertoires available to them. Second, we argue that containment is a key but undertheorised part of the diplomatic toolkit in crisis management. Unpacking containment as a crisis management response mode, we combine insights from IR scholarship on emotions and diplomacy with insights on therapeutic practices from social psychology. We substantiate our argument with a case study of how Norwegian government representatives, bureaucratic officials and diplomats responded to escalating international criticism against Norway’s Child Welfare Services following a wave of transnational protests in 2016. A key finding is that whereas the dominant response mode of government ministers and bureaucratic officials was to reject the criticism, diplomats mainly worked to contain the situation, trying to prevent it from escalating further and resulting in long-term damage to bilateral relations.
Podcast: Hva skjer med det sikkerhetspolitiske samarbeidet i Norden?
Hvordan har de nordiske landene samarbeidet om sikkerhetspolitikk i etterkrigstiden? Hvilke utfordringer og muligheter finnes for nordisk samarbeid fremover? Hvordan vil det nordiske samarbeidet endres i den kommende Forsvarskommisjonen?. Lytt til samtalen mellom: Kristin Haugevik, seniorforsker, Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt Håkon Lunde Saxi, førsteamanuensis, Forsvarets høgskole Hedda Langemyr, daglig leder, UTSYN Mette Vågnes Eriksen, generalsekretær, Polyteknisk Forening
The Future of Nordic Foreign and Security Cooperation
Introduction at the Hanating 2020 conference, focusing on three questions: Where do we need more Nordic foreign and security cooperation in the coming years? What are the limitations? How has Nordic cooperation been affected by recent international developments, including Covid-19 and changing great power dynamics?
The Nordic Balance Revisited: Differentiation and the Foreign Policy Repertoires of the Nordic States
Nordic governments frequently broadcast their ambition to do more together on the international stage. The five Nordic states (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway) also share many basic goals as foreign policy actors, including a steadfast and vocal commitment to safeguarding the ‘rules-based international order.’ Why then, do we not see more organized Nordic foreign policy collaboration, for example in the form of a joint ‘grand strategy’ on core foreign policy issues, or in relation to great powers and international organizations? In this article, we draw on Charles Tilly’s concept of ‘repertoires’ to address the discrepancy between ambitions and developments in Nordic foreign policy cooperation, highlighting how the bundles of policy instruments—repertoires—that each Nordic state has developed over time take on an identity-defining quality. We argue that the Nordic states have invested in and become attached to their foreign policy differences, niches, and ‘brands.’ On the international scene, and especially when interacting with significant other states, they tend not only to stick to what they know how to do and are accustomed to doing but also to promote their national rather than their Nordic profile. While Nordic cooperation forms part of all the five states’ foreign policy repertoire in specific policy areas, these are marginal compared to the distinctive repertoires on which each Nordic state rely in relation to more powerful states. It is therefore unlikely that we will see a ‘common order’ among the Nordic states in the foreign policy domain in the near future.