The United Nations (UN) has been at the forefront of international policymaking on addressing the security implications of climate change, but other international organizations such as the EU, NATO and OSCE are also developing climate security policies. This is of particular interest to scholars focusing the evolution of the international human protection regime since these organizations are important actors in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. This paper seeks to answer the questions of how human security and state security is framed in climate security policies developed by the EU, NATO and OSCE, and what the role of groups of IO officials and diplomats is in shaping regional cooperation on climate security in Europe in a changing geopolitical context. The analysis draws on the concept of communities of practice, and it relies on a unique set of data derived from interviews conducted with diplomats and officials at the EU, NATO and OSCE as well as participant observation from relevant events organized by or in partnership with these organizations. A better understanding of how diplomats and officials work to promote regional cooperation on climate security is crucial to grasp the potential trade-offs between human security and state security in a rapidly changing climate where geopolitical tensions are on the rise. 

The EU is often portrayed as an important international actor in global climate politics. Yet, a ‘return of geopolitics’ is said to undermine the EU’s climate diplomacy efforts to achieve effective multilateral cooperation to reduce global GHG emissions. We argue there is more nuance to understanding the impact of geopolitics on global climate politics and the EU’s role in global climate governance. In this paper, we devise a framework that seeks to analyze EU climate diplomacy in the context of the geopolitics of the Anthropocene. Assessing the EU’s response to the geopolitics of the Anthropocene allows us to make two contributions to existing scholarship. First, we provide insight into the EU as a climate actor in an increasingly destabilized, complex, and interconnected world. Second, considering the EU’s position in the global climate governance landscape, we offer a preliminary ‘reality check’ of political actors’ ability to respond to the challenges of a new geological era. Overall, we find that while the EU has repeatedly demonstrated an awareness of these new geopolitical challenges, it has not fundamentally altered its climate diplomacy.

Climate change is a global problem but why do only some international organizations in the field of international security address it as a security threat? This paper argues that we urgently need to make better sense of how states can live in the Anthropocene (i.e. the notion that our current times is an age of human-caused planetary transformation, including climate change, loss of biodiversity, and environmental degradation) but in practice mostly act as if they don’t. The main argument of the paper is that the fact that many militaries, diplomats, and state representatives are by now likely aware of the adverse effects of climate change, yet are still acting to preserve the status quo, invites us to explore the Anthropocene as politics. To do so, this paper draws on international practice theory and the concept of communities of practice to develop an analytical framework to study how climate risks become governable in practices of epistemic co-production that establish common understandings which makes it possible for practitioners to imagine a problem, analyze it, and propose solutions. The framework is appliedto study how EU climate security is being shaped, with a particular focus on recent policyactions within the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) devised to address the security implications of climate change.

This special forum focuses on international communities of practice (CoP) as a concept and an object of inquiry in International Relations (IR). The Introduction discusses the concept’s origins and how it has entered the field of IR. It addresses why and how CoPs matter to IR scholars by looking at how structure, agency, processes, institutions, and knowledge manifest themselves in communities. This special forum’s main contributions are: (1) capturing the political and economic effects of shared knowledge creation and diffusion through practices; (2) identifying the sources of knowledge production and learning, as well as the normative and political contestation within and between CoPs; (3) studying the social processes that originate at the boundaries between CoPs; (4) examining how people and processes generate, transform, and communicate knowledge; and (5) exploring how CoPs cultivate global governance’s norms, values, and practices from the bottom up. The Introduction also helps distinguish CoP from other relational concepts in IR such as networks, fields, regimes, and epistemic or security communities. It ends by way of situating the contributions to the special forum and outlining a research agenda on CoPs in world politics.

Ce forum spécial s'intéresse aux communautés de pratiques (CDP) internationales comme concept et objet d'étude des Relations Internationales (RI). L'introduction examine les origines du concept et son entrée dans le domaine des RI. Elle explique l'importance des CDP pour les chercheurs en RI en analysant comment la structure, l'agentivité, le processus, les institutions et les connaissances se manifestent dans ces communautés. Plus précisément, les principales contributions du forum spécial sont : 1) les effets politiques et économiques de la création et de la diffusion de connaissances partagées par le biais de pratiques; 2) l'identification des sources de production et d'apprentissage des connaissances, ainsi que la contestation normative et politique au sein des CDP et entre elles; 3) l’étude des processus sociaux qui trouvent leur origine aux frontières entre les CDP; 4) l'analyse de la génération, transformation et communication des connaissances à travers les personnes et les processus; et 5) le fait d'envisager les CDP comme des instruments de cultivation des normes, valeurs et pratiques de la gouvernance mondiale, du bas vers le haut. L'introduction nous permet aussi de distinguer le concept de CDP d'autres concepts relationnels en RI comme les réseaux, les champs, les régimes et les communautés épistémiques. Elle se conclut en resituant les contributions au forum spécial et en présentant un programme de recherche sur les CDP en politique mondiale.

