The article focuses on voluntary return in post-conflict societies in the context of negotiated peace settlements and post-conflict transitions. Despite efforts by governments, international NGOs, and victims of displacement themselves, the proportion of actual returnees worldwide has been in significant decline since the 1990s. The article addresses this puzzle by investigating failures and partial successes, including the trajectory of main displacement crises and reversals in the past three decades. Focusing on “least likely” cases, such as Rwanda, Bulgaria, Colombia, and Ethiopia, the article introduces a novel concept in the forced migration literature—“consensus-building”—aiming to capture the coordination mechanisms and complexity of relevant decision-making processes involving victim groups. The article demonstrates the potential for and limits of institutional design and community mobilization in reversing the effects of displacement and highlights the importance of recurrent consensus mechanisms involving coordination across the multiplicity of dimensions, units of analysis, and relevant actors that shape voluntary return.
{"title":"Post-Conflict Societies: Consensus-Building and the Decline of Voluntary Return","authors":"Neophytos Loizides","doi":"10.1093/isr/viaf018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf018","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on voluntary return in post-conflict societies in the context of negotiated peace settlements and post-conflict transitions. Despite efforts by governments, international NGOs, and victims of displacement themselves, the proportion of actual returnees worldwide has been in significant decline since the 1990s. The article addresses this puzzle by investigating failures and partial successes, including the trajectory of main displacement crises and reversals in the past three decades. Focusing on “least likely” cases, such as Rwanda, Bulgaria, Colombia, and Ethiopia, the article introduces a novel concept in the forced migration literature—“consensus-building”—aiming to capture the coordination mechanisms and complexity of relevant decision-making processes involving victim groups. The article demonstrates the potential for and limits of institutional design and community mobilization in reversing the effects of displacement and highlights the importance of recurrent consensus mechanisms involving coordination across the multiplicity of dimensions, units of analysis, and relevant actors that shape voluntary return.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145492003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To better understand the dynamics between states and international human rights courts, international relations scholars must incorporate a systematic understanding of how nongovernmental rights activists influence the decisions of international human rights courts—for instance, the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—and the impacts of those decisions on the ground, despite growing state backlash against international human rights courts. To date, several bodies of literature have considered these questions, but none have placed nongovernmental activists’ roles in full focus. The international relations and international law scholarship on judicialization of international politics and state compliance often acknowledges but does not thoroughly examine the role of activists in international law. In contrast, a second body of scholarship, on transnational advocacy networks and legal mobilization, often does theorize the role of activists in international and domestic politics but rarely focuses on activism in international human rights courts. While both bodies of literature acknowledge that nonstate actors influence the practice of international human rights courts, they have not proposed an analytical framework that encapsulates the dynamic relationships among nonstate actors, states, and international human rights courts. By proposing a framework on these relationships, we argue that, beyond simply influencing the outcome of a case in an international court, rights activists—whether NGOs or individual cause lawyers—have multiple reverberating effects upon all stages of case development and political impact. We identify and illustrate three fields in which the strategic efforts of activists play out, with significant consequences for courts’ authority over time. These fields are: (1) strategic litigation activity, (2) advocacy to improve states’ implementation of international human rights courts’ jurisprudence, and (3) responses to state backlash. Taken together, these fields can point us to an analytical path to study the practices of rights activists at international courts.
