Fredrik Dybfest Hjorthen

• Ekengren, Ann-Marie; Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest & Möller, Ulrika (2023). Why Do States Want a Seat on the UNSC? Expectations between Different Types of States. I Ekengren, Ann-Marie & Möller, Ulrika (Red.), The Quest for Power in the UNSC. The Campaigns and Selection of Non-permanent Members. . Brill|Nijhoff. ISSN 9789004687110. s. 67–95.
• Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest & Pattison, James (2023). Proportionality in cyberwar and just war theory. Ethics & Global Politics. ISSN 1654-4951. 16(1), s. 1–24. doi: 10.1080/16544951.2023.2179244. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest (2022). International justice. I Thompson, William R. (Red.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. ISSN 9780190228637. s. 1–21. doi: https:/doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.2010. Vis sammendrag

  International justice is about the principles of justice that set out what states may and must do in relation to other states and with respect to the people that inhabit them. Theories of international justice often assume that states are the most central agents for justice beyond the domestic realm. Even if the moral value of states is ultimately reducible to that of their inhabitants, states are the most central agents through which individuals act when it comes to international questions. Questions of international justice often involve one or more of the following justice concerns: distributive justice, rectificatory justice, and remedial justice. This is clearly seen in some of the most central topics of international justice, such as trade, climate change, colonialism, and war. International justice provides a framework for thinking about the rights and duties of states with respect to these topics.The principles that set out the rights and duties of states with respect to these issues sometimes come into conflict. This raises a question whether it is better to treat topics in isolation or whether an integrated approach is preferable. Moreover, there is a question about the extent to which states are permitted to give greater weight to its own interests. Finally, there are questions about the extent to which principles of international justice should be action guiding—that is, to what extent they should take into account the feasibility constraints that state leaders face when making decisions.

• Ekengren, Ann-Marie; Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest & Möller, Ulrika (2020). A nonpermanent seat in the United Nations Security Council: Why bother? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. ISSN 1075-2846. 26(1), s. 21–45. doi: 10.1163/19426720-02601007. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  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.

• Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest (2020). Who Should Pay for Humanitarian Intervention? European Journal of Political Theory. ISSN 1474-8851. 19(3), s. 334–353. doi: 10.1177/1474885117697468.
• Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest (2019). Humanitarian Intervention and Burden-Sharing Justice. Political Studies. ISSN 0032-3217. 68(4), s. 936–953. doi: 10.1177/0032321719882607. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This article examines the case for distributive fairness among states in the context of humanitarian intervention. I start by arguing that distributive fairness among interveners is important for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons. I then discuss the worry that due to the nature of humanitarian intervention, fair burden sharing is difficult to achieve without compromising the operational effectiveness of interventions. I examine three responses that while they reduce the severity of this objection do not fully override it. Finally, in light of the objection I explore options for practical changes and institutional reform that could contribute to reconciling fair burden sharing with effective intervention. I conclude that fairness and effectiveness can be reconciled in the longer term by fully institutionalising humanitarian intervention and in the short term by distinguishing between the duty to undertake intervention and the duty to pay for it.

• Duus-Otterström, Göran & Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest (2019). Consumption-Based Emissions Accounting: the Normative Debate. Environmental Politics. ISSN 0964-4016. 28(5), s. 866–885. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1507467.
• Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest (2017). Who Should Intervene? Res Publica. ISSN 1356-4765. 23(4), s. 391–407. doi: 10.1007/s11158-017-9375-0.
• Hjorthen, Fredrik Dybfest & Duus-Otterström, Göran (2016). Humanitarian Intervention and Historical Responsibility . Journal of Global Ethics. ISSN 1744-9626. 12(2), s. 187–203. doi: 10.1080/17449626.2016.1194308.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin