Search

European integration continues to deepen despite major crises and attempts to take back sovereignty. A growing number of member states are reacting to a more constraining EU by negotiating opt-outs. This book provides the first in-depth account of how opt-outs work in practice. It examines the most controversial cases of differentiated integration: the British and Danish opt-outs from Economic and Monetary Union and European policies on borders, asylum, migration, internal security and justice. Drawing on over one hundred interviews with national representatives and EU officials, the author demonstrates how representatives manage the stigma of opting out, allowing them to influence even politically sensitive areas covered by their opt-outs. Developing a practice approach to European integration, the book shows how everyday negotiations transform national interests into European ideals. It is usually assumed that states opt out to preserve sovereignty, but Adler-Nissen argues that national opt-outs may actually reinforce the integration process.

National diplomacy is challenged by the rise of non-state actors from transnational companies to non-governmental organisations. In trying to explain these challenges, scholars tend to either focus on a specific new actor or argue that states will remain the dominant diplomatic players. This article develops an alternative Bourdieu-inspired framework addressing symbolic power. It conceptualises diplomacy in terms of a social field with agents (field incumbents and newcomers alike) who co-construct and reproduce the field by struggling for dominant positions. The framework is applied to the EU’s new diplomatic service (the European External Action Service, EEAS), which is one of the most important foreign policy inventions in Europe to date. I show that the EEAS does not challenge national diplomacy in a material sense – but at a symbolic level. The EEAS questions the state’s meta-capital, i.e. its monopoly of symbolic power and this explains the counter-strategies adopted by national foreign services. The struggles to define the ‘genuine’ diplomat reveal a rupture in the European diplomatic field, pointing towards a transformation of European statehood and the emergence of a hybrid form of diplomacy. A focus on symbolic power opens up new avenues for the study of transformations of authority in world politics., National diplomacy is challenged by the rise of non-state actors from transnational companies to non-governmental organisations. In trying to explain these challenges, scholars tend to either focus on a specific new actor or argue that states will remain the dominant diplomatic players. This article develops an alternative Bourdieu-inspired framework addressing symbolic power. It conceptualises diplomacy in terms of a social field with agents (field incumbents and newcomers alike) who co-construct and reproduce the field by struggling for dominant positions. The framework is applied to the EU's new diplomatic service (the European External Action Service, EEAS), which is one of the most important foreign policy inventions in Europe to date. I show that the EEAS does not challenge national diplomacy in a material sense – but at a symbolic level. The EEAS questions the state's meta-capital, that is, its monopoly of symbolic power and this explains the counter-strategies adopted by national foreign services. The struggles to define the ‘genuine’ diplomat reveal a rupture in the European diplomatic field, pointing towards a transformation of European statehood and the emergence of a hybrid form of diplomacy. A focus on symbolic power opens up new avenues for the study of transformations of authority in world politics.

How does power work in practice? Much of the “stuff” that state agents and other international actors do, on an everyday basis, remains impenetrable to existing IR theory. This is unfortunate, as the everyday performance of international practices actually helps shape world policy outcomes. In this article we develop a framework to grasp the concrete workings of power in international politics. The notion of “emergent power” bridges two different understandings of power: as capability or relation. Emergent power refers to the generation and deployment of endogenous resources – social skills and competences – generated in particular practices. The framework is illustrated with an in-­‐depth analysis of the multilateral diplomatic process that led to 2011 international intervention in Libya. Through a detailed account of the negotiations at the UN, NATO and the EU, the article demonstrates how, in practice, state representatives translate their skills into actual influence and generate a power politics that eschews structural analysis. We argue that seemingly trivial struggles over diplomatic competence within these three multilateral organizations played a crucial role in the intervention in Libya. A focus on practice resituates existing approaches to power and influence in IR, demonstrating that in practice, power also emerges locally from social contexts., How does power work in practice? Much of the “stuff” that state agents and other international actors do, on an everyday basis, remains impenetrable to existing IR theory. This is unfortunate, as the everyday performance of international practices actually helps shape world policy outcomes. In this article we develop a framework to grasp the concrete workings of power in international politics. The notion of “emergent power” bridges two different understandings of power: as capability or relation. Emergent power refers to the generation and deployment of endogenous resources – social skills and competences – generated in particular practices. The framework is illustrated with an in-­‐depth analysis of the multilateral diplomatic process that led to 2011 international intervention in Libya. Through a detailed account of the negotiations at the UN, NATO and the EU, the article demonstrates how, in practice, state representatives translate their skills into actual influence and generate a power politics that eschews structural analysis. We argue that seemingly trivial struggles over diplomatic competence within these three multilateral organizations played a crucial role in the intervention in Libya. A focus on practice resituates existing approaches to power and influence in IR, demonstrating that in practice, power also emerges locally from social contexts.

