Pub Date : 2023-10-21DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268024
Sala George Carter, Greg Fry
Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg’s philosophical approach to Indigenous political ordering and inter-polity relations breaks new ground for scholarly and practice deliberations about Indigenous diplomacy. Our response takes up questions of the meaning, practice, and efficacy of Indigenous diplomacy with reference to wider Indigenous diplomacy in the Pacific which we call Oceanic Diplomacy. We contextualise Australian developments in relation to the region before considering examples from Pacific diplomatic practice to show how Indigenous diplomacy can be a valuable game changer or flawed window dressing. We also consider points of similarity and difference with their approach to ideas of ‘relationalism’ and ‘survivalism’. Overall, we argue that their principled approach to the philosophy of ‘relationality’ will find resonance in the Pacific and is necessary to counter instrumental approaches to the mobilisation of Indigenous diplomacy to be effective.
{"title":"Australia’s indigenous diplomacy and its regional resonance in Oceania","authors":"Sala George Carter, Greg Fry","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268024","url":null,"abstract":"Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg’s philosophical approach to Indigenous political ordering and inter-polity relations breaks new ground for scholarly and practice deliberations about Indigenous diplomacy. Our response takes up questions of the meaning, practice, and efficacy of Indigenous diplomacy with reference to wider Indigenous diplomacy in the Pacific which we call Oceanic Diplomacy. We contextualise Australian developments in relation to the region before considering examples from Pacific diplomatic practice to show how Indigenous diplomacy can be a valuable game changer or flawed window dressing. We also consider points of similarity and difference with their approach to ideas of ‘relationalism’ and ‘survivalism’. Overall, we argue that their principled approach to the philosophy of ‘relationality’ will find resonance in the Pacific and is necessary to counter instrumental approaches to the mobilisation of Indigenous diplomacy to be effective.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"33 7","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135513019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-19DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268545
Paul Memmott
Through a discussion of the overall patterning of religion and law, and using examples from Central Australia and Southeast Queensland, this response to the inaugural Coral Bell School lecture on Indigenous Diplomacy by Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg shows how Aboriginal people developed a system of embedded, detailed, and comprehensive fractal politics and diplomacy. The descriptor ‘fractal’ is used as it is particularly apt for explaining the long-lasting pre-colonial stable order that prevailed on the Australian continent. The broad categories in the classical Aboriginal fractal system are religion and the Law, geography and land tenure, kinship, and the class or skin system. The response explains how these elements lock together, and how this in turn supports diplomatic and harmonious relations among groups or nations. The fractal diplomatic systems of Aboriginal Australia thus generated multi-faceted identities and ways of forming polities at different scales to address particular socio-political needs and challenges dependent on broad contextual factors and the current circumstances. This anthropologically informed explication of the diplomatic system complements the more abstract model of Indigenous political relations described in the Graham and Brigg lecture.
{"title":"Fractal politics and diplomacy: religion, governance, and conflict management in classical Aboriginal Australia","authors":"Paul Memmott","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268545","url":null,"abstract":"Through a discussion of the overall patterning of religion and law, and using examples from Central Australia and Southeast Queensland, this response to the inaugural Coral Bell School lecture on Indigenous Diplomacy by Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg shows how Aboriginal people developed a system of embedded, detailed, and comprehensive fractal politics and diplomacy. The descriptor ‘fractal’ is used as it is particularly apt for explaining the long-lasting pre-colonial stable order that prevailed on the Australian continent. The broad categories in the classical Aboriginal fractal system are religion and the Law, geography and land tenure, kinship, and the class or skin system. The response explains how these elements lock together, and how this in turn supports diplomatic and harmonious relations among groups or nations. The fractal diplomatic systems of Aboriginal Australia thus generated multi-faceted identities and ways of forming polities at different scales to address particular socio-political needs and challenges dependent on broad contextual factors and the current circumstances. This anthropologically informed explication of the diplomatic system complements the more abstract model of Indigenous political relations described in the Graham and Brigg lecture.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135778381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-18DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268044
Rory Medcalf
{"title":"What would Allan think?","authors":"Rory Medcalf","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268044","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"17 15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135883691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-18DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268029
Andrew Phillips
Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg advance a timely and provocative call to incorporate a relationalist ethos into Australian foreign policy, informed by Indigenous Australian worldviews and diplomatic practices. Their proposal holds great promise in enriching Australia’s regional engagement. Yet it abrades against a persistent survivalism that is deeply sedimented in Indo-Pacific Asia’s statecraft. Quintessentially survivalist practices – exemplified in coercive state-building and competitive power politics – date from the advent of sedentary civilizations in antiquity. These traditions of violent inter-polity competition long predated and have now outlasted the West’s brief period of colonial domination in Asia. Exemplified most dangerously in China’s current push for regional primacy, these survivalist pressures will constrain Australia’s foreign policy for the foreseeable future. This limits but by no means negates the progressive possibilities offered by incorporating an Indigenous relationalist ethos into Australia’s statecraft.
