European Workshops in International Studies (EWIS)
5th EISA EUROPEAN WORKSHOPS IN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (EWIS)
Groningen, June 06-09, 2018
The Return of Politics to International Relations
Dr Benjamin Herborth, Groningen and Dr Benjamin Tallis, IIR (for EISA).
Call for Papers, Deadline: 10/01/2018
The European International Studies Association (EISA) invites papers to be submitted to the workshops
that comprise EWIS 2018, which will take place at University of Groningen in the Kingdom of the Netherlands
from 06-09 June 2018. These workshops allow scholars to engage in sustained, in-depth discussion
with a diverse range of their peers from various institutions, countries, disciplines and career
stages. EWIS has quickly proven to be a popular and productive format, ideal for preparing special
issues, edited volumes or exploring new ideas, themes and directions.
EWIS 2018 will be held at University of Groningen, an increasingly important centre for IR in Europe.
The university is situated in the heart of the city, which allows easy access to Groningen’s rich
history (including as a seat of the Hanseatic league) as well as its dynamic and diverse contemporary
life. Easily reachable by direct train from Amsterdam Schiphol airport – and many other cities –
Groningen combines the accessible charm of a small university town with the outlook and diversity
of a big city.
The workshops that have been selected allow for exploration of the EWIS 2018 theme -
‘The Return of Politics to International Relations’ - and will zoom in on the manifold ways
in which knowledge produced in the field of International Relations is increasingly politicized,
considered as inherently political and confronted with ongoing efforts to reconceptualise politics
and the political beyond the confines of IR.
EWIS 2018 Programme & Participants
List of Workshops for EWIS 2018 - General Call for Papers Now OPEN
You can now submit your abstracts for papers proposed for inclusion in the workshops at #EWIS2018. Please
read - and follow – the guidelines below carefully. Paper proposals should be submitted to a particular
workshop and only one proposal may be submitted.
WS A - The Women, Peace and Security Agenda and economic empowerment
WS B - Gender and Terrorism
WS C - Resilience: Between the Politicization of Security and the Production of the Neoliberal
WS D - Performing world politics through rituals
WS E - Global Health: The Return to Politics
WS F - Populism and Foreign Policy: Conceptual and empirical advances
WS G - New Technologies of Warfare: Implications of Autonomous Weapons Systems for International
WS H - European Sanctions in the Twenty-first Century
WS I - The Politics of Foreign Policy Change
WS J - Theoretical and Practical Implications of Dual-Use Technologies in the European Union
WS K - Beyond “Campfire IR” – Multiplicity as a new common ground for IR theory
WS L - The Past is Our Future: Assessing and Refining Historical International Relations
WS M - After Iraq: Rethinking Regional Order in the Middle East
WS N - How do symbols order? Exploring approaches for analysing the semiotic ordering of
social space and the politics of imagination
WS O - Wrongdoing, International Scandal, and the Politics of Responsibility
WS P - Aesthetic Cities: Everyday, International, Urban
WS Q - Mediterranean Encounters
WS R - Global Histories of the 'International'
WS S - Exploitation and the Design of Global Economic Institutions
WS T - Doing Visual IR: Methods, Power and Politics
WS U - Archaeology as a Diplomatic Tool—Old and New International Players and Their Political
Interest in Global Archaeology
WS V - Political Economy of the Post-Soviet Space: Between Empires, Histories, and Uncertain
WS W - The Political Economy of Democratic Deficits
WS X - Human In-security and Mediterranean Migration (HIsMed)
WS Y - Politics, Governance, and Civilian Agency during Armed Conflict
WS Z - Planet Politics and IR
WS AA - The (re)-politicisation of international relations in the post-Soviet space
WS AB - The ‘Schengen paradox’: Freedom-Technology- Surveillance
The deadline for the open call for papers is 10 January 2018. Accepted participants will be notified
by 20 February 2018. Registration will run to 26 March 2018.
Please make sure to renew your EISA membership before you make the registration to EWIS, in order to benefit from member registration fees once you login into the online registration application.
EISA Member - 120 EUR
EISA Student Member - 60 EUR
Non-EISA Member Full Rate - 200 EUR
Non-EISA Member Student Rate - 100 EUR
Workshop Conveners - 40 EUR
General Information & Deadlines
Abstracts MUST be submitted electronically via the
online submission system by the given deadline January 10, 2018. Abstracts received via fax,
e-mail or received after the deadline will not be accepted and therefore will not be considered
for the programme or publication.
One author can only submit 1 abstract.
- Abstracts are to be
submitted to one of the aforementioned workshop topics:
- The presentation type should be confirmed during the submission:
- Abstracts could be amended in the online submission system until the submission deadline of
January 10, 2018.
- All abstracts will be reviewed by the EWIS 2018 Scientific Committee – Workshop Conveners in consultation
with the Programme Chairs. They will decide which abstracts will be accepted and rejected but
may also recommend that your abstract is considered in a different workshop.
presenting authors will receive an acceptance/rejection notification via e-mail by
February 10, 2018.
presenting authors are obliged to register by
March 26, 2018.
- All abstracts must be written in English.
- When submitting your abstract, consider and select the best suitable workshop – and one alternative
workshop should your first choice not accept your submission.
abstract title is limited by
20 words. Please capitalise your abstract title in the following way - This is my Abstract
for EWIS 2018: For Presentation in Groningen.
- Up to
10 authors can be included (incl. presenting author). The person, who submits the abstract
is automatically considered to be the contact person for all future correspondence. Authors order
could be changed if needed by swopping the names at the list of the co-authors. The first name
is considered to be the main author. Presenting author could be amended in the online submission
system while managing co-authors.
- The maximum
abstract length is 200 words, which is approximately 2/3 of A4 page.
Pictures/charts/special formulas are not allowed within the abstract text.
- Each author should submit from 3 to 6 keywords matching /his/her abstract content. Please insert
the keywords in alphabetical order.
- The submitter is required to include presenting author’s short biography (up to 100 words).
Should you need any further assistance, please feel free to contact the conference secretariat at any
Arriving by Airplane?
Travelling from Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam) to Groningen
When you arrive in the Netherlands at Schiphol, the Amsterdam International Airport, the easiest way to travel to Groningen
is by train. The underground train station is beneath the airport, within walking distance of the luggage claim areas.
The Dutch railway system is run by Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS). You will recognize it by its yellow and blue colors.
Just follow the yellow illuminated signs that direct you ‘To the trains’.
Travelling from Groningen Airport Eelde to Groningen
Groningen Airport Eelde is easy accessible with the use of busses. Shuttle bus service 100 will operate between Groningen
Airport Eelde and the city of Groningen. This bus service connects departing and arriving flights from and to London,
Copenhagen and Gdansk. Bus stops include: Groningen Central Station, Zuiderdiep and Grote Markt.
Besides the shuttle bus it is possible to reach the airport by using bus 9 (Groningen- Eelde). Travelers from the direction
of Assen can take bus 50 (Assen – Groningen). However a transfer is required at De Punt to bus 9.
Travelling from Eindhoven Airport (NL) to Groningen
might be another convenient option for cheap intra-European flights by Ryanair, CityJet, Wizzair
etc. First, you take a bus (line 401) from Eindhoven airport to Eindhoven train station. The bus runs every 10 minutes
on Monday until Friday, every 15 minutes on Saturday, and every half hour on Sunday. Then you take a train from Eindhoven
to Groningen that runs every 30 minutes with a stopover in Utrecht and Amersfoort (for some trains). In total, it
takes 3½-4 hours to reach the Groningen CS.
You will have to purchase a single-use chipcard (this is your train ticket) to Groningen before you board the train.
Be careful: passengers travelling without a valid ticket will be fined. You can buy either a first-class ticket or
a second-class ticket.
There are two ways of purchasing a ticket: the
and the yellow and blue
that you will find in the luggage claim hall and by every entrance to the train terminal.
You can purchase tickets from the machines only by using your Credit Card or a Debit Card with the Maestro logo.
The vending machines do not take Credit Cards or American Debit Cards.
If you use a single-use chipcard or OV-chipkaart please make sure you check in en out; hold your OV-chipkaart up against
the NS card reader in one of the gates or free-standing posts.
You can also
buy your ticket online
and simply print it yourself. This allows you to take care of everything whenever and
wherever it suits you. All you have to do is complete the journey details, pay for the order, download and print
your e-ticket. This means that you can board the train straight away!
Information on travelling by train is available on the
The journey from Schiphol Airport takes approximately two hours and Groningen is the last stop. The trains are quite
comfortable and (most trains) feature free wireless Internet in all classes and 220V AC outlets in first class. Food
and drinks are not sold on the trains, please make sure that you purchase these beforehand at the airport.
Planning your journey in the Netherlands
You might find the website
very useful for planning your journey in the Netherlands. The planner combines all available
public transportation - trains, buses, trams, metro, and boats - to provide an optimal route. It also informs you
real-time about the current delays and disruptions in public transportation.
Please note that car traffic in the city center is restricted and street parking is very limited. Also be aware of the
numerous cyclists that may not exactly follow the traffic regulations. There are ten parking garages located near
More information on car parking in Groningen, including the street parking regulations, can be found
Taxi Groningen: +31 (0)50 541 8452
Taxi Noord: +31 (0)50 549 4940
Taxi VTG: +31 (0)50 535 0088
Are you flying to Germany?
