Suchergebnisse

In academic and/or cultural debate, the word «Mediterranean» elicits mixed reactions and is revealing of normative considerations and the role of politics. This chapter explores two different perspectives that emerge from the extensive literature on this subject, and suggests a third, inspired by the contemporary trend of the debate (or rather, its absence). First, the chapter examines conceptions of the Mediterranean as a unitary entity or political actor in and of itself. The Mediterranean as a «cradle of civilization», originally described by Braudel, has been taken up more recently by Horden and Purcell, who emphasized the central role of connectivity between local communities, and by the Italian school of geo-philosophy headed by Bassano, for whom the Mediterranean is a specific value system to be respected. A second perspective emphasizes instead the Mediterranean as an area of conflict, characterized by deep fault lines. Huntington's position, captured by the expression «clash of civilizations», has been taken up and reworked by the post-colonial perspective, which sees the Mediterranean as an area characterized by permanent tensions. The chapter suggests a third option, however, noting that the word «Mediterranean» is disappearing from political vocabularies.

European foreign policy making in search of a theory -- The Euro-Mediterranean relations from 1957 to 1972 : when no tailored European foreign policy existed -- Inventing the Mediterranean : from the global Mediterranean policy to the Euro-Arab dialogue -- The partition of the Mediterranean -- The new post-cold war activism

Abstract
Where do communities of practice (CoPs) come from? What relationship do they entertain with institutions within or across which they develop? To what extent can institutions actually create CoPs? These questions are crucial, if only because of the benefits that CoPs are expected to bring, from innovation to learning to shared best practices. This article suggests that the most important relationship is between the CoP and its founding practice, which is ontologically prior to the CoP. The coming into existence of a CoP thus depends on the pre-existence of a founding practice and practical alignments. This argument counterbalances the two prevailing positions in the literature on CoPs, which focus on institutions instead of practices. In most IR literature on the topic, scholars have viewed CoPs as emerging "organically" and informally at the margins of institutions in a bottom-up fashion and from there often coming back to influence institutions bottom-up. Knowledge management scholars and institutional actors themselves have instead embraced a more agential and performative top-down approach by which CoPs can and should be cultivated to foster knowledge creation in business and international institutions alike. The article explores these positions with the help of examples drawn mainly from the European Union's experience, including the Joint Research Centre's attempt to cultivate CoPs from 2016 onwards.

This article argues that communities of practice (CoPs) provide IR with a unique way to understand how a small group of committed people can make a difference to international politics. The point is addressed in three steps. First, the article advances our understanding of how CoPs work. While at its core a CoP is a group of people brought together by a practice they enjoy, a CoP also shares a sense of timing, placing, and humour. These aspects help the group anchor, refine, and innovate their practice in the face of challenges and uncertainty. Second, the article contrasts the analysis of CoPs with other IR approaches, especially institutional analysis, network analysis, and epistemic communities, to show how CoPs supplement them. Third, the article illustrates the argument with the example of the EU foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It concludes by suggesting that a CoP's perspective not only helps IR better understand informal politics, but also opens up conversations across disciplines.

This article argues that communities of practice (CoPs) provide IR with a unique way to understand how a small group of committed people can make a difference to international politics. The point is addressed in three steps. First, the article advances our understanding of how CoPs work. While at its core a CoP is a group of people brought together by a practice they enjoy, a CoP also shares a sense of timing, placing, and humour. These aspects help the group anchor, refine, and innovate their practice in the face of challenges and uncertainty. Second, the article contrasts the analysis of CoPs with other IR approaches, especially institutional analysis, network analysis, and epistemic communities, to show how CoPs supplement them. Third, the article illustrates the argument with the example of the EU foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It concludes by suggesting that a CoP's perspective not only helps IR better understand informal politics, but also opens up conversations across disciplines.

AbstractThis article argues that communities of practice (CoPs) provide IR with a unique way to understand how a small group of committed people can make a difference to international politics. The point is addressed in three steps. First, the article advances our understanding of how CoPs work. While at its core a CoP is a group of people brought together by a practice they enjoy, a CoP also shares a sense of timing, placing, and humour. These aspects help the group anchor, refine, and innovate their practice in the face of challenges and uncertainty. Second, the article contrasts the analysis of CoPs with other IR approaches, especially institutional analysis, network analysis, and epistemic communities, to show how CoPs supplement them. Third, the article illustrates the argument with the example of the EU foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It concludes by suggesting that a CoP's perspective not only helps IR better understand informal politics, but also opens up conversations across disciplines.

Summary
This article focuses on institutionalized forms of diplomatic cooperation among European Union (eu) members in southern Mediterranean capitals. It argues that European diplomatic cooperation represents a thin form of multilateralization of member states' bilateral relations with southern Mediterranean countries. By analysing diplomatic presence on the ground, it shows that the European Union delegations in the area are not only big, but also politically strong, and they interact with a large number of national diplomats. The article examines how eu delegations in the southern Mediterranean represent a diplomatic 'site', in which diplomacy occurs in the shape of information-gathering, representation and negotiation, including among eu member states. This does not amount to a single European diplomatic system, however, as coordination remains thin to date and the agenda-setting mechanisms for eu delegations' work and for European diplomatic cooperation have not (yet?) been fully developed.