This article develops a theoretical approach to stigma in international relations and resituates conventional approaches to the study of norms and international order. Correcting the general understanding that common values and norms are the building blocks of social order, this article claims that international society is in part constructed through the stigmatisation of ‘transgressive’ and norm-violating states and their ways of coping with stigma. Drawing on Erving Goffman, this article shows that stigmatisation serves the important function of producing and upholding ideas about ‘normal’ state behaviour. However, states are not passive objects of socialisation, but active agents. Stigmatised states cope strategically with their stigma and may, in some cases, challenge and even transform a dominant moral discourse. A typology of stigma management strategies is presented: stigma recognition, where states identify with the ‘audience of normal states’ and seek to rise above their stigma (illustrated by the case of Germany); stigma rejection, where states deny that they are ‘deviant’ (illustrated by the case of Austria); and finally counter-stigmatisation, where states turn their stigma into an emblem of pride considering themselves superior to the stigmatisers (illustrated by the case of Cuba). Due to lack of agreement on what constitutes normal state behaviour, attempts to impose stigma may even have the opposite effect – the stigmatisers become the transgressive. A focus on stigma opens up new avenues for research on norms, identities and international order., This article develops a theoretical approach to stigma in international relations and resituates conventional approaches to the study of norms and international order. Correcting the general understanding that common values and norms are the building blocks of social order, this article claims that international society is in part constructed through the stigmatization of “transgressive” and norm-violating states and their ways of coping with stigma. Drawing on Erving Goffman, this article shows that states are not passive objects of socialization, but active agents. Stigmatized states cope strategically with their stigma and may, in some cases, challenge and even transform a dominant moral discourse. A typology of stigma management strategies is presented: stigma recognition (illustrated by Germany); stigma rejection (illustrated by Austria); and finally counter-stigmatization (illustrated by Cuba). Because of the lack of agreement on what constitutes normal state behavior //Au: I made this Americanized spelling change and others throughout mostly without indicating them.//, attempts to impose stigma may even have the opposite effect—the stigmatizers become the transgressive. A focus on stigma opens up new avenues for research on norms, identities, and international order.

En velfungerende udenrigstjeneste kræver på den ene side, at EU's nye diplomater er loyale over for unionen og ikke modtager instrukser fra hjemlandet. På den anden side skal de nationale udenrigstjenester for alvor til at bidrage til ideen om en fælles udenrigspolitik. Udfordringerne er mange i opbyggelsen af EU's nye fælles udenrigstjeneste. Vigtigst af alt bliver det at vinde medlemslandenes tillid og respekt. Catherine Ashton har fået et næsten utaknemmeligt svært job

This book rethinks the key concepts of International Relations by drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The last few years have seen a genuine wave of publications promoting sociology in international relations. Scholars have suggested that Bourdieu’s vocabulary can be applied to study security, diplomacy, migration and global environmental politics. Yet we still lack a systematic and accessible analysis of what Bourdieu-inspired IR might look like. This book provides the answer. It offers an introduction to Bourdieu’s thinking to a wider IR audience, challenges key assumptions, which currently structure IR scholarship – and provides an original, theoretical restatement of some of the core concepts in the field. The book brings together a select group of leading IR scholars who draw on both theoretical and empirical insights from Bourdieu. Each chapter covers one central concept in IR: Methodology, Knowledge, Power, Strategy, Security, Culture, Gender, Norms, Sovereignty and Integration. The chapters demonstrate how these concepts can be reinterpreted and used in new ways when exposed to Bourdieusian logic. Challenging key pillars of IR scholarship, Bourdieu in International Relations will be of interest to critical theorists, and scholars of IR theory., The last few years have seen a genuine wave of publications promoting sociology in international relations. Scholars have suggested that Bourdieu’s vocabulary can be applied to study security, diplomacy, migration and global environmental politics. Yet we still lack a systematic and accessible analysis of what Bourdieu-inspired IR might look like. This book provides the answer. It offers an introduction to Bourdieu’s thinking to a wider IR audience, challenges key assumptions, which currently structure IR scholarship – and provides an original, theoretical restatement of some of the core concepts in the field. The book brings together a select group of leading IR scholars who draw on both theoretical and empirical insights from Bourdieu. Each chapter covers one central concept in IR: Methodology, Knowledge, Power, Strategy, Security, Culture, Gender, Norms, Sovereignty and Integration. The chapters demonstrate how these concepts can be reinterpreted and used in new ways when exposed to Bourdieusian logic. Challenging key pillars of IR scholarship, Bourdieu in International Relations will be of interest to critical theorists, and scholars of IR theory.