Travelling from Bremen Airport (Germany) to Groningen
Bremen Airport may be convenient for cheap intra-European flights because it hosts the discounter Ryanair and also offers
low airport taxes. There is a direct bus connection from the Bremen airport to Groningen. The bus stop is situated
close to the entrance/exit of the Ryanair terminal of the Bremen airport. The bus schedule can be found
It takes about 3 hours to reach the Groningen Central Station (CS). There is also an indirect train that
leaves from Bremen CS (Hauptbanhhoff) by tram No. 6 (the tram schedule is here). Then you take a train to Groningen
(do not mix with Gröningen, Germany!) with a step over in Leer, Germany. The journey from Bremen HB takes about 2.5
hours. More detailed information on the train connection can be found
Travelling from Weeze Airport (Germany) to Groningen
might also be convenient for cheap intra-European flights because it hosts discounters Ryanair,
AirBerlin, Germania etc. First, you take a direct bus from Weeze airport to Nijmegen. The bus schedule can be found
. Then you take a train from Nijmegen to Groningen that runs every 30 minutes (schedule:
). In total, it takes 3½-4 hours to reach the Groningen CS.
EWIS 2018 will take place in Academy building at the University of Groningen, address: Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 26, 9712 EK Groningen, the Netherlands.
In cooperation with Groningen Congres Bureau, the EWIS participants have an opportunity to make a reservation via this form: https://www.eventure-online.com/eventure/login.form?P091ee867-bc59-4978-9ee0-e98ec141f813. After signing in, you will find a lot of good deals in the ideal location. The hotel module will show you various accommodation options, such as nice hotels or student hotels, with its detailed descriptions.
In the case of any difficulties, please do not hesitate to contact Groningen Congres Bureau (email@example.com).
WS A: The Women, Peace and Security Agenda and economic empowerment
Convenors: Maria Martin de Almagro (University of Cambridge and Vesalius College) &
Caitlin Ryan (University of Groningen)
In the seventeen years since the passage of the foundational 1325 resolution, there has been a significant
volume of scholarship on the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. It has sought to investigate
the aims of the agenda and proposed ways to improve women empowerment. There is, however, a general
sense in the literature that the WPS discourse has not lived up to the transformative potential
of UNSCR 1325. In particular there is concern that the concept of gender has been depoliticized
and that women continue to be portrayed as victims. Many conclude this is due to a co-option
of the agenda by the creation of a neoliberal feminism that justify the presence of women in
governance and peacebuilding because it enables faster and better results. For the most part,
we agree with their analysis of outcomes, but we argue that it is necessary to find other ways
of thinking through these issues. We believe that merging Feminist Political Economy (FPE) and
Feminist Security Studies (FSS) could provide a more robust analysis of the disjuncture between
the outcomes and understandings envisioned by feminist advocacy interventions seventeen years
ago and how they are manifested in policy practices. More specifically, we argue that WPS scholarship
needs to pay more attention to the materiality of economics and empowerment and the political
economy of violence and conflict in order to more fully understand the root causes of insecurity.
Putting on an equal foot the role that both material forces and discursive regimes have in the
formation of gender, classed and racialized power relations that pervade the implementation of
the WPS agenda can help us understand how violence and neoliberal development and peacebuilding
We welcome contributions that seek to dismantle the intellectual barriers between FSS and FPE through
a focus on women’s economic empowerment in post-conflict contexts and that contribute to the
critique of the binary between ‘normal violence’ and conflict by investigating the “messiness”
of the everyday. How should/do we conceptualize the relationship between WPS and economic rights/resource
access? How has the WPS agenda overlooked the materiality of women’s economic empowerment and
to what effect? Why is greater attention to this relationship needed? How can we study this relationship?
What does women’s economic empowerment look like? What influences the gap between policy and
practice? Should/can we conceptualize economic empowerment outside of the discourse on formal
WS AB: The ‘Schengen paradox’: Freedom-Technology- Surveillance
Convenors: Emma Mc Cluskey (King's College London) and Leonie Ansems De Vries (King's
The Schengen paradox is constituted by the relations between freedom of movement of persons and EU
citizenship rights, technologization of border controls and digitization of documents enacting
forms of preventive policing at distance, and the development of a political imaginary of suspicion
that multiplies the “reasons” for vertical and horizontal forms of surveillance. Schengen, once
a symbol of free movement of people inside the area, including the third country nationals living
there, has been reversed in contemporary times into the symbol of tough border controls, de-humanizing
individuals, and rejecting people in need of help. They are seen, along with the Dublin agreements
on asylum, as disciplinary techniques that do not comply with human rights, presumption of innocence
and privacy. (Il)liberal practices transform the governmentality of “border management” and encourage
the generalization of large scale intrusive forms of surveillance affecting persons, money and
We claim that the argument about neo liberal techniques of governing, hegemonic practices of the
West, ineffective governance or inefficient bureaucracies are by far too simplistic answers to
retrace the complexity and the fracturing of the international which has taken place around and
through the reversal of the Schengen practices in the last 30 years. Investigating by a precise
genealogy the political imaginary landscape of the European Union project in European societies
and beyond, in all the countries that their policies impact, is therefore a key element. Schengen
beginnings, which have been confidential until recently and are now being brought to light by
some archival research, shed a new light on the preliminary objectives of the time (1985-90)
and are marked by the ambiguities of the very function of Schengen, accelerating the freedom
of movement and the citizenship between EU member states or creating safeguards in terms of policing
and border controls against an unsafe, disorderly freedom of movement.
Within this workshop, we will discuss what we call the “Schengen” paradox and the way the dynamics
at works between freedom, security and fear of global threats has evolved into a vision of “solutions”
to insecurity based on technological tools and a different economy of surveillance, restructuring
the idea of criminal justice and presumption of innocence towards a preventive, pro-active, predictive
episteme of “security”. This paradigmatic change will be explored through a trans-disciplinary
approach connecting international politics, sociology of technology, socio-legal analysis, sociology
of surveillance and anthropological research on borders. Through adopting such an approach, we
aim to rupture conventional categories produced by the discipline of International Relations,
demonstrating the way in which the knowledge produced by IR can contribute towards the de-humanisation
of the subjects of research. Our transdisciplinary approach moves from static definitions , identities
and properties to process and fluidity, unsettling the ‘paradox’ of freedom, technology and surveillance
at work in practices of Schengen.
WS B: Gender and Terrorism
Convenors: Caron Gentry (University of St Andrews) & Swati Parashar (University
To return politics to IR necessitates problematizing the silences and exclusions that exist within
the discipline. As more attention is being drawn to the raced and gendered hierarchies that have
formed the discipline (see Tickner 1992; Krishna 2001; Sylvester 2010; Richter-Montpetit 2007,
2014; Mills 2014; Sjoberg 2013), we think it is also necessary to look at how raced and gendered
hierarchies (amongst others) have formed Terrorism Studies and how these hierarchies have created
‘silences’ and/or ‘aphasia,’ or the calculated forgetting of hierarchies as discussed by Thompson
2015. For instance, Terrorism Studies has long searched for a stable definition of terrorism.
Beyond the notion that nothing is fixed or stabilized (for long), this quest glosses over the
very reason a definition cannot be achieved: that the label of terrorist has been ‘fixed’ to
people with identities that are seen at odds with hegemonic identities. On the one hand, politicizing
and destabilizing what terrorism is and how it is studied has been the project of Critical Terrorism
Studies (see Jackson 2005; Jackson, Smyth, and Gunning 2009; Stump and Dixit 2013); yet, on the
other, these critiques have not fully unpacked the hierarchies that are behind the pejorative
label and nature of ‘terrorism.’ Indeed, terrorism has always been tied to racialized and gendered
notions of who an enemy other is. To go further, to use the term ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ is
‘political’ in that it engages notions of states, with the monopoly on violence, as legitimate
and moral. Those who use violence outside of the state are therefore rendered illegitimate and
immoral. Therefore, to politicize Terrorism Studies and to politicize terrorism means that we
must examine how the silence or aphasia perpetrates harm. Furthermore, gender and terrorism have
been explored fairly well (see Parashar 2009, 2014; Gentry and Sjoberg 2015), there are gaps
in this literature when begins to take intersectionality more seriously. If the onus of intersectionality
is to take seriously how power harms and oppresses individuals along identity lines (gender,
race, class, religion, etc.) (see Henry 2017), one way of studying it is to ask the other question
(see Davis 2008): if we see race, where is gender? if we see gender, where is sexuality? if we
see sexuality, where is class? and if we see religion where is gender and vice versa? While femininity,
and/or race/postcolonial and/or terrorism have been covered quite effectively, as have queer
theory and terrorism, bringing these all into one larger conversation has not yet been achieved.
A decade since the first works on gender/women and terrorism appeared in feminist International
Relations, it is time to revisit some of the key concerns raised then and the silences and erasures
that continue to affect studies on terrorism. Therefore, the purpose of this workshop is to invite
scholars who are interested in bringing these moving, intersecting parts together for the beginning
of what we hope will turn into a much larger conversation, resulting in either an edited volume
or special issue.
