CFP: Neutrality

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in Uncategorized · Comments ( 0 )

from Pascal Lottaz:

2017 Neutrality Conference

​– Lessons from the Past and Visions for the 21st Century – International Conference at Complutense University, Madrid October 27 & 28, 2017

Call for Papers
​War and Peace have influenced novelists, social scientists, historians, and philosophers over centuries. Neutrality – the state of being at peace with those who are at war – on the other hand, not that much. Then again, ever since the Peloponnesian wars, we have records of polities and thinkers who remained committed to the idea of the right not to choose sides. Recent research in the fields of International Law, International Relations and History have produced many insights on the importance of neutrality during the long 19th century and many valuable studies have been conducted on neutrals during the World Wars and even into the Cold War. But how do these periods relate to each other? What do we know about the development of neutrality itself and where does this leave us in the 21st Century?

The international conference on October 27th and 28th 2017 is aimed at finding answers to these questions. We wish to illuminate all aspects regarding the development of the concept of neutrality over the past centuries as well as the most recent changes that we are witnessing today. By bringing together experts from around the world, this conference has the dual goal of exploring the above questions and serving as a starting point for a network of researchers committed to the intellectual exploration of neutrality.

We invite all researchers with an interest in the dynamics of neutrality to apply to the conference by submitting a paper/presentation abstract of maximum 200 words.

Application
Applications and inquiries should be emailed to neutralityconference@ucm.es
Deadline for applications is June 30, 2017
Applications will be screened by an academic committee. Acceptance of the conference will be informed by mid-July

Required Information:

Full Name
Title
Affiliation
Country
Telephone
eMail
Abstract of 200 words

“Fake News”

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in New Diplomatic History Announcements · Comments ( 0 )

from Haakon Ikonomou:

Emil Eiby Seidenfaden (PhD Student, Aarhus University) has written a timely and intriguing piece on The League and the Combating of ‘False Information’, digging into the interwar discussions on what to do with Fake News.

You will find the latest ‘The Invention of International Bureaucracy’-blog here:

http://projects.au.dk/inventingbureaucracy/blog/show/artikel/the-league-and-the-combating-of-false-information/

CFP: Conflict Management and Modern Diplomacy (1500-1914)

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in New Diplomatic History Announcements · Comments ( 0 )

Call for Papers
Conflict Management in Modern Diplomacy (1500-1914)
8-10 February 2018
Institut für Geschichte / History Department, University of Vienna

Conflict management was a genuine task of modern diplomacy, from its very beginnings in the 16th century onwards. In spite of the fact that diplomatic history has undergone an important renewal in the past decades, evolving from a history of institutions towards actor-based and intercultural history, conflicts – if addressed at all – are still regarded as the dysfunctional side of diplomacy.

The conference, which is organised by the research group “Diplomacy in Conflict”, focuses on conflict management as the constant processes of mediation and negotiation, which included efforts but also resistance, success but also failure.

Diplomatic contacts were not only destined to resolve political or military conflicts, but could also be highly conflictual themselves, due to cultural differences, such as incompatible codes or stereotypes.

Diplomatic strategies comprised the avoidance and resolution of conflicts as well as their deliberate escalation or provocation. Furthermore, since the end of the 18th century, cultural conflicts became increasingly charged with national connotations.

The conference is aimed to discuss the changing strategies and modes of conflict management within modern diplomacy in order to provide a deeper understanding of diplomatic processes. We welcome papers addressing private as well as public spheres, official as well as unofficial participants, and European as well as Non-European players.

Prospective speakers are invited to submit abstracts of approximately 300 words. Submissions should include name, affiliation and contact details. The deadline for submissions is 15 June 2017.

For more information about the conference, or to submit an abstract, please email the organisers at dorothea.nolde@univie.ac.at or julia.gebke@univie.ac.at.

We intend to publish the conference papers.

