Calls for Papers

20 November 2017

CFP: Global Diplomacy: A Post-Institutional Approach

Basel/Bern 30 August — 1 September 2018

This conference aims to contribute to the ongoing debate on the transformation of modern diplomacy from an instrument of arcane foreign policy to an intermediary between foreign policy and transnational and transboundary networks. As mentioned in recent research debates (e.g. Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy 2013), the merging of diplomacy, global governance, international relations and international law stands at the core of a paradigmatic shift which overcomes institutional limitations by specifying collaborative activities and multifunctional actors in international politics on a global scale. The conference addresses the theoretical and methodological challenges which result from the tensions between an institutional understanding of foreign relations as activities of a sovereign state and the obvious impact of informal activities shaping politics and public spheres as ‹civil diplomacy› not investigated so far. The conference has a strong interest in methodological debates, asking to what extent the history of institutions is useful for documenting the limits of normative orders and rules. Following this perspective, the Swiss case might offer a starting point for similar cases where global expertise oversteps formal limitations in international politics.

Panel I: Networking on Diplomatic and Consular Levels: Western strategies for Asia 1860s to 1945

(Semi-)colonial settings, concession areas and extraterritorial spaces allow studying the interferences between territory-based governance and the regional impact of various global actors on different regions and international societies. Blurring the apparent difference between East and West, Asia presents an interesting opportunity to investigate the dynamic development of multilayered spaces from the 1860s onwards. The main questions addressed are: How did formal colonial powers as well as states profiting from most-favored nation clauses organize their system of representation in different Asian areas? How and to what extent were non-state actors, e.g. merchants as honorary consuls, as well as professional state actors involved in these diplomatic processes? And to what extent did local intermediaries use, transform and profit from extraterritorial claims? Starting with (but overstepping) the Swiss case as an example for the inclusion of non-state actors and for network-based diplomacy in Asia, the panel aims at developing a sense of converging and diverging diplomatic structures, processes and strategies of different Western states.

Panel II: Entitlements, Practices and Governance on a Global Level

The second panel focuses on the variety of global diplomacy’s actors. The increasing range of thematic issues seems to be a huge challenge for foreign ministries and international organizations. The main questions are: Who is entitled to act on behalf of a state? What is the personal background, the training and education of diplomatic personnel around the globe or the staff working for international organizations? To what extent do foreign ministries guide and control diplomatic relations? And what is the impact of experts and non-state actors with view to the complexity of diplomacy?

Panel III: Neutrals and Neutral States as Global Actors – Motivations, Perceptions, and Economic Interests

Besides considering more actors in international politics, a post-institutional understanding of diplomacy challenges established norms and concepts. Acting as intermediaries in times of war, neutral states offer an opportunity to investigate multifunctional activities, including the question of profits and losses resulting from negotiations on behalf of warring states. In addition, the panel will focus on the interactions between neutrals, including tensions between different understandings of neutrality as an under-investigated perspective in research. As a third aspect, the debate addresses humanitarian interventions from non-state actors, which, in recent debates, are considered as important intermediaries in non-violent interventions. However, beyond the case of ICRC, their activities and practices are less known in historical research, especially when it comes to their activities in the Pacific War. As a forth perspective, the panel addresses the question of who is acting from a neutral position or one perceived as such. Including Jewish organizations active during World War II, the debate compares status and scope of action of neutral non-state actors with regard to enemy aliens and allies on a global scale.

Panel IV: Digital Humanities in the Study of Global Diplomacy

With a new understanding of diplomacy as a field connecting different actors across borders, historiography oversteps the limits of diplomatic source material. The panel will test methodological approaches which are suitable for actor-network analysis and database focused research. To what extent has the digital accessibility of diplomatic documents transformed methodologies and fields of interest in diplomatic history? With JACAR and Dodis as main tools, this panel will take databases into account that allow following diplomatic career patterns, the geographical extension of diplomatic representation and the close entanglement of global trade with diplomatic representation. Besides the presentation of newly developed digital tools with the Asia Directories database among others, the panel will on one hand address the methodological challenges of making available diplomatic connections on a global scale. On the other hand, historians working within digital humanities projects will discuss the opportunities of hyperconvergent infrastructure and ways to share source material.

