Felix Berenskoetter

This book features 17 core concepts explored in depth by some of the foremost authorities in the field of International Relations. It covers (i) the multiple meanings of a concept, where these meanings come from, and how they are employed theoretically and practically; (ii) the consequences of using concepts to frame the world in one way or another; and (iii) methods of concept analysis.

Endorsements:

"In the beginning was the word, the word took on many meanings and became a concept. The concept went on to create the social world. Follow it all here."

Iver B. Neumann

"This fascinating and insightful edited volume has an incredibly useful yet simple premise:  unpack seminal concepts in the study of world politics in order to understand their history, meaning and usage. Frequently evoked yet poorly understood, concepts such sovereignty, power, democracy, globalization and many others are carefully unpacked by some of the best theorists in the field today.  This volume is an invaluable resource for anyone who has puzzled over the meaning of foundational international relations concepts, asked why these ideas are so important, and questioned what role these concepts play in both the study and practice of world affairs."

Jennifer Sterling-Folker, University of Connecticut

"It should come as news to no one that basic concepts in international studies such as 'intervention' or 'sovereignty' are contested bundles of meaning that change over time. This volume goes well beyond that observation, using it as a starting-point for a set of richly detailed investigations into the plurality of meanings composing those concepts both inside and outside of the world of academic scholarship. Such a mapping of the basic 'mental furniture' of international affairs provides an excellent point of departure for discussions about the ongoing production and reproduction of the world we inhabit. Excellent for students of international affairs at all levels, including those advanced students who sometimes style themselves 'professionals'."

Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, American University

Birthdays remind us of the inaugural moment of entering the world and of growing up/older. They are moments of recognition of the Self as a temporal being and seem important events in our calendar year worthy of celebration. This short essays offers some reflections with and against Heidegger about the birthday as an existential happening.

This paper starts from the observation that, at a time when the popularity of grand theory is in decline among IR scholars, they do not agree on what they mean by theory. In fact, the celebration of theoretical pluralism is accompanied by the relative absence of a serious conversation about what 'theory' is or should be. Taking the view that we need such a conversation, this puts forward the notion of 'deep theorizing'. Countering the shallow theorizing of modern scholarship that conflates theory with scientific method, and the postmodern view that abstract narratives must be deconstructed and rejected, it offers a reading of the parameters along which substantial theorizing proceeds. Specifically, it suggests that 'deep theorizing' is the conceptual effort of explaining (inter)action by developing a reading of drives/basic motivations and the ontology of its carrier through an account of the human condition, that is, a particular account of how the subject (the political actor) is positioned in social space and time. The paper illustrates this meta-theoretical angle in a discussion of realist, liberal and postcolonial schools of thought.

This article takes as its point of departure Stefano Guzzini's recent call for 'ontological theorizing' as a reflexive engagement with central concepts. In an attempt to advance this agenda, the article presents an accessible overview of different approaches to concept analysis to stake out the field for a discussion of what ontological theorising might entail. It advances the notion of concepts as 'basic' and lays out the parameters through which they obtain meaning, followed by a discussion of three approaches, which tackle the multifaceted nature of basic concepts within and across different contexts. These approaches are labelled 'historical', 'scientific' and 'political(critical)' and presented through the work of Reinhart Koselleck, Giovanni Sartori and Michel Foucault, respectively. The article notes that concept analysis, as discussed here, stands in tension with modern forms of theory building yet is a creative source for theorising that accepts the unstable, political and context-bound nature of ontology.

An increasing number of constructivist scholars of International Relations use the concept of ontological security to explain behaviour in international relations. Adopted from Anthony Giddens (1984, 1991), they understand ontological security as the feeling of having a 'stable sense of Self', which is considered a basic human need. This paper takes a closer look at two concepts central to the ontological security framework that remain subdued in the IR literature, agency and anxiety. It proceeds in five steps. Drawing on existential phenomenology, the paper starts by directing attention to the temporal sources of anxiety and its status as a foundational sentiment, or mood. It then outlines what I call the ‘anxiety paradox’, followed by a brief review of prominent strategies of controlling anxiety. The fourth step discusses three types of agency underpinning the anxiety paradox. The fifth part outlines two potential avenues for integrating a reading of radical agency into the ontological security framework.