{"title":"Activists in International Courts: Theorizing the Roles of Rights Activists between International Human Rights Courts, States, and Societies","authors":"Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom, Freek Van der Vet","doi":"10.1093/isr/viaf016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf016","url":null,"abstract":"To better understand the dynamics between states and international human rights courts, international relations scholars must incorporate a systematic understanding of how nongovernmental rights activists influence the decisions of international human rights courts—for instance, the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—and the impacts of those decisions on the ground, despite growing state backlash against international human rights courts. To date, several bodies of literature have considered these questions, but none have placed nongovernmental activists’ roles in full focus. The international relations and international law scholarship on judicialization of international politics and state compliance often acknowledges but does not thoroughly examine the role of activists in international law. In contrast, a second body of scholarship, on transnational advocacy networks and legal mobilization, often does theorize the role of activists in international and domestic politics but rarely focuses on activism in international human rights courts. While both bodies of literature acknowledge that nonstate actors influence the practice of international human rights courts, they have not proposed an analytical framework that encapsulates the dynamic relationships among nonstate actors, states, and international human rights courts. By proposing a framework on these relationships, we argue that, beyond simply influencing the outcome of a case in an international court, rights activists—whether NGOs or individual cause lawyers—have multiple reverberating effects upon all stages of case development and political impact. We identify and illustrate three fields in which the strategic efforts of activists play out, with significant consequences for courts’ authority over time. These fields are: (1) strategic litigation activity, (2) advocacy to improve states’ implementation of international human rights courts’ jurisprudence, and (3) responses to state backlash. Taken together, these fields can point us to an analytical path to study the practices of rights activists at international courts.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144603123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Long after the height of the global decolonization wave that swept the world in the decades following World War II, there still exists a number of smaller island territories around the world where the full political independence route has not been taken, but where constitutional ties to colonizing states have instead been retained. This has mainly been attributed to a range of observed relative benefits of staying affiliated with a larger, richer mainland metropole, often related to material gains, security, and citizenship. The status of affiliated territories has been described as offering a potential “best of both worlds”, combining such benefits with a degree of autonomy. At the same time, however, territory-metropole relationships have been found to frequently give rise to controversies and fears of re-colonization, and concerns related to identity and nation-building appear difficult to balance with development considerations. With the literature remaining divided about the merits of metropolitan affiliation, questions persist as to how contemporary territory-metropole relationships should be construed. Do they indeed constitute a “best of both worlds”, or are they better understood as (neo)colonial arrangements? While academic debates are ongoing with many, sometimes conflicting, arguments being made about this over the past decades, the perceptions of those living under such arrangements have rarely been directly considered. This article analyses the political arrangements in 15 non-self-governing (island) territories (NSGTs) from the experiences and voices of territory representatives themselves, as expressed in addresses to UN decolonization committees, to examine which of the perspectives and arguments put forward in the academic debates are validated, or challenged, by these characterizations of metropolitan affiliation.
{"title":"A “Best of Both Worlds”? Characterizations of Metropolitan Relationships by Non-Self-Governing Territory Representatives","authors":"Camilla Wangmar, Ulf Mörkenstam","doi":"10.1093/isr/viaf012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf012","url":null,"abstract":"Long after the height of the global decolonization wave that swept the world in the decades following World War II, there still exists a number of smaller island territories around the world where the full political independence route has not been taken, but where constitutional ties to colonizing states have instead been retained. This has mainly been attributed to a range of observed relative benefits of staying affiliated with a larger, richer mainland metropole, often related to material gains, security, and citizenship. The status of affiliated territories has been described as offering a potential “best of both worlds”, combining such benefits with a degree of autonomy. At the same time, however, territory-metropole relationships have been found to frequently give rise to controversies and fears of re-colonization, and concerns related to identity and nation-building appear difficult to balance with development considerations. With the literature remaining divided about the merits of metropolitan affiliation, questions persist as to how contemporary territory-metropole relationships should be construed. Do they indeed constitute a “best of both worlds”, or are they better understood as (neo)colonial arrangements? While academic debates are ongoing with many, sometimes conflicting, arguments being made about this over the past decades, the perceptions of those living under such arrangements have rarely been directly considered. This article analyses the political arrangements in 15 non-self-governing (island) territories (NSGTs) from the experiences and voices of territory representatives themselves, as expressed in addresses to UN decolonization committees, to examine which of the perspectives and arguments put forward in the academic debates are validated, or challenged, by these characterizations of metropolitan affiliation.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144603121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the interconnectedness of diverse critical nodes within global capitalism. The crisis of legitimacy facing the Liberal International Order, combined with the rise of new geopolitical tensions, is analyzed as one facet of a deeper global crisis of hegemony, from which new far-right political forces emerge at the national level. This perspective considers how these seemingly unrelated events constitute a single unitary totality. The analysis begins with the vantage point of “internal” relations, where the crisis of hegemony represents, on a global scale, a crisis in the process of passive revolution. Brazil is discussed as a relevant example, offering insights into the concrete prospects of a global “war of position.” The discussion then shifts to the vantage point of “external” relations, critiquing this perspective as the most explicit manifestation of the same systemic process—a crisis of the Liberal International Order and the geopolitics of rising illiberal states.
