Benjamin de Carvalho

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.

Everyday sovereignty: International experts, brokers and local ownership in peacebuilding Liberia

The present article investigates how sovereignty is performed, enacted and constructed in an everyday setting. Based on fieldwork and interviews with international embedded experts about the elusive meaning of ‘local ownership’, we argue that while sovereignty may, indeed, be a model according to which the international community ‘constructs’ rogue or failed polities in ‘faraway’ places, this view overlooks that these places are still spaces in which contestations over spheres of authority take place every day, and thus also spaces in which sovereignty is constructed and reconstructed on a daily basis. Local ownership, then, becomes our starting point for tracing the processes of the everyday enactment of sovereignty. We make the case that sovereignty should not be reified, but instead be studied in its quotidian and dynamic production, involving the multiplicity of actors reflecting the active production of the state beyond its presumptive existence as a homogeneously organized, institutionalized and largely centralized bureaucracy.

Moral authority and status in International Relations: Good states and the social dimension of status seeking

We develop scholarship on status in international politics by focusing on the social dimension of small and middle power status politics. This vantage opens a new window on the widely-discussed strategies social actors may use to maintain and enhance their status, showing how social creativity, mobility, and competition can all be system-supporting under some conditions. We extract lessons for other thorny issues in status research, notably questions concerning when, if ever, status is a good in itself; whether it must be a positional good; and how states measure it.

Engasjementspolitikk på autopilot: Fredsbygging, fredsbevaring og fredsmegling under Børge Brende