{"title":"Indigenous foreign policy: the challenges of survivalism before and after the era of Western dominance","authors":"Andrew Phillips","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268029","url":null,"abstract":"Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg advance a timely and provocative call to incorporate a relationalist ethos into Australian foreign policy, informed by Indigenous Australian worldviews and diplomatic practices. Their proposal holds great promise in enriching Australia’s regional engagement. Yet it abrades against a persistent survivalism that is deeply sedimented in Indo-Pacific Asia’s statecraft. Quintessentially survivalist practices – exemplified in coercive state-building and competitive power politics – date from the advent of sedentary civilizations in antiquity. These traditions of violent inter-polity competition long predated and have now outlasted the West’s brief period of colonial domination in Asia. Exemplified most dangerously in China’s current push for regional primacy, these survivalist pressures will constrain Australia’s foreign policy for the foreseeable future. This limits but by no means negates the progressive possibilities offered by incorporating an Indigenous relationalist ethos into Australia’s statecraft.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135883696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-18DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268022
Madeleine Pugin
The Australian National University’s inaugural Coral Bell Lecture on Indigenous Diplomacy introduced philosophical perspectives that could underpin Indigenous Australian diplomacy. This piece uses the lecture as a starting point to discuss the possibilities and tensions of using a relationist ethos to pursue an Indigenous Australian Diplomacy approach within a survivalist system, drawing on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). First, I provide a brief history of Indigenous peoples in the survivalist international political order, then I explain what can be learnt from relational Aboriginal societal structures, and finally I use UNDRIP as a potential form of diplomatic machinery for supporting Indigenous diplomacy. This shows that an Indigenous relationalist approach to diplomacy and foreign policy that is guided by UNDRIP has the potential to transform the way in which states deal with Indigenous peoples and each other.
{"title":"Indigenous Australian diplomacy and the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples","authors":"Madeleine Pugin","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268022","url":null,"abstract":"The Australian National University’s inaugural Coral Bell Lecture on Indigenous Diplomacy introduced philosophical perspectives that could underpin Indigenous Australian diplomacy. This piece uses the lecture as a starting point to discuss the possibilities and tensions of using a relationist ethos to pursue an Indigenous Australian Diplomacy approach within a survivalist system, drawing on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). First, I provide a brief history of Indigenous peoples in the survivalist international political order, then I explain what can be learnt from relational Aboriginal societal structures, and finally I use UNDRIP as a potential form of diplomatic machinery for supporting Indigenous diplomacy. This shows that an Indigenous relationalist approach to diplomacy and foreign policy that is guided by UNDRIP has the potential to transform the way in which states deal with Indigenous peoples and each other.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135887904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-17DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268030
J. Marshall Beier
ABSTRACTThat Indigenous diplomacies remain largely unknown to states and to disciplinary International Relations is, ultimately, a matter of choices made by those privileged in terms of the power to (re)produce social facts and common senses. Distinguishing distinct faces of ‘not knowing’ exposes ontological commitments underwriting the logics of territorially exclusive sovereign power and the knowledge practices of International Relations that, in both spheres, make Indigenous ways of knowing and being in the world seem implausible. ‘Not knowing’ in this sense is a form of rejection of knowledge and, therefore, a consequential practice which, as such, is never politically innocent. Relational autonomy raises a challenge to the rigid singularism and exclusivity of dominant ontologies—one that is rooted in long-run historical experiences of still-existing Indigenous forms of community and inter-national diplomatic practice. Among other things, it points us to more sustainable possibilities upon which to found relations between polities and reminds us that diplomacies are always plural.KEYWORDS: Relational autonomyIndigenous diplomaciesInternational Relationsknowingnot knowing Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationNotes on contributorsJ. Marshall BeierJ. Marshall Beier is Professor of Political Science at McMaster University and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Critical Studies on Security. His current research examines issues of Indigenous peoples’ global diplomacies, children’s rights, and imagined childhood as a technology of global governance. His publications include International Relations in Uncommon Places: Indigeneity, Cosmology, and the Limits of International Theory (2005, 2009), Indigenous Diplomacies, ed. (2009), Discovering Childhood in International Relations, ed. (2020), and, with Helen Berents, Children, Childhoods, and Global Politics, eds. (2023). His work has appeared in journals including Children’s Geographies, Contemporary Security Policy, Cooperation and Conflict, Global Governance, Global Responsibility to Protect, International Political Sociology, International Politics, International Studies Review, Journal of Human Rights, Security Dialogue, and Third World Quarterly.
