European Workshops in International Studies (EWIS)
5th EISA EUROPEAN WORKSHOPS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (EWIS)
Groningen, June 06-09, 2018
The Return of Politics to International Relations
Programme Co-Chairs: Dr Benjamin Herborth, Groningen and Dr Benjamin Tallis, IIR (for EISA).
Call for Papers, Deadline: 10/01/2018
The European International Studies Association (EISA) invites papers to be submitted to the workshops that comprise EWIS 2018, which will take place at University of Groningen in the Kingdom of the Netherlands from 06-09 June 2018. These workshops allow scholars to engage in sustained, in-depth discussion with a diverse range of their peers from various institutions, countries, disciplines and career stages. EWIS has quickly proven to be a popular and productive format, ideal for preparing special issues, edited volumes or exploring new ideas, themes and directions.
EWIS 2018 will be held at University of Groningen, an increasingly important centre for IR in Europe. The university is situated in the heart of the city, which allows easy access to Groningen’s rich history (including as a seat of the Hanseatic league) as well as its dynamic and diverse contemporary life. Easily reachable by direct train from Amsterdam Schiphol airport – and many other cities – Groningen combines the accessible charm of a small university town with the outlook and diversity of a big city.
The workshops that have been selected allow for exploration of the EWIS 2018 theme - ‘The Return of Politics to International Relations’ - and will zoom in on the manifold ways in which knowledge produced in the field of International Relations is increasingly politicized, considered as inherently political and confronted with ongoing efforts to reconceptualise politics and the political beyond the confines of IR.
List of Workshops for EWIS 2018 - General Call for Papers Now OPEN
You can now submit your abstracts for papers proposed for inclusion in the workshops at #EWIS2018. Please read - and follow – the guidelines below carefully. Paper proposals should be submitted to a particular workshop and only one proposal may be submitted.
- WS A - The Women, Peace and Security Agenda and economic empowerment
- WS B - Gender and Terrorism
- WS C - Resilience: Between the Politicization of Security and the Production of the Neoliberal Passive Individual
- WS D - Performing world politics through rituals
- WS E - Global Health: The Return to Politics
- WS F - Populism and Foreign Policy: Conceptual and empirical advances
- WS G - New Technologies of Warfare: Implications of Autonomous Weapons Systems for International Relations
- WS H - European Sanctions in the Twenty-first Century
- WS I - The Politics of Foreign Policy Change
- WS J - Theoretical and Practical Implications of Dual-Use Technologies in the European Union
- WS K - Beyond “Campfire IR” – Multiplicity as a new common ground for IR theory
- WS L - The Past is Our Future: Assessing and Refining Historical International Relations
- WS M - After Iraq: Rethinking Regional Order in the Middle East
- WS N - How do symbols order? Exploring approaches for analysing the semiotic ordering of social space and the politics of imagination
- WS O - Wrongdoing, International Scandal, and the Politics of Responsibility
- WS P - Aesthetic Cities: Everyday, International, Urban
- WS Q - Mediterranean Encounters
- WS R - Global Histories of the 'International'
- WS S - Exploitation and the Design of Global Economic Institutions
- WS T - Doing Visual IR: Methods, Power and Politics
- WS U - Archaeology as a Diplomatic Tool—Old and New International Players and Their Political Interest in Global Archaeology
- WS V - Political Economy of the Post-Soviet Space: Between Empires, Histories, and Uncertain Futures
- WS W - The Political Economy of Democratic Deficits
- WS X - Human In-security and Mediterranean Migration (HIsMed)
- WS Y - Politics, Governance, and Civilian Agency during Armed Conflict
- WS Z - Planet Politics and IR
- WS AA - The (re)-politicisation of international relations in the post-Soviet space
- WS AB - The ‘Schengen paradox’: Freedom-Technology- Surveillance
The deadline for the open call for papers is 10 January 2018. Accepted participants will be notified by 20 February 2018. Registration will run to 16 March 2018.
EISA Member - 120 EUR
EISA Student Member - 60 EUR
Non-EISA Member Full Rate - 200 EUR
Non-EISA Member Student Rate - 100 EUR
Workshop Conveners - 40 EUR
General Information & Deadlines
- Abstracts MUST be submitted electronically via the online submission system by the given deadline January 10, 2018. Abstracts received via fax, e-mail or received after the deadline will not be accepted and therefore will not be considered for the programme or publication.
- One author can only submit 1 abstract.
- Abstracts are to be submitted to one of the aforementioned workshop topics:
- The presentation type should be confirmed during the submission:
- Abstracts could be amended in the online submission system until the submission deadline of January 10, 2018.
- All abstracts will be reviewed by the EWIS 2018 Scientific Committee – Workshop Conveners in consultation with the Programme Chairs. They will decide which abstracts will be accepted and rejected but may also recommend that your abstract is considered in a different workshop.
- All presenting authors will receive an acceptance/rejection notification via e-mail by February 10, 2018.
- All presenting authors are obliged to register by March 16, 2018.
- All abstracts must be written in English.
- When submitting your abstract, consider and select the best suitable workshop – and one alternative workshop should your first choice not accept your submission.
- The abstract title is limited by 20 words. Please capitalise your abstract title in the following way - This is my Abstract for EWIS 2018: For Presentation in Groningen.
- Up to 10 authors can be included (incl. presenting author). The person, who submits the abstract is automatically considered to be the contact person for all future correspondence. Authors order could be changed if needed by swopping the names at the list of the co-authors. The first name is considered to be the main author. Presenting author could be amended in the online submission system while managing co-authors.
- The maximum abstract length is 200 words, which is approximately 2/3 of A4 page. Pictures/charts/special formulas are not allowed within the abstract text.
- Each author should submit from 3 to 6 keywords matching /his/her abstract content. Please insert the keywords in alphabetical order.
- The submitter is required to include presenting author’s short biography (up to 100 words).
Should you need any further assistance, please feel free to contact the conference secretariat at any time at firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com.
WS A: The Women, Peace and Security Agenda and economic empowerment
Convenors: Maria Martin de Almagro (University of Cambridge and Vesalius College) & Caitlin Ryan (University of Groningen)
In the seventeen years since the passage of the foundational 1325 resolution, there has been a significant volume of scholarship on the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. It has sought to investigate the aims of the agenda and proposed ways to improve women empowerment. There is, however, a general sense in the literature that the WPS discourse has not lived up to the transformative potential of UNSCR 1325. In particular there is concern that the concept of gender has been depoliticized and that women continue to be portrayed as victims. Many conclude this is due to a co-option of the agenda by the creation of a neoliberal feminism that justify the presence of women in governance and peacebuilding because it enables faster and better results. For the most part, we agree with their analysis of outcomes, but we argue that it is necessary to find other ways of thinking through these issues. We believe that merging Feminist Political Economy (FPE) and Feminist Security Studies (FSS) could provide a more robust analysis of the disjuncture between the outcomes and understandings envisioned by feminist advocacy interventions seventeen years ago and how they are manifested in policy practices. More specifically, we argue that WPS scholarship needs to pay more attention to the materiality of economics and empowerment and the political economy of violence and conflict in order to more fully understand the root causes of insecurity. Putting on an equal foot the role that both material forces and discursive regimes have in the formation of gender, classed and racialized power relations that pervade the implementation of the WPS agenda can help us understand how violence and neoliberal development and peacebuilding are co-constituted.
We welcome contributions that seek to dismantle the intellectual barriers between FSS and FPE through a focus on women’s economic empowerment in post-conflict contexts and that contribute to the critique of the binary between ‘normal violence’ and conflict by investigating the “messiness” of the everyday. How should/do we conceptualize the relationship between WPS and economic rights/resource access? How has the WPS agenda overlooked the materiality of women’s economic empowerment and to what effect? Why is greater attention to this relationship needed? How can we study this relationship? What does women’s economic empowerment look like? What influences the gap between policy and practice? Should/can we conceptualize economic empowerment outside of the discourse on formal rights?
