Researcher
Paul Beaumont
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Paul Beaumont holds a Ph.D. in International Relations/International Environmental Studies and Development from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. He is a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), working in the Global Order and Diplomacy research group. Paul is currently researching public private partnerships in development as part of the DEVINT project, and transnational ecosystem politics with the LORAX project.
More broadly, Paul's research interests include IR theory, the (dis)functioning of international institutions, global environmental politics, nuclear weapons, hierarchies in world politics, and interpretivist research-methods.
Paul has published a monograph with Palgrave Studies in International Relations, titled "Performing Nuclear Weapons: How Britain Made its Bomb Make Sense", and has published multiple articles in leading IR journals: European Journal of International Relations, Third World Quarterly and International Studies Review, among others. A keen contributor to policy and public debate, Paul has published multiple op-eds in Klassekampen, Aftenposten, among other Norwegian national newspapers. He is currently an associate editor of New Perspectives Journal of International Relations, and a regular guest lecturer on IR theory at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Paul is Editor of the journal Cooperation and Conflict, 2023-2027.
Expertise
Education
2020 Doctorate, International Relations/International Development and Environment Studies. The Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)
2014 Master of Science, International Relations. (NMBU)
2006 Bachelor, Economic History. The London School of Economics (LSE)
Work Experience
2020- Senior Researcher, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI)
2019 Visiting Scholar. The Department of Politics and International Studies. Cambridge University
2015-2020 PhD Candidate, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)
2015 Junior Research Fellow. NUPI
2013-2015 Academic Writing Advisor, NMBU
2006-2012 English Teacher - Prague, Tokyo, Buenos Aires, London, Gliwice
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersDizzying Developments in International Relations
Everyday migration hierarchies: negotiating the EU’s visa regime
Critical security studies have shed invaluable light on the diffuse governmental technologies and pernicious effects of the EU’s bordering practices. While scholars have focused upon the experience of precarious migrant groups, this article suggests that extending our critical gaze to include seemingly privileged migrants can further understanding of just how far the insecurity produced by the EU’s migration regime reaches. Focusing on the migration process of international students in Norway, this article inquires into how these migrants experience, theorize and negotiate the EU’s visa regime and its governmental technologies. We show how their subjective understandings of ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’ hierarchies of the visa regime play out in their bureaucratic encounters, influencing their everyday lives. Ultimately, the article shows how the regime’s disciplinary effects extend further than prior critical research has appreciated.
Reflex to turn: the rise of turn-talk in International Relations
The field of International Relations (IR) is being spun around by a seemingly endless number of ‘turns’. Existing analyses of turning are few in number and predominantly concerned with the most prominent recent turns. By excavating the forgotten history of IR’s earliest turns from the 1980s and tracing the evolution of turn-talk over time, this article reveals a crucial yet overlooked internalist driver behind the phenomenon: the rise of reflexivity. Rather than emerging in the 21st century, turn-talk began at the end of the 1980s as a series of turns away from positivism and towards reflexivity. Cumulatively, this first wave of turns would denaturalise IR’s state-centric ontology while enshrining reflexivity as a canonical good among critical scholars. By the mid-1990s, however, these metatheoretical critiques of positivism had produced a substantial backlash. Charged with fostering an esoteric deconstructivism, a new generation of reflexivists set out to demonstrate the feasibility of post-positivist empirical research. As a result, IR’s turning also took on a different form from the 2000s: whereas the first wave of turns had mounted an epistemological and methodological attack against the positivist mainstream, the second wave set about bringing new ontological objects under the scrutiny of reflexivist scholars. This shift from anti-positivist to mostly intra-reflexivist turning was facilitated by the institutionalisation of critical IR as a major subfield of the discipline. It is the privileged position of reflexivity among critical IR scholars that is the condition of possibility for endless turning, accentuated by mounting pressures to demonstrate novelty in an increasingly competitive environment.
Introduction: Is the time nigh for ecological security?
Climate change and the ongoing destruction of the earth's ecosystems have increasingly been depicted as a security issue with the noble but not unproblematic goal engendering an urgent response. These climate and environmental security discourses have been extensively critiqued on both empirical and normative grounds. But is there an ethically defensible and even emancipatory alternative to envisioning the relationship between the environment and security? Matt McDonald in his new book - Ecological Security: Climate Change and the Construction of Security - argues that there is and lays out comprehensive normative framework for doing so. To interrogate McDonald's case for what he calls “Ecological Security”, this forum brings together four leading researchers from Anthropology, Geography, International Relations, and Peace and Sustainability Studies. While all contributors are broadly positive regarding goals of the book, each identifies weaknesses in the approach that move from suggestions on how refine the framework on the one hand to questioning whether the framework risks proving counter-productive on the other.