This book rethinks the key concepts of International Relations by drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The last few years have seen a genuine wave of publications promoting sociology in international relations. Scholars have suggested that Bourdieu’s vocabulary can be applied to study security, diplomacy, migration and global environmental politics. Yet we still lack a systematic and accessible analysis of what Bourdieu-inspired IR might look like. This book provides the answer. It offers an introduction to Bourdieu’s thinking to a wider IR audience, challenges key assumptions, which currently structure IR scholarship – and provides an original, theoretical restatement of some of the core concepts in the field. The book brings together a select group of leading IR scholars who draw on both theoretical and empirical insights from Bourdieu. Each chapter covers one central concept in IR: Methodology, Knowledge, Power, Strategy, Security, Culture, Gender, Norms, Sovereignty and Integration. The chapters demonstrate how these concepts can be reinterpreted and used in new ways when exposed to Bourdieusian logic. Challenging key pillars of IR scholarship, Bourdieu in International Relations will be of interest to critical theorists, and scholars of IR theory., Why yet another dead French thinker'.' We already have Althusser. Foucault and Derrida. Docs International Relations (I R) really need Pierre Bourdieu! The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that Bourdieu's sociology provides us with an opportunity to rethink international politics in ways not offered by these other thinkers. Bourdieu helps us rediscover the everyday practices. symbolic structures and arenas of conflict that bring many other actors into perspective. rather than just focusing on nation slates that produce (what we call) international politics. All engagement with his work redirects our discipline from being in influenced by overly abstract and simplified reifications of world politics. which is currently the case in both positivist and post-positivist IR schools. Bourdieu allows us to explore how people create international relations in their daily activities. In short. Bourdieu helps us to take the discursive, visual and embodied practices in international politics more seriously.

This book rethinks the key concepts of International Relations by drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The last few years have seen a genuine wave of publications promoting sociology in international relations. Scholars have suggested that Bourdieu’s vocabulary can be applied to study security, diplomacy, migration and global environmental politics. Yet we still lack a systematic and accessible analysis of what Bourdieu-inspired IR might look like. This book provides the answer. It offers an introduction to Bourdieu’s thinking to a wider IR audience, challenges key assumptions, which currently structure IR scholarship – and provides an original, theoretical restatement of some of the core concepts in the field. The book brings together a select group of leading IR scholars who draw on both theoretical and empirical insights from Bourdieu. Each chapter covers one central concept in IR: Methodology, Knowledge, Power, Strategy, Security, Culture, Gender, Norms, Sovereignty and Integration. The chapters demonstrate how these concepts can be reinterpreted and used in new ways when exposed to Bourdieusian logic. Challenging key pillars of IR scholarship, Bourdieu in International Relations will be of interest to critical theorists, and scholars of IR theory.

Danmark fremlagde sine formandskabsprioriteter for Europa-Parlamentet i januar 2012. Dermed kunne et travlt halvt år for den danske regering og embedsmænd tage sin begyndelse. Statsministeren understregede de fire hovedprioriteter for formandskabet i overskriftform: ”Et ansvarligt Europa, et dynamisk Europa, et grønt Europa og et sikkert Europa"

Hvad sker der bag facaden ved de store EU-topmøder? Adjunkt ved Institut for Statskundskab ved Københavns Universitet, Rebecca Adler-Nissen, går bag facaden, ind i det diplomatiske ”maskinrum”og gør os klogere på det benhårde arbejde, der går forud for de symbolske håndslag og traktatunderskrivninger, som udføres foran den internationale presses blitzende kameraer.

I hvilken grad kan et nationalt formandskab påvirke EU’s politiske dagsorden? Denne artikel problematiserer den gængse forestilling om »nationale interesser« i forskningen om EU-formandskaber og EU mere generelt. Artiklen analyserer det danske EU-formandskabsprograms tilblivelsesproces fra begyndelsen i april 2010 til offentliggørelsen i januar 2012. Artiklen, der bygger på deltagerobservation, argumenterer for, at et formandskabs dagsordenskabende rolle er relativt begrænset, ikke blot pga. Lissabon-traktaten, der overdrager dele af formandskabsansvaret til de faste institutioner, men også fordi formandskabsrollen i dag handler om at gøre den løbende fremdrift i EU’s lovgivningsproces til en national prestigeopgave. I den forstand er formandskabsprogrammet et slående eksempel på, at arbejdet med at fremme EU’s dagsorden bliver til en daglig ambition for medlemslandene. Det udfordrer traditionelle forestillinger om nationale interesser i en EU-kontekst.