WS AB: The ‘Schengen paradox’: Freedom-Technology- Surveillance
Convenors: Emma Mc Cluskey (King's College London) and Leonie Ansems De Vries (King's College London)
The Schengen paradox is constituted by the relations between freedom of movement of persons and EU citizenship rights, technologization of border controls and digitization of documents enacting forms of preventive policing at distance, and the development of a political imaginary of suspicion that multiplies the “reasons” for vertical and horizontal forms of surveillance. Schengen, once a symbol of free movement of people inside the area, including the third country nationals living there, has been reversed in contemporary times into the symbol of tough border controls, de-humanizing individuals, and rejecting people in need of help. They are seen, along with the Dublin agreements on asylum, as disciplinary techniques that do not comply with human rights, presumption of innocence and privacy. (Il)liberal practices transform the governmentality of “border management” and encourage the generalization of large scale intrusive forms of surveillance affecting persons, money and information.
We claim that the argument about neo liberal techniques of governing, hegemonic practices of the West, ineffective governance or inefficient bureaucracies are by far too simplistic answers to retrace the complexity and the fracturing of the international which has taken place around and through the reversal of the Schengen practices in the last 30 years. Investigating by a precise genealogy the political imaginary landscape of the European Union project in European societies and beyond, in all the countries that their policies impact, is therefore a key element. Schengen beginnings, which have been confidential until recently and are now being brought to light by some archival research, shed a new light on the preliminary objectives of the time (1985-90) and are marked by the ambiguities of the very function of Schengen, accelerating the freedom of movement and the citizenship between EU member states or creating safeguards in terms of policing and border controls against an unsafe, disorderly freedom of movement.
Within this workshop, we will discuss what we call the “Schengen” paradox and the way the dynamics at works between freedom, security and fear of global threats has evolved into a vision of “solutions” to insecurity based on technological tools and a different economy of surveillance, restructuring the idea of criminal justice and presumption of innocence towards a preventive, pro-active, predictive episteme of “security”. This paradigmatic change will be explored through a trans-disciplinary approach connecting international politics, sociology of technology, socio-legal analysis, sociology of surveillance and anthropological research on borders. Through adopting such an approach, we aim to rupture conventional categories produced by the discipline of International Relations, demonstrating the way in which the knowledge produced by IR can contribute towards the de-humanisation of the subjects of research. Our transdisciplinary approach moves from static definitions , identities and properties to process and fluidity, unsettling the ‘paradox’ of freedom, technology and surveillance at work in practices of Schengen.
WS B: Gender and Terrorism
Convenors: Caron Gentry (University of St Andrews) & Swati Parashar (University of Gothenburg)
To return politics to IR necessitates problematizing the silences and exclusions that exist within the discipline. As more attention is being drawn to the raced and gendered hierarchies that have formed the discipline (see Tickner 1992; Krishna 2001; Sylvester 2010; Richter-Montpetit 2007, 2014; Mills 2014; Sjoberg 2013), we think it is also necessary to look at how raced and gendered hierarchies (amongst others) have formed Terrorism Studies and how these hierarchies have created ‘silences’ and/or ‘aphasia,’ or the calculated forgetting of hierarchies as discussed by Thompson 2015. For instance, Terrorism Studies has long searched for a stable definition of terrorism. Beyond the notion that nothing is fixed or stabilized (for long), this quest glosses over the very reason a definition cannot be achieved: that the label of terrorist has been ‘fixed’ to people with identities that are seen at odds with hegemonic identities. On the one hand, politicizing and destabilizing what terrorism is and how it is studied has been the project of Critical Terrorism Studies (see Jackson 2005; Jackson, Smyth, and Gunning 2009; Stump and Dixit 2013); yet, on the other, these critiques have not fully unpacked the hierarchies that are behind the pejorative label and nature of ‘terrorism.’ Indeed, terrorism has always been tied to racialized and gendered notions of who an enemy other is. To go further, to use the term ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ is ‘political’ in that it engages notions of states, with the monopoly on violence, as legitimate and moral. Those who use violence outside of the state are therefore rendered illegitimate and immoral. Therefore, to politicize Terrorism Studies and to politicize terrorism means that we must examine how the silence or aphasia perpetrates harm. Furthermore, gender and terrorism have been explored fairly well (see Parashar 2009, 2014; Gentry and Sjoberg 2015), there are gaps in this literature when begins to take intersectionality more seriously. If the onus of intersectionality is to take seriously how power harms and oppresses individuals along identity lines (gender, race, class, religion, etc.) (see Henry 2017), one way of studying it is to ask the other question (see Davis 2008): if we see race, where is gender? if we see gender, where is sexuality? if we see sexuality, where is class? and if we see religion where is gender and vice versa? While femininity, and/or race/postcolonial and/or terrorism have been covered quite effectively, as have queer theory and terrorism, bringing these all into one larger conversation has not yet been achieved. A decade since the first works on gender/women and terrorism appeared in feminist International Relations, it is time to revisit some of the key concerns raised then and the silences and erasures that continue to affect studies on terrorism. Therefore, the purpose of this workshop is to invite scholars who are interested in bringing these moving, intersecting parts together for the beginning of what we hope will turn into a much larger conversation, resulting in either an edited volume or special issue.
WS C: Resilience: Between the Politicization of Security and the Production of the Neoliberal Passive Individual
Convenors: Marco Krüger (University of Tübingen) & Philippe Bourbeau (Université Laval)
Resilience is variously attributed as central political concept of the last decade. Besides its prominent deployment in the Sendai Framework, an increasing number of political resilience concepts illustrate its importance in thinking and acting both politics in general and protection in particular. However, the debate around resilience in (critical) security studies has tended to condemn it sweepingly as inher-ently neoliberal. Recent research, however, started to go beyond this accusation and to dig deeper into the myriad of questions and potentialities, resilience offers (Schmidt, 2017). Within the last dec-ade, a remarkable body of scientific literature has controversially debated what resilience actually means to security studies. The range of opinions varies from a wholehearted rejection (Neocleous, 2013) over the attempt to portray resilience beyond its neoliberal appropriation (Corry, 2014) to iden-tify the critical potential resilience embraces (Nelson, 2014). The discussion of empirical case studies linked to resilience has been equally controversial. While Philippe Bourbeau and Caitlin Ryan (2017) demonstrated that resilience could be one strategy of pursuing resistance, a set of other case studies show resilience’s role in responsibilizing the individual for granting its own protection in a neoliberal fashion (e.g., Grove, 2014; Kaufmann, 2016; Malcolm, 2013). In short, the scientific debate of resilience could hardly be more controversial.
The connotation of resilience remains somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, resilience points our attention to questions of responsibility, which have been widely neglected in the previous academic discourse in security studies. This is only one example of the politicizing potential of resilience. On the other hand, scholars draw the dystopia of the creation of the neoliberal passive individual through the enactment of resilience (Chandler and Reid, 2016). The increasing deployment of resilience strategies and its current importance in the international arena calls for a more intense examination of its meanings for security studies. Especially the ability-based resilience approach has only occasionally been analyzed with regard to its meaning for conflict behavior and the settlement of conflicts (for an exception, see: Bourbeau and Ryan, 2017). A more profound empirical analysis of resilience with regard to conflict, however, might transfer the Western-centric debate of neoliberal, potentially withdrawing state responsibilities to a global perspective, in-cluding non-Western security arrangements.
Already now, resilience has proven to spark a lively debate in security studies, which sheds light on so far mostly neglected questions. The proposed workshop takes up the portrayed controversies aiming at bringing them into a productive dialogue. We seek to create a forum, which enables a nuanced debate of resilience for security studies in general and for conflict resolution in particular.
WS D: Performing world politics through rituals
Convenors: Tanja Aalberts (VU Amsterdam) & Anna Leander (Graduate Institute Geneva)
The purpose of this workshop is to launch a longer term collective research project on rituals in international or world politics. More specifically we are interested in exploring the constitutive role of rituals in the production of contemporary world politics. Core institutions of international society such as diplomacy and international law are obviously replete with rituals, some public and grandiose ceremonies other more mundane practices. But rituals also pervade a range of world political practices including for example migration, digital communication, humanitarianism, peacekeeping, torture, or marketing. If rituals traditionally functioned to strengthen the bond between believers and their god(s),1 what role do they play in their secularized form in the creation and enactment of world political order? The proposed workshop seeks to bring together recent scholarship that has developed around practices, materiality, institutions, performativity and aesthetics in IR (and beyond) to discuss this question. It invites oth historically-oriented papers, and papers that discuss new ritualistic practices. It strives to engage and develop existing well-established theoretical perspectives on rituals, including but not limited to work by Jeffrey Alexander, Pierre Bourdieu, Catherine Bell, Judith Butler, Emile Durkheim, Clifford Geertz, Bruno Latour, Marcel Mauss, Michael
Taussig or Victor Turner.
