Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography Norway

1. Monitoring Progress on the Women, Peace and Security Agenda

Author:
Robert U. Nagel, David Guzman, and Carla Koppel
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS)
Abstract:
To advance the WPS Agenda and monitor progress, in 2019 the governments of Finland and Spain initiated Commitment 2025 (C-25). The member countries agreed to track their efforts to increase the meaningful and substantive participation of women along nine specific commitments related to conflict prevention and resolution, negotiation and mediation processes. This agreement currently has 13 signatories: Finland, Spain, Norway, Iceland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Namibia, Canada, Uruguay, and Argentina. The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS) has partnered with C-25 members to track progress toward the commitments. To increase transparency and accountability while also providing metrics for progress, we collected and analyzed data on women’s representation in political governance, diplomatic, and peace and security institutions. We combined data from various sources to generate analysis and insights about the status of progress on C-25 commitments. Findings indicate that concerted efforts are needed to reach targets by 2025. Despite some progress, women’s participation and meaningful inclusion in matters of peace and security is still lacking. Governments can and must do better including and empowering women in peace and security institutions and processes. The data underscore the importance of continued dedication to women’s empowerment and the importance of holding governments accountable through monitoring progress.
Topic:
Security, Women, Accountability, Peace, Transparency, and Monitoring
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Canada, Finland, Norway, Argentina, Uruguay, Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, Iceland, and Namibia

2. What threatens NATO – and what members can do? The case of Norway and Poland

Author:
Jakub M. Godzimirski
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
This research paper examines the critical external and internal challenges that faced NATO at its 70th anniversary, and how the policies of two members – Norway and Poland – can influence the internal cohesion of the Alliance and thus its ability to provide security to all its members. The survival of NATO as a viable security actor will depend on its capacity to maintain internal cohesion, a crucial factor influencing its ability to address external risks, challenges and threats in the increasingly turbulent international environment. This study places the debate in the broader context of discussion on alliance survivability in general, maps the external and internal challenges facing the Alliance after seven decades of its existence, and examines possible risks that the policies of Norway and Poland may pose to NATO’s internal cohesion and thus its ability to react to external challenges.
Topic:
Security, NATO, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe, Norway, and Poland

3. Small States, Different Approaches: Estonia and Norway on the UN Security Council

Author:
Kristin M. Haugevik, Piret Kuusik, Kristi Raik, and Niels Nagelhus Schia
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
In 2021, Estonia and Norway served as elected members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Both being relatively small states, defending multilateral cooperation and rules-based international order were important common goals. In the last decade, great power tensions have returned to the Security Council, and multilateralism has again come under pressure. The opportunities of elected members to substantially influence the UNSC agenda are arguably limited by power struggles, complex subject matter and inefficient working methods. In spite of these limitations, both Estonia and Norway achieved some important outcomes as members of the Security Council. Their experiences confirm above all the value of diplomatic experience and reputation-building for elected members. To some extent, the two states have also been able to assume ownership of matters on the UNSC agenda. As in any diplomatic setting, knowing how to “play the game” is key to the ability of small states to punch above their weight. Specific methods through which elected members work to influence the UNSC agenda include coalition-building, actively using the presidency function, organising special events, and assuming the penholder role in a specific country or thematic issue. Common priority areas of Estonia and Norway in the UNSC include conflict resolution and peacebuilding, protection of human rights and especially women’s rights, and addressing new security challenges in the fields of cyber and climate. The most significant experience of cooperation during 2021 was the Estonian-Norwegian joint penholdership of the Afghanistan file which brought the two countries to the centre stage of global diplomacy and reinforced their international profile as small states that make an active and professional contribution to multilateral cooperation. Looking at Estonia’s and Norway’s performance in 2021, some interesting differences can be identified. First, the two states assess the relative importance of the UN differently. In Norway’s foreign policy, there is a strong tradition of prioritising the UN and seeing an active role in multilateral cooperation as an important contribution to national interests and security. By contrast, for Estonia, the UN has not been a foreign policy priority in the past, and its contribution to national security continues to be seen as secondary to membership in Western organisations, notably NATO and the EU. Furthermore, Norway has generally worked a bit more behind the scenes, relying on its long experience and reputation as a constructive contributor to peace diplomacy. It has been active on issues such as the UNSC’s normative protection agenda and climate security, but also the Afghanistan, Syria and North Korea files. Meanwhile, Estonia has taken a rather bold approach as a newcomer visibly promoting its priorities, most notably the cybersecurity agenda. It has also focused on controversial issues of regional security, including the situations in Ukraine and Belarus, trying to use the UN to the advantage of national security through promoting its positions and strengthening coalitions with like-minded countries. Coordination between like-minded states is an integral part of the work of the Council. With Estonia and Norway both present, 2021 saw two Nordic-Baltic states concurrently represented in the Council for the first time. In the future, there may be scope for further strengthening Nordic-Baltic cooperation in the framework of the UN structures.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, United Nations, Cybersecurity, and UN Security Council
Political Geography:
Europe, Norway, Estonia, and Baltic States

4. The European Defence Fund and Norway

Author:
Karsten Friis
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The establishment of the European Defence Fund (EDF) represents an important step towards a more coherent European security architecture. It is broadly recognised that Europe needs to reduce duplication between, as well as the number of, weapons systems and platforms. The EU recently opened up for associated countries to participate in the Fund, but the Norwegian government has failed to set aside money for the EDF, despite official policy to participate.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, European Union, and Trade
Political Geography:
Europe and Norway

