Dr. Roee Kibrik, chaired by Dr. Leonie Ansems de Vries, discussant: Dr. Filippo Costa-Buranelli
Tuesday 22 March 2016, 5pm, War Studies Meeting Room (K. 6.07)
Embracing the notion that concepts are a foundation of political behavior and that politics is at the base of conceptualization processes, researchers have focused on the political and social processes of attributing meanings to concepts. This work contributes to this effort by introducing the idea that the state of concepts can be an analytical tool which assists researchers and practitioners who delve into this field of concepts. It argues that a concept can be in one out of four states: stable, contested, essentially contested, or destabilized. The concept’s state derived from the specific historical context of relations and interactions between existing knowledge, socio-political structures and practices and experiences. The state of a concept has consequences in terms of the political actors’ ability to communicate and project a future act and execute it effectively. The paper takes the example of sovereignty in Jerusalem to demonstrate the political and epistemological advantages of recognizing that concepts have different states.
Roee Kibrik is an Israel Institute postdoctoral Fellow, and a visiting researcher at King’s College London, the Department of War Studies. He received his PhD. from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the department of International Relations. His work has focused on the socio-cognitive processes that shaped the behaviour of the Israeli actor in the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He integrates insights from political theory, political psychology, language and history, in order to expose the complex relations between theory and politics and describe different dynamics of mutual construction and change. In the last years he served as a Neubauer Research Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel-Aviv, and as a Postdoctoral Fellow
Friday 6 march, 12-2pm, Pyramid Room, Strand Campus, King’s College London. All welcome. For further information please email firstname.lastname@example.org
The International Development Institute and the Research Centre in International Relations at KCL present the book Bodies of Violence by Lauren Wilcox, of the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Gender Studies.
“What have I done to you?”, 2011 / Production still / Washing feet in the Pump House Gallery, London / Recording here.
The Department of War Studies is happy to announce that the Department (through Professor Vivienne Jabri), has been awarded the Leverhulme Artist in Residence Grant for the academic year 2015-2016. The artist we will be bringing to King’s to collaborate with War Studies scholars is Baptist Coelho.
15th January 2015, 10:00 – noon. King’s College London, Strand Campus, Small Committee Room (K0.31), 2nd Floor
The Research Centre in International Relations at King’s College London is currently involved in the EC-funded SOURCE Network of Excellence. Within that framework, the RCIR is organizing a workshop dedicated to understanding how societal security relates to national security.
The recent decision of the UK’s Investigatory Power Tribunal on the actions of UK’s intelligence services will provide the backdrop of the workshop’s interventions. Prof. Didier Bigo (KCL) and Dr. Sergio Carrera (CEPS) will explore how the terminologies of societal and national security intersect and who are the actors involved. Particular emphasis will be put on the legal and political challenges of transnational digital surveillance.
The Research Centre in International Relations will hold the 1st SOURCE roundtable on Wednesday 5th November 2014, 10 :00 – 12 :00. at the War studies meeting room, 6th Floor King’s Building, Strand Campus, King’s college London.
SOURCE is a European Community funded project dealing with societal security in Europe. Within this framework, a team of researchers at KCL is currently designing methodological principles to map out the professions and institutions in charge of securing society in Europe. The first roundtable will discuss how methods construct different understandings of the international. It will link the concrete aspects of contacting actors and collecting observations with the challenge of restoring the sociological and anthropological dimensions of international practice. Anna Leander will open the debate with a short presentation of her own experience in researching the public-private nexus of security. She is a Professor at the Copenhagen Business School (Department for Management, Politics and Philosophy), a Visiting Professor at Institute of International Relations, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro and a Core team member of CRIC (Centre for the Resolution of International Conflict, http://cric.ku.dk/).
The idea of resilience has become a popular idea across a range of policy areas and in the fields of international development and disaster risk reduction (DRR) in particular. Simply put, resilience, at least in this policy area, can be defined as our ability to withstand, adapt to, and recover from external crisis such as environmental changes, natural disasters and human-made conflicts. In contrast to strategies that prioritise prevention and response, resilience’s key notions are preparedness and adaptation. The European Union (EU) has been quick to embrace the idea, launching pilot projects in The Sahel and Horn of Africa regions. It is also prominent in new strategy documents on international aid and development. But why has the idea become some popular in these areas in such a relatively short space of time? Continue reading →
Parkhead, Glasgow, 26 November 2013: as Celtic and AC Milan run through the formalities before kick-off, one corner of the grand, sold-out stadium begins to unfurl a series of banners. They are in the section occupied by the Green Brigade, the home side’s ‘ultra’ group, and even by the immoderate standards of Glasgow’s football-centric sectarianism,  they are provocative. There is a portrait of William Wallace, and another of Bobby Sands, the IRA soldier and 1981 hunger striker. Accompanying them is a lyric from ‘Terrorist or Dreamer’ by Provisional IRA commander-turned-songwriter Bik McFarlane, Sands’ commanding officer in the Maze prison. 
In this podcast, following from her talk at RCIR, Professor Karin Fierke discusses with Dr. Peter Busch (War Studies, KCL) her latest book: Political Self Sacrifice: Agency, Body and Emotion in International Relations, published by Cambridge University Press, for more information please click here.
This event took place on 15th November 2013, War Studies Meeting Room (K6.07) Strand Campus, King’s College London. You can read her original article on RCIR Forumhere.
In September 2013, the Research Centre for International Relations at King’s College London (RCIR-KCL), the SAPIENT project, coordinated by Prof. Didier Bigo (KCL), and the University of Kent, in Brussels, organised two parallel events in Brussels: a Policy Meeting on Smart Borders, sponsored by the SAPIENT project; and a Summer School on Security, Borders and Mobility, held at the University of Kent. This post on the RCIR Forum provides us with the opportunity to make podcasts and information from both events publicly available.
Why write a book on a topic so macabre asPolitical Self Sacrifice? The beginnings were simple enough. I was puzzled by the significance of two distinct words, ‘suicide’ terrorist and martyr – words with two very different meanings, yet used interchangeably to refer to human bombs. But the question of language, while interesting, is not the only one. Why put cases as different as self-immolation by fire, nonviolent martyrdom, hunger strikes and the human bomb under the same microscope, when surely these are very different phenomenon? What do, for instance, the hundreds of Tibetan monks who have set themselves on fire over the past few years, the sixty Kurdish hunger strikers in Turkey (2012) or the hundred some hunger strikers at Guantanamo, the thousands of nonviolent activists killed in the early days of the Syrian revolution or the suicide terrorist from Hamas, share, if anything, in common? Why have acts of self-destruction, whether in the form of lighting a match or putting one’s self in harm’s way, been undertaken by so many and why should we, as scholars of international relations, be interested? Continue reading →