Global governance

Global Governance

Iceland’s Relations with its Regional Powers: Alignment with the EU-US sanctions

The paper examines the Icelandic government’s consideration to withdraw its support for the sanctions against Russia over Ukraine in 2015. The consideration came as a surprise to many since Iceland in the past has habitually aligned itself closely with the United States and the European Union in such matters. The Icelandic fishing industry lobbied hard for the sanctions to be lifted to avoid Russian counter-sanctions on Iceland. After considerable internal debate, the government decided to uphold the sanctions, but settled on a policy of not taking part in EU´s foreign policy declarations about the sanctions. This move is interesting given Iceland’s traditional positioning between two gravitational centres in world politics: the EU and the US. The paper discusses what this case tells us about Icelandic policymakers’ room for maneuvering in the formulation and enactment of its foreign policy, and about Iceland’s foreign policy bonds to the US and the EU.

Norge, USA og det liberale verdifellesskapet

Trumps delvis anti-liberale politikk setter flere av USAs europeiske allierte, inkludert Norge, i en kinkig posisjon. Én mulig respons er å opptre varsomt, og la de amerikanske institusjonene selv «gjøre jobben» i møte med mer illiberale initiativer fra den nye administrasjonen. Samtidig kan det tenkes at flere av Trumps posisjoner vil modereres i møte med både byråkrati og allierte. Problemet med en slik tilnærming – der Norge står på sidelinjen, og eventuelt tar ad hoc beslutninger om å kritisere - er at det ikke tar utfordringene som de liberale verdiene og institusjonene står overfor seriøst nok. Problemet for verdifellesskapet er tross alt ikke bare Trump, men en internasjonal dreining mot det illiberale i både innenriks- og utenrikspolitikken til land som vi har antatt har vært en del av det samme fellesskapet. Hvor langt er Norge villig til å gå for å forsvare de verdiene som vi definerer oss gjennom utad?

State effects and the effects of state building: institution building and the formation of state-centred societies

This article discusses the assumptions underlying state-building efforts and the effects of these efforts. It addresses two main questions: why has state building not led to the establishment of effective states? And what are the effects of statebuilding? It is argued that these efforts have been based on an institutionalist model of the state derived from a Weberian framework, and that the basic reason why state building has failed is that the creation of effective states requires the creation of state-centred societies, where both material and symbolic resources are concentrated in the state. This is very difficult to achieve for external actors. But, although state building has not achieved the kinds of effects associated with effective states, it has nevertheless had significant effects. These include, first, accentuating the patrimonialism which has led to state weakness in the first place; second, reductions in national sovereignty as external actors’ substantial influence on policy agendas renders the state itself subject to control and regulation by actors external to it; and, third, perpetuating the idea of the state, while undermining the possibility of creating actual states which conform to this idea.