Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHeiskanen, Jaakko
dc.contributor.authorMacKay, Joseph
dc.contributor.authorNeumann, Iver B.
dc.contributor.authorWigen, Einar
dc.contributor.authorEskild, Ingrid
dc.contributor.authorHall, Martin
dc.contributor.authorEngelhard, Alice
dc.contributor.authorOwens, Hannah
dc.contributor.authorLevin, Jamie
dc.contributor.authorKappes, Franca
dc.contributor.authorOwens, Hannah
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-21T18:00:01Z
dc.date.available2024-11-21T18:00:01Z
dc.date.issued2024-11-18
dc.identifier.citationHeiskanen , J , MacKay , J , Neumann , I B , Wigen , E , Eskild , I , Hall , M , Engelhard , A , Owens , H , Levin , J , Kappes , F & Owens , H 2024 , ' Nomads and international relations: post-sedentarist dialogues ' , Cambridge Review of International Studies , pp. 1-35 . https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2024.2426782
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/28475
dc.description© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives CC BY-NC-ND licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.description.abstractThe key concepts and reference points of International Relations (IR) are informed by a sedentarist worldview anchored on the territorial state. IR’s conception of its subject-matter is thus ‘static’ in both senses of the word: state-centric and immobile. One of the consequences of this sedentarist worldview has been a neglect of the world’s nomads. Defined by their spatial mobility, nomads have been either ignored or, less frequently, brought in as an exceptional ‘Other’ against which concepts such as statehood and territoriality can be defined. The interventions in this forum challenge IR’s sedentarism by recovering the world’s nomads as international political actors past and present, thus enriching the range of empirical cases upon which IR scholars may build their theories and challenging teleological narratives that view the history of the international system as the inevitable triumph of the territorial state. At the same time, the forum cautions against the reification of the nomad as the ‘Other’ of the state by disaggregating nomadism from mobility and problematising the sedentarism/nomadism binary. The goal of the forum is not to provide a blueprint for how IR scholars should study nomads, but to promote a critical reflexivity about IR’s sedentarist assumptions.en
dc.format.extent35
dc.format.extent1632925
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofCambridge Review of International Studies
dc.titleNomads and international relations: post-sedentarist dialoguesen
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Life and Medical Sciences
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09557571.2024.2426782
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1080/09557571.2024.2426782
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record