Translators in the League

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in New Diplomatic History Announcements · Comments ( 0 )

from Haakon Ikonomou:

The latest blogpost of the “The Invention of International Bureaucracy” project concerns the Translation and Interpretation Service of the League Secretariat, and how they contributed, quite literally, to the common understanding of those showing up in Geneva. Interestingly, they hold a prominent place in the early memoirs and academic works of former League staff, as the truest internationalists of the Secretariat.

http://projects.au.dk/inventingbureaucracy/blog/show/artikel/an-international-language-the-translation-and-interpretation-service/

Gender and the League of Nations

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in Uncategorized · Comments ( 0 )

From Haakon Ikonomou:

Myriam Piguet (MA student, Aarhus University) has written a great piece on gender
distribution in the League of Nations, and the differences between ambitions and
reality in the early years of the Secretariat.

You will find the latest ‘The Invention of International Bureaucracy’-blog here:

http://projects.au.dk/inventingbureaucracy/blog/show/artikel/gender-distribution-in-the-league-of-nations-the-start-of-a-revolution/

What Diplomats Can Learn from Urbanists, and Vice Versa

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in New Diplomatic History Blog · Comments ( 0 )

From Ian Klaus:

No matter where you sat — in a negotiating chair, as a representative of civil society, as a member of the media — the process that led up to the recent Habitat III conference on sustainable cities presented a trilemma.

The summit took place in Quito, Ecuador, in October, preceded by four months of formal political negotiations at the United Nations. However, to understand fully those talks, their subject matter and the potential impact of their outcome document, the New Urban Agenda, diplomats and participants needed at least three forms of well-developed knowledge.

First, given the issues in play, diplomats — of which I was one — and participants needed an understanding of urban dynamics. Second, given the setting, they also needed an understanding of United Nations politics, precedent and negotiating practices. And third, the well-informed negotiator or observer required a sense of contemporary geopolitical issues, from climate change to migration.

How many experts in modality negotiations, multi-modal transportation and multipolar geopolitics do you know? To find the practitioner-cum-academic who possessed two of these was difficult; three, a significant challenge. These are global, national and local geographic spaces that do not spend lots of time in practical dialogue with each other.

This intellectual and practical challenge does not mean, however, that multilateral institutions can simply ignore the challenges and opportunities presented by urbanization — that the global can simply ignore the local, or vice versa. As such, and with an eye to future multilateral negotiations in New York, Nairobi and elsewhere, it is worthwhile to reflect on the solutions that were found to this challenge in the Habitat III context, and to consider future work that will be needed.

Diplomats are not urbanists, so as the Habitat III process kicked off last year, there was catching up to be done. (Quickly — check out Edward Glaeser and Saskia Sassen from the library; email Genie Birch; and add Citiscope, NextCity and CityLab to your Internet bookmarks!) But given that there were so many issues that fell under the Habitat III umbrella — urban land, urban-rural linkages, the informal sector, urban culture and heritage, and so on — and that the negotiating teams were for the most part small, it became more realistic for negotiators to work at accessing expertise than to develop it themselves.

Accessing expertise

A series of approaches — some institutional, some informal, some hybrid — furthered this access. In advance of the negotiations, which got underway in May 2016, the conference managers released 10 technical “policy unit” papers and 22 “issue papers” focused on critical urban issues and written by international experts.

The admirable ambition was to provide diplomats and the wider international community with accessible expertise. And some of the better papers, such as Policy Unit Paper 4 on “Urban Governance, Capacity and Institutional Development” and Issue Paper 11 on “Public Space”, did just that.

The papers most helpful to negotiators linked the urban issue at hand — for example, public space — with questions of national and global governance. And they did so in a concise fashion, with the most useful papers more closely resembling traditional foreign-policy briefing papers than urban academic tracts.

Even with the policy and issue papers and supporting events at organizations such as the Ford Foundation, however, there were simply too many issues for a single diplomat or small negotiating team to absorb. (Citiscope receives support from the Ford Foundation.) As such, negotiators had to rely on and in certain instances trust experts or advocates.

In certain instances, the wider room of negotiators relied on the topical expertise that particular member states or negotiating party possessed. For instance, the European Union’s deep experience with regional urban development and South Korea’s keen interest in smart cities ensured that their interventions on those issues were well-received.

Another source of expertise was found in the civil society experts in the negotiating room. While the role and presence of civil society is a hotly contested political issue at the United Nations, the expertise added by the perspectives of practitioners, grass-roots advocates, academics and many others undoubtedly helped overcome knowledge gaps.