Este foro especial se centra en las Comunidades de Práctica (CoP, por sus siglas en inglés) internacionales como concepto y objeto de investigación en Relaciones Internacionales (RRII). La introducción debate los orígenes de este concepto y cómo este ha ido introduciéndose en el campo de las RRII. También aborda, mediante la observación de cómo se manifiestan la estructura, la agencia, el proceso, las instituciones y el conocimiento en las CoP, por qué y de qué manera resultan importantes las CoP para los académicos del campo de las RRII. En concreto, las principales contribuciones de este Foro Especial son: 1) captar los efectos políticos y económicos de la dimensión social derivada de la creación y difusión de conocimientos compartidos a través de prácticas; 2) identificar las fuentes de creación y aprendizaje de conocimientos, así como la impugnación normativa y política dentro de las CoP y entre las mismas; 3) estudiar los procesos sociales que se originan en las fronteras entre las CoP; 4) estudiar cómo las personas y los procesos generan, transforman y comunican el conocimiento; y 5) explorar las CoP como instrumentos para cultivar las normas, los valores y las prácticas de la gobernanza global de abajo hacia arriba. La Introducción también ayuda a distinguir el concepto de CoP de otros conceptos relacionales en el campo de las RRII, como son: las redes, los campos, los regímenes y las comunidades epistémicas. La Introducción concluye posicionando las contribuciones al Foro Especial y esbozando una agenda de investigación sobre las CoP en la política mundial.

This article analyzes learning in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) by way of drawing on recent theoretical advancements on the concept of communities of practice (CoP) in international relations (IR). The article presents an analytical framework that distinguishes between reproductive and transformative learning in relation to levels of contestation in CoPs. To illustrate the framework’s analytical usefulness, the article analyzes the case of CSDP lessons learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis draws on data from a survey as well as interviews with EU officials, and it suggests that the combination of an external crisis and an institutional momentum to facilitate collective learning produced a context where CSDP practitioners demonstrated more willingness to engage in the formal process of recording lessons. A shared sense of urgency in collecting lessons from the pandemic and the unprecedented absence of informal sites for learning practices due to restrictions of physical meetings, meant that semi-formal learning practices could fill the void of informal interactions. This provided for a unique context for transformative learning in the CSDP that is highly relevant for IR scholars interested in the political effects of learning and contestation in international organizations and in CoPs more generally.

Cet article analyse l'apprentissage dans le cadre de la politique de sécurité et de défense commune de l'UE (PSDC) en se fondant sur les récentes avancées théoriques sur le concept de communautés de pratiques (CDP) en RI. L'article présente un cadre théorique qui fait la distinction entre l'apprentissage reproductif et transformatif par rapport aux niveaux de contestation au sein des CDP. Pour illustrer l'utilité analytique du cadre, l'article analyse le cas des enseignements de la PSDC tirés au cours de la pandémie de COVID-19. L'analyse se fonde sur des données d'un sondage ainsi que d'entretiens avec des fonctionnaires de l'UE. Elle suggère que la combinaison d'une crise externe et d'un élan institutionnel de facilitation de l'apprentissage collectif a produit un contexte dans lequel les professionnels de la PSDC étaient plus enclins à prendre part au processus formel d'enregistrement des enseignements. Grâce au sentiment partagé d'urgence d'une collecte des enseignements de la pandémie et l'absence inédite de sites informels pour apprendre des pratiques à cause des restrictions de rassemblements physiques, les pratiques d'apprentissage semi-formelles ont pu combler le vide des interactions informelles. A pu ainsi naître un contexte unique pour l'apprentissage transformatif dans la PSDC, extrêmement pertinent pour les chercheurs en RI intéressés par les effets politiques de l'apprentissage et de la contestation dans les organisations internationales et dans les CDP au sens large.

