Polforsk Ph.d course: International Relations (IR)
| Please, register here: |
Responsible: Senior Researcher Rens van Munster (DIIS) and Professor Lene Hansen (KU)
From: 2012/08/20 to: 2012/08/23
Registration Deadline: 2012/05/23
Place: Room 4.2.50, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1353 Copenhagen K.
Fee: 100 Euro.
ECTS (Get approval from your own department!!!): 4
Short description: The thematic focus of the IR Track of the POLFORSK Summer School 2012 is on these recent interventions and the history of IR to which they speak. This focus opens up for discussions of what makes IR theories, how research should be conducted, and what factors drive a discipline like IR forward (or not).
Michael C. Williams is Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. His research interests are in International Relations theory, security studies, and political thought. His most recent book (with Rita Abrahamsen) is Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2011). His previous publications include The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Culture and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International Security (Routledge, 2007) and he is the editor of several books, including most recently, Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in International Relations (Oxford University Press, 2007). His articles have appeared in the most prestigious journals in the field of International Relations including the European Journal of International Relations, International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, Millennium, and the Review of International Studies. Prior to joining the University of Ottawa, he was Professor of International Politics in the Department of International Politics at Aberystwyth, and has been a visiting fellow at the Universities of Cape Town, Copenhagen, and the European University Institute in Florence.
Michael C. Williams is widely recognized as one of the leading theorists in International Relations and he will give two guest lecturesThe End of Theory in IR? (based on his contribution to a special issue of the European Journal of International Relations on the same theme) and;The Study of Classics in IR why IR Theorists Return to the Past. Michael C. Williams participates on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Lecturers: Senior Researcher Rens van Munster (DIIS) and Professor Lene Hansen (KU). Guest lecturer: Professor Michael C. Williams, University of Ottawa.
Further information: rmu@diis.dk
The
discipline of IR has historically conceived of itself as comprised by
a specific set of approaches or theories engaged in “great
debates”. The first debate is said to take place in the 1930s and
1940 as realists and idealists (or liberals) fought over how one
should understand the international system and the conditions under
which states might stop waging wars. This debate concerned, in other
words, the political ontology of the state and the international. The
second debate, from the 1950s to 1970s, was focussed on epistemology
and methodology and the two main protagonists were behavioralism and
“traditionalism”. In the 1970s, with the third debate, the focus
(re)turned to the political dynamics that explain world politics.
Conflicts expanded as the usual two combatant structure grew to three
contestants: realism, liberalism/interdependence theory, and Marxism
or globalization. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed another round of
debate over how international politics should be studied. Robert O.
Keohane coined the distinction between “rationalism”
(incorporating neo-realism and neo-liberalism) and “reflectivism”
(perspectives that broke with the scientific assumptions of
rationalism) in 1988, and this distinction became the focal point for
debate in the 1990s. Over the past 10 years, reflectivism has
splintered into a plethora of non-rationalist perspectives, some of
which, most prominently “thin” constructivism, have moved
close(r) to the rationalist position. There is also, however, a
widespread sense in the discipline that there are no longer any
“grand debates” which tie competing positions together. Rather
than debates, the last decennium has seen disciplinary ‘turns’,
including a ‘constructivist’, ‘historical’, ‘practice’,
‘cultural’, ‘sociological’ and ‘aesthetic’ turn. Although
some have celebrated this fragmentation, others have lamented the
absence of a common reference point that holds the discipline
together. As a response, a range of scholars, books, and prominent
journals have asked why IR has become so fragmented, and ask how (if
at all) “grand IR debate” might again be fostered. The
thematic focus of the IR Track of the POLFORSK Summer School 2012 is
on these recent interventions and the history of IR to which they
speak. This focus opens up for discussions of what makes IR theories
“theories”, how research should be conducted, and what factors
drive a discipline like IR forward (or not). The organizers, Rens van
Munster and Lene Hansen, will give an opening lecture that lays out
