Publications
The Political Economy of Global Climate Action: Where Does the West Go Next After COP28?
This report offers a critical, candid examination of the landscape of global climate action. Current efforts are lacking even amid consecutive UN climate conferences that build upon the successes of the 2015 Paris Agreement. It argues that the incremental progress achieved thus far is insufficient to address the escalating climate crisis. Challenges of domestic political economy and lacking global governance are substantively at fault. We identify several related barriers to effective climate action, including mismatched time horizons, shared public and private responsibility, the complexity of global challenges, and problems of global collective action and burden distribution. The report explores the distributional costs of climate policies, emphasizing the impacts of populism on climate action (and vice versa), and the need for a fair transition. Global governance challenges are attributable to the limits of existing multilateral institutions and the persistently difficult geopolitical and macroeconomic outlook. We conclude by offering a set of specific policy recommendations, spanning corporate taxation, public investment, long-term commitment mechanisms, the climate action-energy security interface, corporate responsibility, and the imperative of a just, equitable, and participatory transition. The proposed strategies can contribute to achieving time-consistent, decisive and systemic action that tackles the urgent climate crisis, building on political incentives and disincentives. This systematic lens – focused on political economy and global governance constraints - needs to be applied to all climate action policies to get ahead of the curve in the global and domestic political environment in which we find ourselves.
The failure to decarbonize the global energy education system: Carbon lock-in and stranded skill sets
The energy transition involves the transformation of professions and labour markets, which in turn depend on the availability of a workforce with the right education and competence. This study assesses how quickly global higher education is transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy in terms of educational content. The article is based on a review of 18,400 universities and the creation of a dataset of 6,142 universities that provide energy-specific education in 196 countries. The study compares the prevalence of educational programmes oriented towards fossil fuels and renewable energy. The findings show that the rapid adoption of renewable energy worldwide is not matched by changes in higher education, since universities continue to prioritise coal and petroleum studies. In 2019, 546 universities had faculties and/or degrees dedicated to fossil fuels whereas only 247 universities had faculties and/or degrees in renewable energy. As many as 68% of the world’s energy-focused educational degrees were oriented towards fossil fuels, and only 32% focused on renewable energy. This means that universities are failing to meet the growing demand for a clean energy workforce. At the current rate of change, energy-focused university degrees would be 100% dedicated to renewable energy only by the year 2107. Since a career may last 30-40 years, this creates a risk of long-term carbon lock-in and stranded skill sets through (mis)education. The results also indicate that developing countries lag behind developed ones in this area, even though the need for professionals trained in renewable energy is greater in developing countries. Along with lack of capital, underdeveloped regulatory frameworks for renewable energy, and entrenched fossil-fuel business interests, the mismatch between energy education and the needs of the renewable energy industry may hold back the energy transition in many developing countries.
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.
Militarization of Outer Space: Character and Background - Effects and Limitations?
For several decades now, the militarization of outer space has from time to time been presented and discussed as a new, and increasingly important feature of military development. Sometimes it has been the subject of more scrutinizing attention, and then often also warned against. The attention, and especially the warnings, increased, among other things, in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's initiative in 1983 about the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), often called “Star Wars” in news media coverage. Especially after the turn of the millennium, the militarization of outer space – space – has again been highlighted as a development trend that could come to characterize the future military landscape more strongly than before, especially at the level of great powers. And once again, warnings against this have often been issued. However, even though examples of such militarization are often mentioned in discussions and warnings about the militarization of outer space, the concept itself remains somewhat unclear: What does militarization here encompass, and what falls outside? The ambiguity has less to do with outer space itself, but rather lies in the use of the word militarization itself. Also used in other areas, this is a word that can easily contribute to ambiguity. It is usually used to indicate that something becomes subject to military use or interference and thereby exploited for military purposes. But it is not always easy to see clear boundaries for what can reasonably be called militarization in this respect. For example, is a civil airport with a military presence and activity there to be considered militarized? Or to put the question of reasonableness in this respect even more sharply: can military use, possibly extensive military use, for military purposes of a road network for civilian travel be claimed to constitute a militarization of this?
Utenrikspolitikkens mål er å gjøre innenrikspolitikken mulig
This policy brief is in Norwegian only.
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.
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.
The EU’s international cyber and digital engagements
Digital transformation is a key priority for the European Union. It drives economic growth and enables societal development. However, the EU’s leadership in digital matters and its capacity to deliver are not universally recognised. There is skepticism about the EU’s leadership and its vision for a human-centric digital future - one that places human rights and the rule of law at the center of technological innovation and digital transformation. Simultaneously, the EU’s global influence is limited by its own ability to deliver certain critical capabilities in the digital and cyber domains. While expectations for the EU’s role have grown, cyber and digital policies are governed primarily by an intergovernmental method. This policy brief looks at how the EU frames and implements its international cyber and digital engagements with third countries. What drives the cooperation and and what are the specific tools and mechanisms deployed by the EU? The policy brief also considers implications for Norway.
Friendship in International Politics
In the international political discourse of the early 21st century, claims of friendship and “special ties” between states and their leaders are commonplace. Frequently reported by international media, such claims are often used as entry points for scholars and pundits seeking to evaluate the contents, relative strength, and present-day conditions of a given state-to-state relationship. Advancing the claim that friendships not only exist but also matter in and to the international political domain, international relations scholars began in the mid-2000s to trace and explore friendship—as a concept and practice—across time, societies, cultural contexts, and scientific disciplines. As part of the research agenda on friendship in international politics, scholars have explored why, how, and under what conditions friendships between states emerge, evolve, subsist, and dissolve; how amicable structures are typically organized; how they manifest themselves on a day-to-day basis; and what short- and long-term implications they may have for international political processes, dynamics, outcomes, and orders.
Annex to the report 'Norway’s strategic dependencies in global supply chain networks'
This annex is connected to the NUPI Report 'Norway’s strategic dependencies in global supply chain networks' found here: https://www.nupi.no/en/publications/cristin-pub/norway-s-strategic-dependencies-in-global-supply-chain-networks