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. He 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.
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.
Hva betyr egentlig utenrikspolitikk?
NUPI-forsker Halvard Leira og CHOIR-teamet skal forske på begreper i internasjonal politikk.
Teoriseminar: Spreiinga av protest under den egyptiske revolusjonen i 1919
Neil Ketchley skal diskutere sin siste artikkel om korleis protest og opprør spreier seg i ei befolkning.
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 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.
The Balance of Power
The balance of power – the idea that states consciously or unconsciously strive towards an equal distribution of power to avoid dominance by one – is a core concept for the study of international politics. The discipline of international relations (IR) has long debated the standing of the balance of power as a theoretical concept. Some argue that the concept does not fit the historical empirics, whilst others have amended the concept by introducing ideas like “balance of threats,” “bandwagoning,” or “soft balancing.” However, diplomats throughout history have also frequently deployed the balance‐of‐power concept. From the Italian city‐states in the fifteenth century, through Great Power wars in Europe in the 1700s, the Concert of Europe, two world wars, and up until our day, practitioners have used the concept in various ways. The balance of power is therefore as central to the study of diplomatic practice as it is for the theoretical understanding of interstate relations.
Utenrikspolitikk - en begrepshistorie
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.
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.