WS C: Resilience: Between the Politicization of Security and the Production of the Neoliberal
Convenors: Marco Krüger (University of Tübingen) & Philippe Bourbeau (Université
Resilience is variously attributed as central political concept of the last decade. Besides its prominent
deployment in the Sendai Framework, an increasing number of political resilience concepts illustrate
its importance in thinking and acting both politics in general and protection in particular.
However, the debate around resilience in (critical) security studies has tended to condemn it
sweepingly as inher-ently neoliberal. Recent research, however, started to go beyond this accusation
and to dig deeper into the myriad of questions and potentialities, resilience offers (Schmidt,
2017). Within the last dec-ade, a remarkable body of scientific literature has controversially
debated what resilience actually means to security studies. The range of opinions varies from
a wholehearted rejection (Neocleous, 2013) over the attempt to portray resilience beyond its
neoliberal appropriation (Corry, 2014) to iden-tify the critical potential resilience embraces
(Nelson, 2014). The discussion of empirical case studies linked to resilience has been equally
controversial. While Philippe Bourbeau and Caitlin Ryan (2017) demonstrated that resilience could
be one strategy of pursuing resistance, a set of other case studies show resilience’s role in
responsibilizing the individual for granting its own protection in a neoliberal fashion (e.g.,
Grove, 2014; Kaufmann, 2016; Malcolm, 2013). In short, the scientific debate of resilience could
hardly be more controversial.
The connotation of resilience remains somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, resilience points our
attention to questions of responsibility, which have been widely neglected in the previous academic
discourse in security studies. This is only one example of the politicizing potential of resilience.
On the other hand, scholars draw the dystopia of the creation of the neoliberal passive individual
through the enactment of resilience (Chandler and Reid, 2016). The increasing deployment of resilience
strategies and its current importance in the international arena calls for a more intense examination
of its meanings for security studies. Especially the ability-based resilience approach has only
occasionally been analyzed with regard to its meaning for conflict behavior and the settlement
of conflicts (for an exception, see: Bourbeau and Ryan, 2017). A more profound empirical analysis
of resilience with regard to conflict, however, might transfer the Western-centric debate of
neoliberal, potentially withdrawing state responsibilities to a global perspective, in-cluding
non-Western security arrangements.
Already now, resilience has proven to spark a lively debate in security studies, which sheds light
on so far mostly neglected questions. The proposed workshop takes up the portrayed controversies
aiming at bringing them into a productive dialogue. We seek to create a forum, which enables
a nuanced debate of resilience for security studies in general and for conflict resolution in
WS D: Performing world politics through rituals
Convenors: Tanja Aalberts (VU Amsterdam) & Anna Leander (Graduate Institute Geneva)
The purpose of this workshop is to launch a longer term collective research project on rituals in
international or world politics. More specifically we are interested in exploring the constitutive
role of rituals in the production of contemporary world politics. Core institutions of international
society such as diplomacy and international law are obviously replete with rituals, some public
and grandiose ceremonies other more mundane practices. But rituals also pervade a range of world
political practices including for example migration, digital communication, humanitarianism,
peacekeeping, torture, or marketing. If rituals traditionally functioned to strengthen the bond
between believers and their god(s),1 what role do they play in their secularized form in the
creation and enactment of world political order? The proposed workshop seeks to bring together
recent scholarship that has developed around practices, materiality, institutions, performativity
and aesthetics in IR (and beyond) to discuss this question. It invites oth historically-oriented
papers, and papers that discuss new ritualistic practices. It strives to engage and develop existing
well-established theoretical perspectives on rituals, including but not limited to work by Jeffrey
Alexander, Pierre Bourdieu, Catherine Bell, Judith Butler, Emile Durkheim, Clifford Geertz, Bruno
Latour, Marcel Mauss, Michael
Taussig or Victor Turner.
WS E: Global Health: The Return to Politics
Convenors: Nadine Voelkner (University of Groningen) & Clare Wenham (LSE)
Responses to health concerns are not confined to biomedical interventions. Politics can and does
shape how health is framed, managed, and resolved. It is only by studying how such politics manifests
that we can understand the ensuing policy pathways which develop to address health issues. As
with other areas of international studies, the understanding of the politics of health requires
an interdisciplinary synthesis of a broad range of fields such as law, economics, ethics, public
health, development studies, post-colonial cultural studies and anthropology. These different
disciplines bring inter alia their own methodological concerns and priorities, ranging from equality
of access, to mechanisms of governance in multiactor frameworks, to the impact of particular
framings in policy discourse, to the epistemologies of health and disease underlying the politics
of global health. Whilst this list is non-exhaustive, a consensus in all global health study
is the prominent role that politics plays in decisions about the provision of health. However,
what is frequently missing from these discussions is an analytical interrogation as to how this
political process unfolds and what the resulting policy outcomes are. As such, it is timely to
seek a more nuanced understanding of the role of politics in global health. In seeking this understanding,
and building on the success of EWIS 2017: Critical Global Health, in this workshop we will encourage
the presentation of papers that revolve around a three-fold discussion encompassing questions
of scale, theories and policies. A critical aspect of global health is the ways by which it manifests
in and across different political levels. At the local level, significant politicized health
activity takes place around issues of individual access to health professionals including gendered
dimensions to services and medical treatments, the impact of funding to health services and what
understandings of health and politics these issues may convey. At the national level, governments
can be conceived as having the responsibility for providing health to their citizens as part
of the social contract. However, to what extent ealth is available is a political decision, depending
on the conceptualization of the state, and of individual rights within it. Some states may lack
capacity to provide health to their citizens, or may choose to divert funding to alternative
sources, and in doing so national health decisions can showcase political activity. Beyond the
state, governments may engage in health politics at the regional level; either through established
institutional mechanisms such as the EU or ASEAN, or through bilateral arrangements between states.
The politics of how these agreements are entered into, and to what extent they are adhered to
come under analysis. Finally, at the global level there is an array of ultiple actors ranging
from states, international organisations, NGOs, foundations, and private sector bodies; each
of which have competing priorities and conceptualizations that are evident by the policies they
promote and activity they undertake to manage global health problems, this global governance
is inherent with a range of political tones.
WS F: Populism and Foreign Policy: Conceptual and empirical advances
Convenors: Angelos Chryssogelos (King’s College London) & Cameron Thies (Arizona
Populism is a topic of increasing importance for world politics. The victory of a populist anti-austerity
coalition in the 2015 Greek elections brought about a major upheaval in the world markets and
challenged the foundations of the euro. The votes in favour of Brexit in the UK and Donald Trump
in the US, both geared by strong populist feelings and discourses, have undermined the foundations
of the international liberal order. At the same time, populism is becoming an increasingly relevant
phenomenon in world regions outside of mature Western liberal democracies and its Latin American
heartland. Populism seems to be a relevant category that informs the foreign policy and standing
of important countries for world politics, from the Middle East to Asia to Africa.
This proposed workshop aims to contribute to a growing but still underdeveloped academic discussion
about the importance of populism in international relations and foreign policy analysis. Even
though the literature on populism is by now voluminous, there is not much systematic effort to
bridge insights from research in different world regions in order to understand how populism
matters beyond national borders (see however Mudde and Rovira-Kaltwasser 2012; Hadiz and Chryssogelos
2017). On the other hand, despite some budding efforts at comparative research (Schori Liang
2007) and analysis of important case studies (Verbeek and Zaslove 2015), the comparative analysis
of the impact of populism on foreign policy is still in its infancy (see Chryssogelos 2017).
The workshop will bring together scholars with an interest in the international dimensions of populism
in order to exchange analytical and empirical-comparative insights. The core interest of the
workshop is on the impact (when in government) and influence (when in opposition) of populist
parties, movements and leaders on state foreign policy. But we are generally interested in all
positions, attitudes and understandings of populism on issues, processes and norms of international
politics. Thus, any contribution that examines the interchange between populism and the international
arena is welcome. Beyond comparative analyses of populist impact on foreign policies along standard
FPA lines, we are also interested in papers that examine the attitudes of populism towards international
institutions and global norms, as well as the contestation by populism of key attributes of statehood.
Empirically we are particularly interested in papers with a comparative, and ideally cross-regional,
perspective. Single-case studies are also welcome, as long as they are firmly placed within a
broader comparative and analytical framework. We are also happy to receive papers covering a
large geographical range (i.e. beyond just Europe and Latin America). Most importantly however
we are interested in theoretical and conceptual advances in the study of populism in foreign
policy and international relations. Next to mainstream ideological comparative approaches, we
would also be interested in seeing how critical, discursive, structural and sociological conceptualizations
of populism account for the attitude and positions of populists towards issues of foreign policy
and international relations. In terms of methodology, the workshop welcomes contributions of
all shapes: qualitative, quantitative, discursive etc.