This channel of knowledge-sharing required a number of commitments. The United States and other like-minded member states had to negotiate for civil society to be included as observers in the negotiations’ modalities. They also had to stand up for that presence when challenged in the negotiating room, which happened on several occasions.

Meanwhile, civil-society representatives required the support of their respective organizations to spend the long hours in New York and elsewhere required to track developments in the negotiations.

And finally, negotiators and civil-society experts needed to develop relationships through which ideas and feedback could be shared. These relationships often were built on repeated informal interactions. The U. S. negotiating team, for instance, benefited from repeated exchanges with the International Committee of the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity and other organizations.

In the absence of a new generation of diplomats with backgrounds in urban planning, some of these practices should be considered in the future. Policy and issue papers are helpful, for instance, but linking the substantive issue with foreign-policy concerns and practices dramatically improves the effectiveness of such documents.

And with an eye toward solving knowledge gaps, member states must recognize that civil-society participation is not only a question of the politics of “who’s at the table” but also one of accessing expertise to produce better results.

Negotiating lessons

But educating and informing diplomats on urban issues, of course, is only one side of the coin.

Urbanists are not multilateral diplomats. While the subject of the New Urban Agenda was urbanization, many of the forces that shaped it were diplomatic. Just as diplomats need to bolster their urbanist chops, urbanists would do well to develop a better understanding of the multilateral landscape.

With that goal in mind, I’ve attempted to provide answers to three questions we received from many at the Habitat III conference, with the hopes of developing a more rounded set of lessons to be carried forward.

First, why did we spend so much time arguing about previous U. N. negotiations? The answer here is simple if discomfiting: Every new international agenda, agreement or accord affords the opportunity to reinterpret, if not renegotiate, those that preceded it.

In the 18 months leading up to Quito, the international community for the first time set out to develop a universal framework for development, an approach that raised the stakes for the Quito negotiations. This new framework included the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the third International Conference on Financing for Development, finalized in July 2015, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted two months later.

U. N. negotiations place great importance on precedent. But a shared recognition of the importance of precedent does not guarantee a shared interpretation of its appropriate use. To the contrary, it can encourage liberal interpretations, misrepresentations and cherry-picking.

In Paragraph 6 of the New Urban Agenda, the member states agreed that the previous outcomes mattered. But the fraught negotiations over numerous subsequent paragraphs, including many of which are no longer in the document, showed disagreement over the spirit and authority of those documents.

As negotiators from the U. S. Department of State, for example, we had to ensure that references to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda were consistent with the spirit of that document as understood by the U. S. Treasury Department, which participated in its adoption. In other words, negotiators are never going to be free to focus only on the issue at hand — rather, to effectively operate in the present, they also must keep an eye on the minutia and context of their negotiated pasts.

Geopolitics vs. urban concerns

Second, why does the New Urban Agenda mention “as appropriate” so often? In a 24-page document, the phrase appears 17 times.

Perhaps more than any other U. N. outcome document, the New Urban Agenda makes clear the importance of local governments and actors. In this regard, Paragraph 87 of the New Urban Agenda is particularly noteworthy: “We will foster stronger coordination and cooperation among national, subnational and local governments, including through multilevel consultation mechanisms and by clearly defining the respective competences, tools and resources for each level of government.”

This was an accomplishment. But such language that helps establish a precedent for the importance of local governments and authorities came with a cost: “as appropriate”. In the end, Habitat III was not a communal constitutional convention. Member states did not enter into the negotiations with the authority or goal to reconsider their respective political or legal orders. In an age of populism and nationalism, the question of national prerogative will continue to be a challenge for related U. N. negotiations going forward.

Third, what’s with the obsession over “red lines”? These are policy issues that if left unresolved can prompt a member state, or perhaps many, to break consensus on an agreement or outcome document. Any misrepresentations of the Paris Agreement on climate change, for example, were red lines for a number of member states, and could have potentially prompted the United States to break consensus.