Panel V: Diplomacy, Transnational Law and Global Studies (interdisciplinary panel)

This concluding panel encompasses the methodological and theoretical framing of new actors in international relations and their problem-solving capacity. With a special focus on refugees and stateless persons, it sheds light on the merging of diplomacy, global governance, international relations and international law. The handling of these two groups of actors shows the limits of traditional foreign and international relations and in doing so, paves the way for an interdisciplinary debate on global governance.

The conference aims to bring together historians as well as researchers from the social sciences and related disciplines with an interest in the history of diplomacy, transnational law and global governance. A common goal is to challenge the former Eurocentric and state-focused diplomatic history in favor of a global history of diplomacy which takes into account border-crossing entanglements and transnational networks.

We invite PhD students, postdocs and senior academics to apply and want to encourage women researchers to send their proposals in order to reach a gender-balanced representation at the conference. Please send your proposal for a paper including information about the applicant (max. 3’000 characters, preferred file format: PDF) to Thomas Bürgisser (thomas.bürgisser@dodis.ch) until January 15th, 2018. All proposals will undergo a peer review process. Notification of acceptance will be sent out by May 2018. For more information, see: https://swiss-diplo.ch/konferenz/

Scientific Committee

Prof. Dr. Madeleine Herren-Oesch (Instiute for European Global Studies University of Basel)
Prof. Dr. Toshiki Mogami (Waseda University, Tokyo)
Prof. Dr. Atsushi Shibasaki (Komazawa University, Tokyo)
Prof. Dr. Glenda Sluga (University of Sydney)
Dr. Sacha Zala (Diplomatic Documents of Switzerland / University of Bern)

Organizing Committee

Dr. Thomas Bürgisser
Cornelia Knab
Dominik Matter
Julian Wettengel

25 October 2017

CFP: New Public Diplomacy

The third issue of the Revista Chilena de Relaciones Internacionales will be completely dedicated to the New Public Diplomacy. Researchers from the areas of International Relations, International Studies, History, and Political Science are welcome to submit their original research articles, or reviews of academic texts, related to the proposed topic.

Since the rise of the New Public Diplomacy, in contraposition to the Traditional Public Diplomacy that sees directs relations only between states, academy has seen the emergence of a wider dimension in the international relations among states. This way, the incorporation of new actors in the world arena makes it unavoidable to ask about the course that the diplomatic technique has adopted, as well as the consequences of the new angles detected.

Academic literature available on the also called “Kinds of Diplomacy” are usually scarce in Spanish because most of the them have been analyzed and developed in Europe and North America. This issue seeks to expand the debate around very current topics such as business sport, digital, cultural, gastronomic, scientific, religious, ethnic, military, environmental, educational, humanitarian, citizen, celebrity, or sub-state diplomacies, among many others.

Research articles covering some of those topics, its roots, objectives, perspective, challenges, and opportunities will be accepted considering the new tendencies of the political communication, the different national interests, and the particular openness, transparency, and active participation that the citizens all over the world demand in all the governmental aspects, including Foreign Policy.

Abstracts’ submission date is inevitably due on December 10th, 2017; any document in a language other than Spanish, English, or Portuguese will not be considered. The complete article due date will be February 2nd, 2018, and the publication of the issue will be March 30th, 2018. Documents must be sent to contacto@rchri.cl cc merlandsen@ug.uchile.cl in format .doc, .docx or .pdf. For further information about the authors’ guidelines, please see https://rchri.cl/convocatoria/

Revista Chilena de Relaciones Internacionales ensures a process of peer review complying with the academic standards of blind review, without any discrimination regarding gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, or political ideology of the authors.