WS G: "New Technologies of Warfare: Implications of Autonomous Weapons Systems for International
Convenors: Ingvild Bode (University of Kent) & Hendrik Huelss (University of Kent)
New technologies of warfare, characterised by expanding levels of sophisticated autonomous qualities,
are on the rise. The current state of developing and deploying increasingly autonomous weapons
systems (AWS) in the broadest sense poses an extraordinary challenge for the international political-security
and normative order. Considerations of how AWS should be regulated or even how they could be
defined are only in their initial phase and are outpaced by the speed and intensity of developments
in the technological dimension. International Relations as a discipline has also only started
to analytically take stock of and to conceptually accommodate the emergence of AWS. Current substantial
studies focus to a large extent on drones as novel security technologies, but the emergence of
technical autonomy is bound to change this research field in fundamental ways. So far, both the
political-public as well as the academic arena consider AWS mainly from the perspective of international
law. However, the move from precision to decision weapons, the importance of technological regulation
and constitution, as well as the ‘autonomy turn’ in weapons technology requires a re-thinking
and reconsideration of basic concepts of IR research. While the phenomenon of AWS is generally
understudied in all regards, the workshops aims to focus on assessing the novel qualities of
AWS (understood in a broad sense to cover advanced technological systems in air, at sea or on
land) in particular by asking: how can we adequately study AWS from the perspective of IR? The
workshop seeks to address a range of topics within three broad themes, covering the regulative,
constitutive and practical dimensions of AWS. Relevant questions to be considered are whether
and how AWS can be regulated, whether international law and norms are constitutive for AWS and
in what ways AWS have constitutive qualities, and the implications of current or future practices
of developing and deploying AWS for international security and International Relation scholarship.
The workshop welcomes theoretically motivated and empirically informed analyses of the (future)
role of AWS in international relations. Both papers on theoretical-conceptual and methodological
questions of studying AWS fit the workshop’s objectives as viewpoints on the practices of AWS.
The workshop will serve as a forum for discussing options for future research projects and/or
publication activities. The workshop addresses a highly dynamic and crucial topic of IR research
that is, however, still widely understudied in all its aspects. The workshop seeks to bridge
theoretically and empirically motivated analyses on the topic of new weapons technologies and
will therefore of interest to an unusually broad range of researchers.
WS H: European Sanctions in the Twenty-first Century
Convenors: Clara Portela (University of Valencia) & Francesco Giumelli (University
Albeit the EU has been imposing its own autonomous sanctions since the early 1980s, this realms of
its foreign policy has remained largely ignored for decades, particularly in the US-dominated
sanctions scholarship. Only recently, the EU has gained visibility as a sender of sanctions thanks
to the high profile cases of Russia and Syria, as well as Iran and Libya (even though its measures
co-existed with the UN’s in these cases). Yet, scholarship still has fully embrace, conceptually
and assess the irruption of the EU on the sanctions scene as well as its consequences for international
relations and for the role of the EU as an international actor. The proposed joint session intends
to fulfil four aims: Firstly, it takes stock of the latest research reflecting both classical
as well as cutting edge approaches to EU sanctions. Especially, while the effectiveness of sanctions
should certainly enter the discussion, newer aspects such as the interaction between sanctions
and other foreign policy tools, the legalization of sanctions as well as the humanitarian consequences
could be discussed in the joint session that we envision. Secondly, this joint session should
also serve the objective to provide a forum for more critical approaches to the study of sanctions.
The debate has been dominated by rationalist and positivist views of sanctions and sanctions-related
practices. Instead, the discussion of this joint session should be informed and enriched by a
number of contributions challenging the core assumptions of how sanctions have been understood
in the past decades in the political science as well as IR debates on sanctions. Third, we aim
to bring other regional experiences/practices in the debate on sanctions in general and, specifically,
EU sanctions. Indeed, we can learn a great deal on the EU as a sanctions sender by looking at
the EU as well as by looking at other example, practices and understandings of sanctions imposed
by other regional organizations. For instance, the African Union has played a central role in
dealing with conflicts in Africa in the past two decades alongside with ECOWAS. Investigating
how sanctions are used and conceptualized in non-western contexts provides an occasion to enhance
the understanding of EU sanctions. Finally, in light of the theme of this EWIS edition, we also
invite contributions on the ways in which knowledge produced in the field of sanctions is presented
as a “technical” v. “political” dossier, as well as their implications for sanctions scholarship
and the policy debate associated with it. The workshop will be led by two pioneering researchers
on EU sanctions, in an effort to link up with, and support, the continuation of this research
strand by young researchers.
WS I: The Politics of Foreign Policy Change – The Role of Policy Entrepreneurs
Convenors: Klaus Brummer (Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt), Kai Oppermann (University
of Sussex), Jeroen Joly (Ghent University) & Tim Haesebrouck (Ghent University)
The United States pivots to Asia, the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, Turkey appears to
turn its back on Europe. Those current episodes suggest that major reorientations in a country’s
foreign policy are more common than might be expected. However, conceptualizations of foreign
policy change are still few in number (see, above all, Hermann 1990; Carlsnaes 1993; Rosati et
al. 1994; Gustavsson 1999; Welch 2005; Yang 2010; Lee 2012; Blavoukos and Bourantonis 2014).
Therefore, this workshop invites innovative approaches that seek to theorize and explain the
political processes that are associated with foreign policy change, and particularly the role
of international and domestic actors and institutions.
Following Charles Hermann’s (1990) typology of foreign policy change, this workshop is particularly
interested in the more fundamental redirections in a country’s foreign policy, that is, “problem/goal
changes” and “international orientation changes.” For starters, both external (i.e., systemic
or regional) and internal (i.e., domestic) structural factors need to be acknowledged when trying
to account for such changes (Holsti 1982). Whereas the former relates, for instance, to a country’s
security environment, the latter point to the distribution of influence among domestic institutions
or the composition of governments, among other things. However, while structural factors, and
shifts therein (e.g., the rise of a regional rival or a change in government), might provide
a permissive environment for policy change, they themselves do not usher in such changes. Rather,
foreign policy change is the outcome of domestic political processes, hence the “politics of
foreign policy change.”
Indeed, it requires “change agents” to introduce new policies against the background of existing
structural conditions. From this agency-centred perspective on foreign policy change, this workshop
seeks to trace the role of different types of change agents, or foreign policy entrepreneurs
(Carter and Scott 2009), acting singly or in groups—including political leaders, bureaucrats,
parliamentarians, political parties, and actors in civil society, including the media—in bringing
about foreign policy change. It explores, for instance, the external and/or internal structural
conditions against which change agents will more likely be able to “restructure” (Rosati et al.
1994) their country’s foreign policy. The workshop also examines whether certain types of actors
(e.g., actors with specific leadership traits and/or political beliefs) are more likely to press
for changes in their country’s international orientation (Yang 2010), whether certain types of
strategies are more successful than others to overcome domestic obstacles to change (e.g., institutional
veto players), and how such institutional obstacles affect the likelihood and processes of change.
To that end, the papers should engage with, and move beyond, existing works in IR and Foreign Policy
Analysis that have sought to conceptualize foreign policy change. In addition, the phenomenon
of policy change has been widely and arguably more systematically discussed with respect to domestic
politics. Therefore, we particularly encourage papers that examine the interplay between ideas
and institutions in order to unravel and understand the institutional settings and dynamics that
constrain or reinforce the impact of ideas and ideology on foreign policy change. In addition,
we also welcome contributions that draw on insights from public policy theory, thus building
on earlier works that have sought to explain foreign policy change by employing public policy
theories, such as punctuated equilibrium theory (e.g., Joly 2016), veto player theory (e.g.,
Alons 2007), or new institutionalism (Milner and Tingley 2013).
WS J: Theoretical and Practical Implications of Dual-Use Technologies in the European
Convenors: Raluca Csernatoni (Charles University of Prague) & Chantal Lavallée (Vrije
The concept of dual-use technologies has been increasingly used over the last years by a variety
of state and non-state actors across different areas in the European Union (EU). As concepts
are not neutral, referring to the dual-use dimension of technologies matters. There are clear-cut
socio-political, security-oriented, and economic stakes associated with framing technologies
as dual-use. Hence, this narrative has an impact on policy processes, actors’ practices, their
relative power and room for manoeuvre, as well as on the technological artefacts themselves.
Against this background, the proposed workshop on dual-use technologies intends to spur a heterogeneity
of critical thinking and further theoretical debates, without necessarily restricting the scope
of the analysis around the materiality of civil-military technologies. In line with the EWIS
2018 theme, the proposed workshop is interested in confronting viewpoints on how knowledge is
produced and shaped in the case of dual-use technologies by different contextual, “agentic”,
and normative factors in EU policies. Dual-use technologies are discursively framed by actors
and shaped by conflicting socio-political forces, values, security imperatives, and economic
interests, as they embody a host of implications such as legal and ethical regimes of usability
for both civil and military objectives. Indeed, various EU actors have been creating the impetus
to strengthen market growth, competitiveness, and innovation in the field of dual-use technologies
by funding civilian-military Research & Development and Research & Technology projects
under several EU Framework Programmes, and since 2014 through Horizon2020. However, there is
a gap in the existing academic literature, concerning the conceptualization and operationalization
of dual-use technologies, speaking to blind spots in theorizing technology, dual-use scientific
research, regulating science, and the hybridization of technological innovation that this proposed
workshop aims to fill.