5. The Geostrategic Arctic: Hard security in the High North

Author:
Harri Mikkola
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
The end of the Cold War meant that the Arctic region lost most of its geostrategic relevance. However, due to growing great power competition, the Arctic is back on the geopolitical map. Hard security dynamics in the region are defined by two key elements: the importance of conventional long-range missiles and nuclear weapons for Russia, and the importance of the North Atlantic sea line of communication for European defence. Russia has revitalized its Cold War-era bastion strategy, which aims to ensure the survival of its strategic ballistic missile submarines. In a crisis scenario, this strategy could pose serious challenges to the Nordic countries as well. Five Arctic states are members of NATO and the Alliance’s collective defence is operational in the Arctic. Even if the Arctic is still not a focus area for NATO, the North Atlantic maritime domain is increasingly back on the agenda. Given the divergent strategic interests and lack of common ground between Russia and other Arctic states on grand strategic issues, the Arctic will not be losing its geostrategic importance anytime soon.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Maritime
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Canada, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and Arctic

6. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Great Power Competition

Author:
Christopher C. Harmon, T. J. Linzy, Jack Vahram Kalpakian, Bruce I. Gudmundsson, Ryan Burke, Jahara "Franky" Matisek, Zsofia Budai, Kevin Johnston, Blagovest Tashev, Michael Purcell, David McLaughlin, Kashish Parpiani, Daniel De Wit, and Timothy Chess
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
In this issue of MCU Journal, the authors discuss various concepts of power and great power competition. For generations, scholars have debated changes in power and how that evolution could potentially impact the United States, its allies, and those hovering on the edge of greatness in whatever form that may take. The concept of power has taken on many meanings as the character of warfare has adapted to the time—hard power, soft power, sea power, airpower, space power, great power, combat power, etc. So how do we define such an abstract concept as power? The Department of Defense (DOD) defines combat power as “the total means of destructive and/or disruptive force which a military unit/formation can apply against the opponent at a given time.” Clearly, power must be projected; and for our purposes, that means an entity has the “ability . . . to apply all or some of its elements of national power—political, economic, informational, or military—to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.”
Topic:
Security, NATO, Climate Change, International Cooperation, Migration, History, Power Politics, Armed Forces, Navy, Populism, Grand Strategy, Alliance, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Strategic Competition, Geography, Ottoman Empire, Information Technology, and Clash of Civilizations
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Europe, Sudan, India, Norway, Asia, France, North America, Egypt, Arctic, United States of America, and Antarctica

7. Intensifying Great Power Politics in the Arctic - Point of Consideration by the Kingdom of Denmark: From an analysis of assessments and strategies in Finland, Norway and Iceland

Author:
Mikkel Runge Olesen and Camilla Tenna Nørup Sørensen
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
The Arctic is increasingly becoming a region marked by great power competition between the US, Russia and China. This has caused trouble for the Nordic countries in the Arctic, who has had to handle and defuse both potential tensions with both Russia and China, and at the same manage relations with the US – their great power protector – whose new approach to the Artic now openly focuses on Russian and China as strategic competitors in the Arctic. Building on interviews, official documents and the existing literature, this report looks into the experiences from Finland, Norway and Iceland in dealing with this dilemma with the aim of identifying points for consideration by Denmark.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Power Politics
Political Geography:
Europe, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Arctic

8. Democratic Civilian Control over the Security Sector: Comparative Legal Documents

Author:
Philipp H. Fluri and Valentyn Badrack
Publication Date:
04-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Razumkov Centre
Abstract:
This publication provides a broad range of examples of national legislation as well as international conventions and instruments related to the democratic oversight of the security sector. The product is designed for stakeholders’ easy reference, be they civil society, democratic institutions, government or the security sector itself. Examples are supplied from, among others, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Norway, Poland and Switzerland.
Topic:
Security, Democracy, Legislation, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Europe, Ukraine, Canada, Norway, France, Poland, Bulgaria, and Switzerland

9. NORDEFCO and NATO: "Smart Defence" in the North?

Author:
Ann-Sofie Dahl
Publication Date:
05-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
Weekly Swedish-Finnish-Norwegian air defence training in the very north of Scandinavia; Swedish-Danish cross border exercises in the southern part of the region; Swedish-Finnish maritime patrolling in the Baltic Sea; and, in February 2014, Swedish and Finnish participation in the Iceland Air Meet exercise with NATO, led by Norway. These are only a few examples of Nordic Defence Cooperation, or NORDEFCO, the military acronym used to describe this multifaceted pattern of practical military training and cooperation across borders and security doctrines in the northernmost corner of Europe.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, Finland, Norway, and Sweden

10. A Stocktaking of Norwegian Engagement in Security Sector Reform

Author:
Marina Caparini, Kari Marie Kjellstad, and Trine Nikolaisen
Publication Date:
12-2011
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The report reviews the main institutional actors involved, modes by which assistance has been provided, and patterns of assistance in selected countries. It concludes with recommendations for strengthening Norway’s SSR engagement, including through development of a strategic policy framework for SSR, improved coherence and coordination, and adequate planning and evaluation.
Topic:
Security, Reform, and Engagement
Political Geography:
Norway