Making foreign policy foreign
Building on earlier work, I delve into the translations of “foreign policy” and the potential challenges following from these translations. I start with a section on how something conceptualizable as “foreign policy” first emerged. Then I discuss at an overarching level how this something was translated. I pay particular attention to English, French and the Scandinavian languages. A final section returns to one of the many implications of this for International Relations theorising, before I conclude.
Drivers of violent extremism: NUPI to coordinate EU-funded project
PREVEX will shed light on how the various drivers of violent extremism operate.
Preventing Violent Extremism in the Balkans and the MENA: Strengthening Resilience in Enabling Environments (PREVEX)
The overarching objective of PREVEX is to put forward more fine-tuned and effective approaches to preventing violent extremism....
How do revolutions begin, unfold and end?
To mark the establishment of the Centre of Historical International Politics (CHIP) at NUPI, we have the pleasure of inviting you to a talk with Dr George Lawson on ‘Anatomies of revolution’.
A Conceptual History of International Relations
In this lecture, I discussed why we need a conceptual history of international relations, and how we can go about writing it.
Theory Seminar: Global History and International Relations
Dr George Lawson from the London School of Economics and Political Science will present a paper on ‘Global History and International Relations’.
The Politics of Diasporas and the Duty of Care: Legitimizing interventions through the protection of kin
The duty of care (DoC) is largely portrayed as being of a benevolent and liberal character, with welfare states aiding its citizens abroad. In this chapter Holm examines a more complex phenomenon involving the DoC: that of a state and its diaspora. Seeing Duty of Care in relation to diasporas poses a conceptual shift: often multinational in identification, with a perceived or real ‘homeland’, and at times with dual (legal) citizenship, diasporas may be sought protected under an extended, non-territorialized notion of belonging to a state’s citizenry. Looking at Russian rhetoric in the Georgia war in 2008 and the Crimean annexation and Ukraine crisis in 2014, Holm explores how the Duty of Care can be evoked rhetorically to defend diaspora groups by kin-states. In relation to a domestic audience, this prism proves highly effective, as the state portrays its actions as defending ‘their’ people abroad out of a moral necessity and responsibility for their kin. It also functions to dismiss international stigma and critique at home based on a perceived higher moral purpose. As in the case of diasporas in inter-state conflicts with Georgia and Ukraine, this turns the Duty of Care into a complicated, and potentially highly politicized, international matter. It also provides a communitarian alternative to the cosmopolitan R2P: in theory, any group can be defined as worth defending as one’s own, across and despite opposing claims to sovereignty. The chapter concludes with discussing the wider ramifications of diaspora group protection by kin-states for challenges to the liberal international order.
Stubbornly Stumbling into Making History: Constructivism and Historical International Relations
The aim of this chapter is threefold; first we try to recollect through the hazy dim of personal history and histories how we eventually became the researchers we are today. Second, we focus on what to us at the time – and, to some extent, still – appeared as contingent, random and haphazard experiences so as to present a more coherent account, an account that we hope may be a useful tool – or at the least a good read – for younger scholars. In the process, we dwell on choices we have made with respect to how we have sought to approach the world; our approach and our sources. Third, we present an attempt at distilling what we see as the lessons that can be drawn from our work and trajectory, what we in hindsight may call “our approach”, in the hope that the reader will find some useful tools for her own research, or that we at the very least help open up a space for this type of reflection. We elaborate on what we perceive to be the benefits of our preferred approach, and how it may be useful for engaging with scholars beyond the confines of Constructivism.