Knowledge Gaps in the Nexus of Climate, Peace and Security
There is a growing body of research on the relationship between climate change and peace and security. Research shows that the effects of climate change can exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, such as food and water security, and in combination with other factors can also increase the risk of violent conflict. It is increasingly recognized that actions taken to prevent and manage conflict can be coordinated and integrated with actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Such cross-disciplinary cooperation can generate outcomes that are beneficial for both a sustainable peace and environment. The COP27 Presidency initiative titled “Climate Responses for Sustaining Peace” (CRSP), has taken a leading role in this movement by spearheading a discursive pivot from a climate security nexus towards a climate and peacebuilding nexus, with multifaceted and holistic approaches. The literature on how to integrate climate adaption and mitigation actions in efforts to build sustainable peace is still underdeveloped. However, there are related fields, such as the relationship between peace, conflict and natural resource management that may offer comparable lessons. This policy paper takes stock of the existing knowledge and identifies knowledge gaps for policy practice in the crucial, complex and emergent field of climate, peace and security. It classifies significant gaps in our actionable knowledge by sorting them into operational knowledge gaps, climate finance knowledge gaps, and gaps in the knowledge infrastructure.
Fra partnere til allierte: Finland og Norge i en ny æra
Finlands beslutning om å søke NATO-medlemskap i 2022 endret nordisk sikkerhet og forsvarsdynamikk. Det påvirket også Finlands forhold til sine naboland, inkludert Norge. I denne policy briefen analyserer vi utviklingen i forholdet mellom Finland og Norge – historisk og i nyere tid. Naboskapet har alltid vært fredelig, men ulike sikkerhetspolitiske tilnærminger skapte politisk avstand mellom dem under den kalde krigen. Etter den kalde krigens slutt ble forskjellene mindre, noe som reflekteres også i økt nordisk sikkerhetssamarbeid, finsk og svensk deltakelse i NATO-øvelser, og, i senere år, nye forsvarsavtaler med hverandre og med Sverige og USA. Etter Finlands NATO-inntreden har begge land uttrykt en forventning om ytterligere forsterket finsk-norsk samarbeid. Vi identifiserer flere potensielle samarbeidsområder i årene som kommer, herunder forvaltningen av felles institusjonelle rammeverk, sikkerhetsutfordringer i Arktis og Østersjøregionene, den fremtidige relasjonen med USA og tilnærmingen til et mer uforutsigbart Russland.
Do regime differences shape developmental engagement? How China and Japan compete in post-coup Myanmar
The 2021 military coup in Myanmar has left the country significantly isolated on the world stage. Politically, foreign governments have avoided recognizing the junta rulers, although quasi-official engagement is still underway. Economically, foreign investments into Myanmar have dropped by 42% from 2021 to 2022, off levels that had already massively decreased since the 2017 Rohingya expulsion. However, despite the international outcry over the new regime’s open warfare against civilians and the escalating violence in Myanmar’s multi-front civil war, both China and Japan have remained engaged in development cooperation, pursuing ambitious projects for economic corridors and special economic zones (SEZs) that were contracted under the deposed civilian government; in the case of China, even some new projects have been launched.
Klimaendringer i Arktis: Sikkerhetsimplikasjoner og konsekvenser for militære operasjoner – et MCDC-prosjekt (CLIMARCSEC)
Klimaendringene åpner opp Arktis for konkurranse i et tempo som utfordrer eksisterende styringsstrukturer og nasjonale militære kapasiteter. Dette skal CLIMARCSEC se nærmere på....
EUs utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitikk og implikasjoner for Norge
EUs samlede respons på krigen i Ukraina illustrerer bredden i EUs utenriks-politiske virkemidler og medlemslandenes økte vilje til å løse felles utfordrin-ger innenfor EU systemet. Det har også blitt tydeligere hvordan EU og Nato i økende grad komplementerer hverandre. Krigen og en endret geopolitisk situasjon illustrerer også hvordan sikkerhet i økende grad spiller over i andre politikkområder i EU som handel, energi, teknologi, kommunikasjon og kri-tiske råvarer. Vi befinner oss dermed i en europeisk sikkerhetspolitisk kontekst som er radikalt endret siden 1994. En hovedutfordring for Norge er at avta-lene med EU ikke reflekterer denne utviklingen. For å kompensere for dette må man dermed stadig søke å inngå nye avtaler for å sikre norske sikkerhets-politiske interesser, noe som er krevende og uforutsigbart. Så langt har det for eksempel skapt utfordringer knyttet til en eventuell norsk tilknytning til EUs nye satellittkommunikasjonssamarbeid (IRIS²) og helseunion. Denne artikke-len diskuterer EUs utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitikk og implikasjoner for Norge. Vi redegjør for viktige utviklingstrekk og drivere av EUs utenrikspolitikk, før vi går litt mer i dybden på hva slags utenrikspolitisk aktør EU er i dag. Til slutt diskuterer vi betydningen av denne utviklingen for Norge
Jenny Lorentzen
Jenny Lorentzen er Seniorforsker ved NUPI i forskningsgruppen for Fred, Konflikt og Utvikling.Lorentzen forsker på Kvinner, fred og sikkerhet (KFS...
Re-Engaging with Neighbours in a State of War and Geopolitical Tensions (RE-ENGAGE)
RE-ENGAGEs skal hjelpe EU med å styrke sin utenrikspolitiske verktøykasse, inkludert utvidelses- og naboskapspolitikken. Dette vil styrke unionens geopolitiske innflytelse og gi den bedre verktøy for ...
European Actorness in a Shifting Geopolitical Order. European Strategic Autonomy Through Differentiated Integration
This is an open access book. Over the past decade, the global geopolitical context has changed significantly, with a geopolitical power shift and a more assertive Russia and China. With the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine, European security has been put on high alert. The implications of the Russian military invasion are many and difficult to grasp in full. But the need for greater European strategic autonomy appears increasingly evident. But how can this be achieved in the short run? The answer to this question is often that it is impossible and that this can only be achieved in the long run. The aim of this book is to present a different perspective. It aims at showing that it should be possible to make the most out of the current European system if we adjust our understanding of how it works. The book argues that strategic autonomy may be reached—also in the short run—if differentiated integration is seen as an asset rather than a challenge. While the EU remains the core in such a system (together with NATO in the military domain), there is a multitude of other (bilateral and minilateral) regional and sub-regional integration processes that need to be taken into account to get the full idea of how European strategic autonomy can be achieved. This book starts by presenting a theoretical framework for how to study European actorness beyond the EU, then this framework will be applied both to the development towards the EU as a foreign policy actor through the mechanisms of enlargement.
Europa ruster opp
"Vi lever i et tidsskille", sa Tysklands forbundskansler Olaf Scholz da han annonserte at Tyskland skulle ruste opp sitt forsvar med 100 milliarde...
Collective defence in Europe: What place for the EU?
Collective defence is the cornerstone of Europe’s security architecture, anchored in NATO’s Article 5 stating that an attack against one ally is an attack against all. With the deteriorating security environment in Europe, questions have been asked about whether, and if so how, the EU’s clause on mutual defence – article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union – could be operationalized and perhaps be a supplement to NATO’s article 5 as a guarantor of collective defence in Europe. The debate is driven by perceived limits in NATO’s ability to deal with hybrid threats, the broader implications of Russia’s war on Ukraine, and the necessity for European states to take more responsibility for their security. For EU member states to succeed with its collective defence obligations within the union, political will, legal interoperability with NATO and capability development should be addressed further.