{"title":"Global Crisis and the Liberal International Order: Critical Nodes in a Totality","authors":"Caio Gontijo","doi":"10.1093/isr/viaf013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf013","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the interconnectedness of diverse critical nodes within global capitalism. The crisis of legitimacy facing the Liberal International Order, combined with the rise of new geopolitical tensions, is analyzed as one facet of a deeper global crisis of hegemony, from which new far-right political forces emerge at the national level. This perspective considers how these seemingly unrelated events constitute a single unitary totality. The analysis begins with the vantage point of “internal” relations, where the crisis of hegemony represents, on a global scale, a crisis in the process of passive revolution. Brazil is discussed as a relevant example, offering insights into the concrete prospects of a global “war of position.” The discussion then shifts to the vantage point of “external” relations, critiquing this perspective as the most explicit manifestation of the same systemic process—a crisis of the Liberal International Order and the geopolitics of rising illiberal states.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"149 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144603122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Why do some intelligence warning processes succeed in anticipating surprise while others fail? This article challenges the binary perspective on warning success and warning failure prevalent in extant analyses, which it contends ignores the complexity of warning processes and their outcomes. Its main thesis is that warning success rather exists on a spectrum of outcomes from full success to complete failure. To support this argument, this article introduces a novel, multidimensional typology that captures warning outcomes on such a spectrum, aligning with approaches to measuring (foreign) policy success within political science and public administration. It dissects warning effectiveness into three dimensions: the analytical (accuracy and timeliness of threat understanding), process (effectiveness of warning communication), and political dimensions (degree of decision-maker receptivity). Inherent tensions and challenges within these dimensions are expected to produce trade-offs, where success in one dimension may not ensure success in others. By applying this typology to three illustrative case studies—the COVID-19 pandemic warning in the United Kingdom, the Russian interference in the 2016 US election campaign, and the EU's warning process preceding the Crimea annexation—this paper demonstrates that warning performance often varies significantly across the three dimensions, highlighting the trade-offs and conflicts that can occur. This typology challenges existing binary paradigms and enables a more comprehensive understanding of warning effectiveness. This may inform targeted, adaptive, and effective security policy responses, in addition to improving our understanding of strategic surprise anticipation and warning strategies.
{"title":"Beyond the Binary: A New Typology for Evaluating Warning Success and Failure in Strategic Surprise","authors":"Nikki Ikani","doi":"10.1093/isr/viaf009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf009","url":null,"abstract":"Why do some intelligence warning processes succeed in anticipating surprise while others fail? This article challenges the binary perspective on warning success and warning failure prevalent in extant analyses, which it contends ignores the complexity of warning processes and their outcomes. Its main thesis is that warning success rather exists on a spectrum of outcomes from full success to complete failure. To support this argument, this article introduces a novel, multidimensional typology that captures warning outcomes on such a spectrum, aligning with approaches to measuring (foreign) policy success within political science and public administration. It dissects warning effectiveness into three dimensions: the analytical (accuracy and timeliness of threat understanding), process (effectiveness of warning communication), and political dimensions (degree of decision-maker receptivity). Inherent tensions and challenges within these dimensions are expected to produce trade-offs, where success in one dimension may not ensure success in others. By applying this typology to three illustrative case studies—the COVID-19 pandemic warning in the United Kingdom, the Russian interference in the 2016 US election campaign, and the EU's warning process preceding the Crimea annexation—this paper demonstrates that warning performance often varies significantly across the three dimensions, highlighting the trade-offs and conflicts that can occur. This typology challenges existing binary paradigms and enables a more comprehensive understanding of warning effectiveness. This may inform targeted, adaptive, and effective security policy responses, in addition to improving our understanding of strategic surprise anticipation and warning strategies.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143813896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A growing number of Western states are positioning feminism as the path to a more peaceful and prosperous world. In this article, we examine Canada's feminist foreign policy agenda as an instance of governance feminism, whereby the normative commitment to gender equality is pursued by governing women's agency. We conduct a qualitative discursive analysis of eleven key policy documents spanning development, peace, and security and trade, unpacking how expanding roles for women are framed as the solution to both gender inequality and a range of global issues. Although feminist foreign policy could improve the lives of some, it largely adopts the universalizing conceits of liberal feminism, rendering it blind to diversity and inequality among women and gender-diverse persons within and beyond Canada. By focusing on guiding individual action, Canada's feminist policies distract from broader global politico-economic structures that “agents of change” confront while also sustaining global hierarchies and militarism.
