Researcher
Halvard Leira
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Halvard Leira is Research Professor and Research Director at NUPI.
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
2024 - Research Director, NUPI
2003- Research Fellow/Phd-candidate/Senior Research Fellow/Research Professor, NUPI
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersThe 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.
A Conceptual History of International Relations (CHOIR)
The purpose of CHOIR is to investigate taken-for-granted concepts of international relations. ...
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.
New Diplomacy
New diplomacy is a term which has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. It was introduced as a positive contrast to the old diplomacy of kings and intrigues, and was concerned primarily with trade. Such a liberal understanding has remained predominant – new diplomacy has typically been associated with democratic control over diplomacy, international organization, and free trade, and with openness and honesty in diplomatic practice. An alternative radical interpretation, where new diplomacy implied the complete overthrow of the old, can trace its roots to the French Revolution, and was expressed fully during the Russian Revolution. Although new diplomacy has also been used as a term of abuse by those who prefer traditional forms of diplomacy, the term has primarily signified an ongoing or desired change in a positive direction. Currently, it is being used as a label for most of the non‐state‐centric diplomacy.
Old diplomacy
Old diplomacy is a term which has been used both politically and analytically since the French Revolution. Politically, it emerged as a term of abuse, used to criticize all which had been wrong with interstate interaction before 1789, in particular secrecy, duplicity, and the reliance on aristocracy. Thus, it was often contrasted with a desired new diplomacy. Political versions of the term have persisted until the present day, although the target changed. A particular spike in criticism happened in 1918–20, when old diplomacy was blamed for the outbreak of the Great War. Analytically, old diplomacy has been used to refer more neutrally to earlier forms of diplomacy. This usage emerged in the nineteenth century, but has been more prevalent from the middle of the twentieth century.