WS E: Global Health: The Return to Politics
Convenors: Nadine Voelkner (University of Groningen) & Clare Wenham (LSE)
Responses to health concerns are not confined to biomedical interventions. Politics can and does shape how health is framed, managed, and resolved. It is only by studying how such politics manifests that we can understand the ensuing policy pathways which develop to address health issues. As with other areas of international studies, the understanding of the politics of health requires an interdisciplinary synthesis of a broad range of fields such as law, economics, ethics, public health, development studies, post-colonial cultural studies and anthropology. These different disciplines bring inter alia their own methodological concerns and priorities, ranging from equality of access, to mechanisms of governance in multiactor frameworks, to the impact of particular framings in policy discourse, to the epistemologies of health and disease underlying the politics of global health. Whilst this list is non-exhaustive, a consensus in all global health study is the prominent role that politics plays in decisions about the provision of health. However, what is frequently missing from these discussions is an analytical interrogation as to how this political process unfolds and what the resulting policy outcomes are. As such, it is timely to seek a more nuanced understanding of the role of politics in global health. In seeking this understanding, and building on the success of EWIS 2017: Critical Global Health, in this workshop we will encourage the presentation of papers that revolve around a three-fold discussion encompassing questions of scale, theories and policies. A critical aspect of global health is the ways by which it manifests in and across different political levels. At the local level, significant politicized health activity takes place around issues of individual access to health professionals including gendered dimensions to services and medical treatments, the impact of funding to health services and what understandings of health and politics these issues may convey. At the national level, governments can be conceived as having the responsibility for providing health to their citizens as part of the social contract. However, to what extent ealth is available is a political decision, depending on the conceptualization of the state, and of individual rights within it. Some states may lack capacity to provide health to their citizens, or may choose to divert funding to alternative sources, and in doing so national health decisions can showcase political activity. Beyond the state, governments may engage in health politics at the regional level; either through established institutional mechanisms such as the EU or ASEAN, or through bilateral arrangements between states. The politics of how these agreements are entered into, and to what extent they are adhered to come under analysis. Finally, at the global level there is an array of ultiple actors ranging from states, international organisations, NGOs, foundations, and private sector bodies; each of which have competing priorities and conceptualizations that are evident by the policies they promote and activity they undertake to manage global health problems, this global governance is inherent with a range of political tones.
WS F: Populism and Foreign Policy: Conceptual and empirical advances
Convenors: Angelos Chryssogelos (King’s College London) & Cameron Thies (Arizona State University)
Populism is a topic of increasing importance for world politics. The victory of a populist anti-austerity coalition in the 2015 Greek elections brought about a major upheaval in the world markets and challenged the foundations of the euro. The votes in favour of Brexit in the UK and Donald Trump in the US, both geared by strong populist feelings and discourses, have undermined the foundations of the international liberal order. At the same time, populism is becoming an increasingly relevant phenomenon in world regions outside of mature Western liberal democracies and its Latin American heartland. Populism seems to be a relevant category that informs the foreign policy and standing of important countries for world politics, from the Middle East to Asia to Africa.
This proposed workshop aims to contribute to a growing but still underdeveloped academic discussion about the importance of populism in international relations and foreign policy analysis. Even though the literature on populism is by now voluminous, there is not much systematic effort to bridge insights from research in different world regions in order to understand how populism matters beyond national borders (see however Mudde and Rovira-Kaltwasser 2012; Hadiz and Chryssogelos 2017). On the other hand, despite some budding efforts at comparative research (Schori Liang 2007) and analysis of important case studies (Verbeek and Zaslove 2015), the comparative analysis of the impact of populism on foreign policy is still in its infancy (see Chryssogelos 2017).
The workshop will bring together scholars with an interest in the international dimensions of populism in order to exchange analytical and empirical-comparative insights. The core interest of the workshop is on the impact (when in government) and influence (when in opposition) of populist parties, movements and leaders on state foreign policy. But we are generally interested in all positions, attitudes and understandings of populism on issues, processes and norms of international politics. Thus, any contribution that examines the interchange between populism and the international arena is welcome. Beyond comparative analyses of populist impact on foreign policies along standard FPA lines, we are also interested in papers that examine the attitudes of populism towards international institutions and global norms, as well as the contestation by populism of key attributes of statehood.
Empirically we are particularly interested in papers with a comparative, and ideally cross-regional, perspective. Single-case studies are also welcome, as long as they are firmly placed within a broader comparative and analytical framework. We are also happy to receive papers covering a large geographical range (i.e. beyond just Europe and Latin America). Most importantly however we are interested in theoretical and conceptual advances in the study of populism in foreign policy and international relations. Next to mainstream ideological comparative approaches, we would also be interested in seeing how critical, discursive, structural and sociological conceptualizations of populism account for the attitude and positions of populists towards issues of foreign policy and international relations. In terms of methodology, the workshop welcomes contributions of all shapes: qualitative, quantitative, discursive etc.
WS G: "New Technologies of Warfare: Implications of Autonomous Weapons Systems for International Relations
Convenors: Ingvild Bode (University of Kent) & Hendrik Huelss (University of Kent)
New technologies of warfare, characterised by expanding levels of sophisticated autonomous qualities, are on the rise. The current state of developing and deploying increasingly autonomous weapons systems (AWS) in the broadest sense poses an extraordinary challenge for the international political-security and normative order. Considerations of how AWS should be regulated or even how they could be defined are only in their initial phase and are outpaced by the speed and intensity of developments in the technological dimension. International Relations as a discipline has also only started to analytically take stock of and to conceptually accommodate the emergence of AWS. Current substantial studies focus to a large extent on drones as novel security technologies, but the emergence of technical autonomy is bound to change this research field in fundamental ways. So far, both the political-public as well as the academic arena consider AWS mainly from the perspective of international law. However, the move from precision to decision weapons, the importance of technological regulation and constitution, as well as the ‘autonomy turn’ in weapons technology requires a re-thinking and reconsideration of basic concepts of IR research. While the phenomenon of AWS is generally understudied in all regards, the workshops aims to focus on assessing the novel qualities of AWS (understood in a broad sense to cover advanced technological systems in air, at sea or on land) in particular by asking: how can we adequately study AWS from the perspective of IR? The workshop seeks to address a range of topics within three broad themes, covering the regulative, constitutive and practical dimensions of AWS. Relevant questions to be considered are whether and how AWS can be regulated, whether international law and norms are constitutive for AWS and in what ways AWS have constitutive qualities, and the implications of current or future practices of developing and deploying AWS for international security and International Relation scholarship. The workshop welcomes theoretically motivated and empirically informed analyses of the (future) role of AWS in international relations. Both papers on theoretical-conceptual and methodological questions of studying AWS fit the workshop’s objectives as viewpoints on the practices of AWS. The workshop will serve as a forum for discussing options for future research projects and/or publication activities. The workshop addresses a highly dynamic and crucial topic of IR research that is, however, still widely understudied in all its aspects. The workshop seeks to bridge theoretically and empirically motivated analyses on the topic of new weapons technologies and will therefore of interest to an unusually broad range of researchers.
WS H: European Sanctions in the Twenty-first Century
Convenors: Clara Portela (University of Valencia) & Francesco Giumelli (University of Groningen)
Albeit the EU has been imposing its own autonomous sanctions since the early 1980s, this realms of its foreign policy has remained largely ignored for decades, particularly in the US-dominated sanctions scholarship. Only recently, the EU has gained visibility as a sender of sanctions thanks to the high profile cases of Russia and Syria, as well as Iran and Libya (even though its measures co-existed with the UN’s in these cases). Yet, scholarship still has fully embrace, conceptually and assess the irruption of the EU on the sanctions scene as well as its consequences for international relations and for the role of the EU as an international actor. The proposed joint session intends to fulfil four aims: Firstly, it takes stock of the latest research reflecting both classical as well as cutting edge approaches to EU sanctions. Especially, while the effectiveness of sanctions should certainly enter the discussion, newer aspects such as the interaction between sanctions and other foreign policy tools, the legalization of sanctions as well as the humanitarian consequences could be discussed in the joint session that we envision. Secondly, this joint session should also serve the objective to provide a forum for more critical approaches to the study of sanctions. The debate has been dominated by rationalist and positivist views of sanctions and sanctions-related practices. Instead, the discussion of this joint session should be informed and enriched by a number of contributions challenging the core assumptions of how sanctions have been understood in the past decades in the political science as well as IR debates on sanctions. Third, we aim to bring other regional experiences/practices in the debate on sanctions in general and, specifically, EU sanctions. Indeed, we can learn a great deal on the EU as a sanctions sender by looking at the EU as well as by looking at other example, practices and understandings of sanctions imposed by other regional organizations. For instance, the African Union has played a central role in dealing with conflicts in Africa in the past two decades alongside with ECOWAS. Investigating how sanctions are used and conceptualized in non-western contexts provides an occasion to enhance the understanding of EU sanctions. Finally, in light of the theme of this EWIS edition, we also invite contributions on the ways in which knowledge produced in the field of sanctions is presented as a “technical” v. “political” dossier, as well as their implications for sanctions scholarship and the policy debate associated with it. The workshop will be led by two pioneering researchers on EU sanctions, in an effort to link up with, and support, the continuation of this research strand by young researchers.
