Negotiating justice: legal pluralism and gender-based violence in Liberia

The plural legal system in post-conflict Liberia expresses tensions between modern and customary institutions. This article seeks to understand how Liberians navigate choices in the plural legal system to address gender-based violence cases. By asking how and why people make the choices they do, we highlight how Liberians solve tensions between institutions, by creating flexible categories that allow them to pursue a course of action that does not compromise their ability to access social networks and resources.

Lifting the Fog of War? Opportunities and Challenges of Drones in UN Peace Operations

While the military use of drones has been the subject of much scrutiny, the use of drones for humanitarian purposes has so far received little attention. As the starting point for this study, it is argued that the prospect of using drones for humanitarian and other life-saving activities has produced an alternative discourse on drones, dedicated to developing and publicizing the endless possibilities that drones have for "doing good". Furthermore, it is suggested that the Good Drone narrative has been appropriated back into the drone warfare discourse, as a strategy to make war "more human". This book explores the role of the Good Drone as an organizing narrative for political projects, technology development and humanitarian action. Its contribution to the debate is to take stock of the multiple logics and rationales according to which drones are "good", with a primary objective to initiate a critical conversation about the political currency of "good". This study recognizes the many possibilities for the use of drones and takes these possibilities seriously by critically examining the difference the drones' functionalities can make, but also what difference the presence of drones themselves – as unmanned and flying objects – make. Discussed and analysed are the implications for the drone industry, user communities, and the areas of crisis where drones are deployed.

Household Measures for River Flood Risk Reduction in the Czech Republic

Legitimering gjennom (selektiv) felles fortid: russisk bruk av historie i Ukraina-konflikten

How has Russia used history to justify its actions in the conflict in Ukraine? Through an analysis of official statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as speeches and remarks by Putin, this article argues that history has played an important but varying role in official rhetoric. With Crimea, the emphasis was on the ‘sanctity’ of the territory for Russian Orthodox identity, drawing on history dating back to the baptism of Prince Vladimir in 10th century AC. The shared past of the two states has not been as central in official Russian policy justification regarding Ukraine outside Crimea: the ‘brotherhood’ of the two nations has been noted repeatedly, but usually secondary to arguments pertaining to economic and political interests. The two world wars have been used as a cautionary tale, with Russia effectively seeking to delegitimize the new Ukrainian government by evoking carefully selected elements of its past. Finally, the author looks at the use of international precedence as a form of justification, turning the history of Western – US in particular – actions back on Russia’s critics. The official usage of history is placed within broader strategies of legitimation, as it is not enough to study propaganda and manipulation strategies as part of information warfare to explain how the Kremlin achieves support for its policies. The ‘thick’ historical narratives of Crimea play on elements linked to issues of national identity, making it difficult to dispute using the type of counter-propaganda and rebuttal of disinformation proposed by some. Article in Norwegian only.

A Pivot to What? Asia-Pacific Foreign Policy under Trump

Despite the difficulty in making predictions about an incoming American administration even before the inaugural process has been completed, the first two months since the US elections in November 2016 have already generated a great deal of debate and concern, about uncharted new directions in US foreign policy under president elect Donald Trump. Certainly the new president faces a host of international challenges,including Middle East security and chaotic relations with Russia, but arguably the most critical tests for the incoming government will be found in the Asia-Pacific region. As within other areas of foreign policy, Trump as a candidate oscillated,at times wildly, between interventionism and isolationism in his approach to Pacific Rim affairs, and as the year came to a close there was much watching and waiting in policy circles to see which of these would dominate. In addition, Trump assumes the presidency with the dubious distinction of possessing the lowest amount of foreign policy background in the history of American politics, so there is also the question of his administration’s ‘learning’ curve in crucial areas including the Asia-Pacific, with China relations at the forefront.

Sino-Russia Strategic Alignment and Potential Impact of a Trump Presidency

Rarely has any issue been more polarising than the assessment of Sino-Russia relations in recent years. Analysts and observers are either convinced of another emerging Sino-Russia alliance against the West, or dismissive of any meaningful, sustainable strategic relationship between the two while citing their ‘peril of proximity’, painful historical record and the strategic distrust. Neither description accurately reflects the nature of Sino-Russia relations under the Xi Jinping administration in China. In the past three years, China and Russia have forged new foundations for a third option- a strategic alignment primarily based upon a shared sense of vulnerability and threat perceptions regarding their external environment. This is largely the result of the heightened confrontation both China and Russia have encountered vis-à-vis the United States due to their assertive foreign policy in the Western Pacific and in East Europe, (especially in Ukraine), respectively. Furthermore, the personality and preferences of the Chinese top leader and the general public have also played an important role in constructing the strategic alignment as well.