Este artículo analiza el aprendizaje en materia de la Política Común de Seguridad y Defensa (PCSD) de la UE en base a los recientes avances teóricos que han tenido lugar con relación al concepto de comunidades de práctica (CoPs, por sus siglas en inglés) en el campo de las RRII. El artículo presenta un marco analítico que distingue entre el aprendizaje reproductivo y el aprendizaje transformador en relación con los niveles de impugnación que tienen lugar dentro de las CoPs. Este artículo analiza, con el fin de ilustrar la utilidad analítica de este marco, el caso relativo a las lecciones que aprendió la PCSD durante la pandemia de COVID-19. El análisis se basa en datos obtenidos de una encuesta, así como de entrevistas con funcionarios de la UE, y sugiere que la combinación de una crisis externa, junto con un impulso institucional para facilitar el aprendizaje colectivo, produjo un contexto en el que los profesionales de la PCSD demostraron una mayor disposición a participar en el proceso formal de registro de las lecciones aprendidas. Se produjo un urgente sentimiento compartido con respecto a la necesidad de recopilar las lecciones aprendidas durante la pandemia, lo cual unido a la ausencia sin precedentes de sitios informales para llevar a cabo las prácticas de aprendizaje provocada por las restricciones con respecto a las reuniones físicas, significó que las prácticas de aprendizaje semiformal podrían llegar a llenar el vacío de las interacciones informales. Todo esto conllevó un contexto único para el aprendizaje transformador dentro la PCSD, el cual resulta muy relevante para los académicos del campo de las RRII que estén interesados en los efectos políticos del aprendizaje y la impugnación en las organizaciones internacionales y en las CoPs, en general.

The European Union (EU) has systematically promoted global climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Since the 1990s, despite varying success in international climate negotiations, it has sought to take a leadership role in global climate politics. Internal consolidation of environmental and climate policies has enhanced EU policy coherence and strengthened its ability to influence international efforts to mitigate climate change. Globally, however, the picture is marred by geopolitical competition, rendering the context of global climate politics less propitious for the EU's climate leadership. This article examines how the EU's climate diplomacy is adapting to an increasingly complex international context. It finds that while the EU climate action is still premised on the deep-seated beliefs of the EU's ambitious approach to climate, the practices of EU climate diplomacy have adapted to a changing geopolitical context. This evolution is traced through a set of key diplomatic practices: narration, co-ordination, outreach and mainstreaming.

The EU's Prodi doctrine stipulates that a new state formed through secession from an EU member state will be treated as a third party vis-a-vis the Union. This article engages with debates on secessionism, self-determination, and democracy in the EU to discuss what the doctrine entails for the democratic legitimacy of the EU. We argue that the doctrine is only compatible with one source of political legitimacy that the EU partly depends on, the state consent model. However, it is not compatible with the voluntary association model which is a moral basis that is increasingly relevant for a supranational union of democratic states. The prevalent practice of organizing referendums on EU accession shows that securing popular support is today an important feature of the politics of legitimacy in the EU. We illustrate our argument with the case of Catalonia and contrast it with cases from the history of European integration.

Bringing together leading and emerging scholars on European politics, this collection explores how dilemmas associated with key democratic concepts can be understood in relation to the EU. The book renews our understanding of EU democracy in ways that are more attentive to the multiple fault lines and cleavages that structure this political order. It focuses on a set of democratic dilemmas inherent to EU democracy, including representation, deliberation, sovereignty, citizenship, democratic contestation and market, to provide discussions on the specific tensions and trade-offs associated to a particular concept. The book engages in the theoretical groundwork necessary for assessing and analysing the specific dilemmas that arise when translating democratic concepts into concrete institutional designs in the European setting.

This article analyses the role of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in the field of climate security. In 2021, the OSCE unanimously adopted a ministerial decision on climate change despite rising geopolitical tensions between Russia and the US. Why and how was this possible? The article answers these questions, drawing on a unique set of qualitative data collected from interviews with diplomats and officials conducted during Sweden's OSCE chairpersonship. The analytical framework draws on the concept of communities of practice to analyse how Swedish and like-minded diplomats built on the OSCE's approach to security to informally expand the domain of knowledge on climate-related security risks in the organization. The article suggests that the current political impasse in the OSCE does not necessarily mean that initiatives advanced by groups of like-minded states, in collaboration with the OSCE secretariat, need to be paralyzed. The findings reveal important features of multilateral diplomacy on climate security as well as how the OSCE works in practice.

In the final analysis, is the security dilemma inescapable? Or can the protagonists in world politics learn to live with never-ending insecurities and the risk of attack without producing precisely the outcomes that they wish to avoid? This article explores this fundamental problem for International Relations theory by performing a thought experiment, in which it applies lessons from aikido to world politics. A form of Japanese budo, or martial art, aikido provides practitioners with a method for harbouring insecurities, and for dealing with attacks that may or may not occur, by empathically caring for actual and potential attackers. The article builds on practice theory in assuming that any social order is constructed and internalised through practices, but also capable of change through the introduction and dissemination of new practices. Although an unlikely scenario, aikido practice could serve as such a method of fundamental transformation if widely applied in world politics. Empirical examples ranging from international apologies and security cooperation to foreign aid and peacekeeping operations are discussed, suggesting that contemporary world politics is at times already performed in accordance with aikido principles, albeit only imperfectly and partially.