the main positions on the terrain of IR and sketches where current
debates are at. The next lectures will provide more focussed
presentations on more specific debates, interventions, and
literatures. The guest lecturer, Prof. Michael C. Williams,
University of Ottawa, will also speak to this theme. Papers presented
by Ph.D. students – including Ph.D. proposals as well as drafts of
journal articles – need not speak to the thematic focus, but can
pick any empirical or theoretical subject relevant to IR. The papers
presented will be discussed with a particular focus on research
design, methodology and how to produce a manuscript ready for journal
submission. Monday,
August 20, 2012 9.00-10.30:
Opening lecture and introductions, Rens van Munster and Lene Hansen 10.30-10.45:
Coffee break 10.45-12.15:
International Security Studies – the evolution of a subfield of IR,
Lene Hansen Security
Studies is one of the two main subfields of IR and its evolution
presents a fascinating story of how ontological, epistemological, and
political debates have played themselves out. Based on her book, The
Evolution of International Security Studies
(co-authored with Barry Buzan), Lene Hansen will present the field’s
main trajectories with a particular focus on whether there are
distinct American and European traditions, on how what it means to be
“critical” and “normative” changes from the field’s
gestation in the 1940s and until today, and how on one might explain
the way that Security Studies has evolved. 12.15-13.00:
Lunch 13.00-15.00:
Paper presentations Elina
Eloranta, Department of Political Science, University of Tampere,
“Explaining Security Production” comments:
Christa Moesgaard, Danish Institute for International Studies Martin
Renner, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Eberhard Karls Universität
Tübingen, “EU Security Policy Towards China – A
Liberal-Relational Approach to Hard Security Issues” comments:
Zhang Jiuan, Aalborg University 15.00-15.15:
Coffee Break 15.15-17.15:
Paper Presentations Nikolas
Scherer, Institute for Social Sciences, Humboldt University, “The
Social Sources of Securitization Processes” comments:
Åsne Kalland Aarstad, Aarhus University Dagmar
Zakopalova, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague,
“Diffusion of Securitization at the International Level: The
Dynamics of Transnational Security Issues” comments:
Sanne Brasch Kristensen, Roskilde University Tuesday,
August 21, 2012 9.00-10.30:
The End of IR Theory? Guest lecture by Prof. Michael C. Williams,
University of Ottawa Michael
C. Williams is Professor in the Graduate School of Public and
International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. His research
interests are in International Relations theory, security studies,
and political thought. His most recent book (with Rita Abrahamsen) is
Security
Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics
(Cambridge University Press, 2011). His previous publications include
The
Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations
(Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Culture
and Security: Symbolic Power and the Politics of International
Security
(Routledge, 2007) and he is the editor of several books, including
most recently, Realism
Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in International
Relations
(Oxford University Press, 2007). His articles have appeared in the
most prestigious journals in the field of International Relations
including the European
Journal of International Relations,
International
Organization,
International
Studies Quarterly,
Millennium,
and the Review
of International Studies.
Prior to joining the University of Ottawa, he was Professor of
International Politics in the Department of International Politics at
Aberystwyth, and has been a visiting fellow at the Universities of
Cape Town, Copenhagen, and the European University Institute in
Florence. This
lecture is based
on Michael Williams’ contribution to a special issue of the
European
Journal of International Relations
on the same theme. 10.30-10.45:
Coffee Break 10.45-12.45:
Paper Presentations Peter
Markus Kristensen, Department of Political Science, University of
Copenhagen, “Mapping the Territory of the Not-So-International
Discipline” comments:
Martin Renner, Universität Tübingen Carina
Meyn, Danish Institute for International
Studies, “Man, Ethics, and Survival: Towards a Theory of Practice
of Global Nuclear Disarmament” comments:
Elina Eloranta, University of Tampere 13.30-15.00:
One-Worldism
– remaking IR-theory? Rens van Munster Over
the last decade, IR has witnessed the emergence of ambitious
theoretical calls for one-worldism. Based on the idea that globality
has become a defining material feature of humanity, this scholarship
draws upon international theory, particularly classical realism, as
well as classical political theory to address the problem of
political order in a world characterized by the capacity for global
destruction (nuclear war, environmental and technological omnicide).