By bringing together different theoretical perspectives, backgrounds, and case studies, the proposed
workshop envisages to lay the foundations for a deeper analytical dialogue concerning the governance
of such technologies from their conceptualization to their operationalization at national and
European levels. A pool of diverse case studies focusing on varied technological areas, such
as nuclear, airspace, biological, communicational, and informational, has the added benefit of
reuniting different findings and experiences in particular fields. The desired outcome is to
gather innovative theoretical approaches and empirical research from International Relations
Theory, Critical Security Studies, Science and Technology Studies, and International Political
Economy that can enrich knowledge and understanding of dual-use technologies, and provide theoretical
and practical insights into relevant aspects of modern technological developments.
WS K: Beyond “Campfire IR” – Multiplicity as a new common ground for IR theory
Convenors: Justin Rosenberg (University of Sussex) & Milja Kurki (Aberystwyth University)
In the post-Cold War era, the discipline of IR has flourished as never before. But, according to
Christine Sylvester (2007), it has also fragmented into a large number of rival theoretical ‘camps’,
each gathered around its own intellectual campfire and talking only to itself. The days when
different theories engaged each other in a shared conversation about their common subject matter
are over. The Realist problematic of ‘anarchy’ has been rejected by most other approaches, and
no fresh idea has gained sufficient support to provide a new common ground for the field. Must
this be so? In the 2015 EH Carr Memorial Lecture, Justin Rosenberg argued that the fundamental
and unique premise of all IR theory lies in the fact that the human world comprises not one but
many societies (Rosenberg 2016). And just as Geography’s focus on ‘spatiality’, History’s connection
to ‘temporality’ and Anthropology’s grounding in ‘culture’ enable them to make unique contributions
to the wider social sciences and humanities, so the same applies to IR: the focus on ‘societal
multiplicity’ is both the defining premise of this discipline (its implicit common ground) and
the key to IR’s potential contribution to all the human disciplines. As Rosenberg went on to
argue, this is a deceptively simple premise, which is rich in ontological and causal implications.
These include the phenomena of coexistence, difference, interaction, combined (or ‘entangled’)
histories, and dialectical processes of socio-historical change. And yet the problematic that
unfurls from the premise of multiplicity remains largely undeveloped in IR. Perhaps put off by
Realism’s narrower treatment of the multiplicity ‘of states’ through ‘anarchy’, most non-realist
approaches – themselves interested in exploring the multiplicity of actors, histories, cultures
and interactions - have instead looked outside IR for inspiration. The possibility of a common
ground of IR – rooted in exploration of the implications of multiplicity itself – has been surprisingly
neglected. The purpose of this workshop is to bring together scholars from IR’s many ‘camps’
– both critical and mainstream – to explore and develop the potential of ‘multiplicity’ as a
newly explicit common ground for IR theory. We invite contributions that take up its distinctive
implications for such diverse fields as: general IR theory, security studies, international political
economy, normative theory, feminist, poststructuralist, postcolonial and ecological approaches,
the aesthetic and practice turns, historical sociology, Marxism, liberalism, Realism, constructivism
etc. In each of these areas, we are interested in such questions as: what would it mean to reason
from the circumstance of multiple societies? What new insights could this generate within these
pre-existing ‘camps’? What common ground might emerge across them? And what would this reveal
about IR’s distinctive contribution to the human disciplines as a whole?
WS L: The Past is Our Future: Assessing and Refining Historical International Relations
Convenors: Benjamin de Carvalho (NUPI Oslo) & Halvard Leira (NUPI Oslo)
International history was one of the midwives of the discipline of International Relations (IR),
and history has remained a key component of IR scholarship. As quarry for data, testing-ground
for theory and site of investigation, history has been one of the unacknowledged partners of
IR. Unacknowledged, but still formative and a constant presence. Whereas the traditional engagement
between IR and history has been random and unsystematic, the last two decades have witnessed
both a substantial increase in the scope of historical IR scholarship and in the sophistication
of methodological approaches to history. Rather than simply pilfering random secondary sources
for data, IR scholars have started to deal seriously with the question of how to best engage
in historically informed IR. Looking at external factors, the recent “historical turn” seems
obviously related to the relatively rapidly changing conditions of world affairs since 1989.
Whereas decades of Cold War and centrality of the Euro-American area enabled relatively ahistorical
conceptions of an unchanging system, the breakdown of bipolarity, the multiplication of actors
and the emergence of new powers in the global south led to a return to history. Faced with an
uncertain future, an increasing number of scholars have looked to the past for guidance, patterns
and ideas. This tendency has been clear, despite theoretical and methodological differences.
Some look to the past to find recurring patterns, others to bring forth unacknowledged legacies,
and yet others to denaturalize taken-for-granted concepts and ideas or to understand how we come
to find ourselves in our current predicament. There are also reasons internal to the subject
of IR for a turn towards history. The growing diversity and globalization of the discipline has
led a number of scholars to look for theoretical precedents for current positions, and to question
the existing meta-narratives of the discipline. Thus, the last decades have seen a rapidly increasing
(and multidisciplinary) interest in the history of international thought, as well as an ever
more sophisticated historiography of the discipline itself. This historical reflexivity matters
to the discipline as a whole, as it opens up thinking space and practice space for theoretical
and geographical diversity. Expanding scholarship has also led to organisational cohesion, so
that Historical International Relations (HIST) must today be deemed both an intellectual and
an organisational success. However, as of yet the many different strands of HIST have not been
brought in full conversation with one another. The aim of this proposed workshop is to bring
together scholars working on different aspects of HIST, challenging them to both synthesise their
own fields of study, and to engage with alternative approaches to the past. The envisioned outcome
will be a Handbook of HIST, drawing together the most important insights and developments in
the field. This should make it possible to consolidate achievements, suggest new directions for
research and provide an inspiration and a guide for up and coming scholars.
WS M: After Iraq: Rethinking Regional Order in the Middle East
Convenors: Ewan Stein (University of Edinburgh) & Lucy Abbott (University of Edinburgh)
Fifteen years have now elapsed since the US-led invasion of Iraq, and eight since the beginning of
the Arab uprisings. Ongoing turmoil across the region and intense competitive rivalries in the
Gulf suggest that the Middle East is apparently further from ‘security regionalisation’ than
ever (Fawcett 2015). The 2003 intervention in Iraq, as with the Arab uprisings that began seven
years later, altered state-society relations and transformed the normative environment and balance
of power in the region. The purpose of the proposed workshop is to clarify, through the deployment
of a range of IR theories, the interrelationship between these three dimensions of continuity
and change in the region. In particular, we seek to explore the extent to which realist, constructivist
and historical sociological narratives of regional order are commensurable with each other and,
relatedly, whether they reflect, clarify or problematise narratives of regional order advanced
by IR and area specialists, as well as regional political actors. This workshop brings together
IR scholars specialising in the Middle East to explore and examine the contours of continuity
and change since 2003. It explores empirical and theoretical perspectives on the region’s international
relations to determine how IR scholarship might best conceptualise regional order. In bringing
scholars with divergent theoretical approaches into conversation with each other, the workshop
will explore broader questions concerning, for example, the relationship between power politics
and sectarian identities; the link between regime survival strategies and regional alignments;
and the regional dimensions of revolution and counterrevolution.
WS N: How do symbols order? Exploring approaches for analysing the semiotic ordering
of social space and the politics of imagination
Convenors: Timo Walter (Universität Erfurt) & Oliver Kessler (Universität Erfurt)
In recent years, (constructivist) IR has seen interest shift from a concern with the constitution
of discursive and symbolic orders towards close study of actors’ practices, in and through which
these orders are instantiated. This shift has delivered numerous new insights – most significantly,
it has brought increased attention and sensitivity to the messiness and heterogeneity of the
social objects constitutive of the „International“. While it is crucial to study the concrete
practices and processes by which social objects acquire their properties, this focus has come
at a cost: although agreeing in principle that practice is shaped by various types of symbolic
discourses and knowledges, it has proven difficult to disentangle the ordering effects of such
symbolic systems across heterogeneous sites of practice. Specifically for any disentangling of
the politics of imagination and symbolic ordering of the social, this constitutes a serious shortcoming:
just like the discursivization of knowledge always entails an abstraction from indexical, situated
meaning, the topographies of social space resulting from it entangle actors in (implicit) social
orders without this becoming visible at the level of situated practice and (reflexive) sense-making.
Sensing the predicament, a number of methodological moves have attempted to address the challenge
that concepts and symbolic orders need to be analysed against social context and process. However,
trying to delineate sites in which to analyse the productivity of symbols from an ‘outside’ context
shaping their instantiation has necessarily obscured how symbol systems across side produce and
configure that very context supposed to shape their in-site appropriation. In order to remedy
this shortcoming, it seems to us that we require a thoroughly relational and semiotic conception
that allows us to understand how heterogeneous sets of indexical and incongruent situated meanings
produce a coherent symbolic ordering of social space. This exploratory workshop aims to fill
this gap. Specifically, it seeks two achieve two things: first, to explore what existing methodological
strategies within and beyond IR can tell us about the different dimensions of the problem. Secondly,
lay the foundations for a methodological framework for studying the translation of symbolic into
social order across multi-sited social fields. To this end, we week to explore how different
anthropological, linguistic, sociological and philosophical approaches can provide leverage for
analysing the productiveness of symbolic knowledges not site-by-site, but relationally. While
the productiveness of discourse and knowledge in particular sites and through particular actors
is well explored and provides relatively few methodological problems, how they order larger social
fields relationally and configurationally has not received much attention within IR. As a result,
it has proven difficult to uncover the politics of and struggles over symbolic orders and how
they constitute the International. To this end, we want to bring approaches already relatively
well established within IR such as linguistic approaches, practice theory and concept analysis
in dialogue with methodological avenues not (yet) explored in our discipline. Tentatively – but
not limited to –, we are interested in developing insights from the French sociologie des conventions;
network theoretical work in relational sociology grappling with the morphology of meaning and
social ties; work in semiotics and anthropology about the symbolic ordering of the social; but
also insights from configurational and field-theoretical traditions in sociology in the vein
of Simmel or Cassirer.
