Global governance

EUNPACK Executive Summary of the Final Report & Selected Policy Recommendations. A conflict-sensitive unpacking of the eu comprehensive approach to...

Since adopting a ‘comprehensive approach’ to crisis management in 2013, the EU has spent considerable time and energy on streamlining its approach and improving internal coordination. New and protracted crises, from the conflict in Ukraine to the rise of Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and the refugee situation in North Africa and the Sahel, have made the improvement of external crisis-response capacities a top priority. But the implementation of the EU’s policies on the ground has received less scholarly and policy attention than the EU’s actorness and institutional capacity-building, and studies of implementation have often been guided primarily by a theoretical or normative agenda. The main objective of the EUNPACK project has been to unpack EU crisis response mechanisms and provide new insights how they are being received and perceived on the ground by both local beneficiaries and other external stakeholders. By introducing a bottom–up perspective combined with an institutional approach, the project has tried to break with the dominant line of scholarship on EU crisis response that has tended to view only one side of the equation, namely the EU itself. Thus, the project has been attentive to the local level in target countries as well as to the EU level and the connections between them. The research has been conducted through an inductive and systematic empirical research combining competencies from two research traditions that so far has had little interaction, namely peace and conflict studies and EU studies. A key finding in our research is that while the EU has been increasingly concerned with horizontal lessons learnt, it needs to improve vertical lessons learnt to better understand the local dynamics and thus provide more appropriate responses.

The Arctic Council and US domestic policymaking

One widely recognized achievement of the Arctic Council and its various working groups has been the production of collectively generated assessments on Arctic problems. Assessment reports such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) provide an important baseline of shared knowledge for making collective circumpolar policy recommendations. But how does the knowledge produced through Arctic Council working groups figure into the policymaking of the Arctic states? This is an important question for understanding Arctic politics and the relationship between national decisionmaking and international relations more generally. Much of what the Arctic Council produces is in the form of recommendations, declarations of intent, and commitments to "best practices" in areas of shared interest and activity. While in recent years the Council has produced three binding agreements covering specific functional areas—search and rescue (2011), oil pollution preparedness and response (2013),and science cooperation (2017)—much ongoing Arctic collaborative work falls outside of these areas. This policy brief explores how science/policy outputs of and discussions at the Arctic Council fit into the Arctic political discourse of the USA, with an emphasis on key actors within the executive branch: the White House, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

For the greater good?: “Good states” turning UN peacekeeping towards counterterrorism

The usual suspects of middle power internationalism—small and middle powers such as Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden—have all contributed to the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA). This article argues that while these and other Western countries’ contributions to MINUSMA may still be characterized as investments into UN peacekeeping reform and a rule-governed world order, the liberal underpinnings of that commitment are withering. Instead, these countries seek to enhance their own status. This is done by gaining appreciation for their contributions, primarily from the US; strengthening their bids for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council; and self-interested contributions to reformUNpeacekeeping by efforts to enable it to confront violent extremism and terrorism. Paradoxically, the article concludes, when moving the UN towards counterterrorism and weakening the legitimacy of the organization, Western states undermine a cornerstone of their own security.

Kampen om Europa

(In Norwegian only) EUs idéhistoriske fundament ble bygget etter andre verdenskrig for å unngå en slik krig for all fremtid. Den franske utenriksministeren Robert Schuman startet EU-prosjektet ved å samordne de militært relevante europeiske kull- og stålindustriene, og innsatsen var allerede fra starten motivert av ønsket om fred og sikkerhet på kontinentet. Det var også for rollen som fredsprosjekt at EU fikk den kontroversielle fredsprisen i 2012. Selv om sikkerhet har vært sentralt i tenkningen om EU, har sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk vært «den stygge andungen» i forsøkene på tettere integrasjon. EU er gradvis blitt mer integrert gjennom traktater, men sikkerhetspolitisk samarbeid er blitt nedprioritert. Det har sin naturlige forklaring i at saksområdet har vært krevende å samordne. Sikring av ytre grenser og forsvar av territorium har vært kjernen av hva det vil si å være en suveren stat. Europa er et nasjonalstatens kontinent, tross EU.

Territorialstatens tilstand i dagens Midtøsten

How to understand the contemporary Middle East? Despite a growing literary landscape attempting to illuminate this complex region, this question should not be taken lightly. This essay discusses how the following books contributes to our understanding of the region today: Brennpunkt Midtøsten: Byene som prisme (Butenschøn & Maktabi 2018), Fra opprør til kaos: Midtøsten etter den arabiske våren (Nordenson 2018) and Israel: Historie, politikk og samfunn (Heian-Engdal 2018). While the books have different thematical approaches, all three describe and analyse the current state of the region’s territorial entities. Although concepts such as sovereignty and territorial integrity does not necessarily make much sense in the region today, the authors explain why it is unlikely that we are going to see any changes in existing state formations in the foreseeable future.

Participatory Democracy and Evidence-based Decision Making at the Local Level in Ukraine