In early 2020, UK government ministers stated repeatedly that their COVID-19 policy was ‘guided by the science’. At the time, ‘the science’ was shorthand for ‘our scientists’, since ministers formed strong relationships with senior government scientific advisors, who relied on regular evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) (Cairney, 2021). Initially, these relationships were akin to those of interest groups: senior advisers were akin to ‘core insiders’, consulted frequently on multiple issues; SAGE were ‘specialist insiders’, consulted on niche issues; and, most others were ‘peripheral insiders’ with minimal influence, or ‘outsiders’. Consequently, ministers produced UK COVID-19 policies that were highly consistent with the evidence or advice from their most trusted sources. Over time, UK ministers appeared to diverge more from this scientific advice, and senior advisors sought to establish a greater professional distance between their role (providing evidence) and ministerial roles (to make choices based on multiple sources of evidence and advice).

In this talk, I explore two aspects of this experience. First, can we use established concepts – such as regarding policy communities and interest groups – to capture these developments? Second, does a detailed focus on advice and policy developments over time help to identify a series of phases to compare? In other words, if we are studying COVID-19 policymaking during acute then longer-term crises, are comparisons over time as valuable as comparing political systems?

REGISTRATION

Scholars and practitioners debate the future of United Nations peacekeeping, especially in the global context characterised by emerging multipolarity. Existing assessments of peacekeeping operations often end in the early 2010s with the launch of the so-called stabilisation missions. In this talk, Fanny Badache will examine the effect of world politics on peacekeeping through the case of the UN mission in Mali from 2013 until today. She will conceptualise the impact of world politics into two dimensions. First, the material dimension refers to the level of geopolitical competition between major or aspiring major powers. Second, the ideational dimension focuses on the norms and values dominant in the international environment. In sum, I am interested in understanding the degree to which peacekeeping practices mirror shifting power dynamics and normative changes at the macro-level. By doing so, I want to reflect on the future of peacekeeping and the impact of changing world politics on international organisations more broadly.

Are racial hierarchies a thing of the past in contemporary international society? This question is worth pondering in the context of a resurgence of interest in race within the discipline of International Relations (IR). In recent years, we have seen an increasing number of post-colonial works that have taken seriously the discipline’s links with imperialism and colonial policies, or the racism that undergirds the ‘foundational knowledge’ of our theorising of international politics. This paper contributes to this debate by examining the case of the ‘Japan threat’ thesis which emerged in the late-1980s and early-1990s. Through this particular case, this paper offers the following arguments. First, because existing studies focus on actors who have been obvious racial ‘others’, they do not always capture adequately the dynamic nature by which racial boundaries are redrawn. Japan was, on the other hand, treated as part of the ‘West’ during the Cold War, but found itself cast as an outsider during this period. Examining the Japanese case allows us to understand the dynamics of this process. Second, I suggest that the ‘redrawing of the global colour line’ is a reaction to ontological insecurities emanating from predominantly ‘white states’, who have traditionally (and continue to) enjoy pre-eminence in international politics. Apart from consolidating notions of superiority and purity of predominantly White states’ identity, treating the ‘non-white rising power’ as fundamentally alien has the effect of wiping out any shared identities both sides previously possessed. This makes it potentially easier to engage in violence to re-establish the hegemony of predominantly ‘white states’.

The Luxembourg nationality law of 23 October 2008, which introduced double ius soli and the toleration of dual or multiple citizenship, represented a paradigm shift in direction of liberalisation and openness of citizenship legislation. The vote of a new nationality law by parliament on 9 February, 2017 was a further milestone in the history of Luxembourgish citizenship, a. o. introducing conditional simple ius soli at the age of majority, lowering residence period before naturalisation and reintroducing optional rights.

In 2008, 278.000 people (58 %) out of a population of 484.000 had Luxembourg citizenship. In 2022, 342.000 Luxembourgers, thus 64.000 more than 2008, live in the Grand Duchy (population 2022: 646.000; 53 % Luxembourgers). Furthermore, through the ‘re- ethnicising’ art. 29 of 2008 law – a person can re-acquire Luxembourgish citizenship provided he or she has a male or female ancestor who possessed Luxembourgish citizenship on 1 January 1900 – 23.000 new Luxembourg citizens, living abroad, have to be added to these figures. So, nearly 90.000 Luxembourgers added in only 13 years, a third more!

In his seminar, Denis Scuto will analyse the link between migration and citizenship policies on one side and migrants’ strategies and behaviours on the other side and thus shed some light on the relations between migrants and state authorities or legislations.

The paper introduces and develops the notion of citizenship sanctions, a presently undefined category of legal restrictions that are prompted by a criminal act, but which deviate substantially from conventional types of punishment. The key trait of citizenship sanctions, the most important of which is citizenship revocation, is that they seek to censure traits of character of the offender, rather than their act: through certain legal norms, such sanctions target offenders in their special role as citizens, thereby playing a decisive role in constructing a virtue-based version of liberal citizenship. Such merger of criminal law with citizenship norms whereby criminal law is ill-used to construct and uphold the moral boundaries of a given political community, signals a notable transformation of its key functions, which gives demands serious normative scrutiny.