A new European security and defence architecture in the making: What does it look like and what are the implications for Norway? (EURODEFENCE)
This project will study the implications of the new European defence initiatives for Norway particularly, as an allied and closely associated non-member of the EU. Despite the incremen...
Reactions to state regulation of Islam in times of Daesh (STATEISLAM)
In recent years, in response to the rise of ISIS, governments in the Middle East have begun to control the religious spheres in their countries more tightly. One example is the standar...
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. ...
Chinese Anger Diplomacy (ANGER)
Do liberal-democratic states yield to public criticism by China? ANGER approaches this question by focusing on China's use of "anger diplomacy" - public, vehement displa...
Cybersecurity Capacity Centre for Southern Africa (C3SA)
C3SA informs policy through cybersecurity research to build national cyber capacity and resilience across Africa. ...
Public–Private Development Interfaces in Ethiopia (DEVINT)
Private actors are increasingly operating in the name of development and in partnership with international development actors. This project (DEVINT) will explore the nexus of private a...
CLIMate Change, global SECurity and future operations (CLIMSEC) - a Mulltinational Capability Development Campaign (MCDC) project (CLIMSEC)
The CLIMSEC project aims to analyse the security related implications of climate change, and its potential effects on military operations ...
Ad hoc crisis response and international organisations (ADHOCISM)
ADHOCISM asks what is the impact of ad hoc crisis responses on international organisations? ...
Right-wing Populism in Associated Countries: A Challenge for Democracy
This policy paper provides a structured comparative analysis of the nationalist populist actors, discourses and strategies in three Associated[1] Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries – Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. It assesses the challenges of the radical right, nationalist populist groups on democratic developments in the Associated EaP countries: – the role of external actors, the tactics and policies used and how to deal with and manage this threat. The study was prepared by a groupof Ukrainian, Moldovan and Georgia authors with specializations in national populism and its impact on political processes in these three countries. Research methodology includes desk research, as well as qualitative interviews, organized in each country with the involvement of local experts, journalists and civil society activists. The policy paper provides recommendations on how to mitigate the negative effects of anti-democratic, national populist groups and how to strengthen resilience against national populism in these EaP countries. This policy paper provides a number of significant findings which may be relevant for various state and non-state stakeholders and beneficiaries who work on democratization and Europeanization issues in and around these three countries. Firstly, the paper highlights significant regional differences and similarities among them and explores their complex socio-political context, which is in many ways different from that of EU countries. Understanding the regional context is important to key national and international stakeholders in order to prioritize proper policy responses to populist challenges and select the most suitable programs and practices to neutralize populist nationalist challenges. As one of its key conclusions, the policy paper highlights a very diverse picture of nationalist populism challenges in these countries which is a relevant finding for the EU: to switch from its traditional one-size-fits-all approach to one that uses a country-by-country-based differentiation when supporting these countries in their fight against national populism.
Differentiated Defence Integration Under French Leadership
Studies dealing with EU security and defence policy tend to focus exclusively on what is formally included in the Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Other initiatives taken outside this framework are frequently seen potentially undermining the development of EU defence – even when the intention is to strengthen defence capacity. This has been the case with the various initiatives taken within or closely linked to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as the recent French approach involving the European Intervention Initiative (EI2). An alternative perspective is to see these as integrated parts of a more flexible and differentiated European security framework where all these initiatives combined contribute to strengthening European defence capacity. Building on the argument presented in the introduction to this Special Issue, this article argues that France, as a leader in promoting ‘l’Europe de la défense’, has been instrumental in promoting this differentiated approach to European defence integration, especially under the Macron presidency.