Refine
Document Type
- Report (9)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (10)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (10)
Keywords
- ASPA (1)
- BISA (1)
- Conference (1)
- EISA (1)
- GSCIS (1)
- Global South (1)
- ISA (1)
- International Law (1)
- International Relations (1)
- International Studies (1)
On 11 February, the World Fought back against Mass Surveillance. See those capital letters? They denote Things that Matter – somehow. We don’t necessarily know who ‘We’ are, what the ‘World’ is, nor whether the Mass Surveillance We’re against is the big and sexy kind run by acronymized (foreign) government agencies that We all recently learned about through Edward Snowden or the everyday kind conducted by means of cookies, computer profiles and GPS data we all send to whomever is watching in the course of a normal day’s activities, like checking Facebook, leaving the house to buy some bread or sending family pictures over the holidays via email. But ‘We’ ‘Fought’ ‘Them’, or maybe ‘It’.
Out of area or out of business?: the bourgeois parochialism of international studies conferences
(2014)
Most face-to-face interaction with other IR types happens at conferences, and it’s easy to break conferences down by profile and inclusiveness. The ISA annual conference is supposed to rate pretty highly on both, and almost everyone has been a few times by the end of their post-grad careers. Then there are the conferences that are high profile but less inclusive. APSA, BISA, the ISA regional conferences, and the newly constituted EISA are fairly high profile in that most IR professionals have heard of them, but they’re less inclusive in that few of us would cross broad bodies of water and long customs lines to participate...
International society consists of states and the rules and institutions they share. Although international society has become a mundane feature of the world and the principal research focus of International Relations, it has become meaningless. More specifically, the technical rules that determine what states are and how they relate to other features of the world are units of semantic meaning, but their rampant, unprincipled proliferation has corroded their capacity to contain existential meaning. This deterioration is to be deplored because it alienates subjects from each other, it is totalising and excludes alternatives, and it is theoretically irreversible. To connect the two kinds of meaning, the first step is to reconceptualise international society as consisting strictly of constitutive rules whose meaning depends on the context they jointly compose, which implies that these rules can in turn be represented as signs in a semiotic structure. In order to evaluate the capacity of the signs to contain existential meaning, the next step is to adapt Baudrillard’s hierarchical typology of semiotic systems, ranging from the most meaningful systems based on symbolic exchange value to the vapid terminus of hyperreality based on sign value, in which semantic meaning is without value and existential meaning is impossible. The narrative traces the history of the signs of international law from the premodern period, when Christendom was understood as an approximation of the divine kingdom and a vehicle for salvation, to the present postmodern period, in which hundreds of articles of international maritime law make the decision to go to war over isolated rocks intelligible – even rational – and international trade law catalogues potato products to six digits. Three cases in particular exemplify this devolution in international law: the laws determining the territorial sea, the most-favoured national principle of international trade law, and nationality as a normative basis for statehood.
Trust me, I’m an expert
(2014)
Given such phenomena as the dramatic leaks of the last decade, the vibrantand inflammatory discourse about ‘cyberwar’ and the conflation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement with the ‘backbone of the European economy’, regulation of what the Internet is supposed to be and what people are allowed to do in it is always and everywhere about security, whether users like it or not. And that regulation comes from people, special people we like to think of as experts.