Research


HYBRID PRACTICES OF DIPLOMACY AND WARFARE (DIPLOWAR)


Summary: Hybrid Practices of Diplomacy and Warfare (project homepage) is a transdisciplinary research project that will shed light on the changing relationship between diplomacy and warfare. An important analytical move of the project is to understand diplomacy and warfare not primarily as political or legal relations between states, but as structuring principles of peaceful and violent political practices. This reconceptualization makes it possible to bring together insights from research on the "new diplomacy" and research on the "new wars", two literatures that have not yet been systematically linked to each other. Through two explorative studies of foreign policy decision-making processes in the United States and (West) Germany from 1945 to the present, the project will trace how practices of diplomacy and warfare, which were previously clearly separated, have increasingly formed hybrid constellations. DIPLOWAR seeks to both sharpen our analytical vocabulary and deepen our empirical understanding of these processes of hybridization to help scholars, practitioners, and the public to better grasp the new realities of war and peace. The first phase of the project will be hosted by the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University in the City of New York, the second by the Cluster of Excellence "The Formation of Normative Orders" at Goethe University Frankfurt.

Funding: European Comission, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Global Fellowship (2018-2020) 
.

Project publications

Wille, Tobias. 2021. “Politik und ihre Grenzen in Clausewitz' Denken über den Krieg.” German Political Science Quarterly/ Politische Vierteljahresschrift 62 (1): 45-67. Abstract
wille_politik_clausewitz_oa.pdf
Carl von Clausewitz' Denken über den Krieg steht paradigmatisch für ein instrumentelles Verständnis von Gewalt in der Politik. Gewalt ist für Clausewitz ein Mittel, das im Krieg verwendet wird, um politische Zwecke zu erreichen. Seit dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts ist jedoch die Ansicht weit verbreitet, dass Clausewitz' Überlegungen keine Gültigkeit mehr besitzen. Gegenwärtige Formen des Krieges seien zwar gewaltsam, aber nicht mehr politisch, weil sie nicht allein von Staaten oder aus einer eng verstandenen Staatsräson heraus geführt werden. Der Einwand missversteht jedoch Clausewitz' Begriff der Politik. Dieser soll im vorliegenden Aufsatz systematisch rekonstruiert werden. Dem zu entwickelnden Interpretationsvorschlag zufolge bezeichnet "Politik" in Clausewitz' theoretischem System zunächst einmal nur ganz allgemein eine Interaktion von zwei oder mehr Akteuren, die jeweils ihren Willen realisieren wollen, deren Willen sich jedoch nicht vollständig vereinen lassen. Krieg ist für Clausewitz dann solche Politik, die mit gewaltsamen Mitteln betrieben wird. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird argumentiert, dass Clausewitz" Theorie des Krieges einen fruchtbaren Analyserahmen bietet, mit dem sich die Transformationen der politischen Gewalt von den Kabinettskriegen des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zu den "neuen Kriegen" unserer Zeit nachvollziehen lassen.
Schindler, Sebastian, and Tobias Wille. 2019. “How can we criticize international practices?” International Studies Quarterly 63 (4): 1014-1024. Abstract
schindler_wille_criticize_practices_oa.pdf

In this article, we elaborate two distinct ways of criticizing international practices: social critique and pragmatic critique. Our argument is that these two forms of critique are systematically opposed to each other: They are based on opposing epistemic premises, they are motivated by opposing political concerns, and they pursue opposing visions of social progress. Scholars of International Relations (IR) who want to work with the conceptual tools of practice theory are thus confronted with a consequential choice. Understanding the alternatives can help them to be more self-reflexive in their research practices and intervene more forcefully in contemporary political debates. We illustrate these advantages through a discussion of the scholarly debate on the practices of multilateral diplomacy through which the United Nations Security Council authorized a military intervention in Libya in 2011.


RETHINKING AGENCY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS


With Dr. Benjamin Braun (MPI Cologne) & Dr. Sebastian Schindler (Goethe University Frankfurt)

Summary: The academic discipline of International Relations (IR) has long pondered the questions of what it means to act in international politics and who can do so. However, the particular way in which IR has approached the problem of agency has masked important dynamics in international politics. By approaching the question of agency as an analytical problem that needs to be resolved before engaging with empirical material, IR has failed to see that who can act is often uncertain and contested. This research project examines the emergence of international agency. Rather than analyzing what given agents do, the contributions study how practices, performances, and networks create and transform agency. As the contributions highlight, who can act is often a controversial political question that is closely related to questions of moral responsibility, legal obligation, and political representation. Studying agency this way brings into view an aspect of many conflicts that is too often ignored, namely that they are about the identity and agency of those who are engaged in them.

Funding: Fritz Thyssen Foundation, Workshop Grant (2014; application with Prof. Dr. Christopher Daase)
.

