The Geopolitics of ‘Hearts and Minds’: American Public Diplomacy in the War on Terrorism
Maritime Security in Southeast Asia
The project concerns maritime security and territorial issues in the important sea regions in Southeast Asia....
How We Talk about the "War on Terrorism" : Comparative Research on Japan, Russia, and the United States
This paper focuses on how leaders in Western countries talk about the “war on terrorism.” The paper discusses the difficulties of defining “terrorism,” because, unlike Marxism or capitalism, “terrorism” is not an ideology. Instead the term may be used to designate actions that are used by members of non-governmental organizations against civilian targets. In the case of the “war on terrorism,” the signifier, “terrorism,” is used widely. However, the signified, the perpetrators and what they do, are quite different. Because the designation of the signified depends upon the speaker, the concept of terrorism seems to be subjective and fluid. The signified switches radically both by context and over time, while the only aspect that is stable is the signifier, “terrorism.” The paper goes on to analyze the “war on terrorism” as an ontological metaphor. The paper concludes by arguing that although figures of speech contribute to the cognitive dimension of meaning by helping us to recognize the equivalence to which we are committed and suggesting new equivalences, metaphors like the “war on terrorism” raise problems and do little to increase our understanding. Considering different cultural codes and world views, this type of metaphor is highly counterproductive for communication on the global level.
The EU as a Security Actor: The development of political and administrative capabilities
[Abstract] With its special character in relation to both institutional design and policy content, the EU is often classified as a ‘post-modern’ security actor. What does this actually mean? What kind of capabilities does a post-modern actor have? This article focuses on the development of political and administrative capabilities in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. If it is true that the EU is becoming an increasingly important security actor, we should expect an increase in these kinds of capabilities as well. According to March & Olsen (1995) little can be accomplished without capabilities such as rights and authorities, resources, competencies and organizational skills. This should also be true of a presumably ‘post-modern’ actor like the EU. This paper examines the extent to which the EU has established these kinds of capabilities in relation to its security policy, how they can be characterized and whether they have increased over time.
The Power of the Draft: A Century of Changing Legitimacy of Norway’s Armed Forces
Norsk utenrikspolitisk bibliografi (1905–2005): Versjon 1.3.1 (des. 06) ved Andreas Løvold & Halvard Leira
From Common Defence to Comprehensive Security Towards the Europeanisation of French Foreign and Security Policy?
This article looks at the relationship between European integration and national foreign and security policy - specifically, how and to what extent the development of a specifically European (EU) foreign and security policy leads to adaptation and change in national foreign and security policy. The theoretical point of departure is an interest in national changes in response to EU norms. It will be argued that national approaches tend to adapt to norms defined by a community to which they are closely linked; that this adaptation takes place over time, through a socialisation process; and that it may also, in the end, lead to changes in national identity. This argument challenges the common assumption of IR theory that national identities and/or interests are fixed and independent of structural factors like international norms and values. The empirical focus is on changes in French foreign and security policy since the early 1990s. How and to what extent has the dominant French national discourse on foreign and security policy changed since the early 1990s? And if so, how are these changes related to the European integration process in general, and to the development of a European foreign and security dimension in particular?
From Internationalization of Terrorism to the Internationalization of Anti-terrorism : The Role of the Summer Olympic Games
The academic literature on international relations and international sports studies has long ignored the linkages between sports and international relations. The present contribution seeks to remedy this shortcoming in the literature on international relations and international sports studies, focusing on the relationship between terrorism, anti-terrorism and the Summer Olympic Games, and examining the role of terrorism and anticipated terrorist actions in the organization of the Olympic Games. In this article we show that the anti-terrorism measures undertaken before, during and after the Olympic Games since 1972 have gone from failure to success. The development of anti-terrorism measures has resulted in Olympic Games that have been held without terrorist attacks aimed at political change. Failures in previous Games have been evaluated and have served to promote new developments in the fight against terrorism in later Games. The Munich disaster alerted everyone to the importance of Olympic security; since then, the Olympic Games have become the standard-setter for national organization and international cooperation on anti-terrorism in society in general.
Strategic Adaption or Identity Change? : An analysis of Britain's Approach to the ESDP 1998-2004
In this working paper, Kristin Marie Haugevik seeks to analyse the nature of the changes in Britain’s approach to the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) after 1998. Ever since the beginning of the European integration process in 1951, Britain’s approach to European security and defence cooperation has been characterized by anti-federalism and transatlanticism. Hence, it was unexpected when Tony Blair, together with Jacques Chirac, took the initiative to frame a common security and defence policy for the EU in Saint Malo in 1998. This paper discusses to what extent Britain’s new approach to the ESDP after 1998 can be explained as the result of a strategic adaptation, and to what extent it can be seen as a result of more profound changes in the British identity and security interests. These two accounts are tested by analysing Britain’s approach to some of the most important ESDP documents since 1998: the Saint Malo declaration, the Laeken declaration, the Nice Treaty, the European Security Strategy, and the Constitution Treaty