Publications
Chips in the crosshairs
- The increasing use of economic sanctions coupled with the globalization of production of key goods and services has increased the security concerns around economic dependencies. - For the global manufacturing of semiconductors (chips), their increasing criticality in modern economies have made them a focal point in tensions between Washington and Beijing. - Spillovers from the Sino-US tensions on Dutch export policies highlight the challenges states face in navigating this new terrain. - Mapping economic networks to identify those prone to weaponization will be a key exercise for states preparing for greater political turmoil at the international level.
Even as war continues, NATO should open the door to defense integration with Ukraine
Ensuring Ukraine prevails on the battlefield will be imperative to securing the European continent. It is time for NATO to get smarter about its Ukraine strategy, including the messaging that articulates that strategy. At the moment, NATO and its constituent members are attempting to walk the line between reassuring Ukraine of NATO countries’ commitments to its security and seeking to avoid escalation into a nuclear confrontation with Russia. Avoiding such escalation is a legitimate concern, but it is not enough to constitute a strategy. What NATO should do instead is steadily build defense and deterrence against Russian aggression in Ukraine by integrating it into its structures step by step. This will mean some degree of Ukrainian integration with NATO, even while Russia’s invasion is ongoing, writes Karsten Friis in this op-ed.
Heimevernet og forsvaret av Norge: Skjerpet trusselbilde, uforløst potensial
I forsvaret av Norge er Heimevernet (HV) en vital del av grunnmuren. Styrken er Forsvarets største, geografisk mest spredte, og har samtidig ansvaret for det bredeste spekteret av oppgaver – i fred, krise og væpnet konflikt. HV leverer mye effekt – og har et uutnyttet potensial til å levere enda mer – for en relativt sett billig penge. Likevel har styrkens andel av Forsvarssektorens samlede driftsbudsjett falt, fra 3,8 % i 2015, til 3,1 % i budsjettet for 2024 – en mulig indikasjon på at styrken ikke er høyt prioritert når det norske forsvarsbudsjettet økes. Dette forskningsnotatet gir en kort beskrivelse HVs ansvar og oppgaver, og peker på utviklingstrekk som vil kunne påvirke disse i nær fremtid. Notatet illustrerer gapet mellom oppgavene, de vedtatte ambisjonene om videreutvikling, og ressursene som blir stilt til rådighet. I forlengelsen av dette svekkes hele samfunnets motstandsdyktighet i en tid hvor usikkerheten er større enn på lenge. Rapporten peker på fire konkrete tiltak som ved hjelp av en relativt moderat budsjettøkning vil kunne utnytte det latente utviklingspotensialet i HV-strukturen og gi betydelig og umiddelbar effekt på Forsvarets samlede evne til å levere beredskap og sikkerhet overalt, alltid – i fred, krise og i krig.
The defence of northern Europe: new opportunities, significant challenges
With Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the Nordics will be united for the first time in a military alliance encompassing not only northern Europe but also the broader transatlantic region. It will eventually fortify northern European security, but several obstacles must be overcome first. NATO has done a formidable job since 2014 in updating its defence plans, cumulating in the Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic Area (DDA) family of plans approved in Vilnius 2023. Now Finland and Sweden need to be incorporated into these plans. A more challenging task is to implement NATO's New Force Model which is tremendously ambitious. Finland and Sweden's contributions will be important, but new investments must be made. NATO's Command Structure is yet to be fully reformed and fitted to the DDA. Joint Force Command Norfolk must urgently be staffed, without undue politicization in NATO. Nordic defence buildup can draw on regional cooperation in particular in five areas: in strengthening the area's command design through functional double-hatted headquarters; developing close air power cooperation through e.g. a Combined Joint Air Operations Centre; strengthening total defence cooperation across borders and expanding logistical infrastructure; establishing joint intelligence task forces; and joint training and exercises. The contributions of the United States and United Kingdom are indispensable when it comes to upholding the alliance's guarantee in northern Europe. The recent signing of Defense Cooperation Agreements between the US and the Nordics reinforces this—together with an increased presence of air and naval assets in the region. The same applies to the UK and the Joint Expeditionary Force which now has shifted its focus towards northern Europe. This engagement is a crucial addition to Nordic and NATO plans and activities in a period when growth in Nordic defence structures is occurring at a relatively slow pace. Only after the weaknesses and hurdles are addressed will the deterrence and defence of the region attain a fully credible level.