Project publications

Braun, Benjamin, Sebastian Schindler, and Tobias Wille. 2019. “Rethinking agency in International Relations: Performativity, performances, and actor-networks.” Journal of International Relations and Development 22 (4): 787-807. Abstract
braun_et_al_rethinking_agency_in_ir_pp.pdf

The academic discipline of International Relations (IR) has long pondered the questions of what it means to act in international politics and who can do so. However, the particular way in which IR has approached the problem of agency has somewhat masked important dynamics in international politics. By approaching the question of agency as an analytical problem that needs to be resolved before engaging with empirical material, IR has failed to see that who can act is often uncertain and contested. This special issue examines the emergence of international agency as an empirical phenomenon. Rather than analysing what given agents do, the contributions study how practices, performances and networks create and transform agency. In this introductory article, we prepare the ground for this distinct approach to studying international politics. We review how IR has addressed the problem of agency, and we discuss three social–theoretical traditions that see agency as an emergent phenomenon: poststructuralism, performance studies and actor-network theory. Finally, we highlight four insights that emerge from the contributions and challenge how IR has traditionally imagined agency.

Wille, Tobias. 2019. “Representation and agency in diplomacy: How Kosovo came to agree to the Rambouillet accords.” Journal of International Relations and Development 22 (4): 808-831. Abstract
wille_representation_and_agency_pp.pdf

This article traces how Kosovo came to agree to the Rambouillet accords, with the aim of exploring the nexus between diplomatic representation and international agency. It demonstrates that, in the world of diplomacy, entities like 'Kosovo' can act only when they are carefully staged. Thus far, however, the academic discipline of International Relations (IR) has largely failed to acknowledge the role of diplomacy in the constitution of agency. Therefore, to clarify what is at stake in the theoretical debate, I begin with a systematic discussion of how IR has conceived of diplomatic representation. Taking cue from Bruno Latour's and Lisa Disch's writings on political representation, I then suggest an alternative understanding of diplomacy that takes its performative character seriously. Equipped with this conceptual toolkit, I subsequently turn to the story of Kosovo's representation at the Rambouillet conference held in 1999. Tracing how Kosovo Albanians and their international supporters staged Kosovo's diplomatic performance, and how the Yugoslav/Serbian delegation tried to undermine it, I demonstrate that diplomatic representation can indeed generate agency. I also identify three factors that influence whether or not a diplomatic performance succeeds in making those who are represented act: recognition by other international actors, practical competence, and the alignment of the represented.



KOSOVO'S WAY TO DIPLOMACY: AN INQUIRY INTO HOW DIPLOMACY FORMS INTERNATIONAL ACTORS


Summary: In my PhD thesis, I traced how Kosovo's political elites in a long and often laborious process since the early 1990s have learned how to move competently in the world of diplomacy. This detailed engagement with the history of Kosovo's diplomacy had two goals. First, Kosovo is an important point of reference in many academic debates, including those on civil wars, humanitarian interventions, state-building, and non-recognized and contested states. The contributions to these debates, however, only use parts of the history of Kosovo’s diplomacy as case studies; what has been missing so far is a comprehensive account of the socialization of Kosovo's political elites into diplomacy and international politics since the end of the Cold War. Second, the purpose of my examination of the history of Kosovo's diplomacy was to deepen our theoretical understanding of what diplomacy is and what it does. Following an abductive research logic, I used the history of Kosovo's diplomats to explore how diplomacy appears from the perspective of those involved and what it can do for them. In other words, I examined the problems that diplomacy posed to the Kosovars and the solutions it offered them to gain general insights into the nature of diplomacy. Through my study, I was able to show that diplomacy is not just an instrument with which international actors communicate, symbolize their status, or negotiate agreements. Rather, diplomacy gives entities the ability to act in international politics, making them international actors in the first place.

Funding: German National Academic Foundation (Studienstiftung des dt. Volkes), PhD Fellowship (2011-2014); Fazit Foundation, PhD Fellowship (2014-2015)
.

Project publications

Wille, Tobias. 2019. “Representation and agency in diplomacy: How Kosovo came to agree to the Rambouillet accords.” Journal of International Relations and Development 22 (4): 808-831. Abstract
wille_representation_and_agency_pp.pdf

This article traces how Kosovo came to agree to the Rambouillet accords, with the aim of exploring the nexus between diplomatic representation and international agency. It demonstrates that, in the world of diplomacy, entities like 'Kosovo' can act only when they are carefully staged. Thus far, however, the academic discipline of International Relations (IR) has largely failed to acknowledge the role of diplomacy in the constitution of agency. Therefore, to clarify what is at stake in the theoretical debate, I begin with a systematic discussion of how IR has conceived of diplomatic representation. Taking cue from Bruno Latour's and Lisa Disch's writings on political representation, I then suggest an alternative understanding of diplomacy that takes its performative character seriously. Equipped with this conceptual toolkit, I subsequently turn to the story of Kosovo's representation at the Rambouillet conference held in 1999. Tracing how Kosovo Albanians and their international supporters staged Kosovo's diplomatic performance, and how the Yugoslav/Serbian delegation tried to undermine it, I demonstrate that diplomatic representation can indeed generate agency. I also identify three factors that influence whether or not a diplomatic performance succeeds in making those who are represented act: recognition by other international actors, practical competence, and the alignment of the represented.