Altynai Klimova
Altynai Klimova is a Visiting Research Fellow from the OSCE Academy and will work with the Research Group on Climate and Energy. She holds a Maste...
Nore Ims
Nore is a research assistant at NUPI, affiliated with the Research group on security and defence. He finished his master’s in Peace and Conflict S...
Populism and the Future of Transatlantic Relations: Challenges and Policy Options
This report assesses how changes in US foreign policy under a right-wing populist president affect the EU–US relationship and offers concrete policy recommendations on pressing issues. Focusing on the links between foreign-policy shifts, domestic polarization and antiliberal democratic trends, the report examines how domestic dynamics may constitute the most severe long-term challenge to transatlantic cooperation. It also evaluates specific policy challenges and opportunities for strengthening that cooperation in the years ahead. By exploring developments in US foreign policies and how these are linked to domestic polarization and antiliberal democratic ideas, chapters in this report shed light on how this domestic factor poses a severe challenge to the transatlantic relationship. Authors focus on how the rise of right-wing populism – with an increasing portion of the population resisting globalization, international institutions, free trade and even democratic values on both sides of the Atlantic affects the transatlantic relationship. Within each section of the report, a background chapter introduces the overarching debate, followed by three case studies focusing on observed changes, policy implications and recommendations for EU responses. The conclusion sums up key findings and provides recommendations for how the EU should respond to changing transatlantic relations.
Andreas Hirblinger
Andreas Hirblinger is a senior research fellow in the Global Order and Diplomacy research group at the Norwegian Institute of International Affair...
Search costs in global governance
To navigate global governance, policymakers need to adjudicate how they should allocate their scarce resources to organizations and networks that can best fulfill specific governance tasks. Given growing regime complexity, and the rise of private transnational regulatory organizations in multiple issue areas, policymakers are faced with a task that is insufficiently captured in existing research on global governance. It concerns the need to identify and assess which governance options, offered by what actors, are best suited to advance a particular set of interests. These interests are not limited to considerations of what is the most effective governance solution, but also include “political” interests in maintaining alliances and status hierarchies in terms of deciding on who to govern with. On this basis, we suggest that in addition to the conventional focus on sunk-, transaction-, and opportunity costs, what we call “search costs” are growing in importance for policymakers: Policymakers can rely less on publicly mandated intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) with control over an issue-area and must identify and assess different governance options provided by IGOs, NGOs, private regulatory actors. In so doing, both considerations of legitimacy (e.g. multilateral v minilateral models) and effectiveness (e.g. hard v soft governance models) as well as alliances and partners must be considered. We outline our search costs framework and provide examples of the hidden (search) costs of global governance and identify why it matters. For scholars, it is important to understand what increased complexity entails for states. For policy-makers it is important to strengthen awareness and develop frameworks that can aide in assessing and choosing best-fit governance arrangements that match both concerns with effectiveness and legitimacy, as well as status-concerns and alliances.
Regional organizations, global governance and the EU
The US is distancing itself from institutions it has been central in establishing, and recent crises like COVID-19, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the Gaza conflict have raised critical questions about the future direction of international cooperation and global governance. This report sheds light on the role of regional organizations as a key component of global governance. It offers detailed analyses of the historical evolution and contemporary functioning of key regional organizations and discuss their role in fostering multilateral decision-making.
Developments in EU space policy: challenges and opportunities for Norway
EU space policy is undergoing change. Its growing prioritisation of security and defence creates uncertainty regarding Norway’s role and opportunities in EU space activities. These changes will take time, but opportunities for continued Norwegian engagement lie in strategic positioning, strong security and defence industrial relations with the EU, and in Norway being perceived by the EU as a like-minded and reliable partner. In particular, the EU’s intention to streamline its model for cooperation with third countries may challenge Norway’s position as a particularly closely integrated participant in EU space activities. This policy brief builds on an article published in the journal Internasjonal Politikk entitled "Room for change? The premises of EU space policy". The article was written while the author, Dorthea Gradek, was a trainee at the Norwegian Space Agency. The analysis, findings and recommendations in this policy brief are based on 23 interviews with officials working within the EU space bureaucracy, including staff in the COREPER subgroup, the European Commission, agencies under the European Commission, and the permanent representations of European countries to the EU.
Confronting escalating threats: adapting stabilisation for Africa’s 21st century security challenges
This article explores the understanding and implementation of stabilisation and Climate, Peace and Security (CPS) across Africa.
Europe's Selective Blindness on Gas - US LNG and the Limits of Supply Diversification
The European Union (EU) aims to diversify its gas and oil supplies and is determined to end its energy imports from Russia, whose revenues finance its war of aggression against Ukraine. Yet, despite the rhetorical commitment to diversification, new EU legislation paradoxically treats energy sourced from any single country other than Russia as fully diversified. This risks to obscure Europe’s rapidly growing dependence on US LNG imports. When Norway is considered ‘indigenous’ due to its close integration and political alignment as part of the European Economic Area, this trend becomes even clearer, with over 59% of LNG imports coming from the US in 2025. Such dependence exposes Europe to the risk of high costs, price volatility and geopolitical pressures. The principal pathway to strengthening the EU’s strategic autonomy in the energy sector is the accelerated transition to an efficient energy system based on indigenous renewables. As long as the EU remains reliant on large amounts of imported energy resources, mitigating the associated risks will require genuine supplier diversification embedded within a broader energy security strategy. Such a strategy must rest on a sound definition of diversification and reflect today’s geopolitical realities.