Whose Revisionism, Which International Order? Social Structure and Its Discontents
While the distinction between status quo and revisionist states is well established in International Relations, only more recently have scholars begun to refine the concept of revisionism itself, emphasizing that revisionism comes in different forms. A number of typologies have been introduced to capture this diversity. In this article, we offer a critique of these typologies, highlighting how many of these works elide the rule-governed and contextual nature of what counts as revisionism. Building on an understanding of international orders as social structures, we argue that the revisionist character of state conduct can only be determined with reference to the conception of the legitimate ends and means current in a particular international order. This leads us to distinguish between three types of revisionism: competitive revisionism that is transgressive of the legitimate means; creative revisionism that is transgressive of the legitimate ends; and revolutionary revisionism that is transgressive of legitimate ends and means. We further emphasize that determining the revisionist character of state conduct always involves interpretation and judgment. The concern for analytical precision conveyed by the development of different typologies of revisionism must therefore be followed by an equally deliberate concern for the politics of revisionism—in both theory and practice.
NUPI team to take over as editors of the prestigious journal Cooperation and Conflict
Space, nature and hierarchy: the ecosystemic politics of the Caspian Sea
The Anthropocene has given rise to growing efforts to govern the world’s ecosystems. There is a hitch, however, ecosystems do not respect sovereign borders; hundreds traverse more three states and thus require complex international cooperation. This article critically examines the political and social consequences of the growing but understudied trend towards transboundary ecosystem cooperation. Matchmaking the new hierarchy scholarship in International Relations (IR) and political geography, the article theorises how ecosystem discourse embodies a latent spatially exclusive logic that can bind together and bound from outside unusual bedfellows in otherwise politically awkward spaces. The authors contend that such ‘ecosystemic politics’ can generate spatialised ‘broad hierarchies’ that cut across both Westphalian renderings of space and the latent post-colonial and/or material inequalities that have hitherto been the focus of most of the new hierarchies scholarship. Rowe and Beaumont illustrate their argument by conducting a multilevel longitudinal analysis of how Caspian Sea environmental cooperation has produced a broad hierarchy demarking and sharpening the boundaries of the region, become symbolic of Caspian in-group competence and neighbourliness, and used as a rationale for future Caspian-shaped cooperation. They reason that if ecosystemic politics can generate new renderings of space amid an otherwise heavily contested space as the Caspian, further research is warranted to explore systemic hierarchical consequences elsewhere.
Coping with Complexity: Toward Epistemological Pluralism in Climate–Conflict Scholarship
Over the last two decades, climate security has become an increasingly salient policy agenda in international fora. Yet, despite a large body of research, the empirical links between climate-change and conflict remain highly uncertain. This paper contends that uncertainty around climate–conflict links should be understood as characteristic of complex social–ecological systems rather than a problem that can be fully resolved. Rather than striving to eliminate uncertainty, we suggest that researchers need to learn to cope with it. To this end, this article advances a set of principles for guiding scholarly practice when investigating a complex phenomenon: recognizing epistemological uncertainty, embracing epistemological diversity, and practicing humility and dialogue across difference. Taken together the authors call this ethos epistemological pluralism, whereby scholars self-consciously recognize the limits of their chosen epistemology for understanding the climate–conflict nexus and engage with other approaches without attempting to usurp them. Reviewing the last decade of climate–conflict scholarship, Beumont and de Coning show that climate–conflict research already manifests many of these ideals; however, they also identify problematic patterns of engagement across epistemological divides and thus plenty of scope for improvement. To illustrate why a diversity of methods (e.g., qualitative and quantitative) will not suffice, the article critically discusses prior research to illustrate why at least two epistemological approaches—constructivism and positivism—cannot be synthesized or integrated without significant analytical cost, and elaborates why excluding insights from any one would lead to an impoverished understanding of the climate–conflict nexus. The authors conclude with five practical recommendations of how scholars can help realize the ideal of epistemological pluralism in practice.
Norges oljedilemma etter Glasgow: Et umoralsk argument for et raskt grønt skifte
(This article is only in Norwegian) Etter å ha gått seirende ut av «klimavalget 2021», står den rødgrønne regjeringen overfor oppgaven med å sikre Norges grønne omstilling. I den offentlige debatten står gjerne argumenter om global solidaritet og miljøhensyn fremst i begrunnelsene for nødvendigheten av en grønn omstilling, mens motstandere av et raskt skifte fokuserer på de negative økonomiske konsekvensene de mener et raskt skifte vil få for Norge. Denne artikkelen søker å nyansere dette bildet, og argumenterer for et bredere kost-nytte-perspektiv som også tar høyde for diplomatiske kostnader ved å fortsette med oljeleting, samt de økonomiske konsekvensene av en treg omstilling. Selv om man holder konsekvensene av klimaendringene helt utenfor vurderingen, argumenterer vi for at usikkerheten rundt fremtidig oljepris og omdømmerisikoen Norge løper ved å fortsette å basere økonomien på ikke-fornybare energikilder, burde være gode argumenter for å revurdere Norges oljepolitikk.
International Organisations and the Caspian Sea Ecosystem