{"title":"Feminist Foreign Policy as a Case of Governance Feminism: Neoliberalism, Militarism, and Women as “Agents of Change”","authors":"Colleen Bell, Nicole Wegner","doi":"10.1093/isr/viaf007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf007","url":null,"abstract":"A growing number of Western states are positioning feminism as the path to a more peaceful and prosperous world. In this article, we examine Canada's feminist foreign policy agenda as an instance of governance feminism, whereby the normative commitment to gender equality is pursued by governing women's agency. We conduct a qualitative discursive analysis of eleven key policy documents spanning development, peace, and security and trade, unpacking how expanding roles for women are framed as the solution to both gender inequality and a range of global issues. Although feminist foreign policy could improve the lives of some, it largely adopts the universalizing conceits of liberal feminism, rendering it blind to diversity and inequality among women and gender-diverse persons within and beyond Canada. By focusing on guiding individual action, Canada's feminist policies distract from broader global politico-economic structures that “agents of change” confront while also sustaining global hierarchies and militarism.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143813895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stephanie C Hofmann, Yuqian Cai, Laura Gómez-Mera, Tamar Gutner, Matias Margulis, Diana Panke, Berthold Rittberger, Sören Stapel, Matthew Stephen, Moritz Weiss
Scholars and pundits focusing on the changing international order and its possible fragmentation often pay little attention to the manifold relationships between international organizations (IOs). Neglecting inter-organizational relationships, we argue, biases discussions towards doomsday predictions and reinforces the perception of global fragmentation. In this Forum, we address these biases by bringing together two strands of IR scholarship: power rivalry/transition and regime complexity. We do so by introducing the concept of organizational (dis)entanglements. An examination of how more and less powerful national and international policymakers engage and disengage IOs, highlights processes of reinforcing, muddling through, or undermining various ongoing order-making initiatives. The individual contributions examine organizational (dis)entanglements by highlighting actors’ various multilateral order-making attempts across IOs, global and regional ordering dynamics through IOs, and the roles international bureaucrats play in these processes. These contributions help identify new directions of inquiry in the study of IOs and international order by, for example, demonstrating that actors can engage with competition and cooperation simultaneously. Not all ordering attempts are equally likely to radically change global politics.
