Forsker
Benjamin de Carvalho
Kontaktinfo og filer
Sammendrag
Benjamin de Carvalho er forsker 1 ved NUPI. Hans forskningsinteresse ligger mellom tre hovedområder: Han jobber med problemstillinger knyttet til historisk endring, slik som dannelsen av nasjonalstaten i Europa, suverenitet og betydningen av religion og konfesjonalisme.
Han er involvert i flere prosjekter om FNs fredsbevaring, og har arbeidet med beskyttelse av sivile, samt seksuell og kjønnsbasert vold i Liberia, Tsjad og Sudan. Han er også involvert i prosjekter som undersøker betydningen av statusbegrepet i staters utenrikspolitikk, med fokus på Norge og Brasil. Sentrale tema her er rollen små stater spiller i internasjonal politikk, fremvoksende makter og stormakters ansvar. Andre forskningsinsteresser er hegemoni, populærkultur og teorier om internasjonal politikk.
De Carvalho ble tildelt sin doktorgrad 16. mai 2009 ved Universitetet i Cambridge, hvor han leverte avhandlingen Sovereignty, Religion and the Nation-State.
De Carvalho er sjefsredaktør i tidsskriftet Cooperation and Conflict, 2023-2027.
Ekspertise
Utdanning
2009 PhD, University of Cambridge, UK: Sovereignty, Religion and the Nation-State
2001 Mastergrad ved New School for Social Research, New York, USA
Arbeidserfaring
2003- Doktorgradsstipendiat/seniorforsker/forsker 1 ved NUPI
Aktivitet
Filter
Tøm alle filtreStubbornly 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.
A Conceptual History of International Relations (CHOIR)
Målsettingen med CHOIR er å undersøke begreper vi tar for gitt i internasjonal politikk. ...
Forum: In the beginning there was no word (For It): Terms, concepts, and early sovereignty
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the concept sovereignty for international relations (IR). And yet, understanding the historical emergence of sovereignty in international relations has long been curtailed by the all-encompassing myth of the Peace of Westphalia. While criticism of this myth has opened space for further historical inquiry in recent years, it has also raised important questions of historical interpretation and methodology relevant to IR, as applying our current conceptual framework to distant historical cases is far from unproblematic. Central among these questions is the when, what, and how of sovereignty: from when can we use “sovereignty” to analyze international politics and for which polities? Can sovereignty be used when the actors themselves did not have recourse to the terminology? And what about polities that do not have recourse to the term at all? What are the theoretical implications of applying the concept of sovereignty to early polities? From different theoretical and methodological perspectives, the contributions in this forum shed light on these questions of sovereignty and how to treat the concept analytically when applied to a period or place when/where the term did not exist as such. In doing so, this forum makes the case for a sensitivity to the historical dimension of our arguments about sovereignty—and, by extension, international relations past and present—as this holds the key to the types of claims we can make about the polities of the world and their relations.
Teoriseminar: Political Memory and State Power – Holocaust Remembrance after Communism
Jelena Subotic undersøkjer i det nye prosjektet sitt om, og på kva måte, staten kan regulere korleis ein minnest store politiske hendingar.
The Emergence of Sovereignty in the Wake of the Reformations
The elusiveness of the emergence of sovereignty represents a challenge to IR, as it leaves us with many possible beginnings. And as any new beginning marks an end, settling the question of sovereignty begs the question of how the world was without it. Did sovereignty mark the end of an era that would make little sense to IR and its sovereignty prism? In the present contribution I will take issue with such clear delimitations and make the case for a broad understanding of change grounded in the practical challenges of international politics rather than canonical statements about them. My argument is rooted in a dissatisfaction with extant accounts seeking to redraw the temporal limits of international politics in the wake of the fall of the foundational myth of 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia
Introduction: The Emergence of Sovereignty: More Than a Question of Time
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the concept sovereignty for international relations (IR). And yet, understanding the historical emergence of sovereignty in international relations has long been curtailed by the all-encompassing myth of the Peace of Westphalia. While criticism of this myth has opened space for further historical inquiry in recent years, it has also raised important questions of historical interpretation and methodology relevant to IR, as applying our current conceptual framework to distant historical cases is far from unproblematic. Central among these questions is the when, what, and how of sovereignty: from when can we use “sovereignty” to analyze international politics and for which polities? Can sovereignty be used when the actors themselves did not have recourse to the terminology? And what about polities that do not have recourse to the term at all? What are the theoretical implications of applying the concept of sovereignty to early polities? From different theoretical and methodological perspectives, the contributions in this forum shed light on these questions of sovereignty and how to treat the concept analytically when applied to a period or place when/where the term did not exist as such. In doing so, this forum makes the case for a sensitivity to the historical dimension of our arguments about sovereignty—and, by extension, international relations past and present—as this holds the key to the types of claims we can make about the polities of the world and their relations.
Cromwellian Diplomacy
Cromwell's diplomatic efforts aimed at reorienting England towards an alliance with Protestant powers after the English Reformation of the 1530s and the subsequent break from Rome and the ensuing break from its traditional Catholic orientation in European affairs. Through a series of diplomatic negotiations (1534–40) with the German Schmalkaldic League, Cromwell's efforts culminated with the matrimonial alliance through Henry VIII's marriage to Anne of Cleves – which, eventually, also led to Cromwell's fall. Cromwell's main legacy was a dramatic strengthening of England's diplomatic apparatus, and to give the country's foreign policy a new orientation, the Protestant cause.
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.