| Lundestad, Ingrid. 2017. "Turning security importers to exporters? US strategy and cooperation with Northern Europe since 1993". Journal of Transatlantic Studies. Online 25 June | Lundestad, Ingrid. 2017. "Turning security importers to exporters? US strategy and cooperation with Northern Europe since 1993". Journal of Transatlantic Studies. Online 25 June | <p><span style="color:#333333;font-family:"open sans", sans-serif;font-size:17.6px;">Transatlantic burden-sharing debates often centre on defence expenditures and participation in missions out-of-area. An analysis of US strategy for cooperation with Nordic and Baltic countries during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies reveals how the United States has worked to promote security export much more broadly. It pursued contributions through in-area military installations, military partnership and missions, and political/economic cooperation promoting security and stability in Northern Europe, the Euro-Atlantic area, and far away. Global strategies and specific thinking regarding contributions from this region formed US policies. Developments were not linear; the United States took on commitments, even as it promoted increased burden-sharing.</span><br></p><p><span style="color:#333333;font-family:"open sans", sans-serif;font-size:17.6px;"><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14794012.2017.1337684">Les artikkelen på nettsidene til Journal of Transatlantic Studies.</a></span></p><p><span style="color:#333333;font-family:"open sans", sans-serif;font-size:17.6px;">Ikke tilgang? Ta kontakt med Forsvarets høgskoles bibliotek: <a href="mailto:bibl@fhs.mil.no">bibl@fhs.mil.no</a></span></p> |
| Bekkevold, Jo Inge and Sunniva Engh. 2017. «Silk Road Diplomacy: China’s Strategic Interests in South Asia». In South Asia and the Great Powers: International Relations and Regional Security, edited by Stein Rynning. I.B. Tauris | Bekkevold, Jo Inge and Sunniva Engh. 2017. «Silk Road Diplomacy: China’s Strategic Interests in South Asia». In South Asia and the Great Powers: International Relations and Regional Security, edited by Stein Rynning. I.B. Tauris | <p>Where the implications of war and peace are open to question, the possibility of change depends more on politics than economics. This book asks whether the region's great powers can overcome opposing interests and commit to political restraint. The concept of regional security is based on great power support for regional order. However, there are many pitfalls to consider: notably, the politics of contested nationalisms; the Asia-Pacific rivalry of China and the US; and India's inclinations to function - or be seen - as a benevolent hegemon for the region. </p><p>Yet there are signs of renewed determination to move the region in new directions. While China's Silk Road projects are long-term regional investments that hinge on regional stability, the US is attempting to fashion new partnerships and India strives to reconcile regional differences to promote a peaceful environment.</p><p>This book, as it sets out the emerging agendas of the great powers and local powers, makes a significant contribution to a better understanding of the international relations and diplomatic politics of South Asia.<br></p><p><a href="http://www.ibtauris.com/en/Books/Society%20%20social%20sciences/Politics%20%20government/International%20relations/Geopolitics/South%20Asia%20and%20the%20Great%20Powers%20International%20Relations%20and%20Regional%20Security?menuitem=%7bF66D6451-D7DF-403F-A234-82FAE9B3F795%7d">Read more about the book on the I.T. Tauris' website</a><br></p> |
| Saxi, Håkon L.. 2017. «British and German initiatives for defence cooperation: the Joint Expeditionary Force and the Framework Nations Concept». Defence Studies, 5 April | Saxi, Håkon L.. 2017. «British and German initiatives for defence cooperation: the Joint Expeditionary Force and the Framework Nations Concept». Defence Studies, 5 April | <p>At NATO's 2014 Wales Summit, the UK and Germany unveiled two new initiatives for European defence cooperation, known, respectively, as the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) and the Framework Nations Concept (FNC). Both were the result of economic pressures and the need to exercise intra-alliance leadership, but they represented very different approaches to cooperation. </p><p>The JEF was to be a UK-led contingency force for short-notice operations, selectively incorporating forces from allies and partners. </p><p>The FNC sought to coordinate capability development between groups of allies, centred on larger framework nations, to develop coherent capability-clusters available to meet NATO's force requirements. </p><p>The common denominator and novelty of the initiatives was the building of forces and capabilities multinationally by having major states act as framework nations for groups of smaller allies. The UK and Germany have ownership and continue to provide leadership to these initiatives. This is one key reason why they continue to evolve to accommodate changing circumstances and are likely to endure.</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial, sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white;"><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/dsKpmmer7mCrcHQSGP7C/full" target="_blank">Download the article from Taylor & Frances website</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial, sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white;">Hvis du mangler tilgang: kontakt Forsvarets høgskolens
bibliotek:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri, sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white;"><a href="mailto:bibl@fhs.mil.no"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#877040;">bibl@fhs.mil.no</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:arial, sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white;"></span><br></p> |