WS I: The Politics of Foreign Policy Change – The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs
Convenors: Klaus Brummer (Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt), Kai Oppermann (University of Sussex), Jeroen Joly (Ghent University) & Tim Haesebrouck (Ghent University)
The United States pivots to Asia, the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, Turkey appears to turn its back on Europe. Those current episodes suggest that major reorientations in a country’s foreign policy are more common than might be expected. However, conceptualizations of foreign policy change are still few in number (see, above all, Hermann 1990; Carlsnaes 1993; Rosati et al. 1994; Gustavsson 1999; Welch 2005; Yang 2010; Lee 2012; Blavoukos and Bourantonis 2014). Therefore, this workshop invites innovative approaches that seek to theorize and explain the political processes that are associated with foreign policy change, and particularly the role of international and domestic actors and institutions.
Following Charles Hermann’s (1990) typology of foreign policy change, this workshop is particularly interested in the more fundamental redirections in a country’s foreign policy, that is, “problem/goal changes” and “international orientation changes.” For starters, both external (i.e., systemic or regional) and internal (i.e., domestic) structural factors need to be acknowledged when trying to account for such changes (Holsti 1982). Whereas the former relates, for instance, to a country’s security environment, the latter point to the distribution of influence among domestic institutions or the composition of governments, among other things. However, while structural factors, and shifts therein (e.g., the rise of a regional rival or a change in government), might provide a permissive environment for policy change, they themselves do not usher in such changes. Rather, foreign policy change is the outcome of domestic political processes, hence the “politics of foreign policy change.”
Indeed, it requires “change agents” to introduce new policies against the background of existing structural conditions. From this agency-centred perspective on foreign policy change, this workshop seeks to trace the role of different types of change agents, or foreign policy entrepreneurs (Carter and Scott 2009), acting singly or in groups—including political leaders, bureaucrats, parliamentarians, political parties, and actors in civil society, including the media—in bringing about foreign policy change. It explores, for instance, the external and/or internal structural conditions against which change agents will more likely be able to “restructure” (Rosati et al. 1994) their country’s foreign policy. The workshop also examines whether certain types of actors (e.g., actors with specific leadership traits and/or political beliefs) are more likely to press for changes in their country’s international orientation (Yang 2010), whether certain types of strategies are more successful than others to overcome domestic obstacles to change (e.g., institutional veto players), and how such institutional obstacles affect the likelihood and processes of change.
To that end, the papers should engage with, and move beyond, existing works in IR and Foreign Policy Analysis that have sought to conceptualize foreign policy change. In addition, the phenomenon of policy change has been widely and arguably more systematically discussed with respect to domestic politics. Therefore, we particularly encourage papers that examine the interplay between ideas and institutions in order to unravel and understand the institutional settings and dynamics that constrain or reinforce the impact of ideas and ideology on foreign policy change. In addition, we also welcome contributions that draw on insights from public policy theory, thus building on earlier works that have sought to explain foreign policy change by employing public policy theories, such as punctuated equilibrium theory (e.g., Joly 2016), veto player theory (e.g., Alons 2007), or new institutionalism (Milner and Tingley 2013).
WS J: Theoretical and Practical Implications of Dual-Use Technologies in the European Union
Convenors: Raluca Csernatoni (Charles University of Prague) & Chantal Lavallée (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)
The concept of dual-use technologies has been increasingly used over the last years by a variety of state and non-state actors across different areas in the European Union (EU). As concepts are not neutral, referring to the dual-use dimension of technologies matters. There are clear-cut socio-political, security-oriented, and economic stakes associated with framing technologies as dual-use. Hence, this narrative has an impact on policy processes, actors’ practices, their relative power and room for manoeuvre, as well as on the technological artefacts themselves.
Against this background, the proposed workshop on dual-use technologies intends to spur a heterogeneity of critical thinking and further theoretical debates, without necessarily restricting the scope of the analysis around the materiality of civil-military technologies. In line with the EWIS 2018 theme, the proposed workshop is interested in confronting viewpoints on how knowledge is produced and shaped in the case of dual-use technologies by different contextual, “agentic”, and normative factors in EU policies. Dual-use technologies are discursively framed by actors and shaped by conflicting socio-political forces, values, security imperatives, and economic interests, as they embody a host of implications such as legal and ethical regimes of usability for both civil and military objectives. Indeed, various EU actors have been creating the impetus to strengthen market growth, competitiveness, and innovation in the field of dual-use technologies by funding civilian-military Research & Development and Research & Technology projects under several EU Framework Programmes, and since 2014 through Horizon2020. However, there is a gap in the existing academic literature, concerning the conceptualization and operationalization of dual-use technologies, speaking to blind spots in theorizing technology, dual-use scientific research, regulating science, and the hybridization of technological innovation that this proposed workshop aims to fill.
By bringing together different theoretical perspectives, backgrounds, and case studies, the proposed workshop envisages to lay the foundations for a deeper analytical dialogue concerning the governance of such technologies from their conceptualization to their operationalization at national and European levels. A pool of diverse case studies focusing on varied technological areas, such as nuclear, airspace, biological, communicational, and informational, has the added benefit of reuniting different findings and experiences in particular fields. The desired outcome is to gather innovative theoretical approaches and empirical research from International Relations Theory, Critical Security Studies, Science and Technology Studies, and International Political Economy that can enrich knowledge and understanding of dual-use technologies, and provide theoretical and practical insights into relevant aspects of modern technological developments.
WS K: Beyond “Campfire IR” – Multiplicity as a new common ground for IR theory
Convenors: Justin Rosenberg (University of Sussex) & Milja Kurki (Aberystwyth University)
In the post-Cold War era, the discipline of IR has flourished as never before. But, according to Christine Sylvester (2007), it has also fragmented into a large number of rival theoretical ‘camps’, each gathered around its own intellectual campfire and talking only to itself. The days when different theories engaged each other in a shared conversation about their common subject matter are over. The Realist problematic of ‘anarchy’ has been rejected by most other approaches, and no fresh idea has gained sufficient support to provide a new common ground for the field. Must this be so? In the 2015 EH Carr Memorial Lecture, Justin Rosenberg argued that the fundamental and unique premise of all IR theory lies in the fact that the human world comprises not one but many societies (Rosenberg 2016). And just as Geography’s focus on ‘spatiality’, History’s connection to ‘temporality’ and Anthropology’s grounding in ‘culture’ enable them to make unique contributions to the wider social sciences and humanities, so the same applies to IR: the focus on ‘societal multiplicity’ is both the defining premise of this discipline (its implicit common ground) and the key to IR’s potential contribution to all the human disciplines. As Rosenberg went on to argue, this is a deceptively simple premise, which is rich in ontological and causal implications. These include the phenomena of coexistence, difference, interaction, combined (or ‘entangled’) histories, and dialectical processes of socio-historical change. And yet the problematic that unfurls from the premise of multiplicity remains largely undeveloped in IR. Perhaps put off by Realism’s narrower treatment of the multiplicity ‘of states’ through ‘anarchy’, most non-realist approaches – themselves interested in exploring the multiplicity of actors, histories, cultures and interactions - have instead looked outside IR for inspiration. The possibility of a common ground of IR – rooted in exploration of the implications of multiplicity itself – has been surprisingly neglected. The purpose of this workshop is to bring together scholars from IR’s many ‘camps’ – both critical and mainstream – to explore and develop the potential of ‘multiplicity’ as a newly explicit common ground for IR theory. We invite contributions that take up its distinctive implications for such diverse fields as: general IR theory, security studies, international political economy, normative theory, feminist, poststructuralist, postcolonial and ecological approaches, the aesthetic and practice turns, historical sociology, Marxism, liberalism, Realism, constructivism etc. In each of these areas, we are interested in such questions as: what would it mean to reason from the circumstance of multiple societies? What new insights could this generate within these pre-existing ‘camps’? What common ground might emerge across them? And what would this reveal about IR’s distinctive contribution to the human disciplines as a whole?