{"title":"Introducing Organizational (Dis)Entanglements: How Scholarship on Regime Complexity and Power Dynamics Helps Make Sense of International Order-Making","authors":"Stephanie C Hofmann, Yuqian Cai, Laura Gómez-Mera, Tamar Gutner, Matias Margulis, Diana Panke, Berthold Rittberger, Sören Stapel, Matthew Stephen, Moritz Weiss","doi":"10.1093/isr/viaf002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf002","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars and pundits focusing on the changing international order and its possible fragmentation often pay little attention to the manifold relationships between international organizations (IOs). Neglecting inter-organizational relationships, we argue, biases discussions towards doomsday predictions and reinforces the perception of global fragmentation. In this Forum, we address these biases by bringing together two strands of IR scholarship: power rivalry/transition and regime complexity. We do so by introducing the concept of organizational (dis)entanglements. An examination of how more and less powerful national and international policymakers engage and disengage IOs, highlights processes of reinforcing, muddling through, or undermining various ongoing order-making initiatives. The individual contributions examine organizational (dis)entanglements by highlighting actors’ various multilateral order-making attempts across IOs, global and regional ordering dynamics through IOs, and the roles international bureaucrats play in these processes. These contributions help identify new directions of inquiry in the study of IOs and international order by, for example, demonstrating that actors can engage with competition and cooperation simultaneously. Not all ordering attempts are equally likely to radically change global politics.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143775502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Global warming and nuclear war are frequently described as the world's greatest threats. Both challenges could be understood as expressions of modern science and technology, and both present tough collective action problems. They are also mutually entangled. Yet students of security have still to systematically unpack the relationship between climate change and the politics of nuclear weapons. In this article, I critically review the nascent literature on the climate–nuclear nexus and set out avenues for future research. I find that the existing literature has focused disproportionately on immediate managerial challenges such as the likely inundation of current nuclear weapons bases, neglecting the potential consequences of more profound, crisis-induced global transformations. Students of nuclear arms control, deterrence, and disarmament should interrogate the assumption that the basic political and institutional structures that condition policy outcomes today will continue to exist indefinitely.
{"title":"Disentangling the Nexus of Nuclear Weapons and Climate Change—A Research Agenda","authors":"Kjølv Egeland","doi":"10.1093/isr/viaf003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaf003","url":null,"abstract":"Global warming and nuclear war are frequently described as the world's greatest threats. Both challenges could be understood as expressions of modern science and technology, and both present tough collective action problems. They are also mutually entangled. Yet students of security have still to systematically unpack the relationship between climate change and the politics of nuclear weapons. In this article, I critically review the nascent literature on the climate–nuclear nexus and set out avenues for future research. I find that the existing literature has focused disproportionately on immediate managerial challenges such as the likely inundation of current nuclear weapons bases, neglecting the potential consequences of more profound, crisis-induced global transformations. Students of nuclear arms control, deterrence, and disarmament should interrogate the assumption that the basic political and institutional structures that condition policy outcomes today will continue to exist indefinitely.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143641061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nora Stappert, Frank Gadinger, Stanislav Budnitsky, Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt, Anna Geis, David Shim, Laurenz Krumbacher, Siddharth Tripathi
This forum proposes a practice-oriented approach to (de)legitimation processes in world politics. Drawing on international practice theory and visual IR, among other fields, our approach offers an important extension of existing literature on (de)legitimation that mostly concentrates on discursive (de)legitimation. Instead, this forum focuses on a broader variety of practices of (de)legitimation, such as bodily gestures and visual (de)legitimation practices, including as communicated via (social) media. The forum’s six contributions demonstrate the significance and conceptual promise of our approach by showcasing various conceptual entry points and empirical illustrations. Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt analyzes the everyday legitimation practices of international organization officials acting as the “personal face” of institutional processes on social media. Anna Geis examines the Taliban’s symbolic and embodied practices of self-legitimation during the Doha negotiations with the United States in 2019–2020. Subsequently, Stanislav Budnitsky conceptualizes the reoccurring practice of verbally and physically assaulting foreign experts on Russian televised political talk shows as embodied legitimation practices of Russia’s anti-Western geopolitical agenda. David Shim and Laurenz Krumbacher draw attention to the everyday, visualized legitimation practices of climate activists on TikTok, emphasizing their performative dimension. Frank Gadinger turns to Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s social media-oriented public performances in parliaments around the world. Nora Stappert and Siddharth Tripathi conclude the forum with a discussion of limitations, remaining challenges, and future research avenues, including using decolonial and postcolonial approaches. Combined, our forum opens an avenue for future research that considers existing and new forms of (de)legitimation in global affairs through the lens of practice while emphasizing the crucial role of legitimacy and normativity in international practices.
