| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Aalberts, Tanja, et al.
(författare)
-
Rituals of World Politics: On (Visual) Practices Disordering Things
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Critical Studies on Security. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2162-4909 .- 2162-4887. ; 8:3, s. 240-264
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Rituals are customarily muted into predictable routines aimed to stabilise social orders and limit conflict. As a result, their magic lure recedes into the background, and the unexpected and disruptive elements are downplayed. Our collaborative contribution counters this move by foregrounding rituals of world politics as social practices with notable disordering effects. We engage a series of ‘world pictures’ to show the worlding and disruptive work enacted in rituals designed to sustain the sovereign exercise of violence and war, here colonial treatymaking, state commemoration, military/service dog training, cyber-security podcasts, algorithmically generated maps, the visit of Prince Harry to a joint NATO exercise and border ceremonies in India, respectively. We do so highlighting rituals’ immanent potential for disruption of existing orders, the fissures, failures and unforeseen repercussions. Reappraising the disordering role of ritual practices sheds light on the place of rituals in rearticulating the boundaries of the political. Rituals can generate dissensus and re-divisions of the sensible rather than only impose a consensus by policing the boundaries of the political, as Rancière might phrase it. Our images are essential to the account. They help disinterring the fundamentals and ambiguities of the current worldings of security, capturing the affective atmosphere of rituals.
|
|
| 4. |
- Eckerberg, Katarina, 1953-, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation of the Social Sciences in Norway : Report from Panel 3 – Political Science
- 2018
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Panel 3 evaluated 53 units in all, 22 institutional units and 31 research groups. The evaluation included university departments of political science, political scientists working in interdisciplinary units at universities and university colleges, and political scientists working at interdisciplinary research institutes.Broadly speaking, Norwegian Political Science is doing well. Our assessments of the scientific output across institutes and research groups show that the impact varies between fair and excellent, even though we underline the limitations of such an oversimplified classification scheme. The panel observes variation in the scientific quality impact of institutions, especially within the Oslo region compared with most other parts of Norway. The majority of subdisciplines are well covered. A substantial number of studies focus on conflict, peace and policy studies (food, climate, energy etc.). Much of the research focuses on Norway and is directly relevant to Norwegian society. Some of the work makes significant theoretical contributions, but most of it mainly offers a strong empirical dimension.However, some areas receive relatively little attention, such as classical and modern political theory, political economy and political history. The range of comparative work could also be broader. Given the available human capital, funding and other resources, the panel finds that Political Science in Norway is not realising its full potential. There is a tendency – at both the research institutes and universities – to rely too much on policy-oriented research funding, which might be an obstacle to pursuing more innovative and ground-breaking conceptual work. Likewise, the recruitment of a new generation of political scientists in the form of PhD students and postdocs is largely driven by project funding, thereby limiting their scope to develop their own topics or ideas. A few institutions have accessed international (mainly EU) funding, but the many smaller units lack the scale and resources required to compete for such funds. These researchers would do well to develop (counter-) strategies that enable them to participate in larger projects, including H2020 proposals. Diversification of funding is a general recommendation for the majority of evaluated units.The panel’s assessment of research groups revealed considerable variation between the institutes with regard to their purpose and ‘social life’. The panel considers a constructive and enabling research environment to be the most valuable function of a research group, while at the same time ensuring that individual researchers have autonomy to develop their own research agendas. The panel notes that many of the high-scoring research groups have a good support structure within their departments or institutions, whereas some of the weaker ones lack such support. Joint activities aimed at raising scientific quality, such as regular work-in-progress seminars, article or book manuscript review sessions, mock research grant interviews, staff retreats, and (international) guest speakers, are ways of going forward. More could also be done to target high-profile international journals and publishers, while maintaining a broader perspective on modes of scientific output beyond peer-reviewed articles.In light of the considerable organisational fragmentation of Political Science in Norway, and corresponding problems of scale, more collaboration across institutions within the country is generally desirable. Researcher mobility within Norway and internationally could also be expanded. This could to help to bring political science environments closer together, both in their research and in PhD and postdoc training, thereby strengthening Political Science as a discipline.
|
|
| 5. |
- Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Sovereignty at Sea: The law and politics of saving lives in mare liberum
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of International Relations and Development. - 1581-1980. ; 17:4, s. 439-468
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article analyses the interplay between politics and law in the recent attempts to strengthen the humanitarian commitment to saving lives in mare liberum. Despite a long-standing obligation to aid people in distress at sea, this so-called search and rescue regime has been marred by conflicts and political standoffs as states were faced with a growing number of capsising boat migrants potentially claiming international protection once on dry land. Attempts to provide a legal solution to these problems have resulted in a re-spatialisation of the high seas, extending the states’ obligations in the international public domain based on geography rather than traditional functionalist principles that operated in the open seas. However, inadvertently, this further legalisation has equally enabled states to instrumentalise law to barter off and deconstruct responsibility by reference to traditional norms of sovereignty and maritime law. In other words, states may be able to reclaim sovereign power by becoming increasingly norm-savvy and successfully navigating the legal playing field provided by the very expansion of international law itself. Thus, rather than being simply a space of non-sovereignty per se, mare liberum becomes the venue for a complex game of sovereignty, law and politics.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
-
The Power of Legality : Practices of international law and their politics
- 2016
-
Bok (refereegranskat)abstract
- From an airstrip in Saudi Arabia, the CIA launches drones to 'legally' kill Al-Qaida leaders in Yemen. On the North Pole, Russia plants a flag on the seabed to extend legal claim over resources. In Brussels, the European Commission unveils its Emissions Trading System, extending environmental jurisdiction globally over foreign airlines. And at Frankfurt Airport, a father returning from holiday is detained because his name appears on a security list. Today, legality commands substantial currency in world affairs, yet growing reference to international legality has not marked the end of strategic struggles in global affairs. Rather, it has shifted the field and manner of play for a plurality of actors who now use, influence and contest the way that law's rule is applied to address global problems. Drawing on a range of case studies, this volume explores the various meanings and implications of legality across scholarly, institutional and policy settings.Cultivates a new theoretical and methodological framework capable of advancing cross-disciplinary research between international law and international relationsCovers a range of current debates and draws on practice theory in order to advance each oneOffers a number of insightful case studies on the interchange between law and politics across topical institutional and policy issues
|
|