WS L: The Past is Our Future: Assessing and Refining Historical International Relations
Convenors: Benjamin de Carvalho (NUPI Oslo) & Halvard Leira (NUPI Oslo)
International history was one of the midwives of the discipline of International Relations (IR), and history has remained a key component of IR scholarship. As quarry for data, testing-ground for theory and site of investigation, history has been one of the unacknowledged partners of IR. Unacknowledged, but still formative and a constant presence. Whereas the traditional engagement between IR and history has been random and unsystematic, the last two decades have witnessed both a substantial increase in the scope of historical IR scholarship and in the sophistication of methodological approaches to history. Rather than simply pilfering random secondary sources for data, IR scholars have started to deal seriously with the question of how to best engage in historically informed IR. Looking at external factors, the recent “historical turn” seems obviously related to the relatively rapidly changing conditions of world affairs since 1989. Whereas decades of Cold War and centrality of the Euro-American area enabled relatively ahistorical conceptions of an unchanging system, the breakdown of bipolarity, the multiplication of actors and the emergence of new powers in the global south led to a return to history. Faced with an uncertain future, an increasing number of scholars have looked to the past for guidance, patterns and ideas. This tendency has been clear, despite theoretical and methodological differences. Some look to the past to find recurring patterns, others to bring forth unacknowledged legacies, and yet others to denaturalize taken-for-granted concepts and ideas or to understand how we come to find ourselves in our current predicament. There are also reasons internal to the subject of IR for a turn towards history. The growing diversity and globalization of the discipline has led a number of scholars to look for theoretical precedents for current positions, and to question the existing meta-narratives of the discipline. Thus, the last decades have seen a rapidly increasing (and multidisciplinary) interest in the history of international thought, as well as an ever more sophisticated historiography of the discipline itself. This historical reflexivity matters to the discipline as a whole, as it opens up thinking space and practice space for theoretical and geographical diversity. Expanding scholarship has also led to organisational cohesion, so that Historical International Relations (HIST) must today be deemed both an intellectual and an organisational success. However, as of yet the many different strands of HIST have not been brought in full conversation with one another. The aim of this proposed workshop is to bring together scholars working on different aspects of HIST, challenging them to both synthesise their own fields of study, and to engage with alternative approaches to the past. The envisioned outcome will be a Handbook of HIST, drawing together the most important insights and developments in the field. This should make it possible to consolidate achievements, suggest new directions for research and provide an inspiration and a guide for up and coming scholars.
WS M: After Iraq: Rethinking Regional Order in the Middle East
Convenors: Ewan Stein (University of Edinburgh) & Lucy Abbott (University of Edinburgh)
Fifteen years have now elapsed since the US-led invasion of Iraq, and eight since the beginning of the Arab uprisings. Ongoing turmoil across the region and intense competitive rivalries in the Gulf suggest that the Middle East is apparently further from ‘security regionalisation’ than ever (Fawcett 2015). The 2003 intervention in Iraq, as with the Arab uprisings that began seven years later, altered state-society relations and transformed the normative environment and balance of power in the region. The purpose of the proposed workshop is to clarify, through the deployment of a range of IR theories, the interrelationship between these three dimensions of continuity and change in the region. In particular, we seek to explore the extent to which realist, constructivist and historical sociological narratives of regional order are commensurable with each other and, relatedly, whether they reflect, clarify or problematise narratives of regional order advanced by IR and area specialists, as well as regional political actors. This workshop brings together IR scholars specialising in the Middle East to explore and examine the contours of continuity and change since 2003. It explores empirical and theoretical perspectives on the region’s international relations to determine how IR scholarship might best conceptualise regional order. In bringing scholars with divergent theoretical approaches into conversation with each other, the workshop will explore broader questions concerning, for example, the relationship between power politics and sectarian identities; the link between regime survival strategies and regional alignments; and the regional dimensions of revolution and counterrevolution.
WS N: How do symbols order? Exploring approaches for analysing the semiotic ordering of social space and the politics of imagination
Convenors: Timo Walter (Universität Erfurt) & Oliver Kessler (Universität Erfurt)
In recent years, (constructivist) IR has seen interest shift from a concern with the constitution of discursive and symbolic orders towards close study of actors’ practices, in and through which these orders are instantiated. This shift has delivered numerous new insights – most significantly, it has brought increased attention and sensitivity to the messiness and heterogeneity of the social objects constitutive of the „International“. While it is crucial to study the concrete practices and processes by which social objects acquire their properties, this focus has come at a cost: although agreeing in principle that practice is shaped by various types of symbolic discourses and knowledges, it has proven difficult to disentangle the ordering effects of such symbolic systems across heterogeneous sites of practice. Specifically for any disentangling of the politics of imagination and symbolic ordering of the social, this constitutes a serious shortcoming: just like the discursivization of knowledge always entails an abstraction from indexical, situated meaning, the topographies of social space resulting from it entangle actors in (implicit) social orders without this becoming visible at the level of situated practice and (reflexive) sense-making. Sensing the predicament, a number of methodological moves have attempted to address the challenge that concepts and symbolic orders need to be analysed against social context and process. However, trying to delineate sites in which to analyse the productivity of symbols from an ‘outside’ context shaping their instantiation has necessarily obscured how symbol systems across side produce and configure that very context supposed to shape their in-site appropriation. In order to remedy this shortcoming, it seems to us that we require a thoroughly relational and semiotic conception that allows us to understand how heterogeneous sets of indexical and incongruent situated meanings produce a coherent symbolic ordering of social space. This exploratory workshop aims to fill this gap. Specifically, it seeks two achieve two things: first, to explore what existing methodological strategies within and beyond IR can tell us about the different dimensions of the problem. Secondly, lay the foundations for a methodological framework for studying the translation of symbolic into social order across multi-sited social fields. To this end, we week to explore how different anthropological, linguistic, sociological and philosophical approaches can provide leverage for analysing the productiveness of symbolic knowledges not site-by-site, but relationally. While the productiveness of discourse and knowledge in particular sites and through particular actors is well explored and provides relatively few methodological problems, how they order larger social fields relationally and configurationally has not received much attention within IR. As a result, it has proven difficult to uncover the politics of and struggles over symbolic orders and how they constitute the International. To this end, we want to bring approaches already relatively well established within IR such as linguistic approaches, practice theory and concept analysis in dialogue with methodological avenues not (yet) explored in our discipline. Tentatively – but not limited to –, we are interested in developing insights from the French sociologie des conventions; network theoretical work in relational sociology grappling with the morphology of meaning and social ties; work in semiotics and anthropology about the symbolic ordering of the social; but also insights from configurational and field-theoretical traditions in sociology in the vein of Simmel or Cassirer.
WS O: Wrongdoing, International Scandal, and the Politics of Responsibility
Convenors: Owen D Thomas (University of Exeter) & Jamie M Johnson (University of Leicester)
This workshop investigates the role that scandals play in regulating, reproducing and contesting wrongdoing in international politics.
Global politics of the 21st century is plagued by scandal: financial crises, corruption, sexual violence, economic exploitation, child abuse, racism, torture, unlawful killing and illegal war. On the one hand, scandalous events politicize these matters. Scandals are defined by a consensus that wrongdoing has occurred. Scandals provoke public outrage and demands for truth. Scandals are met with a variety of responsibility rituals, including: public demonstrations and protest, official inquiries, truth commissions, inquests and trials. In the wake of scandalous wrongs, authorities promise to establish facts, resolve transgressions, and ensure the prevention of future wrongdoing.
On the other hand, scandals can depoliticize wrongdoing. We are particularly interested in how scandals can function to limit who and what is held accountable for wrongdoing. We are interested in how the particular performance of a scandal functions to locate wrongdoing and responsibility within discrete spaces, temporal ruptures and individual failures. Despite deafening public outcry, a scandal can reaffirm the legitimacy of social practices that constitute violence, inequality and fear. Simply bearing witness to a scandal, ‘exposing’ wrongdoing and speaking truth to power is thereby an insufficient ethical and political response to scandals.
