Suchergebnisse

AbstractDespite extensive criticisms of mass surveillance and mobilization by civil liberties and digital rights activists, surveillance has paradoxically been extended and legalized in the name of security. How do some democratic claims against surveillance appear to be normal and common-sense, whereas others are deemed unacceptable, even outlandish? Instead of starting from particular "logics" of either security or democracy, this paper proposes to develop a political sociology of disputes to trace how the relation between security and democracy is shaped by critique in practice. Disputes entail critique and demands for justification. They allow us to account for the constraints which govern whether an argument is deemed acceptable or improper; common-sensical or peculiar. We mobilize disputes in conjunction with Arjun Appadurai's reflections on "small numbers" in democracies in order to understand how justifications of surveillance for security enact a "rise in generality," whereas critiques of digital surveillance that mobilize democratic claims enact a "descent into singularity." To this purpose, we analyze public mobilizations against mass surveillance and challenges brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We draw on interviews with a range of actors involved in the disputes, the parties' submissions, oral hearings, judgments, and public reports.

AbstractAgainst current developments in the sociology of IR, from new systemic theorizations of world society to Bourdieusian approaches to the practices of IR scholars, this article claims that relevant problems remain regarding how IR theorizes its social location and reconciles the social character of the world it observes with the social character of its observations. To reformulate these problems, the article draws from an underused paradigm of social system theorizing, sociocybernetics, offering a radical constructivist treatment of the problem of observation and reflexivity. Elaborating the notion of second-order cybernetics and Niklas Luhmann's take on the reproduction of observing social systems, the article argues that IR can be conceived as an observing social system that adapts by altering and subdividing the semantic boundaries of its systemic communications, that is, IR theories. This socio-heuristic process structures both the first-order observations IR makes about the world, as well as second-order observations of itself. In this manner, the article argues that sociocybernetics-informed sociology of IR communications can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of IR as a social system that observes society from society.

This paper revisits the multiple theoretical antagonisms mobilised by a claimed opposition between the international and the global/local so as to elaborate the stakes of working through traditions of political sociology that have been marginalised in most forms of international relations theory. The paper especially addresses the contribution of recent work on the social production of limits and borders and the re-articulation of practices of exception. Resisting conventions of international theory predicated on Schmittian accounts of limits in territory and law, the paper assesses recent claims about sovereignty, security and liberty informed by a reflection about the way concepts of field and dispositif may be used in an analysis of the boundaries of contemporary politics. To this end, the paper draws attention to the topology of a moebius ribbon as an especially suggestive comparison with topologies affirming clear distinctions between internal and external sites of sociopolitical life.

Over the past few years, the study of humanitarianism has emerged as an interdisciplinary subfield in international political sociology. This article maps out some preliminary ideas about the role of legal sociology in this project. The study of international humanitarian law has overwhelmingly been the terrain of doctrinal legal scholars, while the apparent lack of other law has meant that, until recently, legal sociologists have paid little attention to the humanitarian sector. There has also been little scholarly concern regarding the consequences of not asking questions about the role of law in the humanitarian project. We argue that legal sociology helps us understand how rules, standards and norms shape and are shaped by practices and interactions within and across humanitarian spaces globally, and how law contributes to humanitarian governance.