{"title":"Faces of ‘not knowing’ in International Relations","authors":"J. Marshall Beier","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268030","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThat Indigenous diplomacies remain largely unknown to states and to disciplinary International Relations is, ultimately, a matter of choices made by those privileged in terms of the power to (re)produce social facts and common senses. Distinguishing distinct faces of ‘not knowing’ exposes ontological commitments underwriting the logics of territorially exclusive sovereign power and the knowledge practices of International Relations that, in both spheres, make Indigenous ways of knowing and being in the world seem implausible. ‘Not knowing’ in this sense is a form of rejection of knowledge and, therefore, a consequential practice which, as such, is never politically innocent. Relational autonomy raises a challenge to the rigid singularism and exclusivity of dominant ontologies—one that is rooted in long-run historical experiences of still-existing Indigenous forms of community and inter-national diplomatic practice. Among other things, it points us to more sustainable possibilities upon which to found relations between polities and reminds us that diplomacies are always plural.KEYWORDS: Relational autonomyIndigenous diplomaciesInternational Relationsknowingnot knowing Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationNotes on contributorsJ. Marshall BeierJ. Marshall Beier is Professor of Political Science at McMaster University and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Critical Studies on Security. His current research examines issues of Indigenous peoples’ global diplomacies, children’s rights, and imagined childhood as a technology of global governance. His publications include International Relations in Uncommon Places: Indigeneity, Cosmology, and the Limits of International Theory (2005, 2009), Indigenous Diplomacies, ed. (2009), Discovering Childhood in International Relations, ed. (2020), and, with Helen Berents, Children, Childhoods, and Global Politics, eds. (2023). His work has appeared in journals including Children’s Geographies, Contemporary Security Policy, Cooperation and Conflict, Global Governance, Global Responsibility to Protect, International Political Sociology, International Politics, International Studies Review, Journal of Human Rights, Security Dialogue, and Third World Quarterly.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"78 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135995798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-15DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2265847
Mary Graham, Morgan Brigg
This lightly edited transcript of the inaugural (2023) Coral Bell School Lecture on Indigenous Diplomacy sketches the foundations of Aboriginal Australian socio-political ordering and inter-nation relations while issuing a challenge to dominant International Relations (IR) scholarship and the settler-derived Australian political order. For many millennia the original peoples of the Australian continent engaged in a long-term process of evolutionary political design using landscape as a template for political ordering. The resulting relationalist system enables the interconnected autonomy of individuals and groups, facilitates inter-group diplomacy, and provides long-term stability and security while managing survivalist human tendencies. Aboriginal political ordering and diplomacy are largely unknown in IR scholarship per settler-colonial dominance and the discipline’s institutionalisation of survivalism. Aboriginal relational approaches nonetheless offer resources for expanding mainstream understandings of international relations and ameliorating dominant political practice, including by reconceptualising approaches to multipolarity and diplomacy. While there are no easy or immediate equivalences between Aboriginal inter-polity relations and contemporary political and international affairs, the civilisational culture of Australia’s original owners and runners of Country provides openings for supporting modern nation-building and advancing diplomatic relations in our region. Headings in the text indicate sections of the lecture delivered by Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg.