This workshop is concerned with following questions:
- How are scandals politicised?
- Which kinds of wrongdoing become the subject of scandal? Which do not?
- How is responsibility made visible and attributable in the aftermath of a scandal?
- What political responses appear appropriate and legible in such moments? Which do not?
- How could scandals be responded to differently? Do we need to move beyond the imaginaries, possibilities and temporalities of ‘scandal’ as an event?
Engaging with the politics of scandals raises relevant and productive questions about the relations of complicity and power that generate, sustain and repeat practices of wrongdoing found in the spectacular and everyday failures of global politics. Interrogating scandals also raises pressing methodological and conceptual questions about the power relations, structures and social practices that sustain this violence and inequality – including the role of gendered and racialized cultures; historical memory, remembrance and commemoration; labour roles and economic structures; visual, aesthetic and material assemblages; vernacular and ‘everyday’ knowledge; to name but a few.
The workshop engages directly with the EWIS 2018 theme in two ways. Firstly, the workshop asks how the politicization, mobilization and outrage of a scandal functions to give visibility (or invisibility) to the agents, institutions, cultures and power relations of contemporary global politics. Secondly, the workshop encourages scholarship to look beyond the confines of IR as a discipline in order to understand the forces that sustain violent, unjust and dangerous phenomena in contemporary global politics.
The workshop will gather submissions that interrogate the politics of historic and contemporary scandals across a range of topics and locales in global politics. Papers may be empirically and/or theoretically driven. The workshop particularly welcomes interdisciplinary submissions that provide insights from, for example, Law, Criminology, Sociology, Geography, Anthropology, Economics, History and Psychology.
WS P: Aesthetic Cities: Everyday, International, Urban
Convenors: Matt Davies (Newcastle University) & Delacey Tedesco (University of Exeter)
The topic of this workshop is the methodological challenges of identifying and engaging urban spaces and times as they articulate everyday life with international processes, forces, and relations. Reifying approaches to the international reproduce a frame of politics that is unable to account for everyday aspects of political life such as visual, sensory, affective, embodied, and intimate experience. This workshop addresses the need to develop robust new investigations of politics at the everyday/urban/international interface by bringing together a diverse selection of leading scholars in the “aesthetic turn” in International Relations with scholars working in urban studies, urban aesthetics, and urban arts-based practices. This workshop engages the methodologies of artists, musicians, designers, photographers, graphic and video artists, performers, and other professionals in the arts to stretch social scientific analytical frames and elucidate creative approaches to researching politics between everyday and international dimensions of urban life. The workshop asks: how do artists in various fields or media investigate the city as a space where the international and the everyday come together to confront each other, reproduce each other, or transform each other? What new forms and practices of research can scholars of global politics develop in order to investigate how ‘the city’ emerges as a site where the local, the intimate, and the global come together to transform both each other and the field of political possibilities?
Political geographers and political economists have recently highlighted the importance of cities and of urbanisation for international relations, particularly in fields of financialization, logistics, security, or development. The aesthetic turn in International Relations has extended the domain of international politics to recognize the increasing salience for IR of issues such as gender, ethnicity, poverty, citizenship, or consumption, long relegated to politics at other “levels” or to entirely different disciplines sociology, anthropology, or economics). However, it remains difficult for International Relations to recognize the significance of both the urban and the aesthetic to global politics because we are constrained by historically specific investments in the scale of politically relevant spaces and the forms of politically relevant practices.
This workshop brings together scholarship in these two existing subfields and pushes it in three significant directions. First, it engages the urban not only as site of a domination through geopolitical insecurity or violence, but also as a site of residual and emergent everyday rhythms, practices, and affective atmospheres rendered as objects to be managed or as obstinate tendencies of subjective resistance. Second, it engages aesthetics as a site to learn from existing but marginalized political methodological skills and approaches, rather than as a field through which scholars gain conceptual insights into the ‘real’ political work at hand. Third, it challenges conceptualizations of aesthetics as existing independently of politics; as Brighenti (2016, p. xx) claims, scholars should “speak of aesthetics to address phenomenological, perceptual, embodied and lived space, and … speak of politics to attend the ecology of the socio-material connections imbued with power that form today’s urban common world.”
WS Q: Mediterranean Encounters
Convenors: Knud Erik Jorgensen (Yasar University) & Defne Gunay (Yasar University)
Mediterranean encounters are rare, especially concerning scholarly perspectives on international relations. But such encounters are important. Fernand Braudel, being raised in Algeria and having a career in France, one stated, “I believe that this spectacle, the Mediterranean as seen from the opposite side, upside down, had considerable impact on my vision of history”. It seems reasonable to assume that also our perspectives on our subject matter, international relations, are impacted by the characteristics of our observation post. The discipline of International Relations (IR) is cultivated significantly different along Southern,-Northern, Eastern and Western shores of the Mediterranean and, the politics of IR is markedly different in form and substance. Hence there are exceptionally good reasons to organize a workshop on Mediterranean encounters, thus promoting reflexive dialogues on the trajectories and futures of the discipline. The workshop aims at exploring the conditions under which we produce knowledge about international politics/relations; theoretical, methodological and philosophical orientations; research agendas and programmes; advances within the field, including criteria for assessing progress; and the institutional and political settings that enable or constrain our activities. The mutual neglect makes Mediterranean encounters particularly relevant. Whereas European IR scholars tend to neglect the production of knowledge done by colleagues situated along the southern and eastern shores of the Med and instead embrace an unspecified Global South, colleagues in the MENA region often find the mental distance to ISA conferences shorter than to EISA conferences. Similarly, Tunisia, Israel, Lebanon and Turkey are the only countries from the broader Mediterranean region that are not members of the EU, thereby revealing that the non-EU Mediterranean countries are also under-represented in European research. Edward Said’s Orientalism experiences an outstanding reception within and beyond the discipline, whereas instances of occidentalism hardly appears on the research agenda. Criticism of Eurocentrism, ranging from Samir Amin, Bahar Rumelli to John Hobson, is frequently taken at face value also when, occasionally, it morphs into anti-Europeanism. One way of overcoming orientalism and/or occidentalism is to explore how ideas travelled across the Mediterranean region not only historically but also in the contemporary region. Attacking assumptions regarding the origins of ideas is only possible by bringing voices across the region together to share perspectives on the region. More importantly such an encounter can also highlight the potential for a common Mediterranean academic identity. By exploring the limits and potentials of research agendas, challenges and opportunities of empirical research and knowledge production in the Mediterranean, we aim at examining how the region possibly could feed into visions for the discipline. In turn, taking stock of the knowledge produced in the region on international relations and the methods, opportunities and constraints of knowledge production enables us to also apply this knowledge to the policy problems of the region.
