Researcher
Rita Augestad Knudsen
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Rita Augestad Knudsen is a Senior Researcher at NUPI’s research group for Security and Defence. She currently works especially on counterterrorism, in particular prevention, as well as cyber, and on the intersection between political and legal discourse on different aspects of international security. She is the managing director of the Consortium for Terrorism Research and affiliated with C-REX (Centre for Research on Extremism, University of Oslo)
Rita Augestad Knudsen’s publications include current and historical analyses of terrorism-related risk assessment, mental health, criminal responsibility legislation and frameworks, legal/political discourse and ideational formation on various issues of international security, including radicalization, self-determination, freedom, international sanctions and international statebuilding. Geographically, her main focus is the UK (including Scotland), as well as other parts of Europe.
Expertise
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersVad är frihet?
”Frihet” är på allas läppar i dagens offentliga samtal – och lyfts då särskilt som ett värde som tillhör den politiska högern. Rita Augestad Knudsen tar i den här artikeln sin utgångspunkt i Lea Ypis bok Fri. En uppväxt vid historiens slut, och läser den som ett möjligt bidrag till debatten. Augestad Knudsen diskuterar hur Ypis bok kan förstås som ett försök att flytta frihetsbegreppet närmare den politiska vänstern, och att säga något om vad frihet innebär som ett politiskt värde idag. Författaren tar också upp hur boken fungerar som text och litteratur, med tonvikt på de idéer om frihet som framträder i den, och hur den skildrar Albaniens nära förflutna ”vid historiens slut” och övergången från auktoritär kommunism till marknadskapitalism. Trots att Fri är både spännande och intressant läsning så uppfyller den tyvärr inte fullt ut sina implicita löften om att utveckla dagens politiska frihetsdiskurs.
Why Terrorism Researchers Should Care about Criminal Responsibility
Criminal responsibility is a basic principle in holding individuals to account for criminal actions. Making exemptions to criminal responsibility when individuals cannot be held responsible for their actions is equally central, and most countries have frameworks allowing for such exemptions for reasons of serious mental health problems. However, despite the recent years’ enormous interests in the possible links between individual ‘mental health’ and involvement in terrorism, the issue of criminal responsibility has apparently so far not been the subject of much interest in the field of terrorism research. This Research Note makes the simple point that criminal responsibility should be of particular interest to terrorism researchers, for two main reasons: the centrality of (political, religious, ideological) motivations for defining a crime as terrorism-related and the sometimes-difficult boundary-setting between such motivations and (psychotic) delusions; and the political nature of terrorism-related crimes.
Mental health and radicalization
The possible relationship between mental health and radicalization, extremism and terrorist involvement has received a lot of attention recently. But what do we really know about this relationship?
Psykisk helse, terrorisme, ekstremisme og radikalisering
The possible connection between mental health, radicalisation, extremism, and involvement of terror has received a lot of attention as of late. But what do we really know about this connection? What are we unaware of, and how can challenges related to this be handled? This policy brief goes through these questions and gives the knowledge status in this domain a clean-up.
Cyber security, knowledge and practices (CYKNOW)
CYKNOW will promote better understanding of cyber security, as well as develop novel theoretical and methodological tools for cybersecurity research in particular. ...
Risikovurderingsverktøy mot terrorisme og ekstremisme: Erfaringer fra kriminalomsorgen i Nederland, Storbritannia, og Sverige
Spesialiserte verktøy for å vurdere enkeltpersoners risiko for å bli innblandet i terrorisme og voldelig ekstremisme har blitt en sentral del av mange europeiske lands antiterrorarbeid. Denne rapporten gir en oversikt over tre lands ulike beslutninger om å ta i bruk ett av de to mest veletablerte verktøyene brukt i Europa for å vurdere individuell risiko for terrorisme. Både Nederland og Sverige bruker VERA-2R (Violent Extremism Risk Assessment, andre og reviderte versjon) til å vurdere risiko blant innsatte i fengsler, mens Storbritannia benytter ERG22+ (Extremism Risk Guidelines 22+) for det samme formålet. Rapporten ser på hvorfor landene satte i gang med spesialisert vurdering av risiko for terrorisme, belyser de tidlige erfaringer med implementeringen av disse, og peker på noen viktige valg tatt underveis. Rapportens siste del skisserer viktige lærdommer fra hver av de tre landene og analyserer dem i lys av den fortsatt sparsomme forskningslitteraturen på spesialisert terrorismerelatert risikovurdering.
The Fight Over Freedom in 20th- and 21st-Century International Discourse Moments of ‘self-determination’
This book shows how international discourse citing ‘self-determination’ over the last hundred years has functioned as a battleground between two ideas of freedom: a ‘radical’ idea of freedom, and a ‘liberal-conservative’ idea of freedom. The book offers new insights into the historical times in which ‘self-determination’ was prominently cited internationally since the early 20th century; it also offers a recasting and renewal of international debates on freedom in international discourse.
Localising ‘radicalisation’: Risk assessment practices in Greece and the United Kingdom
This article juxtaposes anti-radicalisation policy in the United Kingdom, one of the pioneers in the field, with Greece, one of the latecomers. Drawing on localisation theory, our aim is to understand how ‘common knowledge’ of radicalisation and counter-radicalisation has materialised in the United Kingdom and Greece by exploring the development and use of radicalisation-related risk and vulnerability assessment tools. We argue that the radicalisation ‘knowledge’ was localised more seamlessly in the United Kingdom, which can be attributed to the country’s ‘norm producer’ status on the field of European counter-radicalisation. By contrast, the ‘knowledge’ was subjected to significant ‘re-framing’ and ‘stretching’ to fit with the Greek context. This is associated with the country’s ‘norm adopter’ status on the field of European counter-radicalisation, as well as with a ‘spill-over effect’ from a national context of deeply polarising and contentious counter-terrorism policies. We maintain that these localisation processes reveal two distinct assemblages of governing radicalisation.