Publications
The Construction of Status in Security Politics: Rules, Comparisons and Second-Guessing Collective Beliefs
Tapping into international relations status’ research’s extended lineage, this chapter makes the case for a thick constructivist account of international status dynamics that makes the construction of rules and comparisons central to analysis. Drawing upon the work of Robert Gilpin and Nicholas Onuf, the chapter’s approach enables the exploration of how the rules governing status competitions emerge, why some rules become agreed upon and others contested, and the consequences of these processes of rule formation. While this framework requires a gestalt switch for conventional status research, this chapter argues that it is possible to do so while remaining consistent with status research’s core definition of status. The value of the framework is illustrated via a case study of how the rules of the nuclear status competition emerged and solidified over the course of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the Soviet Union and United States (1969–79).
US and UK Elections: Implications for NATO and Northern European Security
How will the outcome of the US election impact security policy in the UK and Northern Europe? The report discusses potential consequences of a victory for Harris and Trump respectively, as well as the new British government's security policy orientation. What does this mean for Norway and Northern Europe?
Respons - Norsk utenrikspolitikk for en ny tid. Sluttrapport
I 2023 og 2024 arrangerte UD, i samarbeid med lokale aktører, til sammen sju konferanser i RESPONS-serien. Åpningskonferansen fant sted i Oslo i mars 2023, med NUPI som arrangør. Deretter fulgte et møte med NATOs generalsekretær, også i Oslo, og arrangementer i Arendal, Lillehammer, Trondheim, Bergen, Stavanger og Tromsø. Den tematiske innretningen på arrangementene har variert fra det brede til det smale, fra sikkerhetspolitikk og utvikling, via teknologi til handelspolitikk og grønn omstilling. En rekke fagfolk fra hele landet og fra ulike profesjoner og fagdisipliner, har innledet og deltatt i paneler. Utenriksministrene Anniken Huitfeldt (2022-2023) og Espen Barth Eide (2023-) har deltatt på alle arrangementene med unntak av ett – under Arendalsuka – hvor utviklingsminister Anne Beathe Tvinnereim (2021-) representerte departementet. NUPI har rapportert fra alle sju konferanser. Dette er i tillegg seriens sluttrapport, der de foregående delrapportene er inkludert.
Localization and developmentality: Policy pragmatism in pandemic times
Motivation: Localization is increasingly invoked in debates about how to reform international aid: to improve aid effectiveness and address ethical concerns by turning hierarchical aid relations on their head. This has proved to be easier said than done. The COVID-19 pandemic produced logistical impediments to aid practitioners, which translated into a renewed, if temporary, interest in localization. Purpose: The initial scope of the research engaged with the notion of partnership during COVID-19, but almost all informants drew attention to the concept of localization. The article maps and analyses the challenges and advantages of localization, as seen from the practitioners' perspective. Approach and methods: The article draws on 24 interviews conducted in Oslo with representatives of various Norwegian development and humanitarian non-governmental organizations and government agencies, in addition to policy and grey literature review. Findings: The article shows that the re-emergence of the localization debate during COVID-19 occurred not because of any ambition to reform aid, but as a pragmatic and temporary response to the logistical impediments caused by the pandemic. Reflections from the interviewees on the pros and cons offer more substantial insights into why localization fails to change practice, while at the same time localization enables a form of indirect governance related to accountability regimes. This is analysed as developmentality, reflecting the logic that localization takes place when recipients do as donors want, but they do so voluntarily, which suggests that localization counterintuitively may reinforce existing power structures. Policy implications: Localization is poorly conceptualized. While a definition could be helpful in practice, one that is too rigid could undermine the diversity of actors and knowledge that localization aims to advance. At the operational level, localization requires greater flexibility and slack throughout the aid chain, especially in the audit and accountability regimes of donor and funding authorities, which permeate and uphold lopsided aid relations.
Norske interesser og multilateralt samarbeid. Multimeldingen – fem år etter
The White Paper 'Norway’s role and interests in multilateral cooperation' (Report to the Storting No. 27 – 2018-2019) – hereafter called 'the Multilateral Report' – contains a thorough analysis of multilateral cooperation and Norwegian interests. It describes the various functions of multilateral cooperation, how disagreements between major powers affect such cooperation, and how this impacts Norwegian interests. The White Paper was submitted to the Storting in June 2019. By that time, Russia had already annexed Crimea, the U.S., under President Trump, had shown a more negative attitude towards multilateral cooperation, and China’s desire to influence multilateral cooperation was evident. At the same time, the report preceded the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent criticism from low- and middle-income countries of how Western nations handled the pandemic, as these countries did not have the same access to vaccines. And, not least: the report came before Russia’s 2022 attack on Ukraine, Hamas’ attack on Israel, and the ensuing war in Gaza. Although the rivalry between the U.S. and China was already increasing in 2019, five years later, it has a more defining character for international politics. The developments in recent years show even more clearly than before that the norm that international problems are best solved through multilateral cooperation has weakened. The Multilateral Report pointed to several causes for this, primarily increased rivalry and the preference of major powers for bilateral solutions, and how, for example, China has succeeded in influencing the interpretation of human rights in multilateral forums. In this report, we discuss how the analysis and conclusions of the White Paper hold up five years later. The short version is that they hold up well: the analysis of increased rivalry and the growing 'bilateralization' of international cooperation has proven to align more with the reality than one might wish. At the same time, we paint a somewhat more complex picture than what was described in the Multilateral Report, focusing on fragmentation and the emergence of a significant ecosystem of informal governance initiatives that supplement but also alter the nature of the multilateral system. We also discuss in some detail the importance of analyzing how the various functions of the multilateral system are affected by rivalry, bilateralization, and fragmentation. Such a discussion is relevant in order to assess which multilateral functions are most important for safeguarding Norwegian interests. For example, it is not a given that support for a multilateral organization is an effective measure to promote a 'rules-based' order. We conclude with a discussion on how Norway should relate to the fact that our interest in a rules-based order will not be the same if the content of the rules reflects less of the values they do today. The report focuses on changes in the multilateral system and does not analyze specific multilateral organizations. Rather, we use examples from various multilateral organizations to try to illustrate more general trends. For example, we do not have a specific analysis of NATO or the EU as multilateral organizations. Both can be characterized as multilateral since both have three or more members, but the distinctive nature of the EU and NATO reflects less the developments in multilateral organizations more generally.
