A Norwegian Reflection on Human Security in a Changing Geopolitical Landscape
What insights can we gain from the Human Security tradition to guide how we adapt our understanding and approaches to domestic and global security to a changing geopolitical landscape?
Resilience, Peacebuilding, and Preventing Violent Extremism: A Complex Systems Perspective on Sustaining Peace
How can resilience and peacebuilding help address the root causes of violent extremism? This seminar marks the Norwegian book launch of a new volume exploring this challenge.
Protection of critical infrastructure in Norway – factors, actors and systems
The main aim of this article is to examine how the issue of protecting critical infrastructure is addressed in Norway. To answer this question, the article addresses two important sub-questions – what is to be understood in the current historical and the specific Norwegian context as important elements of national critical infrastructure and what is the current understanding of risks and threats that this infrastructure should be protected against? This article is based on a detailed quantitative and qualitative examination of the official Norwegian documents and statements on questions related to various aspects of protecting critical infrastructure in Norway. In section one, structural factors that have played a major part in shaping Norwegian thinking about critical infrastructure are discussed. Section two provides a short summary of the current discussion on elements of critical infrastructure in Norway. In section three, the article discusses official Norwegian perceptions of threats and how they address questions related to critical infrastructure. The fourth section looks at the current official approach to protection of critical infrastructure in the country. The process of building the existing system for protecting critical infrastructure in Norway has been driven by both domestic and international concerns. The system should make it possible for citizens to meet their needs through access to various important societal functions, but it also needs to make it possible to address challenges that stem from the international environment.
Vedlegg til Kunnskapsnotat 1/2026: Utvalg av repressive lover og paragrafer i russisk lovverk
Utvalg av repressive lover og paragrafer i russisk lovverk. Oppdatert 10.02.2026. Vedlegg til Kunnskapsnotat 1/2026
Russlands undertrykking gjennom lovverk etter 2022
Siden 2012 har Russland vært preget av stadig mer undertrykkende lover, som kan sees i sammenheng med ytterligere maktkonsolidering under Putins regime. Mens de undertrykkende bestemmelsene tidligere først og fremst rammet opposisjonelle stemmer og dissidenter, viser utviklingen etter 2022 at også brede deler av befolkningen nå blir berørt. Lovverket som omfatter utenlandske agenter, uønskede organisasjoner, terrorisme og ekstremisme, utgjør de mest repressivt rettede delene og bidrar i betydelig grad til alvorlige brudd på menneskerettigheter som ytrings-, organisasjons- og forsamlingsfrihet. Den russiske befolkningen befinner seg nå i en stadig mer vanskelig situasjon, der rommet for kritikk av regimet i praksis er blitt nærmest ikke-eksisterende.
Afghanistan’s Qosh Tepa irrigation project: Implications for transboundary water management in Central Asia
Afghanistan’s Qosh Tepa irrigation project could exacerbate water scarcity and destabilize Central Asia. To ensure sustainable resource management and avert potential conflict, a multilateral water-sharing agreement must be negotiated among the states involved with mediation by the international community.
Czech and Norwegian perspectives on new security threats concerning Russian war on Ukraine
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has disrupted the world’s energy system. The most urgent need was to phase out the EU’s dependence on Russian energy imports and find a quick replacement. In this joint paper, we approach the issue from two different perspectives of the Czech Republic and Norway, looking for intersections and identifying opportunities to strengthen cooperation and facilitate the accelerated energy transition and diversification. We conclude that both countries have taken immediate action in addressing the most pressing energy-related risks. The potential for closer cooperation is obvious. Both countries should maximise the level of collaboration by taking advantage of existing institutional frameworks (NATO and EU/EEA). In the energy dimension, the key to cooperation in the short term is gas (investment in production in Norway, development of export pipelines or protecting critical sub-sea infrastructure). In the longer term, both countries should jointly cooperate on developing of hydrogen market, including production and transportation.
Room for Change? Premises of the EU's Space Policy
Since 2009, the EU’s space policy has, to a large extent, been grounded in principles linked to the EU’s climate and environmental agenda, based on a peaceful orientation toward the use of outer space. The ongoing transformation in Europe, where geopolitics has greater momentum, can be described as a shift away from the EU as a normative space actor, which has been the institutionalized premise of the EU’s space policy. The article problematizes the fact that, despite increased attention to security and defense in space policy, this shift does not materialize in practice. Drawing on institutional theory, the article discusses the factors that sustain stability and prevent rapid change, explaining how continuity in the EU’s space policy makes transformation difficult. Based on the EU’s two space strategies from 2016 and 2023, as well as interviews with space policy bureaucrats within the EU system, the article analyzes whether security and defense have become strengthened premises of the EU’s space policy. The findings are based on traceable structural and strategic shifts that may indicate significant change. The article further examines how the lack of operationalization in the EU’s space strategies, internal political disagreement among EU member states regarding the EU’s mandate, and technological lock-ins in the development of space capabilities challenge the EU’s ability to implement its defense and security agenda in its space policy. The findings show that the EU is not able to implement new security and defense ambitions in its space policy at the expected pace of the political leadership.