Aris Stephen (2021), Fragmenting and connecting? The diverging geometries and extents of IR’s interdisciplinary knowledge-relations, in European Journal of International Relations
, 27(1), 175-203.
Aris Stephen (2020), International vs. area? The disciplinary-politics of knowledge-exchange between IR and Area Studies, in International Theory
Aris Stephen, Snetkov Aglaya (2020), Common knowledge? Business intellectuals, BRIC and the production of knowledge across global finance and international relations, in Journal of International Relations and Development
GodehardtNadine, KohlenbergPaul (2020), China’s global connectivity politics, in Kohlenberg Paul, Godehardt Nadine (ed.), Routledge, London, 1-24.
GodehardtNadine, KohlenbergPaul (2020), Conclusion, in Kohlenberg Paul, Godehardt Nadine (ed.), Routledge, London, 1-7.
FallJuliet, DomingosCarinne (2020), Territorial crises, states and entitlement at the United Nations security council, in Godehardt Nadine, Kohlenberg Paul (ed.), Routledge, London, 1-20.
GodehardtNadine, KohlenbergPaul (2020), The Multidimensionality of Regions in World Politics
, Routledge, London.
SnetkovAglaya, WengerAndreas (2018), Conclusion, in Snetkov Aglaya, Wenger Andreas, Aris Stephen (ed.), Routledge, London, 1-20.
ArisStephen, SnetkovAglaya (2018), Cooperating and Competing: Relations between multilateral organization in International Security, in Wenger Andreas, Snetkov Aglaya, Aris Stephen (ed.), Routledge, London, 1-20.
ArisStephen, SnetkovAglaya (2018), In-between Europe and Asia: Regional organisations and Eurasian region-making, in Aris Stephen, Snetkov Aglaya, Wenger Andreas (ed.), Routledge, London, 1-20.
ArisStephen, SnetkovAglaya, WengerAndreas (2018), Inter-Organisational Relations in International Security: Competition and Cooperation
, Routledge, London.
KohlenbergPaul, GodehardtNadine, ArisStephen, SündermannFrank, SnetkovAglaya, FallJuliet (2018), Introducing UNSCdeb8 (beta): A Database for Corpus-Driven Research on the United Nations Security Council, in SWP Working Paper Asia Division
ArisStephen, KönigK (2018), Long-distance Relationships: African Peacekeeping, in CSS Analyses
ArisStephen (2016), One Belt, One Road: China’s Vision of “Connectivity”, in CSS Analysis
, 195, 1.
Summary: There is near consensus among leading international political actors that future efforts to manage international security should include a greater role for regions and regional actors. There is, however, much less agreement on what this entails and how it should work. Indeed, the concept of the region/regional remains an essentially contested one within international politics. For instance, international actors have put forward overlapping and contradictory plans for a regional solution to insecurity in Afghanistan. While during the 2011 Libyan crisis, leading international actors supported opposing regional organizations as the source of the legitimate regional perspective. Against this background, this project investigates the politics of how regions and regional actors are represented in international security governance. It does so by focusing on how international actors politically articulate the region/regional during international security crisis, and asking what impact this has on the international response to these crises. The UN Security Council remains the key international forum and actor for representing, debating and responding to international security crisis. And its Permanent Five (P5) members - US, China, France, Russia and UK - with their veto-power are the most significant influences on the UNSC position on a security crisis. Taking this into account, we: one, examine how the P5 as foreign policy actors politically constitute regions, regional actors and regional organisations during international security crises; and, two, analyse how the P5 assert these positions vis-à-vis one another and other participants in UNSC meetings and debates. Our analysis is centred on three recent case studies of international security crises: Afghanistan (2011), Syria/Iraq/ISIS (2011-); Ukraine/Crimea (2014-). In all of these crises, the designation of the region and the role for regional actors has been disputed and contested. These three cases thus represent test-cases for investigating the nature and the impact of agreement/disagreement on the region/regional among key actors in contemporary international security governance. And, for considering what impact this has on the international response to the crises. The project sets itself three key research objectives:?To assess how the greater emphasis on and legitimacy attributed to the region/regional in international politics effects the governance of international security crises? ?To investigate how key international actors (the P5, UNSC) are representing the region/regional in international security crises, and what effect is this having on their perspective on the crises? ?To evaluate the degree to which perspectives on the region/regional, and its role in efforts at governing international security, are contested among key international actors (the P5, UNSC)? The findings of this project have both wider academic and broader policy relevance and impacts. In academic terms, it will contribute to our current understanding of regions and regional security within the discipline of International Relations (IR), including by building interdisciplinary concepts between IR and Political Geography. In policy terms, it will contribute to the on-going debate about how to include the region and regional actors in contemporary collective arrangements of international security governance.