Militæraktivisme brandet som fredsaktivisme? Norges kampanje for en plass i FNs sikkerhetsråd
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hvordan håndterer Norge sin militæraktivisme og sitt NATO-medlemskap når landet vil presentere seg selv som en fredsnasjon? Problemstillingen ble aktuell i det norske utenriksdepartementets nylige kampanje for å få Norge valgt inn i FNs sikkerhetsråd, hvor ideen om Norge som fredsnasjon stod sentralt. I denne artikkelen bruker vi nasjonsbranding som et analytisk rammeverk for å forstå hvordan Norge bygget opp sin kampanje som fredsnasjon og håndterte det konkurrerende narrativet om sin rolle i krig. Som et sekundærfokus ser vi også på hvordan Norges to konkurrenter, Irland og Canada, fremstilte seg på disse to dimensjonene – som er av særinteresse da Irland ikke er NATO-medlem. For å utforske disse spørsmålene analyserer vi taler og tekster fra det norske diplomatiet og regjeringen vedrørende kampanjen, samt ser på kampanjematerialet til de tre landene. Gitt at de tre landenes profil er påfallende lik, fant vi at alle måtte forsøke å finne en måte å brande seg på som uttrykket ens særtrekk og høynet ens relevans i sammenligning med de to andre landene. I analysen av Norge ser vi at militæraktivisme stadig ble hvisket ut i løpet av den norske kampanjen og at andre tematikker ble brukt i brandingen – som for eksempel likestilling og bidrag til internasjonal utvikling. Dette skulle dermed skulle legitimere ideen om fredsnasjonen Norge, et land som alle andre kan stole på. Abstract in English:Military Activism Branded as Peace Activism? Norway’s Campaign for a Seat on the UN Security CouncilIn seeking to present itself as a peace nation, how has Norway sought to address its military activism and NATO membership? This tension was apparent in Norway’s recent campaign for a seat on the UN Security Council, where the idea of the country as a peace nation stood central. Using nation branding as an analytical framework, we ask how Norway built and sustained this peace narrative and managed the competing narrative of its role in controversial armed conflicts. As a secondary focus, we ask how Norway’s two competitors, Ireland and Canada, presented themselves on these two axes of peace and military activism. Ireland posed a particular threat as it is not a NATO member. To explore these questions, we analyse speeches and texts from Norwegian officials regarding the campaign and examine the official campaign material from all three countries. Given that the image of all three countries was generally similar, we find that each country sought to find unique ways to brand themselves as well as countering the few specific advantages of the others. In the case of Norway, we find that during the campaign the country’s military activism was downplayed and other themes were foregrounded in the branding, such as gender equality and international development cooperation. This would legitimate the idea of Norway as a peace nation, a reliable partner that all states could trust.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".