Rasmus Brun Pedersen

Danish foreign policy activism: Differences in kind or degree?

Danish foreign policy is under transformation. Different versions of activism have gradually replaced adaptation and lately Denmark has participated more actively and independently in world politics than ever before. The core in activism is based on a liberal value system that seems to have replaced the adaptation logics dominating Danish foreign policy during the Cold War. Activism has evolved from a multilateral inspired activism in the 1990s to a more Atlantic centred activism during the 2000s. While analysts see the different phases as opposites, my argument is that the types of activism should be seen as a difference of degree rather than a difference of kind. ‘Activism’ as a foreign policy strategy, however, should be considered analytically as a difference in kind from the adaptation strategies that dominated Danish foreign policy during the Cold War. The main driving force behind this transformation can be found domestically in the Liberal Party’s dominant position in Danish politics.

Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms

The last decade has witnessed resurgence in the interest in studying the causal mechanisms linking causes and effects. This article games through the methodological consequences that adopting a systems understanding of mechanisms has for what types of cases we should select when using in-depth case study methods like process tracing. The article proceeds in three steps. We first expose the assumptions that underpin the study of causal mechanisms as systems that have methodological implications for case selection. In particular, we take as our point of departure the case-based position, where: causation is viewed in deterministic and asymmetric terms, the focus is ensuring causal homogeneity in case-based research to enable cross-case inferences to be made, and finally where mechanisms are understood as more than just intervening variables but instead a system of interacting parts that transfers causal forces from causes to outcomes. We then develop a set of case selection guidelines that are in methodological alignment with these underlying assumptions. We then develop guidelines for research where the mechanism is the primary focus, contending that only typical cases where both X, Y, and the requisite contextual conditions are present should be selected. We compare our guidelines with the existing, finding that practices like selecting most/least-likely cases are not compatible with the underlying assumptions of tracing mechanisms. We then present guidelines for deviant cases, focusing on tracing mechanisms until they breakdown as a tool to shed light on omitted contextual and/or causal conditions.

Bandwagon for Status: Changing Patterns in the Nordic States Status-seeking Strategies?

ABSTRACT Why do the small Nordic states engage themselves in militarized interventions alongside the United States? The article argues that the Nordic states gradually have begun to perceive militarized coalition participation as an important tool to gain reputation and improve their status position. A good relationship with the United States is considered as a means to either consolidate or improve their relative status position and also secure protection or ‘shelter’ against regional competitors by improving their reputation. Empirically, the article contributes to our understanding of the status-seeking strategies of the Nordic countries and how they might have utilized a more militarized activism to seek status that departs from the traditional Nordic internationalism. Theoretically, the article contributes to our understanding of the concept of ‘status’ in international relations by offering a new explanation of the puzzling willingness of small states to use military means in international conflicts where immaterial gains play a larger role than otherwise assumed in the realist small-state literature.

Was something rotten in the state of Denmark? Three narratives of the active internationalism in Danish foreign policy

The Danish decision to enter US-led coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq significantly consolidated and strengthened the Atlantic dimension in Danish foreign policy in the period 2001–2009. The period has attracted considerable academic interest, but there seems to be a lack of consensus about how to interpret the Danish decision, which has been characterised as everything from an indication of adaptation, to continuation of the Danish acquiescence to great powers, to path-breaking change in Danish foreign policy to an expression of small state independence. Part of the confusion in the literature is due to the lack of clear conceptual awareness regarding the concepts in use. This article identifies three frames in the literature and contributes to our understanding of the question of change and continuity in small state foreign and security policy by identifying the analytical implications of adopting a clearer understanding of analytical concepts such as adaptation, determinism, activism and internationalism in the Scandinavian context in general and the Danish context more specifically.

Past, present, and future: the role of the Cold War in legitimising Danish foreign policy activism

The Cold War has had an extended life span in Danish foreign policy due to the establishment of a right-wing revisionist agenda. This article argues that this revisionism came to serve different contemporary purposes under the Anders Fogh Rasmussen governments. Externally it was used to legitimise the Danish participation in the Iraq War and came to serve as a tool to discipline the war-sceptical social democratic led opposition and secured parliamentary support for an offensive Liberal-inspired activism in Danish foreign policy. Domestically the revisionism became entangled with the overall cultural war that the Liberal-led government launched and thereby became a part of the overall ideological war that united the governing coalition from 2001 to 2011.

‘Footnote Policy’ and the Social Democratic Party’s Role in Shaping Danish EEC Positions, 1982–1986

The so-called footnote period in the 1980s is a controversial era in the history of Danish foreign policy. This article shows how footnote policy was not restricted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) area; rather, it reflected a wider parliamentary practice whereby footnotes and parliamentary resolutions were also used as strategies to impose Social Democratic preferences on the official European Economic Community (EEC) positions of the otherwise right-of-centre government. The article provides a nuanced analysis of the policy making in that period, arguing that the relative importance of different explanatory factors in the literature changed in the period 1982–1986. For instance, support is found for the transnational thesis that the Scandilux security-policy forum had some importance in determining the Social Democratic position, especially during negotiations on the Single European Act (SEA) in 1985. In other periods, short-term electoral concerns played a role, for instance in December 1985 and January 1986. However, the Social Democratic positions on the institutional questions in the 1982–1985 period were remarkably stable and could be interpreted as an attempt to maintain internal party cohesion.