Suchergebnisse

1 Introduction -- 2 Identity in motion and in dialogue -- 3 A way to just peace? -- 4 Artemis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a necessary "success story" -- 5 EUFOR Althea in Bosnia: a tiny particle of the peacebuilding enterprise -- 6 EULEX in Kosovo: EULEKSPERIMENT -- 7 Conclusion

This article proposes a theoretical approach to investigate the European Union's identity as a provider of peace operations, i.e. its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) identity. Analysing the discursive construction of the EU's CSDP identity enables to understand (i) what kind of actor the EU is in terms of conducting peace operations vis-à-vis other actors in the field; and (ii) how the EU affects and is affected by the character of the global "enterprise" of peacebuilding. The EU's CSDP identity is seen as a process of becoming that is continuously told and acted. Taking cue from a pluralist approach to discourse analysis I explore how through the twin-processes of telling and acting identity it is possible to unravel the EU's role identity in conducting peace operations. The purpose of this paper is to lay the theoretical groundwork for studying the EU's CSDP identity, utilising operation Artemis as a case study.

What relations matter? This question sits at the heart of this article and addresses in a more thoroughgoing way the methodological and ethico-political problems that some relational thinkers have debated. We are interested in deep relationalism and the methodological problem of delineating which relations matter in a reality defined by an ever-unfolding web of relations. By acknowledging the relationality of critical international relations (IR) theories, this methodological puzzle is explored by recognizing the situatedness of relations that are being analyzed. Moreover, this helps us to start a conversation on the ethical and political dimensions of deeply relational approaches. By placing the ontological work of deep relationalism in dialogue with the epistemological and ethico-political aspects of critical theory, we are putting forth an account of critical relationalism. Furthermore, we are not only arguing for a critical approach to relationalism but also adding to one of the main methodological debates in relationalism that asks us to carefully consider which relations matter (for our analysis) and how we should access them? Finally, this piece advocates for more plural grounds for relationalism in IR to critically reflect on which relations our theoretical approaches can take us to and why this matters.

AbstractWhat relations matter? This question sits at the heart of this article and addresses in a more thoroughgoing way the methodological and ethico-political problems that some relational thinkers have debated. We are interested in deep relationalism and the methodological problem of delineating which relations matter in a reality defined by an ever-unfolding web of relations. By acknowledging the relationality of critical international relations (IR) theories, this methodological puzzle is explored by recognizing the situatedness of relations that are being analyzed. Moreover, this helps us to start a conversation on the ethical and political dimensions of deeply relational approaches. By placing the ontological work of deep relationalism in dialogue with the epistemological and ethico-political aspects of critical theory, we are putting forth an account of critical relationalism. Furthermore, we are not only arguing for a critical approach to relationalism but also adding to one of the main methodological debates in relationalism that asks us to carefully consider which relations matter (for our analysis) and how we should access them? Finally, this piece advocates for more plural grounds for relationalism in IR to critically reflect on which relations our theoretical approaches can take us to and why this matters.

Abstract
This running theme's introduction rethinks fieldwork as an ongoing process. It explores experiences and conceptions of 'becoming fluent in fieldwork': the contextual processes through which we do, learn, and unlearn practices of fieldwork. It sees fieldwork as a collective project. Recognising the entanglement of field sites and travelling with fields to certain other fields, we become multiply entangled, and thus we ask: what do these plural relations demand from us? We turn to the concept and praxis of love as it considers the responsibility, care work and thinking-working together that is needed to respect other people's realities together with them. We foreground the notion of 'becoming fluent' that reflects fieldwork as a work in process, and emphasises the processual aspects of fieldwork: the journey that spans the time before, during and after the fieldwork. This process involves engaging meaningfully with relations, relationality and collaboration, 'ongoingness' and ethics in motion.