This lecture examines how the perspective of one-worldism reinterpret
classical traditions with the aim of presenting nothing less than a
new vision of world politics around which the discipline of IR can be
forged. 15.00-15.15:
Coffee Break 15.15-17.15:
Paper Presentations Lau
Øfjord Blaxekjær, Department of Political Science, University of
Copenhagen, “Green Growth: From Framing to Empty Signifier” comments:
Gjermund Haslerud, University of Agder Andreas
Bøje Forsby, Danish Institute for International Studies, “A
Mainstream Constructivist Approach to Identity Structuralism” comments:
Nicholas Scherer, Humboldt University Wednesday,
August 22, 2012 9.00-10.30:
Risk
and international political sociology – outside IR, Rens van
Munster Over
the last decade, IR theory has been challenged by a range of
approaches who have found inspiration in other intellectual
traditions such as sociology, history and philosophy. By focusing on
one of the core concepts in IR theory – international security –
this lecture traces how sociological theories on risk have challenged
the ways in which IR theorizes and analyzes security. By focusing on
the international political sociology of risk, this lecture asks what
IR theory can learn from an engagement with sociology, and what
possible limitations and challenges emerge in the encounter between
these two disciplines. 10.30-10.45:
Coffee Break 10.45-12.45:
Paper Presentations Åsne
Kalland Aarstad, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University,
“Security Privatization and Foreign Policy Influence” comments:
Cladio Pardo Enrico, University of Bremen Jorge
Fernandez, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, “The
Role of National Armies Research in Techno-Economic Networks of
Medical Innovations: The Role of Malaria Vaccine Development” comments:
Lau Øfjord Blaxekjær, University of Copenhagen 12.45-13.30:
Lunch 13.30-15.00:
The Practice Turn in IR, Michael C. Williams Building
on the work of Pierre Bourdieu and other social theorists including
Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault, IR scholars have drawn attention
to the way that practices constitute subjectivities and underpin IR
policies and concepts. The so-called practice turn has also been used
to highlight the role of background knowledge for social institutions
within IR, such as diplomacy, and to foster dialogue among disparate
IR approaches. This lecture introduces the key positions within the
practice turn and discusses
its potential for theoretical as well as empirical research. 15.00-15.15:
Coffee Break 15.15-17.15:
Paper Presentations Rune
Saugman, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen,
“The Bronson Video/Security Nexus” comments:
Dagmar Zakopalova, Charles University, Prague Gjermund
Haslerud, Political Science and Management, University of Agder, “The
Signalling Effect of International Institutions” comments:
Peter Markus Kristensen, University of Copenhagen Thursday,
August 23, 2012 9.00-10.30:
Feminist International Relations – a micro-cosmos of IR, Lene
Hansen Feminist
IR and Gender Studies
constitutes a “best case” micro-cosmos within IR in that this
field of research is where one encounters the most explicit, and
heated, debates between different epistemological positions. This
lecture traces how rationalists, stand-point feminists, and
poststructuralists have adopted different positions on how world
politics could be studied, and thus on what constitutes a politically
engaged feminist perspective. 10.30-10.45:
Coffee Break 10.45-11.45:
Paper Presentation: Sanne
Brasch Kristensen, Department of Society
and Globalization, Roskilde University, “Securitizing International
Societies – What Role for the EU Normative Foundation” comments:
Carina Meyn, Roskilde University 11.45-12.30:
Conclusion and evaluation
Deadline
for submission of papers: August 5, 2012 – if papers have not be
submitted by this date, the student will be participating in the
course as a non-paper giver. Submission
of papers to: paper@polforsk.dk Please,
observe concerning your paper: Format
for paper presentations: *All
papers must be read by participants prior to the course! *
The student presenting gets up to 10 minutes to summarize the paper’s
main points *
One student opens the discussion by providing comments (up to 10
minutes) We
have listed a “prioritized” at the texts we expect to discuss
during the course. General
readings
Adler,
Emanuel (1997) ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World
Politics’, European
Journal of International Relations,
3:3, 319-63.