{"title":"Indigenous international relations: old peoples and new pragmatism","authors":"Mary Graham, Morgan Brigg","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2265847","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2265847","url":null,"abstract":"This lightly edited transcript of the inaugural (2023) Coral Bell School Lecture on Indigenous Diplomacy sketches the foundations of Aboriginal Australian socio-political ordering and inter-nation relations while issuing a challenge to dominant International Relations (IR) scholarship and the settler-derived Australian political order. For many millennia the original peoples of the Australian continent engaged in a long-term process of evolutionary political design using landscape as a template for political ordering. The resulting relationalist system enables the interconnected autonomy of individuals and groups, facilitates inter-group diplomacy, and provides long-term stability and security while managing survivalist human tendencies. Aboriginal political ordering and diplomacy are largely unknown in IR scholarship per settler-colonial dominance and the discipline’s institutionalisation of survivalism. Aboriginal relational approaches nonetheless offer resources for expanding mainstream understandings of international relations and ameliorating dominant political practice, including by reconceptualising approaches to multipolarity and diplomacy. While there are no easy or immediate equivalences between Aboriginal inter-polity relations and contemporary political and international affairs, the civilisational culture of Australia’s original owners and runners of Country provides openings for supporting modern nation-building and advancing diplomatic relations in our region. Headings in the text indicate sections of the lecture delivered by Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136183693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-13DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268013
Solstice Middleby, Meg Taylor, Priestley Habru, Anna Naupa, Jope Tarai
ABSTRACTThe Coral Bell School’s inaugural lecture in Indigenous Diplomacy considers Aboriginal relationalism and suggests implications for Australian foreign policy and diplomacy. Revealing a multi-polar and multi-generational lateral political order in Aboriginal cultures, the lecture emphasises the significance of landscapes and individual autonomy intricately woven with group identities that manage and counter rather than institutionalise the survivalist impulses of humans. This response reflects on the lecture from the perspectives of Indigenous Melanesians. We reflect on the strong resonance between Aboriginal relationalism and our own notions of relationality, as well as divergence around our response to what the lecture terms the survivalist impulses of humans. We contemplate what the lecture might offer the emerging field of Indigenous Diplomacy and the broader decolonisation of hegemonic diplomatic practices. Finally, we consider how the Australian state may respond, arguing that embracing reciprocity, respect, and interdependence will improve Australia’s ability to navigate diplomatic relations in the Pacific region, and that honouring Indigenous peoples and cultures must start at home.KEYWORDS: Indigenous diplomacyPacificMelanesiaAboriginal relationismAustralian foreign policy Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In 2017, Pacific Islands Forum Leaders endorsed the Blue Pacific narrative as a strategic framing for Pacific regionalism and collective action of Pacific Island States. https://www.forumsec.org/2017/09/05/opening-address-prime-minister-tuilaepa-sailele-mailelegaoi-samoa-open-48th-pacific-islands-forum-2017/.2 Naupa (CitationForthcoming) refers to the use of "kastom" in contemporary Pacific state-centric diplomacy as vernacular diplomacy.Additional informationNotes on contributorsSolstice MiddlebySolstice Middleby is a researcher, author, partnership broker and former Australian Diplomat to the Pacific. She has lived and worked across the Pacific Region for the last 20 years, supporting Pacific-led development through partnerships approaches, innovation and multistakeholder collaborations working with AusAID, DFAT, IUCN and as CEO of the Australia Pacific Training Coalition. Soli is the Director of Coconuts and Kurrajongs and has been involved with various community projects. Her doctoral research, focused on Pacific regionalism, considers how power is understood and exercised in the practice of regional agreement making within the Pacific Islands Forum.Meg TaylorMeg Taylor is a Papua New Guinean citizen of the Blue Pacific, who has served in many roles at national, regional and international level including as the first female Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum. She is currently based in Papua New Guinea where she serves on the Board of Nambawan Super the PNG Sustainable Development Program. She is a member of the International Advisory Panel for the Asian Infr
