Gratulerer Anna!

Kronikken er delvis basert på en nyutgitt forskningsartikkel som viser hvordan høystatusland kan bruke anerkjennelse som er redskap for å få stater til å gjøre ting de vanligvis kanskje ikke ville gjort. Les mer her: bsky.app/profile/palr...

Uten prestisje er det bare makt som står igjen. Det kan koste USA dyrere enn de tror. Les kronikken 👉https://www.dagsavisen.no/debatt/2025/06/02/hvem-vil-blo-for-usa/

Thanks!

The article develops this argument theoretically and through two cases: focusing on the Nordics' wars of visibility and Russia’s frustrated quest for recognition from the US. It shows both the power and limits of recognition in world politics (6/6)

I propose a "Gestalt switch" for how we think about status: Recognition is not just a reward for effort; it is the mechanism that turns status into real political influence. High-status states wield recognition like any other power resource (5/6)

Denmark and Norway joined US-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Why? Not to win wars. Not to gain resources. Not to become more secure. Instead, it was to earn recognition from Washington (4/6)

I argue that recognition is not just a means to achieve status; it is in itself a form of power. The desire for recognition means that high-status states can influence what lower-status states want, how they act, and who they align with (3/6)

In IR, we often assume that social status has instrumental value in the form of voluntary deference (to a higher-status actor's wishes). But to date, that hasn't been demonstrated
(2/6)

New article out in @iajournal.bsky.social: "The Power of Recognition: Rethinking the Instrumentality of Status in World Politics" Link: academic.oup.com/ia/article/d... (1/6)

This looks great - looking forward to reading!