6 November 2018
The Affective Glue of European Integration: The role of transnational political, religious, and economic networks and their shared emotional vocabulary in shaping European integration (1930-’57)
Utrecht University 8-9 April 2019
How have transnational networks shaped the start-up of European integration (1930-1957) and how did they develop and make use of a shared emotional vocabulary to articulate their ambitions, dreams, longings, and dreads in this respect?
While there have been numerous accounts of the early years of European integration emphasizing the importance of economic and (geo-)political interests, the emotional dimension in the history of European integration has often been overlooked.
Research on the role of emotions in international relations has shown that emotions both inform the perception of interests and ideas, and are actively used to mobilize or constrain support for certain political ideas. Moreover, emotions are important to understand the interactions among policy-making elites. For example, a shared emotive vocabulary facilitates political negotiations, and political ideas that are tied to dominant “emotion norms” (i.e. affective glue) can be expected to be more successful.
Since the early years of European integration were characterized by an initial rather “open” competition among alternative blueprints of a future European order, it is of critical importance to examine the way in which both backward-looking emotions based on experiences (such as trust and hate) and forward-looking emotions underpinning expectations (such as hope and fear), shaped both the substantive ideas of those blueprints as well as the interaction among policymaking elites.
Transnational networks, overlapping in political, economic and religious make-up, and in intra-European and trans-Atlantic geographical spheres, were the key fora that enabled competing ideas and emotions to be articulated, shaped, and developed. Hence, these transnational networks may tell us in what ways fear, hope and (dis)trust informed the European integration process. How were emotional beliefs tied to a specific religious vocabulary, such as reconciliation, solidarity, and responsibility, mobilized to gain support for particular blueprints of Europe?
In light of the accumulated attention for emotions and transnational networks among historians and international relations scholars, this workshop aims to bring together researchers working on the “affective glue” of European integration in its early years, from the 1930s until the launch of the European Economic Community (1957).
We welcome papers that address the following topics:
• The role of individual key actors in the articulation or political translation of blueprints and their transnational relations with other players in the field;
• The role and interaction of specific hubs and groups (political, economic, ecumenical) in shaping the start-up of European integration (circle of friends, group of civil servants, diplomats, entrepreneurs, etc.);
• The development of and contestation over central emotional beliefs concerning blueprints of Europe, both over time and at critical junctures (genealogy of ‘hope’, ‘solidarity’, ‘responsible society’, etc.);
• Theoretical approaches on the role of emotions and emotional beliefs in understanding the history of European integration.
As part of this workshop we will study the options for a special issue/edited volume. The workshop takes place at Utrecht University on 8 & 9 April 2019. Travel (within Europe) and accommodation will be provided for paper-givers.
• Deadline abstract (300-500 words) & short biography: 11 January 2019. Abstracts should be sent to Dr Trineke Palm at email@example.com. We will inform applicants by 31 January 2019.
• Deadline full paper (8.000-10.000 words): 29 March 2019.
23 July 2018
Exposing Secrets: The Past, Present and Future of U.S. National Security Whistleblowing and Government Secrecy
An Interdisciplinary Conference involving Scholars, Journalists, Whistleblowers, and Advocates
17-18 January 2019
New York University London Campus, 6 Bedford Square, Bloomsbury, London, UK
Keynote Speakers include
Ewan MacAskill: Pulitzer Prize-winning defence and intelligence correspondent for The Guardian
John Kiriakou: Former CIA-analyst and case officer who was prosecuted after exposing torture
Edward Snowden and National Security Agency mass surveillance; Reality Winner and Russian interference in U.S. elections; James Comey and Donald Trump’s obstruction of justice. National security whistleblowing continues to shape history and stir controversy in and beyond the U.S. Drawing on political, legal, journalistic and cultural perspectives, this international, public conference will explore among other topics:
● The contested definition of whistleblowing versus “leaking” and “unauthorized disclosure”
● The relationship between whistleblowers and journalists
● Whistleblowing and the evolution of information: “big data”
● The legality of whistleblowing and the challenges of advocacy
● Whistleblowers in popular culture
● State deterrence of whistleblowing: old and new mechanisms
● Whistleblowing as a transnational phenomenon
● Publishers: From traditional media to WikiLeaks
We welcome individual submissions, as well as proposed panels and roundtables. Please send a 500-word abstract and brief 1-2 page bio/cv to firstname.lastname@example.org by 15 September 2018.