【摘要】科勒尔·贝尔学派的“土著外交”首期讲座探讨了土著关系主义，并提出了对澳大利亚外交政策和外交的启示。讲座揭示了土著文化中多极和多代的横向政治秩序，强调了景观和个人自治的重要性，这些自治与群体身份错综复杂地交织在一起，管理和对抗人类的生存冲动，而不是将其制度化。这些回应反映了美拉尼西亚原住民对讲座的看法。我们思考土著关系主义和我们自己的关系概念之间的强烈共鸣，以及我们对讲座中所说的人类生存主义冲动的反应的分歧。我们思考这个讲座可能为新兴的本土外交领域和霸权外交实践的更广泛的非殖民化提供什么。最后，我们考虑了澳大利亚政府可能会如何回应，认为拥抱互惠、尊重和相互依存将提高澳大利亚在太平洋地区处理外交关系的能力，尊重土著人民和文化必须从国内开始。关键词:土著外交太平洋美拉尼西亚土著关系澳大利亚外交政策披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1 2017年，太平洋岛屿论坛领导人赞同“蓝色太平洋”叙事，将其作为太平洋区域主义和太平洋岛屿国家集体行动的战略框架。https://www.forumsec.org/2017/09/05/opening-address-prime-minister-tuilaepa-sailele-mailelegaoi-samoa-open-48th-pacific-islands-forum-2017/.2 Naupa(引文即将出版)是指在当代太平洋国家中心外交中使用“kastom”作为白话外交。补充信息撰稿人说明夏至·米德尔比夏至·米德尔比是一名研究员、作家、合伙人经纪人和前澳大利亚驻太平洋外交官。在过去的20年里，她一直在太平洋地区生活和工作，通过与澳大利亚国际发展署、外交部、世界自然保护联盟合作的伙伴关系方法、创新和多方利益相关者合作，支持太平洋主导的发展，并担任澳大利亚太平洋培训联盟的首席执行官。Soli是Coconuts and Kurrajongs的负责人，并参与了各种社区项目。她的博士研究重点是太平洋地区主义，研究如何在太平洋岛屿论坛的区域协议制定实践中理解和行使权力。梅格·泰勒是蓝色太平洋的巴布亚新几内亚公民，她在国家、区域和国际层面担任过许多职务，包括太平洋岛屿论坛的第一位女性秘书长。她目前在巴布亚新几内亚的Nambawan Super董事会任职，该董事会是巴布亚新几内亚可持续发展计划的成员。她是亚洲基础设施投资银行国际顾问小组成员，也是瓦努阿图政府向国际法院申请气候变化问题的顾问。Dame Meg拥有墨尔本大学的法学学士学位和哈佛大学的法学硕士学位。普里斯特利·哈布鲁是阿德莱德大学所罗门群岛博士生，研究公共外交及其对太平洋的影响。他是一名职业记者，在来阿德莱德之前，他在所罗门群岛媒体和其他传播领域工作了十多年。他在南太平洋大学(The University of The South Pacific)完成了新闻学本科和性别研究生的学习。Anna Naupa是澳大利亚国立大学文化、历史和语言学院的一名瓦努阿图博士候选人，她在那里研究瓦努阿图及其邻国的卡斯托姆与外交之间的交集。她曾在太平洋区域一级工作，并曾在太平洋岛屿论坛秘书处、联合国亚太经社会和太平洋融合中心担任高级咨询和管理职务。她在瓦努阿图的维拉港工作。Jope Tarai是一名斐济土著学者，正在澳大利亚国立大学攻读博士学位。他的研究兴趣包括太平洋外交、政治和发展。他的最新贡献对在南太平洋的治国方术和参与中使用土著进行了更深入的批判性考察。在此之前，他在南太平洋大学担任道德与治理课程的学术/教学人员。
{"title":"Perspectives from Melanesia: Aboriginal relationalism and Australian foreign policy","authors":"Solstice Middleby, Meg Taylor, Priestley Habru, Anna Naupa, Jope Tarai","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268013","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe Coral Bell School’s inaugural lecture in Indigenous Diplomacy considers Aboriginal relationalism and suggests implications for Australian foreign policy and diplomacy. Revealing a multi-polar and multi-generational lateral political order in Aboriginal cultures, the lecture emphasises the significance of landscapes and individual autonomy intricately woven with group identities that manage and counter rather than institutionalise the survivalist impulses of humans. This response reflects on the lecture from the perspectives of Indigenous Melanesians. We reflect on the strong resonance between Aboriginal relationalism and our own notions of relationality, as well as divergence around our response to what the lecture terms the survivalist impulses of humans. We contemplate what the lecture might offer the emerging field of Indigenous Diplomacy and the broader decolonisation of hegemonic diplomatic practices. Finally, we consider how the Australian state may respond, arguing that embracing reciprocity, respect, and interdependence will improve Australia’s ability to navigate diplomatic relations in the Pacific region, and that honouring Indigenous peoples and cultures must start at home.KEYWORDS: Indigenous diplomacyPacificMelanesiaAboriginal relationismAustralian foreign policy Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In 2017, Pacific Islands Forum Leaders endorsed the Blue Pacific narrative as a strategic framing for Pacific regionalism and collective action of Pacific Island States. https://www.forumsec.org/2017/09/05/opening-address-prime-minister-tuilaepa-sailele-mailelegaoi-samoa-open-48th-pacific-islands-forum-2017/.2 Naupa (CitationForthcoming) refers to the use of \"kastom\" in contemporary Pacific state-centric diplomacy as vernacular diplomacy.Additional informationNotes on contributorsSolstice MiddlebySolstice Middleby is a researcher, author, partnership broker and former Australian Diplomat to the Pacific. She has lived and worked across the Pacific Region for the last 20 years, supporting Pacific-led development through partnerships approaches, innovation and multistakeholder collaborations working with AusAID, DFAT, IUCN and as CEO of the Australia Pacific Training Coalition. Soli is the Director of Coconuts and Kurrajongs and has been involved with various community projects. Her doctoral research, focused on Pacific regionalism, considers how power is understood and exercised in the practice of regional agreement making within the Pacific Islands Forum.Meg TaylorMeg Taylor is a Papua New Guinean citizen of the Blue Pacific, who has served in many roles at national, regional and international level including as the first female Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum. She is currently based in Papua New Guinea where she serves on the Board of Nambawan Super the PNG Sustainable Development Program. She is a member of the International Advisory Panel for the Asian Infr","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135853912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-11DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268045
