In this thesis the ways in which power is shaped in the Arctic among the ‘Arctic five’ states are analyzed. It is argued that the Arctic is a multipolar region, in which Russia is the most dominant...Show moreIn this thesis the ways in which power is shaped in the Arctic among the ‘Arctic five’ states are analyzed. It is argued that the Arctic is a multipolar region, in which Russia is the most dominant and other actors adopt strategies towards Russia such as soft balancing, bandwagoning, and appeasement. The thesis shows that traditional conceptions of power do not apply unequivocally to the Arctic region, because it is hard to control effectively due to its unique geographical composition. Power in the Arctic is based on the recognition of sovereign rights over an area, which will give states economic opportunities (control over waterways and resources) in the future due to melting ice. The ideal of permanence underlying modern sovereignty is absent in the changing Arctic, and sovereign rights for exploitation of an area do not give states actual sovereignty. Sovereignty disputes are therefore often unclear and create interesting power dynamics. They are resolved through institutional procedures based on international law and political geography, yet states have opportunities for negotiation and can adopt their own viewpoints on sovereignty based on what suits the national interest. Thus the Arctic provides a unique example of ‘structural power’ and the interaction between structure and agency. Due to the ever-changing nature of the Arctic, states’ interests are more future-oriented than elsewhere. The thesis concludes that while security and sovereignty have become more important in the Arctic in recent years, there is no ‘security dilemma’ because capacity building does not directly threaten other states, and military conflict does not lead to gains and is highly unlikely. Security issues are rather more specific and less concerned with warfare, and more with the environment and emergencies. The difficulty of operating in the Arctic environment compels states to cooperate through international institutions, but the ‘Arctic five’ do this to further their national interests. The interdependence of the Arctic with the system-level is traced, and it is found that states are limited in their options in the Arctic due to mutual commitments on a global scale and possible precedent effects of agreements in the Arctic.Show less
Making a decision on participation in crisis-management operations is part of foreign policy of a country. It is a government decision and in the Netherlands there has been an art.100procedure...Show moreMaking a decision on participation in crisis-management operations is part of foreign policy of a country. It is a government decision and in the Netherlands there has been an art.100procedure developed. With the final evaluation of the operation the art.100procedure is completed. Central to the study is if the political result, which is the outcome of the interaction between the government and parliament during the parliamentary debate on the art.100letter, is part of the final evaluation of the crisis-management operation. On the basis of case studies, document analysis and interviews, the study was conducted within a specific framework of the Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) as developed by Carlsnaes, namely the intentional and the structural dimension. The cases are three crisis-management operations, namely EUFOR Chad, SFIR/Iraq, ISAF/Uruzgan. To determine the political result the relevant parliamentary publications were analysed for each case, with an analysis scheme and within the framework of the FPA. This scheme has criteria that are derived from three main categories, namely international relations theories, the assessment framework of 2001, and subjects from the self-reflection of the Lower House. The empirical analysis (the case studies) surprisingly shows that the political result is almost not visible in the final evaluation.Show less
Militaries have played significant roles in the transition from authoritarian regimes to more democratic political systems. Most of these transitions took place during the seventies and eighties in...Show moreMilitaries have played significant roles in the transition from authoritarian regimes to more democratic political systems. Most of these transitions took place during the seventies and eighties in South Europe and Latin America. They often started with cracks within the ruling party, which ultimately led to a gradual transition towards the installation of another regime and in most cases to some form of democratization. Based on those empirical examples a few key indicators predicting the behaviour of a military in transitions can be distinguished. An institutionalised military, which is not directly involved in the administration apparatus and which position has been backed by a legal framework have been found willing to shape the transition period to a more democratic system. During the transition the civilian authorities should guarantee the military certain prerogatives in order to keep it satisfied. An end of the transition period is reached when an effective and strong civilian government is installed which is able to execute civilian oversight over the military. The recent popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East were not gradual and caused an abrupt regime change in several Arab countries. Only in Egypt the military took a leading role in the transition. This thesis shows that also in the case of Egypt the nature of the military as an institutionalized military, not directly involved in the day to day governing, made it very resistant to any form of democratization. In the three proposed constitutions since the 25 January revolution the military has demanded and granted itself extensive prerogatives and annulled any form of civilian oversight. This will make it very difficult for any future civilian leader to execute civilian oversight over the Egyptian military.Show less