WS O: Wrongdoing, International Scandal, and the Politics of Responsibility
Convenors: Owen D Thomas (University of Exeter) & Jamie M Johnson (University of
This workshop investigates the role that scandals play in regulating, reproducing and contesting
wrongdoing in international politics.
Global politics of the 21st century is plagued by scandal: financial crises, corruption, sexual violence,
economic exploitation, child abuse, racism, torture, unlawful killing and illegal war. On the
one hand, scandalous events politicize these matters. Scandals are defined by a consensus that
wrongdoing has occurred. Scandals provoke public outrage and demands for truth. Scandals are
met with a variety of responsibility rituals, including: public demonstrations and protest, official
inquiries, truth commissions, inquests and trials. In the wake of scandalous wrongs, authorities
promise to establish facts, resolve transgressions, and ensure the prevention of future wrongdoing.
On the other hand, scandals can depoliticize wrongdoing. We are particularly interested in how scandals
can function to limit who and what is held accountable for wrongdoing. We are interested in how
the particular performance of a scandal functions to locate wrongdoing and responsibility within
discrete spaces, temporal ruptures and individual failures. Despite deafening public outcry,
a scandal can reaffirm the legitimacy of social practices that constitute violence, inequality
and fear. Simply bearing witness to a scandal, ‘exposing’ wrongdoing and speaking truth to power
is thereby an insufficient ethical and political response to scandals.
This workshop is concerned with following questions:
- How are scandals politicised?
- Which kinds of wrongdoing become the subject of scandal? Which do not?
- How is responsibility made visible and attributable in the aftermath of a scandal?
- What political responses appear appropriate and legible in such moments? Which do not?
- How could scandals be responded to differently? Do we need to move beyond the imaginaries, possibilities
and temporalities of ‘scandal’ as an event?
Engaging with the politics of scandals raises relevant and productive questions about the relations
of complicity and power that generate, sustain and repeat practices of wrongdoing found in the
spectacular and everyday failures of global politics. Interrogating scandals also raises pressing
methodological and conceptual questions about the power relations, structures and social practices
that sustain this violence and inequality – including the role of gendered and racialized cultures;
historical memory, remembrance and commemoration; labour roles and economic structures; visual,
aesthetic and material assemblages; vernacular and ‘everyday’ knowledge; to name but a few.
The workshop engages directly with the EWIS 2018 theme in two ways. Firstly, the workshop asks how
the politicization, mobilization and outrage of a scandal functions to give visibility (or invisibility)
to the agents, institutions, cultures and power relations of contemporary global politics. Secondly,
the workshop encourages scholarship to look beyond the confines of IR as a discipline in order
to understand the forces that sustain violent, unjust and dangerous phenomena in contemporary
The workshop will gather submissions that interrogate the politics of historic and contemporary scandals
across a range of topics and locales in global politics. Papers may be empirically and/or theoretically
driven. The workshop particularly welcomes interdisciplinary submissions that provide insights
from, for example, Law, Criminology, Sociology, Geography, Anthropology, Economics, History and
WS P: Aesthetic Cities: Everyday, International, Urban
Convenors: Matt Davies (Newcastle University) & Delacey Tedesco (University of Exeter)
The topic of this workshop is the methodological challenges of identifying and engaging urban spaces
and times as they articulate everyday life with international processes, forces, and relations.
Reifying approaches to the international reproduce a frame of politics that is unable to account
for everyday aspects of political life such as visual, sensory, affective, embodied, and intimate
experience. This workshop addresses the need to develop robust new investigations of politics
at the everyday/urban/international interface by bringing together a diverse selection of leading
scholars in the “aesthetic turn” in International Relations with scholars working in urban studies,
urban aesthetics, and urban arts-based practices. This workshop engages the methodologies of
artists, musicians, designers, photographers, graphic and video artists, performers, and other
professionals in the arts to stretch social scientific analytical frames and elucidate creative
approaches to researching politics between everyday and international dimensions of urban life.
The workshop asks: how do artists in various fields or media investigate the city as a space
where the international and the everyday come together to confront each other, reproduce each
other, or transform each other? What new forms and practices of research can scholars of global
politics develop in order to investigate how ‘the city’ emerges as a site where the local, the
intimate, and the global come together to transform both each other and the field of political
Political geographers and political economists have recently highlighted the importance of cities
and of urbanisation for international relations, particularly in fields of financialization,
logistics, security, or development. The aesthetic turn in International Relations has extended
the domain of international politics to recognize the increasing salience for IR of issues such
as gender, ethnicity, poverty, citizenship, or consumption, long relegated to politics at other
“levels” or to entirely different disciplines sociology, anthropology, or economics). However,
it remains difficult for International Relations to recognize the significance of both the urban
and the aesthetic to global politics because we are constrained by historically specific investments
in the scale of politically relevant spaces and the forms of politically relevant practices.
This workshop brings together scholarship in these two existing subfields and pushes it in three
significant directions. First, it engages the urban not only as site of a domination through
geopolitical insecurity or violence, but also as a site of residual and emergent everyday rhythms,
practices, and affective atmospheres rendered as objects to be managed or as obstinate tendencies
of subjective resistance. Second, it engages aesthetics as a site to learn from existing but
marginalized political methodological skills and approaches, rather than as a field through which
scholars gain conceptual insights into the ‘real’ political work at hand. Third, it challenges
conceptualizations of aesthetics as existing independently of politics; as Brighenti (2016, p.
xx) claims, scholars should “speak of aesthetics to address phenomenological, perceptual, embodied
and lived space, and … speak of politics to attend the ecology of the socio-material connections
imbued with power that form today’s urban common world.”
WS Q: Mediterranean Encounters
Convenors: Knud Erik Jorgensen (Yasar University) & Defne Gunay (Yasar University)
Mediterranean encounters are rare, especially concerning scholarly perspectives on international
relations. But such encounters are important. Fernand Braudel, being raised in Algeria and having
a career in France, one stated, “I believe that this spectacle, the Mediterranean as seen from
the opposite side, upside down, had considerable impact on my vision of history”. It seems reasonable
to assume that also our perspectives on our subject matter, international relations, are impacted
by the characteristics of our observation post. The discipline of International Relations (IR)
is cultivated significantly different along Southern,-Northern, Eastern and Western shores of
the Mediterranean and, the politics of IR is markedly different in form and substance. Hence
there are exceptionally good reasons to organize a workshop on Mediterranean encounters, thus
promoting reflexive dialogues on the trajectories and futures of the discipline. The workshop
aims at exploring the conditions under which we produce knowledge about international politics/relations;
theoretical, methodological and philosophical orientations; research agendas and programmes;
advances within the field, including criteria for assessing progress; and the institutional and
political settings that enable or constrain our activities. The mutual neglect makes Mediterranean
encounters particularly relevant. Whereas European IR scholars tend to neglect the production
of knowledge done by colleagues situated along the southern and eastern shores of the Med and
instead embrace an unspecified Global South, colleagues in the MENA region often find the mental
distance to ISA conferences shorter than to EISA conferences. Similarly, Tunisia, Israel, Lebanon
and Turkey are the only countries from the broader Mediterranean region that are not members
of the EU, thereby revealing that the non-EU Mediterranean countries are also under-represented
in European research. Edward Said’s Orientalism experiences an outstanding reception within and
beyond the discipline, whereas instances of occidentalism hardly appears on the research agenda.
Criticism of Eurocentrism, ranging from Samir Amin, Bahar Rumelli to John Hobson, is frequently
taken at face value also when, occasionally, it morphs into anti-Europeanism. One way of overcoming
orientalism and/or occidentalism is to explore how ideas travelled across the Mediterranean region
not only historically but also in the contemporary region. Attacking assumptions regarding the
origins of ideas is only possible by bringing voices across the region together to share perspectives
on the region. More importantly such an encounter can also highlight the potential for a common
Mediterranean academic identity. By exploring the limits and potentials of research agendas,
challenges and opportunities of empirical research and knowledge production in the Mediterranean,
we aim at examining how the region possibly could feed into visions for the discipline. In turn,
taking stock of the knowledge produced in the region on international relations and the methods,
opportunities and constraints of knowledge production enables us to also apply this knowledge
to the policy problems of the region.
