NUPIpodden #13: Trusselen fra teknologien – slik kan demokratiet hackes
Hvor lett er det egentlig å hacke demokratier? Hva kan hackerne faktisk gjøre? Og hvor sannsynlig er det at noen prøver å hacke norske valg? I epi...
NUPIpodden #14: Den usynlige opprustningen i Sør-Korea
Det er i ferd med å skje noe i nabolandet til et av verdens mest kjente diktaturer. Mens Kim Jong-un og Nord-Korea ofte tar oppmerksomheten med te...
NUPIpoddden #15: Hvilken liberal orden?
Vi hører stadig at den internasjonale liberale orden er i krise. På den ene siden er den utsatt for press utenfra, fra stater som Russland og Kina...
NUPIpodden #16: Utenrikspolitikken som forsvant i isen
Russland, USA og Kina vender blikket nordover. Men nordområdepolitikk ender ofte som lokaldebatt. Hvor er utenrikspolitikken i nord? NUPIs Åsmund...
Militarization of Outer Space: Character and Background - Effects and Limitations?
For several decades now, the militarization of outer space has from time to time been presented and discussed as a new, and increasingly important feature of military development. Sometimes it has been the subject of more scrutinizing attention, and then often also warned against. The attention, and especially the warnings, increased, among other things, in the wake of President Ronald Reagan's initiative in 1983 about the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), often called “Star Wars” in news media coverage. Especially after the turn of the millennium, the militarization of outer space – space – has again been highlighted as a development trend that could come to characterize the future military landscape more strongly than before, especially at the level of great powers. And once again, warnings against this have often been issued. However, even though examples of such militarization are often mentioned in discussions and warnings about the militarization of outer space, the concept itself remains somewhat unclear: What does militarization here encompass, and what falls outside? The ambiguity has less to do with outer space itself, but rather lies in the use of the word militarization itself. Also used in other areas, this is a word that can easily contribute to ambiguity. It is usually used to indicate that something becomes subject to military use or interference and thereby exploited for military purposes. But it is not always easy to see clear boundaries for what can reasonably be called militarization in this respect. For example, is a civil airport with a military presence and activity there to be considered militarized? Or to put the question of reasonableness in this respect even more sharply: can military use, possibly extensive military use, for military purposes of a road network for civilian travel be claimed to constitute a militarization of this?
Is liberal internationalism worth saving? Ad hoc coalitions and their consequences for international security
Slow responses and blocked decision-making of international organizations provide opportunities for ad hoc coalitions to fill functional and political gaps. Compared to UN peace operations, ad hoc coalitions avoid gridlock and high transaction costs, they are fast to set up, can be task and time specific, flexible and easily dissolved. However, they also have much lighter human rights and financial accountability frameworks, a patchy record of longer-term impact and can contribute to a more fragmented response to armed conflicts and threats to international peace and security.