The elections of nonpermanent members to the Security Council have become an increasingly competitive political and diplomatic game. Why do states assign to the lengthy, expensive, and difficult commitment that a Security Council candidature entails? What do they want to achieve and why are some states more successful in their endevour? This book establishes that the electoral results over time contribute to a stratified order between states and associate a term in the Council with multiple power enhancing benefits. It explores, especially, the significance of the campaigns carried out by competing candidates for the outcome of the UNSC elections. Contributors are: Anna María Eggertsdóttir, Jóna Sólveig Elínardóttir, Fredrik Dybfest Hjorthen, Touko Piiparinen, Tarja Seppä, Anni Tervo and Baldur Thorhallsson

Through an explanation of the domestic political controversy that surrounded the most recent Swedish candidature and subsequent membership of the UN Security Council 2017-18, this article contributes to our understanding of the domestic-foreign policy nexus in two respects. First, it conceptualizes a domain of foreign policy priorities. Issues within this domain are likelier to deviate from a consensual pattern of foreign policy by sparking conflict, as they provoke competing national role conceptions among the foreign policy elite. Second, it refines results from previous study on the executive-legislative relationship in foreign policy. It confirms the association between party conflict on substantive foreign policy and a higher level of parliamentary control on the government. The conflict on substance leads to a decline in trust among members of parliament in opposition, which may motivate the continuation of parliamentary control through available instruments also after the conflict on substance is settled. The analysis is conducted in three descriptive steps: (1) the domestic-institutional context of decision-making, (2) partisan divides, and (3) the executive-legislative relationship. It utilizes a variety of sources, including parliamentary debates, governmental and parliamentary assessments, and interviews with diplomats and senior officials. Par le biais d'une explication de la controverse politique nationale qui a entoure la plus recente candidature de la Suede et ensuite, son adhesion au Conseil de securite de l'ONU entre 2017 et 2018, cet article enrichit notre comprehension des liens entre politique nationale et politique etrangere a deux egards. D'abord, il conceptualise un domaine de priorites de politique etrangere. Les problematiques qui s'y trouvent devieront plus souvent du schema de politique etrangere consensuel en faisant naitre des conflits, car elles engendrent des conceptions du role national concurrentes chez l'elite de la politique etrangere. Ensuite, il affine les resultats d'une etude anterieure sur la relation entre l'executif et le legislatif en politique etrangere. Il confirme l'association entre les conflits de partis concernant des points importants de politique etrangere et un niveau plus eleve de controle parlementaire sur le gouvernement. Le conflit sur le fond debouche sur une baisse de la confiance des elus de l'opposition au parlement, ce qui peut motiver une poursuite du controle parlementaire par le biais des instruments disponibles, meme apres la resolution du conflit sur le fond. L'analyse est conduite en trois etapes descriptives : 1) le contexte institutionnel national de prise de decisions, 2) la division partisane et 3) la relation entre l'executif et le legislatif. Elle emploie des sources variees, y compris des debats parlementaires, des declarations du gouvernement et du parlement, et des entretiens avec des diplomates et des hauts fonctionnaires. Este articulo contribuye, mediante una explicacion de la controversia en terminos de politica interna que rodeo a la, muy reciente, candidatura sueca, asi como a su posterior membresia en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU 2017-18, a nuestra comprension del nexo existente entre la politica interior y exterior en dos aspectos. En primer lugar, el articulo conceptualiza un dominio de prioridades en materia de politica exterior. Es mas probable que las cuestiones dentro de este dominio se desvien de un patron consensuado de politica exterior causando conflictos, ya que provocan concepciones de roles nacionales, que estan en competencia, entre la elite de la politica exterior. En segundo lugar, se profundizan los resultados de estudios previos sobre la relacion entre el ejecutivo y el legislativo en materia de politica exterior. El articulo, ademas, confirma la asociacion que existe entre el conflicto partidista en politica exterior a un alto nivel y la existencia de un mayor nivel de control parlamentario sobre el Gobierno. El conflicto sobre el fondo provoca una disminucion de la confianza entre los parlamentarios de la oposicion, lo que puede motivar la continuacion del control parlamentario a traves de los instrumentos disponibles incluso despues de que se resuelva el conflicto sobre el fondo. Este analisis se realiza en tres etapas descriptivas: 1) el contexto nacional-institucional de la toma de decisiones, 2) las divisiones partidistas y 3) la relacion entre el ejecutivo y el legislativo. El articulo utiliza una variedad de fuentes, incluyendo debates parlamentarios, evaluaciones gubernamentales y parlamentarias, y entrevistas con diplomaticos y altos funcionarios.

Summary Competition for a non-permanent seat in the UN Security Council is getting tougher, not the least between candidates within the Western European and Others Group. This empirical study compares the campaigns carried out by Sweden and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in order to explain the Swedish victory in the first round of the elections in 2016. A theoretical framework identifies three logics of campaigning: contributions, commitment and competence. The study maps out the features of the campaigns, including organisation, key participants, activities and message. It includes interviews with diplomats and public officials involved in the campaigns, as well as available campaign documentation and concluding reports. A main difference detected between the candidatures is the more active political involvement in the Swedish campaign, which shows the Swedish commitment and competence to serve on the Council. Further use of this theoretical framework on additional cases of international campaigning is encouraged.

This article contributes with a novel systematic theoretical and empirical exploration of why states find a nonpermanent seat in the UN Security Council attractive. Three conceptualizations of power-to influence, to network, and to gain status-guide the empirical analysis. A telephone interview survey with diplomatic staff at Member States' permanent missions to the United Nations in New York provides readers with original and unique empirical knowledge of state perceptions of power. The candidature for a seat comes with expectations of influencing decision-making, despite modest estimations of the opportunity to have impact. Opportunities to network and to gain status are not frequent reasons for a candidature. Diplomats' estimations are nevertheless higher on the opportunity to actually establish relevant relationships and to gain status brought by a seat.

This chapter examines the modern history of Sweden’s foreign policy and external relations through the lens of neutrality. Sweden’s commitment to neutrality has not meant that the country is passive in international arenas. To the contrary, neutrality has for decades dovetailed with “international activism” and the articulation of international law and collective action. The chapter describes the emergence of the Swedish policy of neutrality during the Cold War and the post-neutrality policy that has evolved since the collapse of the bipolar world order. It details the primary components of and main reasons for the somewhat overlapping yet otherwise different versions of Swedish foreign policy between the two periods.

Does political leadership matter for good governance? Can political leaders prevent elites from turning into state spoilers? In this chapter, we argue that political leadership at nascent statehood is an important key to whether or not a state-building process results in a state with good governance. The extent to which political leaders manage to set boundaries to elites' access to the political, military, and administrative institutions of the state is decisive to this outcome. Yet political leaders at nascent statehood face this challenge under difficult circumstances: While reaching the goal of independence has often required a pragmatic approach with regard to various elites in order to achieve their support of the national project, at nascent statehood this strategy needs to be altered toward more decisive boundary-setting in order to ensure the integrity of the new state (Möller and Schierenbeck, 2014).KeywordsPolitical LeaderGood GovernanceIsraeli Defense ForceNorth West Frontier ProvincePalestine Liberation OrganizationThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.