{"title":"Practices of (De)Legitimation in World Politics","authors":"Nora Stappert, Frank Gadinger, Stanislav Budnitsky, Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt, Anna Geis, David Shim, Laurenz Krumbacher, Siddharth Tripathi","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae042","url":null,"abstract":"This forum proposes a practice-oriented approach to (de)legitimation processes in world politics. Drawing on international practice theory and visual IR, among other fields, our approach offers an important extension of existing literature on (de)legitimation that mostly concentrates on discursive (de)legitimation. Instead, this forum focuses on a broader variety of practices of (de)legitimation, such as bodily gestures and visual (de)legitimation practices, including as communicated via (social) media. The forum’s six contributions demonstrate the significance and conceptual promise of our approach by showcasing various conceptual entry points and empirical illustrations. Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt analyzes the everyday legitimation practices of international organization officials acting as the “personal face” of institutional processes on social media. Anna Geis examines the Taliban’s symbolic and embodied practices of self-legitimation during the Doha negotiations with the United States in 2019–2020. Subsequently, Stanislav Budnitsky conceptualizes the reoccurring practice of verbally and physically assaulting foreign experts on Russian televised political talk shows as embodied legitimation practices of Russia’s anti-Western geopolitical agenda. David Shim and Laurenz Krumbacher draw attention to the everyday, visualized legitimation practices of climate activists on TikTok, emphasizing their performative dimension. Frank Gadinger turns to Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s social media-oriented public performances in parliaments around the world. Nora Stappert and Siddharth Tripathi conclude the forum with a discussion of limitations, remaining challenges, and future research avenues, including using decolonial and postcolonial approaches. Combined, our forum opens an avenue for future research that considers existing and new forms of (de)legitimation in global affairs through the lens of practice while emphasizing the crucial role of legitimacy and normativity in international practices.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143367365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sarah von Billerbeck, Katharina P Coleman, Steffen Eckhard, Benjamin Zyla
There is widespread consensus among peacebuilding practitioners and scholars on the importance of integrating local knowledge into the design, planning, and implementation of international peace interventions. However, the concept of local knowledge remains undertheorized, and the dynamics of local knowledge integration in international activities have not yet been fully explored. This paper reconceptualizes “local knowledge” in peacebuilding as local knowledges in the plural, highlighting seven categories of relevant local knowledge and the contestation within each. We then draw on organizational theory to identify the processes by which particular types of local knowledge become more or less likely to be incorporated into internationally led peacebuilding activities. Specifically, we argue that knowledge incorporation consists of two stages: acquisition and filtering. In both, international actors control who is able to contribute knowledges and which knowledges are recognized. Systematic biases result: knowledges that confirm previously held beliefs or that simplify complexity are incorporated more regularly. We illustrate our argument by focusing on the UN, but suggest that our findings apply to other international actors, including non-governmental organizations, and extend beyond peacebuilding.
{"title":"Local Knowledges in International Peacebuilding: Acquisition, Filtering, and Systematic Bias","authors":"Sarah von Billerbeck, Katharina P Coleman, Steffen Eckhard, Benjamin Zyla","doi":"10.1093/isr/viae047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viae047","url":null,"abstract":"There is widespread consensus among peacebuilding practitioners and scholars on the importance of integrating local knowledge into the design, planning, and implementation of international peace interventions. However, the concept of local knowledge remains undertheorized, and the dynamics of local knowledge integration in international activities have not yet been fully explored. This paper reconceptualizes “local knowledge” in peacebuilding as local knowledges in the plural, highlighting seven categories of relevant local knowledge and the contestation within each. We then draw on organizational theory to identify the processes by which particular types of local knowledge become more or less likely to be incorporated into internationally led peacebuilding activities. Specifically, we argue that knowledge incorporation consists of two stages: acquisition and filtering. In both, international actors control who is able to contribute knowledges and which knowledges are recognized. Systematic biases result: knowledges that confirm previously held beliefs or that simplify complexity are incorporated more regularly. We illustrate our argument by focusing on the UN, but suggest that our findings apply to other international actors, including non-governmental organizations, and extend beyond peacebuilding.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142902265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：