Kinship diplomacy, or diplomats of a kin
Familiarity breeds contempt, or so the idiom goes, and historically there are ample examples of how family-ties and blood kinship have not fostered peaceful cooperation. By contrast, metaphorical kinship has been seen to grease the wheels of diplomacy, creating and sustaining ties between different polities and underpinning a shared diplomatic culture. While metaphorical kinship and family metaphors are certainly central to diplomacy, my main argument in this chapter is that blood kinship, has been underestimated as a cohesive factor in diplomatic interaction. At a general level, I argue that notions and practices of blood kinship, both in consanguine and affinal form, mattered to ‘modern’, Euro-centric and noble-dominated diplomacy from its emergence during the Renaissance to roughly speaking 1919. However, both notions and practices varied and were deployed in different ways at different times, reflecting differing configurations of knowledge and power. In the renaissance, kinship diplomacy could be understood as a leftover from earlier ways of organising social interaction. With consolidating policies in the early modern period, kinship diplomacy became particularly important for families and polities situated in border regions between larger polities. Finally, much of the diplomatic culture often associated with the ‘classical diplomacy’ of the 18th and 19th centuries, was based not only on notions of commonality, but on invoked blood kinship and marriages across boundaries.
The family of nations. Kinship as an international ordering principle in the nineteenth century.
This chapter suggests that the phrase ‘the family of nations’ for a long time was more commonly deployed amongst international actors themselves to describe ‘the international’ than more common concepts in contemporary IR scholarship such as ‘international system’, ‘society’, and ‘community’. The authors argue that in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the concept of a family of nations was integral to legitimizing strategies for coercive measures and colonial rule.
The Function of Myths in International Relations: Discipline and Identity
Myths, understood as forms of narrative, providing meaning and significance, are an inescapable part of the life of human collectives. Thus, myths are central to any academic discipline. They tell us who we are and what we should be concerned with, and provide blueprints for arguments about policy choices. However, they also constrain our thinking and limit our choices. Although mythic thinking might be inescapable, it is nevertheless necessary to critically engage the central myths of any discipline, to denaturalise what is taken for granted. In this chapter, we tackle three central sets of myths in IR. The first two form the backbone of the discipline; the ontological myth of 1648 and the epistemological myth of 1919. Together they tell the story of a discipline which is concerned with states in an anarchical system, which grew out of the desire to end war and which is steadily progressing towards a more realistic representation of the object of study. Our final set of myths are the praxeological ones, the myths where academic commonplaces shade into policy-prescriptions. We end by cautioning against reading all historical misrepresentation as myth-making, and against the belief that we can create a myth-free discipline.
The Balance of Power
The balance of power – the idea that states consciously or unconsciously strive towards an equal distribution of power to avoid dominance by one – is a core concept for the study of international politics. The discipline of international relations (IR) has long debated the standing of the balance of power as a theoretical concept. Some argue that the concept does not fit the historical empirics, whilst others have amended the concept by introducing ideas like “balance of threats,” “bandwagoning,” or “soft balancing.” However, diplomats throughout history have also frequently deployed the balance‐of‐power concept. From the Italian city‐states in the fifteenth century, through Great Power wars in Europe in the 1700s, the Concert of Europe, two world wars, and up until our day, practitioners have used the concept in various ways. The balance of power is therefore as central to the study of diplomatic practice as it is for the theoretical understanding of interstate relations.
Utenrikspolitikk - en begrepshistorie
(Available in Norwegian only): Artikkelen tar opp spørsmålet om når Norge fikk en egen utenrikspolitikk, og gir svar gjennom en begrepshistorisk analyse. Tidligere forslag har vært middelalderen, med etableringen av relasjoner mellom norske konger og andre konger, slutten av 1700-tallet, med etableringen av et eget departement i København for utenlandske anliggender, eller 1905, med full ytre suverenitet. Et fokus på utenrikspolitikk som praksisbegrep, et begrep som oppsto på et bestemt tidspunkt, av bestemte grunner, for å beskrive en form for handling, gir et annet svar. Utenrikspolitikkens oppkomst i Norge tidfestes best til årene rundt 1860, da Stortinget begynte å uttrykke øket interesse for verden utenfor Norge, og ønsker om tettere oppsyn med det som fra da av ble kalt utenrikspolitikk.
New Diplomacy
New diplomacy is a term which has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. It was introduced as a positive contrast to the old diplomacy of kings and intrigues, and was concerned primarily with trade. Such a liberal understanding has remained predominant – new diplomacy has typically been associated with democratic control over diplomacy, international organization, and free trade, and with openness and honesty in diplomatic practice. An alternative radical interpretation, where new diplomacy implied the complete overthrow of the old, can trace its roots to the French Revolution, and was expressed fully during the Russian Revolution. Although new diplomacy has also been used as a term of abuse by those who prefer traditional forms of diplomacy, the term has primarily signified an ongoing or desired change in a positive direction. Currently, it is being used as a label for most of the non‐state‐centric diplomacy.
Old diplomacy
Old diplomacy is a term which has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. Politically, it emerged as a term of abuse, used to criticize all which had been wrong with interstate interaction before 1789, in particular secrecy, duplicity, and the reliance on aristocracy. Thus, it was often contrasted with a desired new diplomacy. Political versions of the term have persisted until the present day, although the target changed. A particular spike in criticism happened in 1918–20, when old diplomacy was blamed for the outbreak of the Great War. Analytically, old diplomacy has been used to refer more neutrally to earlier forms of diplomacy. This usage emerged in the nineteenth century, but has been more prevalent from the middle of the twentieth century.
Working Paper: Comparing the EU’s Output Effectiveness in the Cases of Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali
This part of the overall report (Deliverable 7.1) on the EU’s crisis response in Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali compares the findings of three comprehensive cases-studies. The analytical focus is on the output dimension of EU policy-making that is the output of decision-making of the policy-making machinery in Brussels. Thus, the analysis is confined to the choices and decisions made regarding the EU’s problem definitions, policy goals, strategies and instruments – both on a strategic and operational level; thus policy implementation or impact will be analysed as next steps in following project reports (D 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4).
Comparative Analysis for Theory Development: Reflections on a Study of Women’s Empowerment
Methodological texts about comparative work have focused overwhelmingly on controlled comparisons aimed at causal inference. To show the range of possible goals and approaches, this piece reflects on our own choices while studying the state and women’s empowerment in Norway, Japan, and the United States. We show how our research design evolved with our theoretical thinking, and explain that we did not select comparative “cases,” but rather diverse contexts with interesting variation in our main concept of interest. Finally, we discuss how we constructed multi-cultural research teams to take advantage of insider and outsider perspectives during fieldwork.