Er det irrationelt, når nationalistiske tyrkere kalder forfatteren Orhan Pamuk for forædder? Sådan spørger Zarakol i sin fremragende bog om, hvordan det vestlige statssystem blev udbredt til hele kloden. Bogen er en dybt fascinerende historie om ikke-vestlige staters kamp for at passe ind i vestlige institutioner og normsystemer.

We argue that the continued persistence of borders is an effect of their constitutive role for the many dimensions of a social particular. States cannot choose to have a border; but they can and do make choices amongst the materials available on the various planes of inscription for bordering. For contemporary states the planes have become increasingly disaggregated, in the sense that they do not fall into place at one and the same border. Thus, states have to pick and choose different articulations (often inconsistently) on different planes. We illustrate these ideas with instances, present-day and historical, of bordering. A corollary of there being more need to pick and choose is that articulations of sovereignty change. So, sovereignty is increasingly the material of ‘sovereignty games’, where sovereignty is used as a political instrument. In sum,our theory directs attention to state bordering on different planes of inscription, We argue that the continued persistence of borders is an effect of their constitutive role for the many dimensions of a social particular. States cannot choose to have a border; but they can and do make choices amongst the materials available on the various planes of inscription for bordering. For contemporary states the planes have become increasingly disaggregated, in the sense that they do not fall into place at one and the same border. Thus, states have to pick and choose different articulations (often inconsistently) on different planes. We illustrate these ideas with instances, present-day and historical, of bordering. A corollary of there being more need to pick and choose is that articulations of sovereignty change. So, sovereignty is increasingly the material of ‘sovereignty games’, where sovereignty is used as a political instrument. In sum, our theory directs attention to state bordering on different planes of inscription.

This paper proposes to understand diplomacy as a form of impression management. Drawing on Erving Goffman’s dramaturgy, I show how diplomats seek to repair sudden cracks in the fragile international order. I analyse Greenland’s and the Faroes’ puzzling ability to continue controversial seal and whale hunting despite massive international regulation and criticism. In diplomatic negotiations, the two former Danish colonies use post-colonial embarrassment and irony to push Denmark into negotiating an exemption to the EU’s ban on seal products in 2009 and defend pilot whale hunting in the Faroes. Analysing diplomacy as impression management implies, first, that diplomacy cannot be seen as a one-to-one reflection of the relative capabilities or identities of the involved states. Rather, diplomacy should be understood as a social world of its own, abiding to its own rules, norms and codes of conduct. Its inhabitants may represent national interests but they also defend particular views of cosmos and they are saving face. Second, a focus on face-work and social order may help explain both the “conformist” bias of diplomacy and the way it may enable contestation of hierarchies.

This book examines how sovereignty works in the context of European integration and postcolonialism. Focusing on a group of micro-polities associated with the European Union, it offers a new understanding of international relations in the context of modern sovereignty. This book offers a systematic and comparative analysis of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), the EU and the four affected Member States: UK, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. Contributors explore how states and state-like entities play 'sovereignty games' to understand how a group of postcolonial entities may strategically use their ambiguous status in relation to sovereignty. The book examines why former colonies are seeking greater room to manoeuvre on their own, whilst simultaneously developing a close relationship to the supranational EU. Methodologically sophisticated, this interdisciplinary volume combines interviews, participant observation, textual, legal and institutional analysis for a new theoretical approach to understanding the strategic possibilities and subjectivity of non-sovereign entities in international politics. Bringing together research on European integration and postcolonial theory, European Integration and Postcolonial Sovereignty Games will be of interest to students and scholars of International Relations, EU studies, Postcolonial studies, International Law and Political Theory.

Scientific knowledge in international relations has generally focused on an epistemological distinction between rationalism and reflectivism over the last 25 years. This chapter argues that this distinction has created a double distinction between theory/reality and theory/practice, which works as a ghost distinction structuring IR research. While reflectivist studies have emphasised the impossibility of detached, objective knowledge production through a dissolution of the theory/reality distinction, the theory/practice distinction has been left largely untouched by both rationalism and reflectivism. Bourdieu, on the contrary, lets the challenge to the theory/reality distinction spill over into a challenge to the theory/practice distinction by thrusting the scientist in the foreground as not just a factor (discourse/genre) but as an actor. In this way, studies of IR need to include a focus on the interrelationship between theory and practice in specific domains, while at the same time foregrounding the own position of the researcher. The transformation of European security in the 1990s is taken as an example of how an IR analysis changes focus when seeing knowledge as Bourdieu.

