Researcher
Halvard Leira
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Halvard Leira’s main areas of research is foreign policy and diplomacy, with a special emphasis on the Norwegian varieties. He also has a long-standing research interest in historical international relations, and international thought. Leira completed his PhD thesis in May 2011, titled «The Emergence of Foreign Policy: Knowledge, Discourse, History».
Expertise
Education
2011 PhD, Political Science, University of Oslo
2002 Cand. Polit., Political Science, Department of political Science, University of Oslo
Work Experience
2003- Research Fellow/Phd-candidate/Senior Research Fellow/Research Professor, NUPI
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersEthnic Diversity in the Recruitment of Diplomats: Why MFAs Take the Issue Seriously
Diversity and its management have become an issue in all organisations. Ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) do not escape the issue. In the 2000s, states decided to consider more ethnic diversity in the recruitment of their diplomats. In some countries, this new goal requires affirmative action programs. This article is based on three case studies. The first case study analyses two Western countries — France and Norway — where MFAs have to reflect the diversity of immigration in their societies. The second case study analyses the case of Brazil, a country where the legacy of slavery still causes discrimination in the recruitment of diplomats. The third case study analyses ethnic diversity in the MFAs of India and Singapore, which recognise multiculturalism or multiracialism. The study draws five comparative conclusions to generalise on why MFAs in the world cannot escape the challenge of ethnic diversity in their recruitment policy.
Stubbornly 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.
Introduction: The Duty of Care in International Relations
In this introduction, we lay out the premises, logics and content of the book in more detail. In the next section, we introduce a varied set of current international challenges concerning the relationship between states and citizens. In the third section, we present the historical background for why states are interested in citizens beyond the border, and the different forms this interest has taken over the centuries. This feeds into the discussion about the contemporary understanding and practice of the Duty of Care in the fourth and fifth sections. Here we discuss how the concept allows for new insights into current topics, as well as how it reconfigures and ties together insights from existing literatures. In the sixth and final section, we specify how one can go about studying the Duty of Care, with reference to the ensuing chapters of the book. In this section, we emphasise the chains of care, the power relations inherent in them and the dilemmas and paradoxes that arise from asserting and claiming a Duty of Care.
The Duty of Care in International Relations Protecting Citizens Beyond the Border
This book offers a first overarching look at the relationship between states and their citizens abroad, approached through the concept 'Duty of Care'. How can society best be protected, when increasing numbers of citizens are found outside the borders of the state? What are the limits to care – in theory as well as in practical policy? With over 1.2 billion tourists crossing borders every day and more than 230 million expatriates, questions over the sort of duty states have for citizens abroad are politically pressing. Contributors explore both theoretical topics and empirical case studies, examining issues such as as how to care for citizens who become embroiled in political or humanitarian crises while travelling, and exploring what rights and duties states should acknowledge toward nationals who have opted to take up arms for terrorist organizations.
The emergence of foreign policy
International relations scholarship typically treats foreign policy as a taken-for-granted analytical concept. It assumes either that all historical polities have foreign policies or that foreign policy originates in seventeenth-century Europe with the separation between the “inside” and “outside” of the state. It generally holds that foreign policy differs in essential ways from other kinds of policy, such as carrying with it a special need for secrecy. Halvard Leira argues against this view. The difference between “foreign” and “domestic” policy results from specific political processes; secrecy begat foreign policy. Growing domestic differentiation between state and civil society in the eighteenth century- articulated through a relatively free press operating in a nascent public sphere - enabled the emergence of foreign policy as a practical concept. The concept served to delimit the legitimate sphere of political discourse from the exclusive, executive sphere of king and cabinet. Leira explores these processes in Britain and France, important cases with different trajectories, one of reform, the other of revolution. Historicizing foreign policy like this serves to denaturalize the separation between different forms of policy, as well as the necessity of secrecy. Doing so cautions against the uncritical application of abstract analytical terms across time and space.
Protecting citizens abroad – who is responsible when crisis hits, and at what costs?
Who is responsible when Norwegians are in trouble abroad, such as Frode Berg in Russia or French and Moland in DR Congo, or in case of natural disasters and terrorist attacks?
Kinship diplomacy, or diplomats of a kin
Familiarity breeds contempt, or so the idiom goes, and historically there are ample examples of how family-ties and blood kinship have not fostered peaceful cooperation. By contrast, metaphorical kinship has been seen to grease the wheels of diplomacy, creating and sustaining ties between different polities and underpinning a shared diplomatic culture. While metaphorical kinship and family metaphors are certainly central to diplomacy, my main argument in this chapter is that blood kinship, has been underestimated as a cohesive factor in diplomatic interaction. At a general level, I argue that notions and practices of blood kinship, both in consanguine and affinal form, mattered to ‘modern’, Euro-centric and noble-dominated diplomacy from its emergence during the Renaissance to roughly speaking 1919. However, both notions and practices varied and were deployed in different ways at different times, reflecting differing configurations of knowledge and power. In the renaissance, kinship diplomacy could be understood as a leftover from earlier ways of organising social interaction. With consolidating policies in the early modern period, kinship diplomacy became particularly important for families and polities situated in border regions between larger polities. Finally, much of the diplomatic culture often associated with the ‘classical diplomacy’ of the 18th and 19th centuries, was based not only on notions of commonality, but on invoked blood kinship and marriages across boundaries.
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.
Utenrikspolitikk - en begrepshistorie
(Available in Norwegian only): Artikkelen tar opp spørsmålet om når Norge fikk en egen utenrikspolitikk, og gir svar gjennom en begrepshistorisk analyse. Tidligere forslag har vært middelalderen, med etableringen av relasjoner mellom norske konger og andre konger, slutten av 1700-tallet, med etableringen av et eget departement i København for utenlandske anliggender, eller 1905, med full ytre suverenitet. Et fokus på utenrikspolitikk som praksisbegrep, et begrep som oppsto på et bestemt tidspunkt, av bestemte grunner, for å beskrive en form for handling, gir et annet svar. Utenrikspolitikkens oppkomst i Norge tidfestes best til årene rundt 1860, da Stortinget begynte å uttrykke øket interesse for verden utenfor Norge, og ønsker om tettere oppsyn med det som fra da av ble kalt utenrikspolitikk.
Theory Seminar: The Territorialization of Cybersecurity
Dr Jordan Branch visits NUPI to talk about the tension between territorial and non-territorial aspects of cyber security.