Yet such issues are rarely the concern of mayors, so what why did these take up so much time in an urban-focused debate? It is true that very few of the red lines identified by member-state negotiators pertained to traditionally urban issues. Instead, they were often matters of geopolitics and the business of international relations, including sanctions and internationally recognized rights. At its worst, this could be interpreted to mean that negotiators prioritized geopolitical issues over urban ones — but that would be to draw, as many urbanists now recognize, a false dichotomy between the local and the global.

The issue of migrants in the New Urban Agenda provides a useful example. The Syrian refugee crisis has brought a regional and geopolitical issue to bear on the social fabric and budgets of cities. As such, the question of guaranteed access to services for migrants “regardless of their migration status” was not simply an abstract question of rights but also a pressing, crisis-driven issue that proved fraught because of the convergence of the global and the local.

Moving forward, “red line” issues increasingly will be issues playing out in cities around the world. Urbanists and civil-society advocates could strengthen their voices in multilateral settings if they understand the geopolitical dimensions of the challenges they face in their cities every day.

Learn your modalities

Diplomacy and urbanism are sexy — in concept. In practice, they are crafts of discipline, duration, detail and charisma.

In Quito, I saw a number of riveting presentations on subjects ranging from urban compaction in London and Berlin to the networking of South African cities. Among the most important offered by U. S. officials, in my opinion, was a presentation to civil-society members from U. S. State Department experts on modality negotiations — hardly riveting stuff, to be sure, and less conducive to flashy slides, but important all the same in building bridges and ensuring the presence of experts and advocates.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m more excited to learn about multi-modal than about modalities, about ride-sharing than red lines. But if local issues are to have their hearing at the United Nations, we all have to develop a familiarity with both discourses, and ensure the ongoing connection of experts and practitioners from both disciplines.

Roosevelt Conference

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in New Diplomatic History Announcements · Comments ( 0 )

From Giles Scott-Smith:

PURSUING THE ROOSEVELTIAN CENTURY: INVESTIGATING A HISTORICAL FRAME
Roosevelt Institute for American Studies
Middelburg, The Netherlands
30 November – 1 December 2017

SPECIAL GUESTS:
Frank Costigliola (University of Connecticut)
Michael Cullinane (Northumbria University)
Mario Del Pero (SciencesPo)
Sylvia Ellis (University of Roehampton)
Petra Goedde (Temple University)
Justin Hart (Texas Tech University)
Lisa McGirr (Harvard University)
Kiran Patel (University of Maastricht)

CALL FOR PAPERS
Theodore, Eleanor, and Franklin Roosevelt are three of the most inspiring and dynamic political leaders in 20th century US history. Theodore and Franklin both redefined the presidency and political leadership, each in their unique way. Eleanor, the first modern First Lady, as a widow became a prominent media personality and advocate of political causes such as human rights and the anti-nuclear movement. Each of the three Roosevelts had a specific impact, influence, and legacy, shaping the foreign and domestic policy of the United States, and the relations between the US and the world, through the twentieth century and beyond.

The Rooseveltian Century is a new concept for contemporary history. The nearest equivalent is the idea of the Wilsonian Century, based on the worldview of President Woodrow Wilson and how he conceived of US power being used to shape world politics through WWI (‘making the world safe for democracy’). In contrast, the Rooseveltian Century examines the three Roosevelts as a ‘collective agent’ who, through both domestic and foreign policies, changed our understanding of the responsibilities of government and the global role of the United States. This mean that the Rooseveltian Century, as a historical frame, makes use of the three Roosevelts to view, critically consider and explore key themes in US history and international relations, without necessarily stating that the three acted in unison or that they expressed the same views or policies.

This conference builds on the experimental MOOC, ‘The Rooseveltian Century’, produced by Giles Scott-Smith and Dario Fazzi in 2016. The event, the first to be held at the newly-founded Roosevelt Institute for American Studies, has two main purposes. Firstly, it will uniquely combine research on each of the three principal Roosevelts within an overarching historical investigation into their influence and legacies. Secondly, it will frame the debate around the central themes, motifs and images that can be represented by the term Rooseveltian Century, identifying the longer-lasting meaning and importance of this frame in current-day (international) politics.