Bell, Duncan (2009)
‘Writing
the World: Disciplinary History and Beyond’, International
Affairs,
85:1, 3-22.
Bigo, Didier and R.B.J.
Walker (2007), ‘International, Political, Sociology’,
International
Political Sociology,
1:1, 1-5. Hoffman,
Mark (1987) ‘Critical
Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate’,
Millennium,
16:2, 231-49. Keohane,
Robert. O. (1988) ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’,
International
Studies Quarterly,
32:4, 379-96. Lake,
David A. (2011) ‘Why “isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and
Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress’,
International
Studies Quarterly,
55:2, 465-80.
Schmidt, Brian (2002)
‘On the History and
Historiography of International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes,
Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, eds., Handbook
of International Relations, London:
Sage, pp. 3-22. Snidal,
Duncan and Alexander Wendt (2009) ‘Why there is International
Theory
now’, International
Theory,
1:1, 1-14. Prioritized. Sylvester,
Christine (2007)
‘Whither the International at the End of IR’, Millennium,
35:3,
551-73. Prioritized. Wight,
Martin (1966) ‘Why is there no International Theory?’, in
Butterfield and Wight (eds) Diplomatic
Investigations,
London: Allen & Unwin, 17-34. Wæver,
Ole (1998) ‘The Sociology of a not so International discipline:
American and European developments in International Relations’,
International
Organization,
52:4, 687-727.
Prioritized. Wæver,
Ole (2007) ‘Still a Discipline after all theses Debates?’, in Tim
Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds.) International
Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 288-308. Readings
for lecture on “International Security Studies” Baldwin,
David A. (1995) ‘Security Studies and the End of the Cold War’,
World
Politics,
48:1, 117-41. Buzan,
Barry and Lene Hansen (2009) The
Evolution of International Security Studies,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, especially chapter 1-3.
Prioritized. Krause,
Keith and Michael C. Williams (1996) ‘Broadening the Agenda of
Security Studies: Politics and Methods’, Mershon
International Studies Review,
40:2, 229-54. Security
Dialogue
(2010) Special Section on The
Evolution of International Security Studies,
41:6, 589-667. Walt,
Stephen M. (1991) ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’,
International
Studies Quarterly,
35:2, 211-39. Prioritized. Wolfers,
Arnold (1952) ‘National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol’,
Political
Science Quarterly,
67:4, 481-502. Wæver,
Ole and Barry Buzan (2007) ‘After the Return to Theory: The Past,
Present, and Future of Security Studies’, in Alan Collins (ed.)
Contemporary Security
Studies, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 383-402. Readings
for lecture on “Feminist IR” Caprioli,
Mary (2004) ‘Feminist Theory and Quantitative Methodology: A
Critical Analysis’, International
Studies Review,
6:2, 253-69. Prioritized. Carpenter,
R. Charli (2002) ‘Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions
from a Nonfeminist Standpoint?’, International
Studies Review,
4:3, 153-65. Carver,
Terrell (ed.) (2003) ‘The Forum: Gender and International
Relations’, International
Studies Review,
5:2, 287-302. Hudson,
Valerie M. et al. (2008/09)
‘The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of
States’, International
Security,
33:3, 7-45. Prioritized. Keohane,
Robert O. (1989)
‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist
Standpoint’, Millennium,
18:2, 245-54. Tickner,
J. Ann (1997) ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements
Between Feminists and IR Theorists’, International
Studies Quarterly,
41:4, 611-32. Tickner,
J. Ann (2005) ‘What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers
to International Relations Methodological Questions’, International
Studies Quarterly,
49:1, 1-22. Prioritized. Weber,
