Search results

This paper examines the Indian government's Unique Identification (UID) program, the largest digital biometric program in history. UID is intended to provide a new model of security based on a complex interrelation between welfare, identity and rights. The program resembles the kind of liberal governmentality and biopolitical imperative described by Foucault, yet it is also inseparable from the specific socio-historic conditions in India that constitute the strategic need for UID. This paper contributes to an ongoing debate as to the suitability of Foucault's thought for international studies by suggesting a productive line of inquiry: tracing the variance between the rationality of government programs and the technologies of enactment. The paper utilizes three methodological 'prescriptives' from Foucault's concept of the dispositif, which are applied to the case study. This paper argues that the concrete application of the program challenges the perception that biometric technologies can guarantee the identity and inclusion of the political subject when applied across different geographies with different socio-historical conditions. The specific discursive and non-discursive conditions present in the application of UID lead to unexpected political strategies. While India's UID program seeks to augment the population with the biometric identity necessary for consumer citizenship, frugal government and expanded surveillance, those whose bodies are not 'readable' by the biometric technology are excluded. It is exactly those subjects that the program aims to help that are most likely to be excluded. Adapted from the source document.

Public inquiries into matters of conflict and security are vitally important yet undertheorised. This article explores the potential of inquiries for the democratic scrutiny of foreign policy, military doctrine, and grand strategy. In recent decades, there have been numerous inquiries into contentious foreign and security policy incidents in Britain, a trend reflected elsewhere in global politics. Inquiries can unveil facts, identify lessons, and rebuild trust. But critics claim that inquiries overlook systemic flaws. Our analysis transcends the usual arguments for or against public inquiries by explaining how inquiries produce knowledge and how this could be improved. We argue that inquiries necessarily involve the following three distinct processes: scandalisation, archivisation, and epistemology. We suggest how future inquiries could overcome extant limitations through a broader scope, diversification of evidence, and methodological pluralism. Such inquiries can play an improved role in promoting reflection and dialogue about a just international order and Britain's role within it.

AbstractKeir Starmer's moniker of 'Mr Rules' captures his deep investment in a rules-based form of politics that seeks to uphold established standards of probity and competency in public office. Rather than a mere tactic of opposition politics, we argue that it is symptomatic of the juridification of politics. By this we mean the ceding of the terrain of politics to the seemingly superior and separate domains of law and administration. Drawing upon and extending existing analyses of depoliticisation and unpolitics, the juridification of politics marks the abandonment of consciously values-based politics in favour of a reliance upon legal and quasi-legal (i.e. rules, norms, conventions, procedures) means to address substantive matters of public policy. Crucially, we locate this trend as a consequence of the neoliberal way of politics in which the task of governing in a post-ideological age is reduced to administration. This is significant, we conclude, because such an approach is incapable of responding to the intersecting crises confronting national and international politics.

This article offers insights into the character and composition of world order. It does so by focusing on how world order is made and revealed through seemingly disorderly events. We examine how societies struggle to interpret and respond to disorderly events through three modes of treatment: tragedy, crisis, and scandal. These, we argue, are the dominant modes of treatment in world politics, through which an account of disorder is articulated and particular political responses are mobilised. Specifically, we argue that each mode provides a particular way of problematising disorder, locating responsibility, and generating political responses. As we will demonstrate, these modes instigate the ordering of disorder, but they also agitate and reveal the contours of order itself. We argue, therefore, that an attentiveness to how we make sense of and respond to disorder offers the discipline new opportunities for interrogating the underlying forces, dynamics, and structures that define contemporary world politics.