How can Bourdieu help us grasp international politics today? How can the concept of ‘‘field,’’ originally coined for analyzing relations within states, provide an understanding of emerging patterns of transnational governance? I argue that Bourdieu provides us with sophisticated analytical tools for exploring the strength and limits of state authority—also beyond the national territory. Moreover, I claim that sovereign state interaction—diplomacy—has developed into a metafield. If we are to understand emerging challenges to state authority, from private companies to international organizations and global media, we need to study everyday activities, which both reproduce and challenge the sovereign state system as a meaningful reality. I illustrate this idea of competing articulations of political authority by focusing on the EU’s new diplomatic service, which challenges the very idea of national diplomatic representation., How can Bourdieu help us grasp international politics today? How can the con- cept of ‘‘field,’’ originally coined for analyzing relations within states, provide an understanding of emerging patterns of transnational governance? I argue that Bourdieu provides us with sophisticated analytical tools for exploring the strength and limits of state authority—also beyond the national territory. More- over, I claim that sovereign state interaction—diplomacy—has developed into a metafield. If we are to understand emerging challenges to state authority, from private companies to international organizations and global media, we need to study everyday activities, which both reproduce and challenge the sovereign state system as a meaningful reality. I illustrate this idea of competing articulations of political authority by focusing on the EU’s new diplomatic service, which chal- lenges the very idea of national diplomatic representation.

How is sovereignty managed in the EU? This paper investigates the relationship between sovereignty and European integration through the prism of national opt-outs from EU treaties, addressing an apparent contradiction in contemporary European governance: the contrasting processes of integration and differentiation. On the one hand, European integration is increasing as states transfer sovereign competencies to the EU. On the other hand, we see a multitude of differentiation processes through which member states choose to disengage from the EU polity by negotiating exemptions or derogations. Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s political sociology, the paper argues that to understand how sovereignty is exercised and interpreted in the EU, it is necessary to focus not only on the constitutive and regulative dimensions of sovereignty, but equally on the practice dimension. This entails an exploration of how sovereignty claims are managed in a particular social setting. Rather than seeing opt-outs as classic instruments of international law, accentuating the member states’ unchanged sovereignty, the paper argues that the management of the British and Danish opt-outs quite paradoxically expresses the strength of the doxa of European integration, i.e. the notion of ‘an ever closer union’.

Denmark is usually portrayed as an archetypical Eurosceptic state. Arguably, the fairytale country is an ‘anxious European', uniting ‘an emotional attachment to the North' with ‘the economic attractions of the EEC' (Miljan 1977, quoted in Hansen 2002: 50). Meanwhile, the public debate leading up to the 2009 European Parliament (EP) election indicate that this picture no longer fits. Over the last years, Danish discourses on Europe have undergone significant transformations, moving Denmark closer to the European mainstream when it comes to its ways of debating Europe both in the media and within political parties. This chapter examines the partisan discourses on Europe in the 2009 EP election in Denmark and identifies a number of striking changes in Danish discourses on Europe, most importantly that Euroscepticism moves from the political left to the right.

How are we to understand the perplexing and sometimes even counter-intuitive position of Denmark in relation to Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)? In this article, we attempt to go behind the many myths and misunderstandings involved and analyse the consequences of the Danish opt-out from EU cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs. Symbolically, the opt-out plays a major role for large parts of the Danish population as a sort of sovereignty guarantee in the face of European integration. While shifting Danish governments may point out the detrimental effects of opt-outs on Denmark's position in the EU, they still have to guarantee to the Danish public that they respect the protocols. In Denmark, the opt-outs are seen to constitute a bulwark against European integration; underpinning an image of the state with full political and legal authority over people, territory and money. This gives them an almost sacred character. In addition to their dramatic origins, the extremely controversial nature of the opt-outs is displayed in how they are debated. The opt-outs from the basic treaties of the EU are highly politicised. Most recently, politicians have exaggerated or downplayed the importance of opt-outs. Eurosceptic politicians and media claim that protocols protect national sovereignty and may serve as an example to other member states, whereas British and Danish pro-European ministers argue that they lose political influence when they ‘are sent outside'.