WS R: Global Histories of the 'International'
Convenors: Filipe dos Reis (University of Erfurt) & Zeynep Gulsah Capan (University of Erfurt)
Histories of the ‘international’ and the development of concepts such as security, capital, sovereignty and civilization have been predominantly concerned with three interlinked stories: the story of the rise of the West, the story of the development of capitalism and the story of the development of modernity. Recently critical perspectives have questioned these macronarratives and their constitutive chronologies, teleologies and spatial imaginaries, interrupting the linear, progressive and parochial stories upon which the idea(s) of the ‘international’ is built. This workshop continues and furthers these discussions by reconstructing avowedly global intellectual histories of the ‘international’. To this end, we address the question of how to write global histories of the ‘international’. And linked to this: What political, legal and economic relations and experiences should be uncovered to write a global intellectual history of the international system? Where should the spatial sources and points of departure of these relations be located and how should the experiences and sets of ideas they express be understood? In what ways can we reconstruct the - now often neglected - connections and mutual influences between different events, sites, actors and concepts which in aggregate constitute parts of a global intellectual history of the ‘international’? To address these questions, the contributions to this workshop move from critique of the constitutive power of Eurocentric epistemic practices on the formation of concepts and modes of thought that underpin the analytical appropriation of the international system to the circulation of these concepts and modes of thought between diverse sites across global space and multiple experiences and event; that is, towards micro-histories. There has been a recent turn to history in the disciplines of International Relations (IR) (Bell 2009; Buzan and Lawson 2015; Lawson and Hobson 2008; Shilliam 2009), International Law (IL) (Anghie 2007; Becker 2014; Fassbender and Peters 2012; Koskenniemi 2001) and International Political Economy (IPE) (Anievas and Nisancioglu 2015; Hobson 2013, 2013a; Sartori 2013). This workshop seeks to further these discussions in broadening and rethinking the social and epistemic terrains of intellectual histories of the ‘international’. In doing, the workshop pursues two ends. First, it brings these now disparate discussions on the role of history in our disciplines into dialogue to reconstruct co-existing, alternate and yet ‘connected histories’ (Subrahmanyan 1997, 2005). As such, we reconnect sets of ideas and principles that are shared but often treated separately by disciplinary fields occupied with the ‘international’. Second, we approach these conversations from a global perspective to challenge the ways in which the spatial sources and points of departure of various sets of ideas and modes of thought have been previously anchored and focus on the different ways in which intellectual histories can be interwoven, connected and related to each other. Consequently, the workshop forges a creative interdisciplinary conversation to refigure the spatial and historical ontologies and epistemologies that still restrain and discipline the ‘international’. This EWIS workshop emerges from a series of international scholarly meetings that have been organized by the conveners, most notably a very well attended ten-panel section on reconstructing global histories of the ‘international’ at the EISA’s 11th Pan-European Conference on International Relations in Barcelona in September 2017, and a one-day workshop in Taipei in March 2017 on ‘global histories’, financially supported by the World International Studies Committee’s (WISC), in the context of the 5th Global International Studies Conference in Taiwan. The EWIS workshop constitutes therefore an invaluable opportunity to further and consolidate this research agenda and project on global histories. To this end, the three conveners will also meet at the EISA Symposia event in Rapallo to prepare a grant application targeting this topic.
WS S: Exploitation and the Design of Global Economic Institutions
Convenors: Michael Sampson (Leiden University) & Nicholas Vrousalis (University of Leiden)
For rationalist theories of international relations, the design and evolution of international economic institutions come to reflect one of two factors: Either such institutions represent an efficient solution to cooperation problems under conditions of uncertainty, or they simply reflect the pre-existing distribution of bargaining power between the negotiating parties. In both cases, questions of agency, freedom, and equality are excluded from the analysis. In neglecting exploration of these crucial concepts, contemporary theories of institutional design fail to take into account forms of inequality and power that lead to exploitation. For example, theories of international trade that focus exclusively on mutually consensual and beneficial transactions between states---e.g. transactions driven by considerations of comparative advantage---typically fail to consider the possibility that such transactions might be exploitative. This workshop aims at putting these questions of power, exploitation, and agency at the heart of the study of international economic institutions. Whilst some of these issues have been addressed by scholars of critical international relations, this workshop explicitly aims to bring together scholars from a variety of different traditions into a wider dialogue.
In this spirit we welcome papers in international relations theory, international political theory, and international economics, from a variety of methodological traditions, addressing the topic of exploitation and the design of international economic institutions, broadly construed. Potential themes include: exploitation and international trade, power and exploitation among the members of global economic institutions (e.g. WTO, IMF, World Bank), exploitation as a legacy of colonialism, transnational exploitation and the existence of borders.
WS T: Doing Visual IR: Methods, Power and Politics
Convenors: Jonathan Luke Austin (The Graduate Institute, Geneva) & Stephanie Perazzone (The Graduate Institute, Geneva)
How do we see the world and its politics? How do we make sense of international events? What do television screens, computer monitors, advertising billboards, and other everyday images do to our sensual appreciation for the global political order? And how might we study all of this? How can the discipline of IR come to terms with the explosion in visual imagery of wars, protests, rallies, street fights, and beyond? This workshop asks questions like these. It is concerned with the still quite nascent shift within IR away from the textual as the principal object of its study and primary mode of its own articulation. However, its main focus will be quite specifically on the methods and methodologies of doing visual IR and the questions of power and politics these methods implicate. The intellectual backdrop for the workshop rests on the reflexive, ethnographic, narrative, and aesthetic turns within IR. Each of these approaches has contributed to bringing forward a critical, inter-disciplinary, and – most importantly – an increasingly diverse set of outlooks into IR. This includes reassessing and dissecting the intricate relations between differently positioned societies in the global system, the ‘decolonizing’ of research, the linkages between the micro and macro levels of politics and its analysis, and the role of researchers and expert accounts in controlling narratives, reproducing exploitative power relations and shaping collectively shared ‘images’ of international relations and its conflicts. Specifically vis-à-vis questions of the visual and visibility, the introduction of the ‘image’ into IR that has occurred across these fields has worked to foreground the everyday lifeworlds of individual human beings, the materiality of those worlds, the questions of perspective in seeing Self and Other, and the ways in which powerful actors utilize visibility as a tool of domination, political manipulation, and beyond. With this backdrop in mind, the workshop focuses on how methods of doing visual IR can ‘complicate’ the discipline’s intellectual construction of world orders in ways that give voice to other perspectives and expose emerging forms of socio-political domination. We seek contributions that focus on the diverse methods and methodologies that can be employed to ‘do’ visual IR and which explore the power, politics, and potentially positive-political consequences of these methods. This might include perspectives from within specific theoretical traditions (practice theory, feminist theory, post-colonial theory, etc.) or reflections on quite specific methods of doing visual analysis in IR (the use of photography, the use of videography, the use of secondary visual data, the analysis of comics, art works, and beyond, etc.). We are particularly keen to encourage innovative contributions and presentations of all kinds into our discussions. The ultimate goal of the workshop is to draw together both young and senior scholars from various disciplinary traditions concerned with key issues surrounding doing visual IR. We envisage publishing our discussions in both an edited volume and a special issue and are making plans to this effect in advance of the workshop. The edited volume is planned as a handbook for students of working within IR wishing to employ visual approaches within their work, while the special issue will focus more on the broader conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues that emerge from our discussions at the workshop
WS U: Archaeology as a Diplomatic Tool—Old and New International Players and Their Political Interest in Global Archaeology Interest in Global Archaeology
Convenors: Marwan Kilani (Charles University Prague) & Christian Langer (Freie Universität Berlin)
Archaeology, as well as cultural heritage, has always played a crucial, albeit often overlooked, role both as an instrument to establish or reinforce international relations and as a political tool. Archaeology deals with two distinct but complementary domains: materiality and ideas and ideologies in the shape of physical sites and objects, as well as historical narratives. Both domains are crucial for the confluence of archaeology, politics and international relations. Archaeological sites and objects can be very lucrative economic assets and valuable investments, while the past can be a powerful ideological resource. These two domains can take multiple forms and generate a diversified range of interests that can be and have been used in different ways for political and diplomatic purposes within the framework of international relations. Our workshop will revolve around the following approaches to explore these interactions:
- Archaeology as an economic resource on the international level
- Archaeology as a provider of narratives to legitimize power relations/the status quo
- Archaeology as a means of cross-cultural communication
- Archaeology and the genesis and negotiation of political identities These approaches will constitute our main panels. We aim at building a balanced set of talks and plan to invite speakers that can present both specific case studies and theoretical approaches. The workshop will be open to researchers of all fields connected to archaeology, anthropology, heritage and museum studies, international law and international relations to encourage a cross-disciplinary dialogue. With respect to archaeology, we will welcome contributions from all sub-disciplines ranging from prehistoric down to contemporary archaeology (e.g. conflict archaeology). The main aim is to get as complete a picture as possible, hence the workshop will not single out a particular region of the globe but rather discuss the issue against the backdrop of archaeology as a field of global engagement. Our workshop will address both the colonial origins of archaeology as well as its ongoing legacy in the global South. It will raise the question how contemporary archaeology relates to its colonial past and in what way it can still be considered a political tool. In that context, the workshop will also discuss how different regions of the world have received diverging amounts of attention by researchers as well as its possible causes. Special attention will be given to the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order in global affairs and its implications for the future of global archaeology. The outcome of the workshop will challenge the notion that archaeological knowledge production is politically neutral and emphasize the intersection between archaeology, cultural heritage, politics and international relations in current affairs.