WS R: Global Histories of the 'International'
Convenors: Filipe dos Reis (University of Erfurt) & Zeynep Gulsah Capan (University
Histories of the ‘international’ and the development of concepts such as security, capital, sovereignty
and civilization have been predominantly concerned with three interlinked stories: the story
of the rise of the West, the story of the development of capitalism and the story of the development
of modernity. Recently critical perspectives have questioned these macronarratives and their
constitutive chronologies, teleologies and spatial imaginaries, interrupting the linear, progressive
and parochial stories upon which the idea(s) of the ‘international’ is built. This workshop continues
and furthers these discussions by reconstructing avowedly global intellectual histories of the
‘international’. To this end, we address the question of how to write global histories of the
‘international’. And linked to this: What political, legal and economic relations and experiences
should be uncovered to write a global intellectual history of the international system? Where
should the spatial sources and points of departure of these relations be located and how should
the experiences and sets of ideas they express be understood? In what ways can we reconstruct
the - now often neglected - connections and mutual influences between different events, sites,
actors and concepts which in aggregate constitute parts of a global intellectual history of the
‘international’? To address these questions, the contributions to this workshop move from critique
of the constitutive power of Eurocentric epistemic practices on the formation of concepts and
modes of thought that underpin the analytical appropriation of the international system to the
circulation of these concepts and modes of thought between diverse sites across global space
and multiple experiences and event; that is, towards micro-histories. There has been a recent
turn to history in the disciplines of International Relations (IR) (Bell 2009; Buzan and Lawson
2015; Lawson and Hobson 2008; Shilliam 2009), International Law (IL) (Anghie 2007; Becker 2014;
Fassbender and Peters 2012; Koskenniemi 2001) and International Political Economy (IPE) (Anievas
and Nisancioglu 2015; Hobson 2013, 2013a; Sartori 2013). This workshop seeks to further these
discussions in broadening and rethinking the social and epistemic terrains of intellectual histories
of the ‘international’. In doing, the workshop pursues two ends. First, it brings these now disparate
discussions on the role of history in our disciplines into dialogue to reconstruct co-existing,
alternate and yet ‘connected histories’ (Subrahmanyan 1997, 2005). As such, we reconnect sets
of ideas and principles that are shared but often treated separately by disciplinary fields occupied
with the ‘international’. Second, we approach these conversations from a global perspective to
challenge the ways in which the spatial sources and points of departure of various sets of ideas
and modes of thought have been previously anchored and focus on the different ways in which intellectual
histories can be interwoven, connected and related to each other. Consequently, the workshop
forges a creative interdisciplinary conversation to refigure the spatial and historical ontologies
and epistemologies that still restrain and discipline the ‘international’. This EWIS workshop
emerges from a series of international scholarly meetings that have been organized by the conveners,
most notably a very well attended ten-panel section on reconstructing global histories of the
‘international’ at the EISA’s 11th Pan-European Conference on International Relations in Barcelona
in September 2017, and a one-day workshop in Taipei in March 2017 on ‘global histories’, financially
supported by the World International Studies Committee’s (WISC), in the context of the 5th Global
International Studies Conference in Taiwan. The EWIS workshop constitutes therefore an invaluable
opportunity to further and consolidate this research agenda and project on global histories.
To this end, the three conveners will also meet at the EISA Symposia event in Rapallo to prepare
a grant application targeting this topic.
WS S: Exploitation and the Design of Global Economic Institutions
Convenors: Michael Sampson (Leiden University) & Nicholas Vrousalis (University
For rationalist theories of international relations, the design and evolution of international economic
institutions come to reflect one of two factors: Either such institutions represent an efficient
solution to cooperation problems under conditions of uncertainty, or they simply reflect the
pre-existing distribution of bargaining power between the negotiating parties. In both cases,
questions of agency, freedom, and equality are excluded from the analysis. In neglecting exploration
of these crucial concepts, contemporary theories of institutional design fail to take into account
forms of inequality and power that lead to exploitation. For example, theories of international
trade that focus exclusively on mutually consensual and beneficial transactions between states---e.g.
transactions driven by considerations of comparative advantage---typically fail to consider the
possibility that such transactions might be exploitative. This workshop aims at putting these
questions of power, exploitation, and agency at the heart of the study of international economic
institutions. Whilst some of these issues have been addressed by scholars of critical international
relations, this workshop explicitly aims to bring together scholars from a variety of different
traditions into a wider dialogue.
In this spirit we welcome papers in international relations theory, international political theory,
and international economics, from a variety of methodological traditions, addressing the topic
of exploitation and the design of international economic institutions, broadly construed. Potential
themes include: exploitation and international trade, power and exploitation among the members
of global economic institutions (e.g. WTO, IMF, World Bank), exploitation as a legacy of colonialism,
transnational exploitation and the existence of borders.
WS T: Doing Visual IR: Methods, Power and Politics
Convenors: Jonathan Luke Austin (The Graduate Institute, Geneva) & Stephanie Perazzone
(The Graduate Institute, Geneva)
How do we see the world and its politics? How do we make sense of international events? What do television
screens, computer monitors, advertising billboards, and other everyday images do to our sensual
appreciation for the global political order? And how might we study all of this? How can the
discipline of IR come to terms with the explosion in visual imagery of wars, protests, rallies,
street fights, and beyond? This workshop asks questions like these. It is concerned with the
still quite nascent shift within IR away from the textual as the principal object of its study
and primary mode of its own articulation. However, its main focus will be quite specifically
on the methods and methodologies of doing visual IR and the questions of power and politics these
methods implicate. The intellectual backdrop for the workshop rests on the reflexive, ethnographic,
narrative, and aesthetic turns within IR. Each of these approaches has contributed to bringing
forward a critical, inter-disciplinary, and – most importantly – an increasingly diverse set
of outlooks into IR. This includes reassessing and dissecting the intricate relations between
differently positioned societies in the global system, the ‘decolonizing’ of research, the linkages
between the micro and macro levels of politics and its analysis, and the role of researchers
and expert accounts in controlling narratives, reproducing exploitative power relations and shaping
collectively shared ‘images’ of international relations and its conflicts. Specifically vis-à-vis
questions of the visual and visibility, the introduction of the ‘image’ into IR that has occurred
across these fields has worked to foreground the everyday lifeworlds of individual human beings,
the materiality of those worlds, the questions of perspective in seeing Self and Other, and the
ways in which powerful actors utilize visibility as a tool of domination, political manipulation,
and beyond. With this backdrop in mind, the workshop focuses on how methods of doing visual IR
can ‘complicate’ the discipline’s intellectual construction of world orders in ways that give
voice to other perspectives and expose emerging forms of socio-political domination. We seek
contributions that focus on the diverse methods and methodologies that can be employed to ‘do’
visual IR and which explore the power, politics, and potentially positive-political consequences
of these methods. This might include perspectives from within specific theoretical traditions
(practice theory, feminist theory, post-colonial theory, etc.) or reflections on quite specific
methods of doing visual analysis in IR (the use of photography, the use of videography, the use
of secondary visual data, the analysis of comics, art works, and beyond, etc.). We are particularly
keen to encourage innovative contributions and presentations of all kinds into our discussions.
The ultimate goal of the workshop is to draw together both young and senior scholars from various
disciplinary traditions concerned with key issues surrounding doing visual IR. We envisage publishing
our discussions in both an edited volume and a special issue and are making plans to this effect
in advance of the workshop. The edited volume is planned as a handbook for students of working
within IR wishing to employ visual approaches within their work, while the special issue will
focus more on the broader conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues that emerge from
our discussions at the workshop
WS U: Archaeology as a Diplomatic Tool—Old and New International Players and Their Political
Interest in Global Archaeology Interest in Global Archaeology
Convenors: Marwan Kilani (Charles University Prague) & Christian Langer (Freie Universität
Archaeology, as well as cultural heritage, has always played a crucial, albeit often overlooked,
role both as an instrument to establish or reinforce international relations and as a political
tool. Archaeology deals with two distinct but complementary domains: materiality and ideas and
ideologies in the shape of physical sites and objects, as well as historical narratives. Both
domains are crucial for the confluence of archaeology, politics and international relations.
Archaeological sites and objects can be very lucrative economic assets and valuable investments,
while the past can be a powerful ideological resource. These two domains can take multiple forms
and generate a diversified range of interests that can be and have been used in different ways
for political and diplomatic purposes within the framework of international relations. Our workshop
will revolve around the following approaches to explore these interactions:
- Archaeology as an economic resource on the international level
- Archaeology as a provider of narratives to legitimize power relations/the status quo
- Archaeology as a means of cross-cultural communication
- Archaeology and the genesis and negotiation of political identities These approaches will constitute
our main panels. We aim at building a balanced set of talks and plan to invite speakers that
can present both specific case studies and theoretical approaches. The workshop will be open
to researchers of all fields connected to archaeology, anthropology, heritage and museum
studies, international law and international relations to encourage a cross-disciplinary
dialogue. With respect to archaeology, we will welcome contributions from all sub-disciplines
ranging from prehistoric down to contemporary archaeology (e.g. conflict archaeology). The
main aim is to get as complete a picture as possible, hence the workshop will not single
out a particular region of the globe but rather discuss the issue against the backdrop of
archaeology as a field of global engagement. Our workshop will address both the colonial
origins of archaeology as well as its ongoing legacy in the global South. It will raise the
question how contemporary archaeology relates to its colonial past and in what way it can
still be considered a political tool. In that context, the workshop will also discuss how
different regions of the world have received diverging amounts of attention by researchers
as well as its possible causes. Special attention will be given to the shift from a unipolar
to a multipolar world order in global affairs and its implications for the future of global
archaeology. The outcome of the workshop will challenge the notion that archaeological knowledge
production is politically neutral and emphasize the intersection between archaeology, cultural
heritage, politics and international relations in current affairs.