PROPOSALS
Paper proposals on the following topics are welcome:
1) Domestic and International Public Policy – which fields were initiated, shaped, or heavily influenced by the Roosevelts;
2) ‘Rooseveltian Transfer’ – how public policy initiatives were taken up by and shared between the Roosevelts and their supporters;
3) Who Influences Who – the roots of Rooseveltian idealism and realism;
4) Public Memory – how the Roosevelts both shaped their own public legacies and have been used by advocates (and adversaries) to represent distinct identities and causes in the public realm;
5) Partisan Politics – how the Roosevelts influenced socio-political and party-based activism;
6) Style and Media – how the Roosevelts responded to and used a changing media environment for their personal and political purposes;
7) Institutions and Alliances – how did the Roosevelts transform US foreign relations and the US role in the world;
8) Principles and Values – how did the Roosevelts broaden conceptions and understanding of such ideals as democracy, freedom, and equality?

DEADLINES
Please send a 250-word proposal, together with a CV, to rooseveltiancentury@gmail.com.
The deadline for paper proposals is 31 March 2017.
Draft papers of 5000 words will be required no later than 1 November 2017, in time for circulation to all participants prior to the conference.
For all enquiries please contact Giles Scott-Smith at g.scott-smith@hum.leidenuniv.nl

CFP: Legal History and Diplomacy

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in New Diplomatic History Announcements · Comments ( 0 )

from Steffen Rimner:

CALL FOR PAPERS Training, Ideas and Practices. The Law of Nations in the Long Eighteenth Century (Paris, 18-19 May 2017); DEADLINE 20 FEBRUARY 2017

The purpose of this conference is to explore the roots of international law and the various concepts related to the “law of nations” by looking at the legal language of diplomats and foreign offices in Europe during the long eighteenth century. The conference also aims to render the variety and complexity of specific mechanisms through which the law of nations was applied for diplomatic use, to explore social and cultural aspects, and to investigate the practical questions that diplomats frequently faced (N. Drocourt & E. Schnakenbourg (eds.), Thémis en diplomatie, PURennes, 2016).

The relationship between diplomacy and the law of nations is at best ambiguous. On the one hand, the law of nations seems to be a hybrid product of philosophical concepts and a digest of diplomatic practice. Lawyers have difficulty resisting the temptation to write a purely academic or genealogical history of the law of nations. The frequent invocation of authors such as Vattel as an authority seems to support this (P. Haggenmacher & V. Chetail (eds.), Vattel’s International Law from a XXIst Century Perspective, Brill, 2011). On the other hand, interaction in negotiations involves a lot more than invoked legal principles. A thorough analysis of diplomatic practice often reveals implicit rules within diplomacy as a social field (P. Bourdieu, Sur l’Etat, Seuil, 2012). Legal arguments are a part of this microcosm, but geopolitical determinants and state interests can bend and bow the use of legal language.

One of the main issues of this conference will be whether law of nations theories influenced diplomatic practice and at the same time whether diplomatic practice altered traditional law of nations concepts. Through fruitful dialogue between young legal historians, historians of political thought and historians of politics from France, Germany and other parts of Europe, we would like to explore and investigate three different scenarios in which law of nations theories emerged both in the practice and the doctrine of diplomacy:

1) Training of diplomats

Was the law of nations the basis of diplomatic education? Did diplomats also receive specific, in-house, foreign affairs training? Was it only theoretical or also based on practice and experience? Was there already a form of professionalisation of diplomats, especially in view of later developments in the 19th century (L. Nuzzo & M. Vec (dir.), Constructing International Law – The Birth of a Discipline, V. Klostermann, 2012)? Finally, to what extent can we envisage a common European diplomatic culture?

2) Circulation of ideas and diplomatic networks

What was the legal and intellectual background of the various traités du droit des gens? To what extent were legal expertise (G. Braun, La connaissance du Saint-Empire en France du baroque aux Lumières (1643-1756), De Gruyter, 2010) or legal rhetorics pragmatic tools used in everyday politics? For whom did thinkers such as Abbé de Saint-Pierre (1658-1743) write their treatises? The sovereign? Legal advisers? Public opinion? If the law of nations formed a kind of a common European diplomatic culture, how did it spread throughout Europe? Can we identify the same use in various diplomatic flows of the time? How were diplomatic networks organised? Can we find examples of specific territories – such as the principalities of Walachia and Moldova, between the Ottoman Empire and the “European” powers – functioning as kinds of “diplomatic hubs”?