Public–Private Development Cooperation: Interface and Conflicting Logics in the Formation of a Strategic Partnership
Public–private development partnership constitutes the core of a deepening normative agenda that places private actors as active development agents and as means through which other development objectives are pursued in partnership with publicly funded aid actors. This normative agenda may challenge international development. This article goes beyond the official policy level to explore the formation of public– private development cooperation in practice, not just on paper. It zooms into the partnership between a Norwegian NGO and a multinational company and their joint project to renovate an old vocational college in Ethiopia to serve the private actor’s need for qualified workers. The article shows how a publicly funded development project becomes a proxy for private interests, but argues that the diversion of public aid is not due to bad intentions or conflicting interests. Rather, it is the result of interface situations created by the public–private partnership agenda and its intentional merger of actors with distinct institutional logics, accountabilities and rationales. The article demonstrates how actors put together as part of the public–private partnership agenda end up undermining the agenda itself because of the interface situations created in the nexus of public and private actors.
UN Peace Operations & Human Rights: A Thematic Study Executive Summary
This study of the Effectiveness of Peace Operations Network (EPON) examines the contributions of the UN’s human rights work within a wide range of UN peace operations, including peacekeeping missions, special political missions (SPMs), and regional prevention offices. The core questions of this study were: (1) How does the UN’s human rights engagement contribute to the overall impact of UN peace operations, including the protection of civilians (POC)? (2) Overall, how do UN peace operations themselves contribute to human rights outcomes? and (3) What lessons can be drawn by comparing different UN peace operations in terms of building better synergies between human rights-focused activities and the other work of missions? The goal of the report is to offer a comparative, empirically backed assessment of the ways UN peace operations efforts to advance human rights contribute to mission effectiveness and broader mission objectives. Lead author Prof. Charles T. Hunt – Senior Fellow, United Nations University Centre for Policy Research/ Senior Research Associate, Institute for Security Studies/Professor of Global Security, RMIT University Co-authors Ms Emma Bapt – United Nations University Centre for Policy Research Dr Adam Day – United Nations University Centre for Policy Research Dr Fiifi Edu-Afful – Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC) Ms Abigail Gérard-Baldé – Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) Ms Hafsa Maalim – Independent researcher Ms Wendy MacClinchy – Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) Ms Nadia Nata – Independent researcher Dr Claudia Pfeifer Cruz – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
UN Peace Operations & Human Rights: A Thematic Study
This study of the Effectiveness of Peace Operations Network (EPON) examines the contributions of the UN’s human rights work within a wide range of UN peace operations, including peacekeeping missions, special political missions (SPMs), and regional prevention offices. The core questions of this study were: (1) How does the UN’s human rights engagement contribute to the overall impact of UN peace operations, including the protection of civilians (POC)? (2) Overall, how do UN peace operations themselves contribute to human rights outcomes? and (3) What lessons can be drawn by comparing different UN peace operations in terms of building better synergies between human rights-focused activities and the other work of missions? The goal of the report is to offer a comparative, empirically backed assessment of the ways UN peace operations efforts to advance human rights contribute to mission effectiveness and broader mission objectives. Lead author Prof. Charles T. Hunt – Senior Fellow, United Nations University Centre for Policy Research/ Senior Research Associate, Institute for Security Studies/Professor of Global Security, RMIT University Co-authors Ms Emma Bapt – United Nations University Centre for Policy Research Dr Adam Day – United Nations University Centre for Policy Research Dr Fiifi Edu-Afful – Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC) Ms Abigail Gérard-Baldé – Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) Ms Hafsa Maalim – Independent researcher Ms Wendy MacClinchy – Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) Ms Nadia Nata – Independent researcher Dr Claudia Pfeifer Cruz – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Deterrence and (Re)assurance in the High North – Finland and Norway Compared
- Finland and Norway are both frontline states to Russia with a similar deterrence and defense strategy. - Finland’s geopolitical position as a frontline state is mainly defined by the long land border to Russia. Norway is predominantly a maritime frontline state. - Norway is both a frontline state and a rear area for staging support to military operations in the Nordic Region. - Geography is a factor influencing the different approaches in Finland and Norway to foreign military activity near Russia. Also, proximity to nuclear forces and test areas.
Russian-speakers in Estonia: A Minority Without Agency
This article explores the conditions of the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia and sees the development of these conditions as a product of an interaction between the nationalizing state, the Russian-speaking minority, the minority’s “kin state”, and the international community; a framework dubbed the “quadratic nexus” by David J. Smith, expanding upon the theories of Rogers Brubaker. This article provides an updated empirical analysis of the impact of the quadratic dynamic in Estonian minority relations, as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has shifted the balance of power between the agents in Smith’s nexus. The result of this shift is that the conditions of the Russian-speaking minority are now almost entirely decided by the nationalizing state, influenced by Russian aggression. The Russian Federation has made the protection of minority rights in Estonia increasingly difficult by pressuring the Estonian political elite to take an even more conservative stance on nationality policies as a response to the perceived threat from their neighbor in the east, in addition to reinforcing international indifference to minority rights in Estonia. This, combined with the preexisting socio-economic conditions of the Russian-speaking minority has led to the near total loss of the minority’s agency. The article is in Norwegian only.