This article is concerned with the ontology of political community, specifically the nation-state, as a bounded entity in time and space. Juxtaposed against the reading of it as an autonomous (realism) or permeated (liberalism) unit, or as constituted through Othering (social constructivism), the article conceptualizes the nation-state as a bounded community constituted by a biographical narrative which gives meaning to its collective spatio-temporal situatedness. Taking a phenomenological approach, the article offers a systematic discussion of the parameters of such a narrative. It highlights the relevance of an experienced space, giving meaning to the past, and an envisioned space, giving meaning to the future, delineated through horizons of experience and of possibility, respectively. In this reading, politics is found in the creative and contested attempts to link these dimensions to a coherent narrative on both the domestic and international level.

This article argues that constructivists committed to reflexivity should be students of the future. It notes that both conventional and critical approaches do not sufficiently engage with the problem of future uncertainty in the process of identity formation and neglect its behavioural implications. Against this backdrop, the article regrounds constructivism in a temporal ontology and the argument that humans, in the face of contingency, seek to establish visions of a meaningful future. It discusses how visions, as utopias and/or dystopias, define possibilities of being and thereby provide actors with a sense of direction, and it differentiates between “robust” and “creative” visions to highlight two ways in which such possibilities are manifested. In doing so, the article encourages constructivists to become more attentive in identifying the visions which enable and bind creative agents in the process of realization.

This article explores the nature of the contemporary ‘special relationship’ between Germany and Israel. Having emerged out of the ashes of the Second World War and the Holocaust, political relations between these two states are widely seen as having successfully undergone a process of reconciliation. A key feature is German support for Israel, usually understood as a constant attempt to pay off a historical debt in exchange for rehabilitation and recognition of Germany as a ‘good state’. The article probes another interpretation by asking whether contemporary German-Israeli relations have reached the stage of friendship, a relationship structured by care rather than guilt. To this end, it presents an original conceptual framework of interstate friendship as a bond of shared memories and visions that enable a common orientation towards the past and the future both sides are committed to invest in. Applied to an interpretive analysis of the 'sharedness' of the memory of the Holocaust and the vision of a secure Israel, the paper finds strong evidence for the former yet significant gaps in the latter, concluding that relations between the states of Germany and Israel still fall short of friendship.

This article addresses the question why Germany invested in what became the European Union's Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), a potential competitor to NATO. In addition to highlighting Germany's role in the development of ESDP, the paper offers a social constructivist explanation for this investment based on the concepts of friendship, estrangement, and emancipation. It develops the argument that (1) states gain ontological security by investing in international institutions to negotiate and pursue ideas of order with friends; (2) deep and enduring dissonance between friends signifies a process of estrangement and poses a threat to ontological security; and (3) if states cannot restore resonance with the old friend-institution configuration, they choose a strategy of emancipation by investing in an alternative. Applied to an analysis of German strategic adjustments between 1990 and 2009 in the context of U.S.-led interventions in Iraq, the Balkans, and Afghanistan, the article suggests that Germany invested in ESDP to offset enduring dissonance with the United States and NATO about appropriate mandate, missions, and means, with France and ESDP emerging as a suitable alternative. With this, the article offers valuable insights into the parameters guiding German security policy and the structure of transatlantic relations and also provides a theoretical alternative to the realist balancing proposition.

Engaging two recent articles published in Contemporary Security Policy, this intervention affirms that the emergence of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) cannot be meaningfully described as European balancing vis-a`-vis the United States. It is equally sceptical about attempts to explain it as a bandwagoning move. Instead, it suggests that European investment in CSDP can be most plausibly explained with a constructivist framework that takes into account strategic culture and identity-related concerns. From this perspective, CSDP is best understood as a vehicle for emancipating Europeans from American tutelage.

This advanced module explores how an identity perspective can be useful for understanding world politics. It unpacks the concept of identity and its sources – parameters forming conceptions of Self and Other – and discusses how they shape the ontology of various actors, their behaviour and relationships. Building on the tradition of constructivist scholarship in International Relations (IR), this course has two main aims: First, to conceptually explore the different ways identities form and how this process affects socio-political life, drawing on insights from philosophy, social theory and psychology. This will introduce students to various parameters and processes of identity politics like bordering, bonding, discrimination and socialisation. Second, to discuss how these processes play out in phenomena of conflict/violence and cooperation/integration in various sites of international relations, foreign policy and nationalism. Throughout, students will be asked to also consider the ethical dimension of identity politics.