12 October 2017

CFP- Negotiating Networks: new research on networks in social and economic history

One day conference – 25th June 2018

Institute of Historical Research, University of London

Keynote: Sheryllynne Haggerty, University of Nottingham

This conference will bring together scholars working on networks in social and economic history, broadly defined, with a particular focus on those using Social Network Analysis (SNA) in their research. SNA has become increasingly popular as one of the key digital tools for historical research in recent years. We would like to encourage conversation and exchange of ideas between researchers who use this methodology.

We welcome proposals for papers from postgraduate, early career and established scholars working in this area. The aim of the conference is to bring together researchers dealing with the challenges and rewards of examining historical networks.  We therefore encourage papers dealing with the medieval, early modern or modern periods and any geographical location. Papers which take a methodological approach to historical SNA are also welcome.

Possible themes include, but are not limited to:

Economic networks: business, trade and material culture

Religious and cultural networks: networks of minorities and marginalised groups, confessional networks

Interactions between networks and other themes in socio-economic history e.g. migration, institutions

Methodological issues in historical SNA

Please send abstracts of 250 words for 20 minute papers to Esther Lewis and Charlie Berry at negotiatingnetworks@gmail.com by 30th January 2018. We hope to offer bursaries for attendance for speakers and travel for postgraduate and ECR attendees.

CFP: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and the Challenge of a New World Order

International Conference to be held in Paris, 5-8 June 2019

Under the aegis of the Institut historique allemand (IHA)/Deutsches Historisches Institut Paris (DHIP), LABEX EHNE, Commission d’histoire des relations internationales/Commission for the History of International Relations

The Peace Conference held in Paris in the aftermath of the Great War remains among the most important yet also most controversial events in modern history.  Although it is often considered to have made a second global war all but inevitable, it has also been praised for providing the basis for an enduring peace that was squandered recklessly by poor international leadership during the 1930s.

A major international conference will take place in Paris in June 2019 to commemorate the centenary of the 1919 Conference from a global perspective. The purpose of this event is to re-examine the history of the Peace Conference through a thematic focus on the different approaches to order in world politics in the aftermath of the First World War. A remarkably wide range of actors in Paris – from political leaders, soldiers and diplomats to colonial nationalist envoys and trade unionists, economists, women’s associations and ordinary citizens – produced a wide array of proposals for a future international and, indeed, global order. These proposals were often based on vastly different understandings of world politics. They went beyond the articulation of specific national security interests to make claims about the construction and maintenance of peace and the need for new norms and new institutions to achieve this aim. To what extent the treaties and their subsequent implementation represented a coherent order remains a question of debate.

By ‘order’, we mean in the first instance, the articulation and development of systematic ideas, institutions and practices aimed at promoting a durable peace that would deliver security, economic recovery and social justice. This distinguishes thinking about ‘order’ from discussions of ‘national interests’ – though there was of course overlap between these two modes of thinking about future international relations. Second, we are interested in ‘order’ as an analytical concept in its own right. This encourages historians to identify, as Paul Schroeder has urged, the shared rules, assumptions, and understandings about a particular set of political relations and to show how specific decisions reflect the norms of the order.

Emphasising the preoccupation of peace-makers with the problem of world order broadens the scope of the familiar questions and debates that have dominated the literature on the Peace Conference.  It also opens the way for posing new questions and for thinking about more familiar questions in new ways. We therefore invite papers addressing the following questions:

  1. What were the different conceptions of political, economic and social order advocated at the Paris Conference? What was the relationship between different ideas about the international order, such as a system based on national self-determination and one based on the rule of law? Were there broad over-arching conceptions of an international order, such as liberal or socialist internationalism, that could accommodate more narrowly focused ideas such as free trade or labour rights? How did people conceive of the relationships between self-interest and order? What role did power politics play in conceptions of international order? Were the absentees from Paris – notably the Germans and the Bolsheviks – able to shape the debate about the emerging international order?
  2. What were the origins of these different ideas about order? Why was there such an interest in the systematic development of particular orders both during and after the war? Who produced ideas about order, and why? What was in particular the role of NGOs and ordinary citizens? Can an approach based on different ‘generations’ of international actors illuminate this problem in new ways? Was the idea of ‘order’ a reaction to international politics before and during the war? Or did it represent a continuity with certain strands of thinking about international politics that pre-dated the outbreak of war in 1914? What was the relationship between the articulation of war aims and ideas about post-war order?
  3. To what extent did contending visions of an international order shape the peace treaties? Did the organization and proceedings of the Conference reflect tensions between the national, the regional and the global? What was the role of regional orders in shaping broader conceptions of a new world order? To what extent did discourses concerning new regional orders reflect fundamental changes in the conceptualization of world politics? To what extent were they a repackaging of the more familiar themes of empire or spheres of influence?
  4. How were the peace treaties legitimated to domestic and international audiences? Were subsequent negotiations on the implementation and revision of the peace treaties shaped by the profound debates about international politics that took place before and during the Peace Conference? Were conceptions of international order systematically subordinated to concerns about national security? Conversely, to what extent can it be argued that the Paris Peace Conference produced or contributed to a disorder in European politics that led ultimately to the Second World War?
  5. What was the impact of the Paris Peace Conference on views of world order based on gender, class and race? How did women, workers and colonial subjects respond to the peace conference and what was its impact on the emergence of alternative voices in international affairs? Whose voices were heard at Paris in 1919 and whose remained silent or were silenced?
  6. What political and diplomatic practices were implied in these various conceptions of international order?  To what extent did these practices shape the course of international relations after 1919?  Did the intellectual debate and political experience of the Paris Peace Conference play a role in shaping a future generation of leaders (such as Jean Monnet and John Foster Dulles)?

Paper proposals

The Conference organizers aim to ensure the conference provides a global perspective on the Paris Peace Conference. We are therefore particularly keen to receive proposals from scholars working on topics pertaining to the non-western world. The organisers anticipate securing limited financial resources to support delegates’ participation in the conference.

The conference languages will be English and French

Regardless of language, all proposals will receive serious consideration.

 

The deadline for paper proposals is:  1 June 2018

Please send your proposal (abstract in English or French of no more than 500 words) and short CV to Axel Dröber:  ADroeber@dhi-paris.fr.

Conference Steering Group:

Laurence Badel (Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Eckart Conze (Philipps-Universität Marburg)

Jean-Michel Guieu (Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Norman Ingram (Concordia University)

Peter Jackson (University of Glasgow)

Stefan Martens (Deutsches Historisches Institut, Paris)

Matthias Schulz (Université de Genève)

William Mulligan (University College Dublin)

 

Comité scientifique:

Andrew Barros (Université du Québec à Montréal)

Carl Bouchard (Université de Montréal)

Eric Bussière (LABEX EHNE)

Michael Clinton (Gwynedd Mercy University)

Olivier Compagnon (Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle)

Beatrice de Graaf (Utrecht)

Vincent Dujardin (Université catholique de Louvain)

Olivier Forcade (Université de Paris -Sorbonne)

Erik Goldstein (University of Boston)

Talbot Imlay (Université Laval)

Stanislas Jeannesson (Université de Nantes)

John Keiger (University of Cambridge)

William Keylor  (University of Boston)

Antoine Marès (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Holger Nehring (University of Stirling)

Jennifer Siegel (The Ohio State University)

Glenda Sluga (University of Sydney)

Georges-Henri Soutou (Institut de France)

Christian Tams (University of Glasgow)

Hugues Tertrais (Commission of History of international relations-ICHS)  

Martin Thomas (University of Exeter)

Antonio Varsori  (University of Padua)

Hirotaka Watanabe (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)

Xu Guoqi  (University of Hong Kong)