3) Transformation

Is the diplomatic habitus of the Vienna Congress a turning point? Where did the transition from the 18th to the 19th century take place, both in theory and in practice? How important was the impact of Enlightenment and French Revolutionary thought (M. Bélissa, Fraternité universelle et intérêt national, 1713-1795, Kimé, 1998)? How far can we find echoes in diplomatic culture and correspondence?

We kindly invite young scholars (up to 6 years after PhD) to present their new research within French-German and European perspectives. All applications must be sent by 20 February 2017 with a short CV (5 to 10 lines) and a proposal of 400 words to diplomacyconference2017@gmail.com. Results will be communicated by 15 March 2017. This conference has received the generous support of the CIERA (Centre interdisciplinaire d’études et de recherches sur l’Allemagne, www.ciera.fr) as a colloque junior and will take place on the 18th (afternoon) and 19th (morning) of May 2017.

Papers can be presented in English, French or German. A peer-reviewed publication of the proceedings is envisaged.

Organising Committee
Raphael Cahen (Orléans/VUB-FWO)
Frederik Dhondt (VUB/Antwerp/Ghent-FWO)
Elisabetta Fiocchi Malaspina

Scientific Committee
Jacques Bouineau (La Rochelle)
Paul De Hert (VUB)
Dirk Heirbaut (Ghent)
Christine Lebeau (Paris I)
Gabriella Silvestrini (Piemonte Orientale)
Matthias Schmoeckel (Bonn)
Antonio Trampus (Venezia)
Miloš Vec (Vienna)

New “Splendid Encounters” Call for Papers

Posted by Kenneth Weisbrode in New Diplomatic History Announcements · Comments ( 0 )

Splendid Encounters VI: Correspondence and Information Exchange in Diplomacy (1300-1750)

Nova University of Lisbon

28th — 30th September 2017

Splendid Encounters 6 is one of a series of international and interdisciplinary conferences which aim to bring together scholars from the broadest range of perspectives to consider diplomacy and diplomatic activities in the late medieval and early modern period. After successful meetings in Warsaw, Bath, Florence, Budapest and Prague, we wish to invite you to join us for another event, hosted by Nova University of Lisbon.

Collecting and transferring information is a major aim of diplomacy, and one not confined to diplomats strictly speaking. People of different ranks and functions were still connected to diplomatic activity — ambassadors, nuncios, chargés d’affaires, secretaries and agents, members of ambassadorial households, consuls and merchants, and even the aides employed as middlemen or translators.

Just as varied as the agents were the methods used to obtain access to the latest news and information useful to ruler or country. As diplomatic networks grew bigger and bigger in size and reach in this period, so did the need to find reliable sources of news and to develop ways to efficiently deliver them.

These are some of the issues that will be addressed at the upcoming conference, Splendid Encounters VI. The conference will focus on the role of news and information transmitting in diplomatic practices within and outside Europe between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries. In assessing the role of diplomats and networks in such exchanges, this edition of Splendid Encounters also breaks away from traditional chronological and geographical approaches.

Please email by 15 March 2017 to se6.lisbon@gmail.com your abstract for either 20‒minute individual papers or 90‒minute sessions (to comprise a panel, roundtable, project presentation, etc.). We especially encourage proposals dealing with:

Diplomatic correspondence: evolution, importance, cyphers, etc.
Diplomats and diplomacy as a subject of news
The languages, forms and performance of (written and oral) communication
East–West/North–South encounters
Channels of contact; Europe, Africa, Asia, America
Diplomatic communication across cultures and the culture(s) of diplomatic communication
Practices of information exchange in empire, states, regions
The personnel of news networks
Continuity and change in the long run: from ‘medieval’ to ‘early modern’

Applicants will be notified of acceptance by 15th April.
Contact Info:

Dr Anna Kalinowska: se6.lisbon@gmail.com

Dr Tiago Viúla de Faria: tiago.faria@fcsh.unl.pt
Contact Email:
se6.lisbon@gmail.com
URL:
http://www.premoderndiplomats.org/splendid-encounters-vi.html