Sikkerhetspolitiske rammebetingelser i bevegelse
(Available in Norwegian only): Verden preges av mer kompleksitet og usikkerhet enn på flere tiår. Kanskje har vi har allerede vent oss til hyppigere omveltninger. Mennesker er tilpasningsdyktige. Kanskje har vi ikke fullt ut tatt inn rekkevidden – også for Norge – av skredet av hendelser og endring i Europa og internasjonal sikkerhetspolitikk siden 2014. Norges sikkerhetspolitiske omland har blitt mer polarisert og mer fragmentert. Samtidig er noe dypere synliggjort; grunnpilarene for norsk sikkerhets og forsvarspolitikk er i bevegelse. Retningen er også mindre medstrøms for småstaten Norge enn nordmenn har vent seg til i nærmest hele perioden etter den andre verdenskrig. Denne analysen belyser utviklingstrekk som påvirker rammebetingelsene for Norges sikkerhet. Noen trekk skiller seg ut: Geopolitisk maktforskyvning utfordrer den institusjonaliserte verdensorden, og USA har vist tegn til å en mer avventende holdning til rollen som garantist og ledende stormakt. Samtidig kan et mer komplekst trusselbilde tvinge NATO til endringer som utfordrer samholdet i alliansen. Sett fra et norsk ståsted: Hvilke dilemmaer, utfordringer og nøkkelspørsmål vil kunne møte norske beslutningstakere i årene som kommer?
Is Russia on a collision course with the West?
Vladimir Putin has made several statements on the West as “the bad guy”. What will this mean for the relationship between the East and the West?
Diplomacy as Global Governance
The chapter details how diplomacy - the case study being Norwegian diplomacy - is no longer solely about representing the state vis a vis other states. It has evolved to also include governing specific issues. This governance aspect of diplomacy becomes even more interesting as an expression of the transformation of diplomacy when we consider that what is being governed is not directly linked to the security of the state, but to ideals and principles that attain meaning as first and foremost "international" issues or goals. We find evidence of a gradual shift of diplomacy towards governing of international issues, and reflect on what this means for the presentation of the state vis a vis other states.
Building tax systems in fragile states. Challenges, achievements and policy recommendations
This report systematises and analyses existing knowledge on taxation in fragile states. Efforts to support domestic revenue mobilisation in conflict situations require a different approach and other means than in the more stable developing countries. On that basis, the study discusses possible entry points for Norwegian support to domestic revenue mobilisation in ways that may contribute to strengthen state-building and improve government legitimacy. Complexity, limited experience and security concerns suggest that one should be cautious to adopt bilateral technical assistance programmes of the kind implemented in other developing countries. Instead, the study argues in favour of engagement via multilateral institutions, including multi-donor trust funds and other forms of pooled resources. The report recommends nine entry points for Norwegian support to taxation in fragile states: 1. Do no harm 2. Safeguard donor coordination, but ensure a certain humility 3. Support customs administration 4. Capacitate management and taxation of natural resources 5. Support the United Nations Tax Committee 6. Improve taxpayer-tax administration relations 7. Remember the sub-national tax system 8. Support civil based organisations 9. Develop research capacity
Europe after Brexit
What will the power balance in Europe look like after the UK leaves the EU next year?
What will Brexit mean for the Nordics?
The British government’s decision to withdraw from the European Union (EU) in 2016 marks a watershed in the history of European integration. What will Brexit mean for the Nordic countries?
New Diplomacy
New diplomacy is a term which has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. It was introduced as a positive contrast to the old diplomacy of kings and intrigues, and was concerned primarily with trade. Such a liberal understanding has remained predominant – new diplomacy has typically been associated with democratic control over diplomacy, international organization, and free trade, and with openness and honesty in diplomatic practice. An alternative radical interpretation, where new diplomacy implied the complete overthrow of the old, can trace its roots to the French Revolution, and was expressed fully during the Russian Revolution. Although new diplomacy has also been used as a term of abuse by those who prefer traditional forms of diplomacy, the term has primarily signified an ongoing or desired change in a positive direction. Currently, it is being used as a label for most of the non‐state‐centric diplomacy.
Old diplomacy
Old diplomacy is a term which has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. Politically, it emerged as a term of abuse, used to criticize all which had been wrong with interstate interaction before 1789, in particular secrecy, duplicity, and the reliance on aristocracy. Thus, it was often contrasted with a desired new diplomacy. Political versions of the term have persisted until the present day, although the target changed. A particular spike in criticism happened in 1918–20, when old diplomacy was blamed for the outbreak of the Great War. Analytically, old diplomacy has been used to refer more neutrally to earlier forms of diplomacy. This usage emerged in the nineteenth century, but has been more prevalent from the middle of the twentieth century.