WS V: Political Economy of the Post-Soviet Space: Between Empires, Histories, and Uncertain Futures
Convenors: Yuliya Yurchenko (Greenwich University) & Stuart Shields (Manchester University)
The post-Soviet space is positioned on the crossings of the empire of capital with its internal competitions and shifting spatial and social boundaries. It is torn by inequalities, economic crises, various forms of conflict, and reinvigorated struggle for geopolitical presence between the Russian empire 2.0 and the new-old west. In IR/global political economy debates and scholarship the post-Soviet space tend to be discussed in an “adjacent” manner. That is to say that focused discussions are often left in the domain of area studies while the broader ones lose depth by fixating on the west-Russia ongoing rivalry. Such shortcomings leave contextualised analyses on individual states and societies sidelined in IR/GPE scholarship. The aim of this workshop is to address the complexity of the ongoing transformations in the post-Soviet space in a systematised interdisciplinary discussion thus contributing to a better understanding of the region, its internal dynamics, and significance of its foreign relations in IR/GPE.
The workshop is planned to cover three broad and overlapping areas. First is the geopolitical, territorial conflict on the fringes of the east and west empires e.g. Abkhazia, Transnistria, Ukraine, Chechnya, Nagorny Karabakh. The second will continue with the theme of conflict while focusing on the ethnic, cultural, and religious animosity and conviviality, political manipulations and populist instrumentalisations of sensitive social narratives. The third area concerns the problems of the political economy of neoliberalism and its manifestations in the systems of production and social reproduction. The primary focus of this broad area are will be on the urban struggles of survival and transformations of space (public and beyond), socio-economic inequalities, and rural economies, spaces, and struggles. Planned outputs include a special issue of select contributions and an edited volume (already solicited by the Palgrave IPE series).
WS W: The Political Economy of Democratic Deficits
Convenors: Saliha Metinsoy (University of Groningen) & Gregory Fuller (University of Groningen)
This workshop will delve into one of the central challenges facing highly integrated economies (especially the eurozone): the institutions required to stabilize integrated transnational marketplaces often operate with little direct democratic input while simultaneously having a potent impact on national democratic regimes . If the goal of policy is to “embed” today’s markets within society – that is, ensuring that market outcomes do not deviate too much from social preferences – there are two broad alternative means of achieving this: One route is to raise national barriers, shrinking markets down to national size and ostensibly giving states more control over domestic economic activity. The other route is to scale up regulatory powers to the supranational level, allowing international organizations to take the lead in market governance.
This is a Polanyian paradox: the best means of restoring some democratic control over market behavior – without embracing economic nationalism – is to forge transnational governance structures. However, those bodies themselves tend to be socially disembedded (i.e., they are not necessarily responsive to the democratic preferences of the governed) because there is no transnational “society” to embed them in. Moreover, they are not accountable to the electorate through any institutional means. This tension between the technocratic case for economic governance and the need for technocracy to respond to political pressure manifests in a number of contemporary issues and debates (examples listed below).
Understanding the intrinsic problems posed by technically useful but democratically dubious governance institutions is central to understanding the emerging political cleavage in advanced industrial economies between nationalists and internationalists. Moreover, this debate is clearly crucial to the future (and the past) of European integration.
WS X: Human In-security and Mediterranean Migration (HIsMed)
Convenors: Stefania Panebianco (University of Catania) & Valeria Bello (UN University, Barcelona)
Migration is a global issue, affecting several areas of the world in various ages. Migration across the Mediterranean is not a new phenomenon, but it changes over time depending on systemic pressures and contextual factors. According to specific challenges and systemic constraints, migrants reach Europe via different routes - maritime or land routes, Eastern, Central or Western Mediterranean routes. Sea arrivals across the Central Mediterranean are attracting increasing attention due to the high number of arrivals to southern European countries and – inevitably – due to the number of casualties that are rendering the central Mediterranean the most lethal area in the world. The proposed Workshop ‘Human In-security and Mediterranean Migration’ (HIsMed) seeks to explore challenges affecting people on the move across the Mediterranean. Addressing human insecurity of people on the move implies investigating humanitarian practices and the implications of border control strategies. The Mediterranean migration crisis has entered the research agenda in order to identify actors involved in the crisis, both at European Union (EU) and domestic level, to describe how the crisis affects origin, transit and destination countries, to explain different approaches and lack of coordination or inconsistencies. The Mediterranean migration crisis lacks effective management of human mobility and suggests scholars’ attention to identify existing (in)effective forms of protection, different levels of political intervention (global, supranational, local), emerging and institutionalised practices, the NGOs’ role in the management of the crisis. It is widely acknowledged that military, political, economic, social and environmental causes determine forced migration, rendering difficult the distinction between economic migrants and migrants entitled to international law protection and asylum for political, religious, or ethnic reasons. The current humanitarian and migration crisis in the Mediterranean challenges Europe because it raises existential questions about the EU and its core values: do the solutions put forward by the EU to face the migration/refugee crisis comply with the human rights the EU has championed globally? How can people crossing the Mediterranean be ‘protected’ as human beings first and foremost, not necessarily in view of their (being eligible to) refugee status? How can forced migration be managed? These questions inevitably pave the way to other intriguing and related questions: what are the new emerging challenges to human security in the Mediterranean? To what extent are they different from the past? What kind of new protection measures can be devised to protect people on the move? How does this affect the governance of migration at the global/supranational/local level?
WS Y: Politics, Governance, and Civilian Agency during Armed Conflict
Convenors: Georg Frerks (Utrecht University) & Niels Terpstra (Utrecht University)
Who rules during civil war? Not only the incumbent government, and not only those who rebel against it. In many cases additional armed actors are involved, either allied to the state, to the rebels or operating independently. The uncertainties and opportunities created by civil war often lead to the emergence of different types of armed groups intent on civilian protection or predation, military advantage or uneasy collusion with the state. Yet, the newly established literature on ‘rebel governance’ focuses largely on relations and interactions between rebel groups and civilians in opposition to the state.
In this workshop we firstly hope to broaden the academic debate on rebel governance by examining the emergence of additional actors—anti-subversive, militia, police and foreign intervenors, and the specific political dimensions of the types of governance that result from their operations and interactions during civil war. The presence of additional actors arguably affects the erstwhile form of governance, reinforcing or undercutting the strategic objectives of each actor. Secondly, we are interested in the agency of civilians under rule of armed actors. How do civilians shape political orders during civil war? How and why do they resist and/or comply with the rules defined by these armed groups? Apart from theoretical and conceptual developments around these themes, we welcome empirical case studies that investigate these issues.
WS Z: Planet Politics and IR
Convenors: Hannes Peltonen (University of Tampere)
Planet Politics is a recent innovation in IR. It promises to be a formidable candidate to operate as a disciplinary big idea, to transcend disciplinary boundaries, and to enable a new kind of thinking that leaves behind the modern distinction between human and nature. A central aspect of Planet Politics is the anthropogenic use of power vis-a-vis our planet and its different spheres. Yet, much needs to be done regarding Planet Politics. What does it mean and how should it be understood? How to delineate Planet Politics from other recent innovations in IR? What would form the basis for a Planet Politics research program? How to teach Planet Politics? How to ensure that Planet Politics can be seen as an addition to “traditional” IR strengths, not as a threat? The purpose of this workshop is to examine Planet Politcs critically in order to assess its early promise as a disciplinary big idea, capable of renewing IR and to be of interest beyond the discipline.
WS AA: The (re)-politicisation of international relations in the post-Soviet space
Convenors: Tracey German (King’s College London) & Agha Bayramov (University of Groningen)
International relations across the post-Soviet space have been politicised since their inception in 1991, largely because Russian political discourse has focused on the region as a sphere of its exclusive interest. Despite the appearance of new actors in the wake of the breakup of the USSR that challenged Russian hegemony, its ties to the region have remained strong, driven by a common language, shared history, and enduring economic, societal, cultural and political links. Until relatively recently, scant attention was paid to the significance of geopolitics as an explanatory paradigm to assist in understanding foreign policy-making in the post-Soviet space. Since 2014 the geopolitical landscape of the post-Soviet space has undergone some significant changes, highlighting that geopolitics is a powerful tool that can facilitate a better understanding of the complexities of international relations across the region.
This workshop will explore foreign relations across the region through a geopolitical framework and seek to identify key determinants, with a particular focus on borders, energy, democratisation, security and conflict, and the role of external actors. Questions to be asked include: How do regional actors conceptualise the ‘post-Soviet’ space? Is there any commonality of understanding? What determines the politics of the region? How significant are national identities? To what extent is strategic cooperation defined by geographic location rather than interest? Which practices of security are emerging? We invite paper proposals addressing these and related questions connected to the post-Soviet space from a theoretical, empirical, and/or normative perspective.