| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
181643
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
After the Cold War, international relations in the Arctic were characterised by cooperation and diplomacy. However, since Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, largely peaceful relations in the High North have been endangered by growing military competition between Russia and Western Arctic powers. The lack of military to military dialogue between Russia and the West has exacerbated the situation. Consequently, an Arctic security dilemma has arisen, which threatens stability and increases the danger of unintended armed conflict resulting from accidents or misunderstandings. Security dilemmas are as old as international politics. They occur when states feel threatened by the expanding military capabilities of their neighbours even if there is no deliberate hostile intent. This article will examine the developing Arctic security dilemma and the chances of its mitigation. Two recent developments provide potential grounds for optimism. The new United States’ administration has pledged to return America to global engagement and multilateralism. In 2021, the Russian Federation is scheduled to become chair of the Arctic Council and the Arctic Coastguard Forum, the main intergovernmental institutions in the region. These events provide an opportunity to rebuild greater trust and confidence in relations between Russia and its Arctic neighbours and alleviate dangerous tensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
079101
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Nordic states have embraced the thesis that development and security are strongly interdependent. While they have been heavily and continuously involved in Africa as donors in the development field, their military engagement is less consistent. The article argues that the foreign policy strategies of the Nordic states are designed to maximize international influence by enhancing their reputations and images. However, those foreign policies are divided into separate policy fields, or segments, working within their own international frameworks. Since different international frameworks appreciate actions and behaviour differently, national integration of development-security strategies is very difficult to achieve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
074083
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
States in the Nordic-Baltic area reacted heterogeneously to the Iraq War operation: Denmark chose to participate; Iceland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania supported the operation diplomatically or materially; whereas Norway, Finland and Sweden were negative. The research tool used to explain this pattern is the parsimonious theory of 'past and present geopolitics', taking issue with systemic neorealism, primarily. In spite of official rhetoric emphasizing Baghdad or New York (the UN), states' driving forces were mainly found in their different salient environments. The primary explanation, proximate power balancing, was at work regarding Denmark, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Iceland, with no big neighbour, could enjoy profit bandwagoning, while Sweden and Finland followed 'standard operating procedures'. A minor aberration from expectations is noted regarding Finland: its EU balancing rather than US balancing of Russia. The Norwegian 'no' and Danish warfare were both an expression of geopolitical freedom of manoeuvre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
075685
|
|
|