Kaeten Mistry (University of East Anglia)
Hannah Gurman (New York University)
For more see: https://wp.nyu.edu/whistleblowing
12 June 2018
Call for Papers: Culture & International History VI: Visions of Humanity
6 – 8 May 2019 in Berlin
John F. Kennedy Institute, Freie Universität Berlin
The conference Culture and International History VI will take place from the 6th through the 8th of May, 2019 in Berlin. Siep Stuurman (Universiteit Utrecht), author of The Invention of Humanity: Equality and Cultural Difference in World History (Harvard UP, 2017), will deliver the keynote speech. The conference marks the 20th anniversary of the symposium cycle that began in 1999 and has since taken place in Wittenberg, Frankfurt, Cologne, and Berlin. Key themes and contributions have been published in Berghahn Books’ series Explorations in Culture and International History (Oxford, New York, since 2003).
“Visions of Humanity” seeks to address the growing interest in historical ideas, statements, policies and actions invoking transnational, international and global audiences in the name of common values, rights and concerns. These may be manifest in activism relating to human rights, policies invoking humanitarian action, cultural output imagining trans-border societies, ideas wedding technology and the human, international protest against mechanisms of marginalization, cross-cultural canon-building (“the humanities”) and attempts to define “humanity” in academic disciplines. International history is full of people and organizations invoking visions of humanity in an effort to create common notions of identity (“we”) based on international and global reference points. But who constituted “we”? What made “us” similar? Who was part of humanity, who wasn’t? What were the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion in humanity? And who defined and contested these criteria and decisions?
The symposium will focus on visions of humanity as they crystallize in the history of diplomatic and informal fora as well as in the context of specific debates. Specifically, the conference seeks to compare 20th century approaches in North American and transatlantic history to other regions and earlier periods. Possible topics include but are not limited to:
- The human rights diplomacy of indigenous people
- Arts, international relations and visions of humanity
- Humanity and the humanities in international exchange
- The concept of humanity in diplomatic and legal parlance
- Minority rights vs. universal rights in international history
- Cultural diplomacy in the name of human rights & humanitarian action
We invite students and scholars of International History, Modern History, Area Studies, Theater Studies, Cultural Studies, Musicology, Art History, Psychology, Social Science, Anthropology and related fields to submit proposals before July 8, 2018. Young scholars are particularly encouraged to apply. Proposals should include 1. a brief cover letter, 2. the title of the paper and an abstract of max. 500 words, 3. a one-page CV. All three should be submitted in one pdf file. Proposals for panels will also be considered (chair/commentator, three panelists). Pending approval, individual speakers may apply for funds covering the cost of travel and accommodation and should mention this in their application. Participants who have an interest in the topic and would like to attend the conference without delivering a paper are welcome and should contact Verena Specht.
Please submit proposals and questions to: email@example.com
9 January 2018
CFP: Bridging Divides: Third Conference of the New Diplomatic History Network
24-26 October 2018
Roosevelt Institute for American Studies
Naoko Shimazu (Yale-NUS College Singapore)
John Watkins (University of Minnesota)
The New Diplomatic History network focuses broadly on the historical study of diplomats, their methods, and their cultural, political and social milieux. New diplomatic history involves the study of individuals and groups who perform diplomatic roles (but who have so far often been ignored), and the use of perspectives and methodologies from across the social sciences to bring their significance into focus. The network reasserts diplomatic actors as important subjects of historical study while being open to innovations in the understanding of evolving international society.
In the context of globalization, diplomacy has become a complex field of activity involving a host of state and non-state actors in multiple levels and forms of global, regional, and local governance. While the nation-state continues to function as the cornerstone of international order, an increasingly crowded environment has forced adaptations and alterations to all levels of diplomatic practice. Diplomatic studies has duly followed these developments, broadening its scope of attention and theoretical approach in the process.
Yet is this expansion of the diplomatic field only confined to the recent era of globalization? Has diplomacy not always involved a range of actors and interests, even during the heyday of statist diplomacy in recent centuries? Was the state-led modern era unique in the long history of diplomatic practice? How have institutional frameworks altered the poise of diplomacy over time? What are the precedents for the condition of diplomacy in the early 21st century?
As the main meeting point for the New Diplomatic History network, this conference aims to bring together scholars working on diplomacy from different historical periods and from different disciplines across the social sciences and humanities. It intends to link the study of diplomacy across the early modern, modern and post-modern eras, and test the application of investigative concepts across space and time, inviting comparisons across both geographical regions and historical periods.
All proposals exploring the study of diplomacy from theoretical, emotional, sensory, artistic, spatial and temporal perspectives are welcome. Please send a draft title and 500-word (max.) synopsis to NewDH3@gmail.com
Deadline for proposals: 1 March 2018
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/
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)
Dr. Thomas Bürgisser
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 firstname.lastname@example.org cc email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org by 30th January 2018. We hope to offer bursaries for attendance for speakers and travel for postgraduate and ECR attendees.
10 October 2017
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:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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)?
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)
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)