„A nemzetközi” mint governmentalitás

A hagyományosan hatalomközpontú politikai elemzésben „a nemzetközi” (the international) az államok rendszerének sajátossága: anarchikus tér, amely minőségileg különbözik az államon belüli viszonyoktól. A normaközpontú iskola ezzel szemben egyre inkább a közös értékek allokációjának terepeként értelmezi, mely rokonságot mutat más politikai terekkel. Az irodalom ilyen kettéválása mellett a hatalomelemzés privilegizálása azzal jár, hogy elveszítjük képességünket „a nemzetközi” rendszerszintű változásának vizsgálatára, míg a normákra fókuszálva feláldozzuk a hatalom tanulmányozását. Meglátásunk szerint „a nemzetközi” ma létező konceptualizálásai (Webertől eredve) Morgenthautól származnak, akinél a fogalom az államok közötti tér ideáltípusát jelentette. Tanulmányunk Mike Williams munkásságára építve kínálja e két tudós koncepcióinak új olvasatát. Morgenthau azzal, hogy „a politikait” ideáltipikus szféraként azonosítja, lehetővé teszi a konstruktivista jellegű társadalomelméleti megfigyeléseket is. Speciális ideáltípusa azonban, melyet a nemzetközi politikára alkotott, eredeti weberi szempontjai alapján frissítésre szorul. Azzal próbálunk eleget tenni ennek a kihívásnak, hogy Michel Foucault elméletéből merítve megalkotjuk „a nemzetközi” olyan értelmezését, amely azt a governmentalitás társadalmilag beágyazott terepeként fogja fel. Olyan (hatalmi viszonyok által meghatározott) struktúraként, amely támogatja a (kormányzati racionalitásként meghatározott) politikai uralom különböző, változó gyakorlatait, valamint ágenciákat (például politikai intézményeket) generál

The formation and transformation of a transnational field

Students of global governance have documented that non-state actors have become key players in world politics as they form part of transnational governance networks that constitute “spheres of authority” beyond the control of states. Research on expert groups in International Relations theory (IR) has specified a key mechanism through which such nonstate groups can exercise influence as they persuade and teach states to change behavior and re-define their interests by reference authoritative knowledge claims. While these two strands of literature share a focus on the role of non-state actors, there is little cross-fertilization between them. This is unfortunate as a strong case can be made that advancing insights in one field will be greatly facilitated by drawing on the other. What is lacking is a conceptual apparatus that can bring the two strands of research together and move them beyond their current limitations. I argue here that field theory offers such a conceptual apparatus. Global governance theory lacks a meso-level theory of the units of analysis – transnational governance networks – that are said to be central to world politics. Focusing on fields as a structured set of positions and a social space of organized striving and competition can help provide such a theoretical focus. Research on expert groups, meanwhile, often over-sell the significance of “knowledge” in shaping policy, and typically focus only on their impact on states. They do not analyze how expert groups also operate as part of global governance networks and how these networks evolve over time. By situating expert groups within field theory, it is possible to move beyond a sole focus on knowledge as a causal factor, and to unearth their role in shaping the evolution of governance networks over time. Analyzing the formation, institutionalization, and transformation of population as a transnational governance field I seek to show how field theory can improve our understanding of global governance and the role of expert groups within it

Performing Statehood through Crises: Citizens, Strangers, Territory

This article applies the growing International Relations literature on state performance and performativity to the question of how practitioners categorize different kinds of crises. The aim is to add value to the crisis literature by paying more attention to how performances are staged for multiple audiences, how statehood is produced as a collective (as opposed to an individual) body, and how and why one and the same state actor performs statehood in different ways. Drawing on interviews and participant observation, we discuss how one state apparatus, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), performs statehood during different types of crisis. The MFA has institutionalized crisis management in three very different ways, depending on whether the MFA defines the crisis as a security crisis, a humanitarian crisis or a civilian crisis. Different crises have different audiences, are performed in different repertoires, and produce three different aspects of the state that we name, respectively, caretaking, do-gooding and sovereign. Bringing the performativity literature to the study of crises gives us a better understanding of the statecraft that goes into using crises as opportunities to make visible and strengthen the state as a presence in national and global social life. Conversely, our focus on the specificity of various state performances highlight how the performance literature stands to gain from differentiating more clearly between the straightforward performing of practices, and the performing of state identity by means of same practices on the other.acceptedVersio

The formation and transformation of a transnational field

Students of global governance have documented that non-state actors have become key players in world politics as they form part of transnational governance networks that constitute “spheres of authority” beyond the control of states. Research on expert groups in International Relations theory (IR) has specified a key mechanism through which such nonstate groups can exercise influence as they persuade and teach states to change behavior and re-define their interests by reference authoritative knowledge claims. While these two strands of literature share a focus on the role of non-state actors, there is little cross-fertilization between them. This is unfortunate as a strong case can be made that advancing insights in one field will be greatly facilitated by drawing on the other. What is lacking is a conceptual apparatus that can bring the two strands of research together and move them beyond their current limitations. I argue here that field theory offers such a conceptual apparatus. Global governance theory lacks a meso-level theory of the units of analysis – transnational governance networks – that are said to be central to world politics. Focusing on fields as a structured set of positions and a social space of organized striving and competition can help provide such a theoretical focus. Research on expert groups, meanwhile, often over-sell the significance of “knowledge” in shaping policy, and typically focus only on their impact on states. They do not analyze how expert groups also operate as part of global governance networks and how these networks evolve over time. By situating expert groups within field theory, it is possible to move beyond a sole focus on knowledge as a causal factor, and to unearth their role in shaping the evolution of governance networks over time. Analyzing the formation, institutionalization, and transformation of population as a transnational governance field I seek to show how field theory can improve our understanding of global governance and the role of expert groups within it

Learning to build a sustainable peace: Ownership and everyday peacebuilding

Lack of local ownership is seen as a central explanation for why peacebuilding efforts often fail to yield sustainable peace dividends. But how is local ownership understood and acted upon by those who are engaged in peacebuilding efforts at the country level? Based on research in four countries – Afghanistan, Haiti, Liberia and Sudan – this study finds that the way ownership is operationalized by external actors at the country level is quite different from how it is defined in policy documents. The most prevalent operationalization is ownership as a conditional right with external actors seeing ownership as theirs to give to local actors when certain conditions (such as capacity or responsibility) are met. The result is often that reform efforts are unsustainable. This report suggests some concrete steps that can be taken to render ownership an operational principle

Norske svar på internasjonale utfordringer: Retorisk endring, stabilitet i tiltak

Norsk utenrikspolitikk omtales ofte som preget av konsensus og stabilitet, hvor kobling til NATO og USA, støtte til FN, og en aktiv europapolitikk er hovedelementer. Inspirert av innsikter fra institusjonell teori om «organisert hykleri» – altså hvordan organisasjoner ofte må frikoble tale og handling – analyserer vi norsk utenrikspolitikk. Vi finner at det er tendenser til slikt integrert flertydighet, som ikke er overraskende gitt de motstridende krav og forventninger som preger våre omgivelser. Vi peker på hvordan et slikt perspektiv kan bidra til kritisk refleksjon rundt effektivitet i ulike virkemidler, og diskuterer også hvordan dette preger tilnærmingen til «Norden», som del av den utenrikspolitiske verktøykassen