Cynthia (1994) ‘Good Girls, Little Girls and Bad Girls: Male
Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International
Relations’, Millennium,
23(2), 337-49. Readings
for lecture on “The
International Political Sociology of Risk”
Albert, Mathias
(2001)
‘From
Defending Boundaries towards Managing Geographical Risks? Security in
a Globalised World’,
Geopolitics,
5:1:
57–80. Aradau,
Claudia and Rens van Munster (2007)
‘Governing terrorism through risk: taking precautions, (un)knowing
the future’, European
Journal of International Relations,
13(1): 89-115. Prioritized. Aradau,
Claudia and Rens van Munster (2011) Politics
of catastrophe. Genealogies of the unknown,
Abingdon and New York: Routledge, chapter 1. Beck,
Ulrich (2002) ‘The terrorist threat: world risk society revisited’,
Theory,
Culture & Society,
19:4, 39-55. Prioritized. Ewald,
Francois (1990), ‘Insurance and Risk’, in Graham Burchell, Colin
Gordon and Peter Miller, eds., The
Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality,
Chicago: Chicago University Press, 197-210. Lobo-Guerrero,
Luis (2011), Insuring
Security: Biopolitics, Security and Risk,
Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 1-34. Petersen,
Karen Lund
(2011), ‘Risk
analysis – A field within security studies?’, European
Journal of International Relations,
forthcoming. Prioritized. Rasmussen,
Mikkel Vedby (2004) ‘“It sounds like a riddle”: security
studies, the war on terror and risk’, Millennium,
33:2, 381-395. Security
Dialogue
(2008) Special issue on Security,
Technologies of Risk, and the Political,
39:2&3, Ashley,
Richard (1981) ‘Political realism and human interests’,
International
Studies Quarterly,
25:2, 204-236. Bartelson,
Jens
(2010), ‘The
Social Construction of Globality’, International
Political Sociology,
4:3, 219-235.
Deudney, Daniel H.
(2009),
‘Left
Behind: Neorealism’s Truncated Contextual Materialism and
Republicanism’, International
Relations,
23:3, 341-371. Prioritized. Graham,
Kennedy (2008), ‘Survival Research and the “Planetary Interest”:
Carrying Forward the Thoughts of John Herz’, International
Relations,
22, 457-472. Herz,
John H. (1984), ‘Power Politics and Policies of Survival’, in
Vojtech Mastny (ed.), Power
and Policy in Transition.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 37-54. Scheuerman,
William E. (2010), ‘The
(classical) realist vision of global reform’,
International
Theory,
2:2, 246-282. Prioritized. Walker,
R.B.J. (2010),
After
the Globe, Before the World.
London: Routledge, 19-54. Wendt,
Alexander (2003), ‘Why a World State is Inevitable’, European
Journal of International Relations,
9:4, 491-542. Prioritized. Readings
for lecture on “The Practice Turn in IR” Adler,
Emanuel and Vincent Pouliot (2011) ‘International Practices’,
International Theory,
3:1, 1-36. Prioritized. Adler,
Emanuel and Vincent Pouliot (eds.) (2011) International
Practices,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adler-Nissen,
Rebecca (2008) ‘The Diplomacy of Opting Out: A Bourdieudian
Approach to National Integration Strategies’, Journal
of Common Market Studies,
46:3, 663-84. Neumann,
Iver B. (2002) ‘Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn’,
Millennium,
31:3, 627-51. Prioritized. Pouliot,
Vincent (2008) ‘The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of
Security Communities’, International
Organization,
62:2, 257-88.Thematic
focus of the IR Track
Course
Program
18.30:
Dinner – venue to be announced – please contact Nanna Friman at
Nanna.friman@ifs.ku.dk
if you do
not
wish to participate
12.45-13.30:
Lunch
Submission of papers: August 5
- it should be in PDF-format,
- the file
name should start with YOUR SURNAME and include the titel
and number of pages.
- there should be NO BLANKS or special
characters (parantheses, ö, æ, ø, å, é, etc.) in the file
name
- example: doe_john-politics_of_lazyness-12_pages.pdfReading list
| Please, register here: |