Energy
Energy is not a political science concept. It originates in physics and describes “a fundamental entity of nature,” best understood as “the capacity for doing work.” Furthermore, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica notes, it “may exist in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other forms,” to which Merriam-Webster dictionary adds that it can be “transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system.” At the same time, energy is a frequent object of political discussions, due to the fundamental role it plays in modern societies. Energy generates welfare through ceding human physical labor to work done by machines, from home appliances to steelworks; it provides the physical comfort of adequately heated or cooled surroundings; it makes possible the mobility achieved through modern means of transportation. All of these rely on the conversion of energy resources into energy services. Socioeconomic development is correlated with increasingly higher energy consumption (Destek & Sarkodie, 2019). The fundamental and omnipresent nature of energy and its importance for sustaining modern livelihoods are expressed with the often-used metaphor of the “lifeblood of society.” This has political consequences, as access to energy services at a certain level and affordable price is the foundation of social contracts, leading to popular discontent when these are not provided.
Fashionably or fatally late? exploring NDC procrastination in the UNFCCC
The current global climate change mitigation regime established by the Paris Agreement rests on a “pledge-and-review“ mechanism with the cyclical submission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to progressively increase climate ambition. Following the 2023 collective review, the so-called Global Stocktake (GST), Parties were required to submit updated NDCs by February 2025. Yet compliance has been strikingly low: only 16 of 198 Parties met the deadline, and even after an extended September cutoff, just 64 submissions were recorded, covering roughly 30% of global emissions. We examine the phenomenon of NDC procrastination – the widespread delay in meeting procedural obligations – and its implications for the climate regime. Drawing on 23 country case studies, compliance reports, and fieldwork at the climate summit in Bonn, we identify four clusters of factors behind delayed submissions. Financial and institutional capacity challenges include resource constraints, reliance on external technical assistance, and complex whole-of-government coordination requirements. Technical and data-related challenges stem from gaps in emissions inventories, modelling expertise, and recalibration needs when baselines shift. Political and governance challenges range from domestic uncertainty (elections, coalition changes) to geopolitical shocks, armed conflict, and instances of ‘green backlash,’ where governments actively obstruct climate policy. Finally, procedural and strategic dynamics encourage states to delay pledges for performative or tactical reasons. While these factors can explain why many parties were late with their submissions, the question of what NDC procrastination means for the future of global climate action is more complex. While NDCs are visibly treated more seriously by many, and considerable resources are channeled into the work on pledges, the scale of non-compliance underscores the fragility of procedural norms. Furthermore, the post-GST round of delayed pledges highlights the tension between detailed, economy-wide pledges aligned with domestic policies and ratcheting up mitigation ambition at a pace needed to tackle dangerous climate change.
The Free and Open Indo-Pacific: Economics, Politics, and Norms
Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) strategy aims to promote economic prosperity, peace, free trade, and the rule of law across the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Scholars primarily have interpreted FOIP through three lenses: economics, security, and norms. Economically, it reflects Japan’s support for regional connectivity, trade, and infrastructure development as both a growth strategy and a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). In security terms, FOIP emphasizes maritime readiness, defense cooperation with like-minded partners, and adherence to international maritime law amid tensions in the South and East China Seas. Normatively, it advances Japan’s values-based diplomacy, promoting democracy, human rights, and a rules-based order in contrast to authoritarian models. Since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe introduced FOIP in 2016, the concept has been adopted and adapted by many and diverse actors, each aligning it with their own strategic aims. This flexibility, unlike the more centralized BRI, is a hallmark of FOIP, resulting in a co-created, evolving, and often strategically ambiguous foreign policy. Dozens of countries from across the world incorporate FOIP language in their foreign and security policies, forming what some may consider a “narrative alliance” in the international system. The scholarship on FOIP is growing rapidly, yet there remain significant theoretical, methodological, and empirical questions unanswered.
Gender equality in global climate governance
Gender equality is now formally embedded in global climate governance. Yet in practice, climate policy reflects a divided agenda. Developed countries tend to perform better on gender-balanced participation in climate negotiations, while developing countries more consistently integrate gender into their pledges under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This divide is driven by differences in incentives, financing structures, and how countries use their NDCs. For many developing countries, integrating gender into climate policy is closely tied to accessing international climate finance and demonstrating alignment with donor expectations. For developed countries, gender equality is often addressed through domestic policy frameworks, but is less visible in international climate commitments. The result is a fragmented approach in which participation and policy evolve separately, limiting the effectiveness of gender-responsive climate action and reducing opportunities for shared learning across countries.
Strategic Climate Balancing: What the International Community Can Do as the United States Steps Back
The United States’ withdrawal from international climate institutions under the second Trump administration poses a serious challenge to global climate cooperation. Given the scale of US emissions and the dismantling of federal climate capacity, the international community cannot depend on a future policy reversal in Washington. Instead, this policy brief advances a strategy of “climate balancing” that seeks to sustain decarbonisation by working around the US federal government. Climate balancing focuses on three priorities: direct engagement with US states and cities that continue to pursue ambitious climate action; the construction of industrial alliances that leverage clean energy constituencies through tools such as coordinated carbon pricing and border adjustment mechanisms; and reframing climate action as a matter of energy security and geopolitical competition, particularly in light of China’s growing dominance in clean energy supply chains. Together, these measures aim to limit free-rider dynamics, preserve momentum in global climate governance, and keep the conditions for eventual US re-engagement open, demonstrating that effective climate cooperation can persist even in the absence of US federal leadership.
The EU and the Geopolitics of the Oceans
Norwegian Centre for Geopolitics: Alf Håkon Hoel (UiT) and Linda S. Dahlberg (UiT) analyse the EU's role as a geopolitical power in ocean governance. With 22 maritime member states and over five million km² of European sea areas, the EU is a significant actor at sea – though its influence varies considerably by region. While the Baltic Sea is almost entirely an EU domain, EU member states are actually a minority among the coastal states of the Mediterranean. The authors also examine ongoing initiatives such as the European Ocean Pact, the EU Arctic Policy and Horizon Europe, and discuss their implications for Norway as an EEA member and a key maritime nation in the High North.
Who Killed the Liberal International Order and What Comes Next?
The Norwegian Centre for Geopolitics invites you to a lecture on the world's most urgent ‘whodunnit’: "Who Killed the Liberal International Order and What Comes Next?".