In this article, we approach world politics through the lens of its manifold practices, which we define as competent performances. Studying International Relations (IR) from the perspective of international practices promises three key advances. First, by focusing on practices in IR, we can understand both IR theory and international politics better or differently. World politics can be conceived as structured by practices, which give meaning to international action, make possible strategic interaction, and are reproduced, changed, and reinforced by international action and interaction. This focus helps broaden the ontology of world politics, serves as a focal point around which debates in IR theory can be structured, and can be used as a unit of analysis that transcends traditional understandings of ‘levels of analysis’. We illustrate what an international practice is by revisiting Thomas Schelling's seminal works on bargaining. Second, with the help of illustrations of deterrence and arms control during the Cold War and of post-Cold War practices such as cooperative security, we show how practices constitute strategic interaction and bargaining more generally. Finally, a practice perspective opens an exciting and innovative research agenda, which suggests new research questions and puzzles, and revisits central concepts of our discipline, including power, history, and strategy.

No abstract

No abstract

How does power work in practice? Much of the 'stuff' that state agents and other international actors do, on an everyday basis, remains impenetrable to existing International Relations theory. This is unfortunate, as the everyday performance of international practices actually helps shape world policy outcomes. In this article, we develop a framework to grasp the concrete workings of power in international politics. The notion of 'emergent power' bridges two different understandings of power: as capability or relation. Emergent power refers to the generation and deployment of endogenous resources -social skills and competences -generated in particular practices. The framework is illustrated with an in-depth analysis of the multilateral diplomatic process that led to the 2011 international intervention in Libya. Through a detailed account of the negotiations at the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Union, the article demonstrates how, in practice, state representatives translate their skills into actual influence and generate a power politics that eschews structural analysis. We argue that seemingly trivial struggles over diplomatic competence within these three multilateral organizations played a crucial role in the intervention in Libya. A focus on practice resituates existing approaches to power and influence in International Relations, demonstrating that, in practice, power also emerges locally from social contexts. 891Taking international practices seriously, we argue, helps address these shortcomings. The everyday performance of international politics is not a mere epiphenomenon of deeper structural forces; it is also a generative force in and of itself. Central to our framework is the notion of 'emergent power,' which refers to the endogenous resourcessocial skills or competences -generated within practices. Through a detailed account of the multilateral negotiations on Libya at the UNSC, NATO, and EU, we demonstrate how state representatives use various tactics to wield influence by establishing themselves as skillful diplomats, while undermining similar claims by their opponents.Importantly, we do not claim to account for the Libyan war, in the sense of identifying all its multifaceted causes. Instead, our more limited purpose is to provide an account of the intervention, centered on multilateral diplomacy. In IR, most theories tend to explain military interventions by inferring the belligerents' interests, derived from the international structure (e.g. balancing), domestic politics (e.g. diversion), or norms (e.g. humanitarianism). There is no doubt that interests, norms, and structural forces played a role in the Libya case, but our argument operates on a different analytical plane. In tune with practice theory, we refrain from using motives, which are often empirically intractable, as explanatory variables. Instead, we zoom in on the actual moves performed by national diplomats at the UNSC, NATO, and EU in order to reconstruct the dynamics of influence that gave the i...

This article explores the theoretical implications of the logic of practicality in world politics+ In social and political life, many practices do not primarily derive from instrumental rationality~logic of consequences!, norm-following~logic of appropriateness!, or communicative action~logic of arguing!+ These three logics of social action suffer from a representational bias in that they focus on what agents think about instead of what they think from+ According to the logic of practicality, practices are the result of inarticulate know-how that makes what is to be done self-evident or commonsensical+ Insights from philosophy, psychology, and sociology provide empirical and theoretical support for this view+ Though complementary with other logics of social action, the logic of practicality is ontologically prior because it is located at the intersection of structure and agency+ Building on Bourdieu, this article develops a theory of practice of security communities arguing that peace exists in and through practice when security officials' practical sense makes diplomacy the self-evident way to solving interstate disputes+ The article concludes on the methodological quandaries raised by the logic of practicality in world politics+ We can know more than we can tell+ 1 Most theories of social action focus on what agents think about at the expense of what they think from+ In International Relations~IR!, rational choice theorists primarily emphasize representations and reflexive knowledge in explaining political action+ In the rationalist equation~desire ϩ belief ϭ action!, ideas factor in an individual calculation informed by intentionality+ Agents deliberately reflect on what are the most efficient means to achieve their ends+ For their part, several constructivists theorize that norms and collective identities reflexively inform action+ Intersubjective representations of reality, morality, or individuality determine socially embedded cognition and action+ In a related fashion, Habermasian constructivists concentrate on collective deliberation and truth-seeking as a form For helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, many thanks to