'Home and away'? Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

'Home and away'? Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse. / Graeger, Nina.

I: Cooperation and Conflict, Bind 46, Nr. 1, 03.2011, s. 3-20.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Graeger, N 2011, ''Home and away'? Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse', Cooperation and Conflict, bind 46, nr. 1, s. 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710396347

APA

Graeger, N. (2011). 'Home and away'? Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse. Cooperation and Conflict, 46(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710396347

Vancouver

Graeger N. 'Home and away'? Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse. Cooperation and Conflict. 2011 mar.;46(1):3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836710396347

Author

Graeger, Nina. / 'Home and away'? Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse. I: Cooperation and Conflict. 2011 ; Bind 46, Nr. 1. s. 3-20.

Bibtex

@article{4fab3d53452c46e5a2db8007f1539d90,
title = "'Home and away'?: Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse",
abstract = "Most NATO countries reformed their defence systems during the 1990s in response to the end of the Cold War. Although Norway adjusted to new external framework conditions and participated in the new international operations, territorial defence dominated the defence discourse and military practices at home into the next millennium. This article argues that the continuity in the discourse and the pace with which defence reform has been implemented during the period 1990–2005 is a result of social factors and relations at the national level. First, the nation-building role of the Norwegian defence system has shaped central national concepts, values and military practices, rendering it resistant to change. Second, reform has been counteracted by the weight of the military institution – in terms of size, geographical extent and deep-rooted practices related to training and education. Third, Norwegian defence policy is deeply intertwined with other domestic policy areas, so when changes in the defence establishment have negative consequences, especially for district policy, opposition is provoked. In contrast, the Norwegian defence discourse and practices seem to have rapidly co-opted the changes invoked by the emerging multi-polar system. This underscores the claim made here, that the Norwegian defence discourse is largely about national, territorial defence.",
keywords = "Norway, Norwegian defence discourse, reform, social factors",
author = "Nina Graeger",
year = "2011",
month = mar,
doi = "10.1177/0010836710396347",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "3--20",
journal = "Cooperation and Conflict",
issn = "0010-8367",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - 'Home and away'?

T2 - Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse

AU - Graeger, Nina

PY - 2011/3

Y1 - 2011/3

N2 - Most NATO countries reformed their defence systems during the 1990s in response to the end of the Cold War. Although Norway adjusted to new external framework conditions and participated in the new international operations, territorial defence dominated the defence discourse and military practices at home into the next millennium. This article argues that the continuity in the discourse and the pace with which defence reform has been implemented during the period 1990–2005 is a result of social factors and relations at the national level. First, the nation-building role of the Norwegian defence system has shaped central national concepts, values and military practices, rendering it resistant to change. Second, reform has been counteracted by the weight of the military institution – in terms of size, geographical extent and deep-rooted practices related to training and education. Third, Norwegian defence policy is deeply intertwined with other domestic policy areas, so when changes in the defence establishment have negative consequences, especially for district policy, opposition is provoked. In contrast, the Norwegian defence discourse and practices seem to have rapidly co-opted the changes invoked by the emerging multi-polar system. This underscores the claim made here, that the Norwegian defence discourse is largely about national, territorial defence.

AB - Most NATO countries reformed their defence systems during the 1990s in response to the end of the Cold War. Although Norway adjusted to new external framework conditions and participated in the new international operations, territorial defence dominated the defence discourse and military practices at home into the next millennium. This article argues that the continuity in the discourse and the pace with which defence reform has been implemented during the period 1990–2005 is a result of social factors and relations at the national level. First, the nation-building role of the Norwegian defence system has shaped central national concepts, values and military practices, rendering it resistant to change. Second, reform has been counteracted by the weight of the military institution – in terms of size, geographical extent and deep-rooted practices related to training and education. Third, Norwegian defence policy is deeply intertwined with other domestic policy areas, so when changes in the defence establishment have negative consequences, especially for district policy, opposition is provoked. In contrast, the Norwegian defence discourse and practices seem to have rapidly co-opted the changes invoked by the emerging multi-polar system. This underscores the claim made here, that the Norwegian defence discourse is largely about national, territorial defence.

KW - Norway

KW - Norwegian defence discourse

KW - reform

KW - social factors

U2 - 10.1177/0010836710396347

DO - 10.1177/0010836710396347

M3 - Journal article

VL - 46

SP - 3

EP - 20

JO - Cooperation and Conflict

JF - Cooperation and Conflict

SN - 0010-8367

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 230900371