Introduction to the Special Issue on Under Communism’s Shadow The Memory of the Violent Past in Present-Day Russia
Perhaps no topic could be more crucial to the concept of “post-communism” than how the Soviet past is commemorated, challenged, or forgotten. The study of historical memory is often correctly tied to identity politics and nation-building. While the usable past framework is broadly applicable to all modern states, in the Russian case a degree of alarmism and negativity surrounds interpretations of how the country has managed its communist past, particularly its violent parts. A significant element to this is a teleological view of progress and the salience of the transition paradigm. In memory studies, this is manifested in the dominance of the cosmopolitan memory mode as the correct way the violent past should be commemorated. The introduction reviews the existing literature on Russia’s memory politics and highlights three limitations: (1) overemphasis on the political center and the failure to capture the diversity of regions, (2) too much focus on the supply side of memory politics, and (3) one-sided presentations of the role the Great Patriotic War plays in Russian memory politics. The introduction reviews how the special issue contributions address these limitations in the literature and shows how, taken together, they offer ideas for new research on memory studies. A case is made for how this new research agenda can better understand memory processes and how they relate to broader ideological, cultural, social, and political change in Russia.
Climate, Peace and Security Fact Sheet: Libya
Libya is exposed to a number of climate hazards. In September 2023, Storm Daniel caused severe rainfall and floods, triggering the collapse of two ageing dams in eastern Libya. This left a trail of destruction in the city of Derna and its surrounding areas. Libya is also one of the driest and most water-stressed countries in the world; it is prone to drought and less than two per cent of the country receives enough rain to sustain agriculture. Climate stressors are in turn aggravated by political turmoil, a divided government, protracted conflict and the presence of a plethora of armed groups. These factors, which have contributed to mismanagement, corruption and a lack of good governance, affect efforts to address climate-related risks, including those that may influence peace and security dynamics.
How do donors integrate climate policy and development cooperation? An analysis of the development aid policies of 42 donor countries
This article assesses how donor countries integrate climate action into their development aid policies. An analytical framework is developed for the systematic comparison of development aid policies along three dimensions: hierarchy of policy objectives, types of measures the donors implement, and linkages to international climate negotiations. Analyzing the development aid policies of 42 donors, we find that only three have redesigned their development aid policies to fully integrate climate policy concerns. Instead, donors treat climate change as a thematic priority area. This includes several donors that are currently not obliged to provide climate finance under the UNFCCC. Furthermore, five major donor countries emphasize the use of diverse foreign policy tools to support climate action in developing countries. Importantly, we identify how other development goals (poverty, gender) are integrated with climate policy goals. Only two donor countries clearly separate development aid and climate finance. Luxembourg states that its climate finance pledge is additional to development, while New Zealand has a separate climate finance strategy where the allocation of funds is based on climate mitigation effectiveness concerns.
Franske tilstander - Forstå det moderne Frankrike
(This book is in Norwegian.) Hvorfor vokser stadig høyrepopulismen i Frankrike til nye høyder? Hvorfor streiker franskmenn så ofte? Hvorfor er Frankrike så aktiv på den internasjonale arena? Til tross for at Frankrike er godt kjent for nordmenn flest både som ferieland, matland og kulturell høyborg, har landet lett for å forbli en gåte. Spørsmålene er mange: Hvorfor er tilliten til franske politikere så lav? Hva kan forklare den høye terrortrusselen i landet? Og hvor langt har egentlig likestillingen kommet i Simone de Beauvoirs fødeland? Når det franske samfunnet fremstår som litt fremmed, skyldes det at fransk politikk og samfunnsliv får langt mindre oppmerksomhet i den norske offentligheten enn for eksempel britisk eller amerikansk politikk. Med denne boken ønsker Norges fremste eksperter på Frankrike og franske forhold å bøte på dette. Boken er for deg som har fransk språk, politikk og samfunnsliv som fag, som er frankofil eller som rett og slett ønsker bedre kjennskap til det moderne Frankrike.
Extreme moderates: Understanding low levels of violent extremism in Bosnia-Herzegovina
How can low levels of violent extremism in enabling environments be explained? The post-war history of Bosnia-Herzegovina has been marked by prolonged political crises, economic instability, and precarious security for citizens. The combination of a relatively young, unstable democracy and social grievances creates fertile soil for different forms of radicalization and the proliferation of various extremist ideologies. This has, in turn, allowed extra-institutional groups to challenge formal institutions. Despite this, there have been few violent extremist attacks, and those that have been carried out were small-scale and failed to expose any deep reservoir of violent extremism. What, then, does this deviant case reveal? Utilizing social movement theory and political opportunity structures, this article explores how structural conditions in the political and discursive space of Bosnia-Herzegovina affect the protest repertoires of extremist movements. Two main arguments are put forward. First, extra-institutional groups must be understood as rational actors with broader claims that exceed the use of violence. Second, distinguishing between radicalization that links to violent extremism and radicalization that aims to initiate societal change through non-violent means can help us better understand the dynamics behind societal change in fragile environments.