Boko Haram: fra åpen forkynnelse til hypervoldelig salafisme?
«Konsortium for forskning om terrorisme og internasjonal kriminalitet» har gleden av å invitere til konsortiumseminar på NUPI
Security Sector Reform: A Literature Review
‘Security sector reform’, or SSR, has become a cornerstone of international development, post-conflict peacebuilding and state-building initiatives. The term emerged in the late 1990s in recognition of the changing international security environment and the limitations of peace accords in failing and failed states. Aimed at promoting both effective and legitimate provision of security in countries emerging from conflict or undergoing processes of political transition, SSRrelated activities have growth significantly in scope as well as scale. However, security sector reform remains a contested concept that can have different meanings in different contexts and for different audiences. Various institutions, groups and nations involved in SSR tend to understand the concept on the basis of their own policies, doctrines and practices.1 Experience has also shown that SSR is often conducted in challenging political, socio-economic and security environments. Given the diversity of perceptions and contexts, SSR approaches and implementation vary greatly within the international community. Against that backdrop, this contribution reviews the comprehensive literature on security sector reform. Specifically, it asks: what were the authoritative influences and actors in the development of the SSR concept? What is the current state of theoretical discussion? What challenges and opportunities does adoption of SSR entail? How successfully has the concept been adopted in international peace operations? Are there any particular criticisms of the SSR concept? How might SSR practice be improved?
Undermining Hegemony? Building a Framework for Goods Substitution
The logics that we have outlined may, indeed, be applicable to a wide array of international actors and organizations that are aspiring to play public goods substitution roles. Likewise, they are applicable to a number of actors seeking alternative access to public goods. For example, supply and demand factors may help explain both the growing pains and potential power of the BRICS and recast debates about the role of alternative lenders in the developing world. Ultimately, our project is an appeal to think more precisely about the components of hegemonic order and the more hidden mechanisms that may contribute to its transformation or, in certain cases, enduring resilience.
Russia and China in Central Asia
Over the last three years, Russia and China have increased their engagement in Central Asia in response to NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. Moscow has deepened its security cooperation with the Central Asian states with a new strategic purpose– guarding against instability spilling over from northern Afghanistan– and has promoted the expansion of the Eurasian Economic Union. China also has dramatically accelerated its economic activities in the region by announcing the One Belt One Route (OBOR) initiative, an ambitious project to upgrade regional infrastructure and connect China to Europe and the Middle East. Although both Beijing and Moscow claim to be regional partners and not rivals, since the Ukraine crisis Russia has been forced to accept China’s terms of cooperation in order to signal that it has non-Western partners and opportunities.
Innovation and Liberalization in the European Defence Sector: A Small Country Perspective
From ‘forces for good’ to ‘forces for status'?: Small state military status-seeking
In the field of security and defencece states seek and maintain status internationally and political support nationally by pursuing a competitive defence policy through defence procurement and military contributions to international peacekeeping and military operations. Status is here understood as issue-specific and relational, which means that which military ‘hardware’ gives status is contextual and may change over time. Whereas the literature has tended to focus on the status-seeking of great powers, this chapter focuses on small powers. Drawing on the case of Norway it asks: To what extent have troop contributions and procurement policy been sought converted into status? How has status-seeking or status-driven activity in this field been communicated to domestic and international audiences, and with what results? Is status within defence compatible with the ‘soft-power’ status that Norway holds in development aid and peace facilitation – or might it jeopardize the latter? The chapter shows how also small states use ‘hard’ capabilities and resources in status-seeking activities internationally and vis-à-vis central allies. Although a competitive defence policy is important for status-seeking and can enhance the status of small states that have resources, status trade-offs in other policy fields should also be expected.