Martin Weber
This short response considers some challenges that may be faced by learners keen to engage with ‘Indigenous International Relations’ following the lecture by Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg. I sketch two such challenges under the headers of ‘misunderstandings’ and ‘misrecognition’. My aim is to disclose what have been persistent problems in IR when ‘new’ knowledges are tapped to inaugurate ‘turns’ or reinvigorations of conceptual inventories and conventions. I argue that the cognitive risk of misunderstanding the scope and differentiations that operate in Mary and Morgan’s account runs alongside the risk of misrecognition, and that the propensity to succumb to these risks is facilitated by an unreflective and often unacknowledged ‘bending back’ towards familiar, mainstay stories about inter-polity relations that have been extensively rehearsed in Western political thought. In closing, I indicate why I think that Mary and Morgan’s account provides strong clues on how to manage these risk enroute to ‘doing understanding’.
{"title":"Can International Relations (IR) learn? The politics of ‘doing understanding’","authors":"Martin Weber","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268045","url":null,"abstract":"This short response considers some challenges that may be faced by learners keen to engage with ‘Indigenous International Relations’ following the lecture by Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg. I sketch two such challenges under the headers of ‘misunderstandings’ and ‘misrecognition’. My aim is to disclose what have been persistent problems in IR when ‘new’ knowledges are tapped to inaugurate ‘turns’ or reinvigorations of conceptual inventories and conventions. I argue that the cognitive risk of misunderstanding the scope and differentiations that operate in Mary and Morgan’s account runs alongside the risk of misrecognition, and that the propensity to succumb to these risks is facilitated by an unreflective and often unacknowledged ‘bending back’ towards familiar, mainstay stories about inter-polity relations that have been extensively rehearsed in Western political thought. In closing, I indicate why I think that Mary and Morgan’s account provides strong clues on how to manage these risk enroute to ‘doing understanding’.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136097996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-11DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2023.2268035
Rory Medcalf
Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg provide a compelling foundation for developing Indigenous diplomacy for Australia, pointing to principled pragmatism and the integrity of a ‘relationalism’ grounded in landscape. However, Indigenous diplomacy and First Nations foreign policy will be difficult to translate into practice. This is not least because of the diplomatic tension which consistent First Nations advocacy would bring in a region of sovereignty sensitivities, including with regard to some of Australia’s most important foreign relationships: Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and China. A First Nations foreign policy offers significant potential advantages for Australia, such as reinforcing environmental stewardship while projecting the image of a nation reconciled with the land’s custodians and neighbours alike. Difficult work lies ahead, informed by a principled pragmatism.
{"title":"Toward principled pragmatism in Indigenous diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific","authors":"Rory Medcalf","doi":"10.1080/10357718.2023.2268035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2023.2268035","url":null,"abstract":"Mary Graham and Morgan Brigg provide a compelling foundation for developing Indigenous diplomacy for Australia, pointing to principled pragmatism and the integrity of a ‘relationalism’ grounded in landscape. However, Indigenous diplomacy and First Nations foreign policy will be difficult to translate into practice. This is not least because of the diplomatic tension which consistent First Nations advocacy would bring in a region of sovereignty sensitivities, including with regard to some of Australia’s most important foreign relationships: Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and China. A First Nations foreign policy offers significant potential advantages for Australia, such as reinforcing environmental stewardship while projecting the image of a nation reconciled with the land’s custodians and neighbours alike. Difficult work lies ahead, informed by a principled pragmatism.","PeriodicalId":51708,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of International Affairs","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136062814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：