WS V: Political Economy of the Post-Soviet Space: Between Empires, Histories, and Uncertain
Convenors: Yuliya Yurchenko (Greenwich University) & Stuart Shields (Manchester
The post-Soviet space is positioned on the crossings of the empire of capital with its internal competitions
and shifting spatial and social boundaries. It is torn by inequalities, economic crises, various
forms of conflict, and reinvigorated struggle for geopolitical presence between the Russian empire
2.0 and the new-old west. In IR/global political economy debates and scholarship the post-Soviet
space tend to be discussed in an “adjacent” manner. That is to say that focused discussions are
often left in the domain of area studies while the broader ones lose depth by fixating on the
west-Russia ongoing rivalry. Such shortcomings leave contextualised analyses on individual states
and societies sidelined in IR/GPE scholarship. The aim of this workshop is to address the complexity
of the ongoing transformations in the post-Soviet space in a systematised interdisciplinary discussion
thus contributing to a better understanding of the region, its internal dynamics, and significance
of its foreign relations in IR/GPE.
The workshop is planned to cover three broad and overlapping areas. First is the geopolitical, territorial
conflict on the fringes of the east and west empires e.g. Abkhazia, Transnistria, Ukraine, Chechnya,
Nagorny Karabakh. The second will continue with the theme of conflict while focusing on the ethnic,
cultural, and religious animosity and conviviality, political manipulations and populist instrumentalisations
of sensitive social narratives. The third area concerns the problems of the political economy
of neoliberalism and its manifestations in the systems of production and social reproduction.
The primary focus of this broad area are will be on the urban struggles of survival and transformations
of space (public and beyond), socio-economic inequalities, and rural economies, spaces, and struggles.
Planned outputs include a special issue of select contributions and an edited volume (already
solicited by the Palgrave IPE series).
WS W: The Political Economy of Democratic Deficits
Convenors: Saliha Metinsoy (University of Groningen) & Gregory Fuller (University
This workshop will delve into one of the central challenges facing highly integrated economies (especially
the eurozone): the institutions required to stabilize integrated transnational marketplaces often
operate with little direct democratic input while simultaneously having a potent impact on national
democratic regimes . If the goal of policy is to “embed” today’s markets within society – that
is, ensuring that market outcomes do not deviate too much from social preferences – there are
two broad alternative means of achieving this: One route is to raise national barriers, shrinking
markets down to national size and ostensibly giving states more control over domestic economic
activity. The other route is to scale up regulatory powers to the supranational level, allowing
international organizations to take the lead in market governance.
This is a Polanyian paradox: the best means of restoring some democratic control over market behavior
– without embracing economic nationalism – is to forge transnational governance structures. However,
those bodies themselves tend to be socially disembedded (i.e., they are not necessarily responsive
to the democratic preferences of the governed) because there is no transnational “society” to
embed them in. Moreover, they are not accountable to the electorate through any institutional
means. This tension between the technocratic case for economic governance and the need for technocracy
to respond to political pressure manifests in a number of contemporary issues and debates (examples
Understanding the intrinsic problems posed by technically useful but democratically dubious governance
institutions is central to understanding the emerging political cleavage in advanced industrial
economies between nationalists and internationalists. Moreover, this debate is clearly crucial
to the future (and the past) of European integration.
WS X: Human In-security and Mediterranean Migration (HIsMed)
Convenors: Stefania Panebianco (University of Catania) & Valeria Bello (UN University,
Migration is a global issue, affecting several areas of the world in various ages. Migration across
the Mediterranean is not a new phenomenon, but it changes over time depending on systemic pressures
and contextual factors. According to specific challenges and systemic constraints, migrants reach
Europe via different routes - maritime or land routes, Eastern, Central or Western Mediterranean
routes. Sea arrivals across the Central Mediterranean are attracting increasing attention due
to the high number of arrivals to southern European countries and – inevitably – due to the number
of casualties that are rendering the central Mediterranean the most lethal area in the world.
The proposed Workshop ‘Human In-security and Mediterranean Migration’ (HIsMed) seeks to explore
challenges affecting people on the move across the Mediterranean. Addressing human insecurity
of people on the move implies investigating humanitarian practices and the implications of border
control strategies. The Mediterranean migration crisis has entered the research agenda in order
to identify actors involved in the crisis, both at European Union (EU) and domestic level, to
describe how the crisis affects origin, transit and destination countries, to explain different
approaches and lack of coordination or inconsistencies. The Mediterranean migration crisis lacks
effective management of human mobility and suggests scholars’ attention to identify existing
(in)effective forms of protection, different levels of political intervention (global, supranational,
local), emerging and institutionalised practices, the NGOs’ role in the management of the crisis.
It is widely acknowledged that military, political, economic, social and environmental causes
determine forced migration, rendering difficult the distinction between economic migrants and
migrants entitled to international law protection and asylum for political, religious, or ethnic
reasons. The current humanitarian and migration crisis in the Mediterranean challenges Europe
because it raises existential questions about the EU and its core values: do the solutions put
forward by the EU to face the migration/refugee crisis comply with the human rights the EU has
championed globally? How can people crossing the Mediterranean be ‘protected’ as human beings
first and foremost, not necessarily in view of their (being eligible to) refugee status? How
can forced migration be managed? These questions inevitably pave the way to other intriguing
and related questions: what are the new emerging challenges to human security in the Mediterranean?
To what extent are they different from the past? What kind of new protection measures can be
devised to protect people on the move? How does this affect the governance of migration at the
WS Y: Politics, Governance, and Civilian Agency during Armed Conflict
Convenors: Georg Frerks (Utrecht University) & Niels Terpstra (Utrecht University)
Who rules during civil war? Not only the incumbent government, and not only those who rebel against
it. In many cases additional armed actors are involved, either allied to the state, to the rebels
or operating independently. The uncertainties and opportunities created by civil war often lead
to the emergence of different types of armed groups intent on civilian protection or predation,
military advantage or uneasy collusion with the state. Yet, the newly established literature
on ‘rebel governance’ focuses largely on relations and interactions between rebel groups and
civilians in opposition to the state.
In this workshop we firstly hope to broaden the academic debate on rebel governance by examining
the emergence of additional actors—anti-subversive, militia, police and foreign intervenors,
and the specific political dimensions of the types of governance that result from their operations
and interactions during civil war. The presence of additional actors arguably affects the erstwhile
form of governance, reinforcing or undercutting the strategic objectives of each actor. Secondly,
we are interested in the agency of civilians under rule of armed actors. How do civilians shape
political orders during civil war? How and why do they resist and/or comply with the rules defined
by these armed groups? Apart from theoretical and conceptual developments around these themes,
we welcome empirical case studies that investigate these issues.
WS Z: Planet Politics and IR
Convenors: Hannes Peltonen (University of Tampere)
Planet Politics is a recent innovation in IR. It promises to be a formidable candidate to operate
as a disciplinary big idea, to transcend disciplinary boundaries, and to enable a new kind of
thinking that leaves behind the modern distinction between human and nature. A central aspect
of Planet Politics is the anthropogenic use of power vis-a-vis our planet and its different spheres.
Yet, much needs to be done regarding Planet Politics. What does it mean and how should it be
understood? How to delineate Planet Politics from other recent innovations in IR? What would
form the basis for a Planet Politics research program? How to teach Planet Politics? How to ensure
that Planet Politics can be seen as an addition to “traditional” IR strengths, not as a threat?
The purpose of this workshop is to examine Planet Politcs critically in order to assess its early
promise as a disciplinary big idea, capable of renewing IR and to be of interest beyond the discipline.
WS AA: The (re)-politicisation of international relations in the post-Soviet space
Convenors: Tracey German (King’s College London) & Agha Bayramov (University of
International relations across the post-Soviet space have been politicised since their inception
in 1991, largely because Russian political discourse has focused on the region as a sphere of
its exclusive interest. Despite the appearance of new actors in the wake of the breakup of the
USSR that challenged Russian hegemony, its ties to the region have remained strong, driven by
a common language, shared history, and enduring economic, societal, cultural and political links.
Until relatively recently, scant attention was paid to the significance of geopolitics as an
explanatory paradigm to assist in understanding foreign policy-making in the post-Soviet space.
Since 2014 the geopolitical landscape of the post-Soviet space has undergone some significant
changes, highlighting that geopolitics is a powerful tool that can facilitate a better understanding
of the complexities of international relations across the region.
This workshop will explore foreign relations across the region through a geopolitical framework and
seek to identify key determinants, with a particular focus on borders, energy, democratisation,
security and conflict, and the role of external actors. Questions to be asked include: How do
regional actors conceptualise the ‘post-Soviet’ space? Is there any commonality of understanding?
What determines the politics of the region? How significant are national identities? To what
extent is strategic cooperation defined by geographic location rather than interest? Which practices
of security are emerging? We invite paper proposals addressing these and related questions connected
to the post-Soviet space from a theoretical, empirical, and/or normative perspective.