Geopolitics and International Governance in the Arctic

The Arctic has been the object of heated political discussion in recent years as the region has evolved from a potential conflict zone during the Cold War to an arena for international cooperation immediately afterwards. Since the mid-2000s attention has once again focused on the conflict potential of the Arctic, this time related to its resources. This article looks at how the research literature balances its prospects. The literature on international relations (IR) in the Arctic has been mainly empirical in orientation, although framed in the major IR traditions of realism (traditional geopolitics), institutionalism and (to a lesser extent) constructivism. The English-language literature on Arctic politics, which naturally dominates the field globally, is by and large framed in institutional terms. The discussion is not whether institutions matter in Arctic politics, but how they best can be crafted in order to maintain peace and stability in the region. Speculations about a ‘scramble for the Arctic’ have more or less unanimously been refuted in the literature. The French literature, on the other hand, is largely framed in a geopolitical context. French geopolitics is less concerned with the global power game than with the rivalry between states for strategic resources. The institutions of cooperation are, however, downplayed

"Fredsforskning" - en kritisk oversikt

-

"Populismen tar over verden"

Globaliseringens omkostninger i form av tapte arbeidsplasser, økende ulikhet og en usikker livssituasjon har i en rekke land skapt protestbevegelser som gjerne omtales som populistiske. I etablerte politiske kretser blir denne populismen sett på som en antidemokratisk ideologi og som et uttrykk for folkelig illiberalitet og uforstand – en holdning som også preger forskningen på populisme. I denne artikkelen gjennomgår jeg de ulike forklaringene på den organiserte mistilliten til de etablerte partiene, og konkluderer med at populisme først og fremst er en politisk stil, ikke en ideologi

Makt- og demokratiutredningen – politikkens retrett?

Makt-og demokratiutredningen (1998-2003) ble iverksatt ved stortingsvedtak høsten 1997, blant annet under inntrykk av en omfattende globaliseringsdebatt. En hovedkonklusjon i utredningen var at betydelig politisk makt var overført til organer som ikke sto til ansvar i valg. Tesen om rettsliggjøring av politikken var en del av denne konklusjonen. Artikkelen svarer på en kritikk som sier at konklusjonen, sett i ettertid, var overdrevet, og at betydelig politisk styring er sikret gjennom en mer effektivt organisert forvaltning og en mer samordnet budsjettbehandling. Svaret erkjenner dette, men legger samtidig vekt på at tesen om rettsliggjøring snarere er styrket og at internasjonaliseringen av maktforhold er mer omfattende enn for 10-15 år siden

Vor einer neuen maktutredning

In 1997 the Norwegian storting decided to put up a so called Power-Commission (maktutredning = MU), and in the spring of 1998 appointed a group of five senior researchers, headed by Øyvind Østerud, for this task. In this introductory discussion Østerud is trying to pin down the central issues for the new commission. His point of departure is the previous MU (1972–1982), which was a milestone in Scandinavia and had a tremendous impact not only on Scandinavian policy making and public debate, but also on Scandinavian social research. Unlike its predecessor, the new MU will not be organized as a couple of close-kill research programs, but rather act as the prime mover in a loosely coupled network of scholars from different disciplines. Furthermore the new one must be characterized by theoretical and methodological pluralism. The rationale behind this strategy is not least the fact that present-day Norway is a totally different society from what it was in the 1970s. The homogenous, self-assured, Scandinavian social democratic nation-state simply does not exist anymore. Instead, Norway has become a “normal” Northern European country trying to find its place and way in a new world of globalization, European integration, and denationalization