Stories we live by: the rise of Historical IR and the move to concepts
Scholars of the humanities and social sciences are necessarily storytellers. Thus, crafting narratives is an inescapable feature of the practice of International Relations scholarship. We tell stories about the past to orient ourselves in the present and envision the future. Historical International Relations has greatly expanded the repertoire of available narrative elements. However, when we read the past through the prism of our present, we risk closing down opportunities for different ways of imagining both the present and the future. In this article, we acknowledge the advances made in HIR over the last decades but suggest that a closer engagement with conceptual history would enhance its potential even further, making it possible to explore how a wider space of experience can also widen our horizon of expectations.
The future is just another past
Before International Studies can confront the future, it needs to get a better grip on its past and present. The discipline lacks agreement on both its own name and the name of its object of study. More importantly, key concepts used to describe phenomena have changed continuously: no concept emerging in the 19th century has remained untouched, no envisioned future of the past could have prepared us for the present. Old concepts have been discarded, new ones adopted, and existing ones modified. This implies that any exercise in ‘futurology’ must necessarily come with an openness towards conceptual change, and that a key challenge for International Studies going forward will consist in matching our conceptual toolbox to an ever-changing world. The importance of conceptual change has until recently been neglected in the study of global politics. Thus, in this paper we start by presenting the empirical case for incorporating conceptual change by laying out key past and present conceptual changes in the international realm. We then move on to a presentation of conceptual history and the tools it provides us for grasping conceptual change, before discussing how to tackle conceptual developments when thinking about the future of global politics.
How do our concepts of the world shape how we understand the world?
Grand Bassa and the 50/50 tax pilot: “A brilliant idea, but…”
This research note examines the implementation of property tax in Liberia. Based on original fieldwork data, the note analyses taxpayers' perceptions of the new tax system in the light of their experiences with public services, development projects and the political system.
Research on radicalisation and countering radicalisation: Taking stock and ways forward
The Consortium for Terrorism Research invites you to a seminar about research on radicalisation and countering radicalization, with Joel Busher and Sarah Marsden.
The Arctic Barometer: Measuring Expert Predictions on the Arctic Region
Making predictions in a highly uncertain environment is always a hazardous enterprise. Confronted with global warming, the future of the Arctic region has been often debated, both in terms of the scope and the speed of expected changes, including the future of resource development, the opening of shipping routes, and the evolution of multilateral fora. These predictions have come from different sources: governments through different policy papers and statements, the media, civil society, and academics, to name but a few. It can be difficult to account for this vast and diverse array of predictions, considering that each actor has interests to promote. We decided to develop a survey asking different actors to make predictions about possible Arctic geopolitical developments. Instead of letting individuals make their own predictions on the topic of their choice, we selected plausible scenarios and prompted respondents to evaluate if these developments were likely or unlikely to happen. Scenarios were developed to be both visible and concrete: we can evaluate if the scenario unfolded or not during a certain time period. For example, we can observe if Russia violated the airspace of another Arctic state, if Greenland reached state sovereignty, or if the U.S. deployed a freedom of navigation operations in the Arctic region. In total, our scenarios covered two dimensions: governance and security. On governance, potential developments around diplomatic initiatives or multilateral cooperation were tested. On security, the possibility of military conflict in the region or of military intrusions were considered. Two main objectives justified this approach. First, we wanted to evaluate if experts were correct in their predictions. Related to this, we were curious to know which type of issues caused incorrect assessments. Second, we repeated the same scenarios in multiple waves: the objective was to analyze if specific geopolitical developments occurring between waves would change predictions, moving the needle on experts’ predictions
Norway’s handling of knowledge relations with states outside its security cooperation
Norwegian authorities have for several years actively promoted internationalization of the knowledge sector. This includes collaboration with authoritarian countries such as China and Russia, which are not part of Norway’s security cooperation. However, in the last few years, we have seen a clear turn towards questions of national security and the status of liberal norms garnering more attention, also with consideration to knowledge relations. We observe this in sharper warnings from the security services, revised legislation and regulations and new guidelines for knowledge collaboration with countries such as China and Russia. In this article we study these changes and discuss their possible implications. Empirically, we build on survey and interview data, and we examine policy documents and media reports on relevant incidents. In terms of theory, we draw on explanations grounded in the geopolitics and securitization literature. We argue that measures that are introduced to protect national security and liberal norms may also limit the operational space for independent research and thus change the parameters for academic freedom, especially in relation to activities with connection to actors from non-allied states. To avoid unnecessarily restrictive conditions, researchers and their institutions should actively demonstrate and communicate how they work to ensure responsibility in their knowledge relations. This is especially important in situations where ethical and security-related challenges are obvious.
Poland and Norway in a changing geopolitical landscape
Which security-related challenges, risks and threats do Poland and Norway face in their strategic environment in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? And what impact has the Russian invasion of Ukraine had on perceptions of security in the two countries?
Nordic countries and knowledge collaboration with authoritarian non-allied states: conditional openness with stronger demands for protection
The conditions surrounding international knowledge production and collaboration are changing. What has long remained a field characterized by overtly liberal and open practices is now subject to more scrutiny with regards to protecting national security and academic freedom. Developments concerning China especially, but also Russia, and other authoritarian states with knowledge-related ambitions have alerted authorities in many liberal, democratic states. This is the case in the Nordic region, too. In this focus edition, we study why and how stricter conditions for international knowledge collaboration are emerging in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. We are especially interested in problematizing and explaining what happens when stronger security concerns and calls for protection meet liberal norms, including academic freedom.