Cooperation and Conflict

Sondarjee, Maïka; Thomson, Jennifer; Nair, Deepak; Chessé, Alice; De Franco, Chiara; Hofius, Maren; Sjoberg, Laura; Banerjee, Kiran; MacKay, Joseph; Hedling, Elsa; Zhukova, Ekatherina; Tripathi, Siddharth

doi: 10.1177/00108367261432916pmid: N/A

International practice theory (IPT) is now firmly established as a key theoretical and methodological framework for International Relations (IR), offering novel ways to address the oversight around the ‘everyday’ in global politics. Yet, the presumed novelty of such an approach is surprising to feminist, race, and postcolonial IR scholars who have thought deeply about the problem of the everyday. Surprisingly, these approaches have been footnotes (at best) in practice-oriented research. Despite the growth of IPT and its increasing influence within the discipline, it has remained perplexingly silent on issues related to gender, race, or colonialism.This Forum brings together an international range of scholars to address these silences. First, we are interested in exploring whether gender, race, and postcolonial scholarship offer relevant concepts, methodologies, theoretical contributions, or case studies that can inform IPT scholars. Second, we are interested in providing a space for scholars of gender and race to ‘speak back’ to IPT. Finally, what does the silencing of gender and race within IPT tell us about knowledge production within our discipline?

Götz, Elias; Henningsen, Troels Burchall

doi: 10.1177/00108367261419291pmid: N/A

The study of how rival powers interact when they engage in proxy wars has generated many important insights, but the field remains fragmented. This article integrates these insights by offering a typological framework focused on interaction patterns among rival powers. The framework rests on two key choices rival powers face when conducting proxy interventions in third-party conflicts. The first is whether to support the same or opposing local warring parties; the second is whether to coordinate their in-theater activities. Combining these two dimensions yields four distinct interaction patterns, which we call (1) confrontation, (2) managed rivalry, (3) competitive influence-seeking, and (4) tacit alignment. The article unpacks these categories, specifies the mechanisms through which they emerge, and illustrates the framework’s analytical value through a series of empirical vignettes drawn from both the Cold War and the contemporary era. The framework enables structured within-case and between-case comparisons as well as large-n analyses aimed at uncovering recurring conditions associated with distinct forms of interaction between rival powers.

Bilgic, Ali

doi: 10.1177/00108367261422466pmid: N/A

The significance of this article lies in its reconceptualisation of disinformation as not only a challenge to truth but an affective force that can be examined through ontological (in)security. While media and communication studies increasingly recognise the affective dimensions of disinformation, Ontological Security Studies (OSS) in International Relations (IR) has yet to theorise its interaction with existential anxiety – the field’s foundational concept. Addressing this gap, the article advances the argument that disinformation functions as an affective technology: an apparatus that channels existential anxiety into the symbolic realm through emotional representations. Drawing on affect theory, communication studies, and Lacanian psychoanalysis, it demonstrates that emotions are operational mechanisms through which disinformation promises subjects enjoyment (jouissance), thereby sustaining fantasies of complete ‘Self’. This conceptual innovation extends OSS beyond cognitive and identity-stability models, offering a dynamic account of how Lacanian fantasy narratives – despite their inaccuracies – produce coherence and agency in times of uncertainty. By revising the psychoanalytical strand of OSS, the article underscores the role of emotions in the politics of (in)security and calls for OSS frameworks that take affective dynamics seriously in an era defined by disinformation. The interdisciplinary novel framework is illustrated through the disinformative ‘Great Replacement Theory’.

Brassett, James; Browning, Christopher S; Chernobrov, Dmitry; Malmvig, Helle; Baspehlivan, Uygar; Wedderburn, Alister; Moerking, Elisabeth; Hammett, Daniel; Martin, Laura

doi: 10.1177/00108367261416792pmid: N/A

This forum critically examines humour’s rising significance in International Relations (IR). It blends interdisciplinary insights to explore how humour shapes political realities, mediates conflict and engages audiences in a mediatised era. Four key themes emerge: humour’s impact on political identities and ontological security, evident, for instance, in the Danish Cartoon Crisis and far-right memes; its strategic deployment in digital diplomacy during conflicts like the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, where it can both escalate and tranquilise tensions; audience reception, where humour often reinforces beliefs and can feed the kinds of divisive logics associated with populism; as well as critiques of Eurocentrism and the de-colonial potentials of African humourists and the geopolitical work of political cartoonists. Highlighting humour’s interplay with power, identity and (technological) agency, the forum reveals its dual role in both intensifying and ‘distracting from’ global conflicts and questions of justice. It challenges conventional IR frameworks by positioning humour as a vital, yet understudied, force in political life. These analyses underscore humour’s ability to empower or disempower across contexts, deepening our grasp of its transformative potential; advancing critical IR scholarship by unpacking humour’s complex, affective and paradoxical dynamics in contemporary global politics.

Lerner, Adam B; Hayes, Jarrod

doi: 10.1177/00108367251407452pmid: N/A

While International Relation (IR) has long relied on historical cases and data, in recent years the Historical IR subfield has moved beyond banal recognition of this relationship to help overcome IR’s presentism and encourage reflexivity on the historical foundations of IR theory. Yet, despite its successes, Historical IR has primarily distinguished itself via its contributions to IR, rather than as an interdisciplinary bridge between IR and History. This article sketches a path for Historical IR to cultivate new dialogue between IR and History. This bridge would not only benefit IR by bringing historians’ insights to IR in a more sustained manner but also facilitate opportunities for IR to contribute to History. Although this bridge necessarily implicates historians, our argument focuses on moves the Historical IR subfield could make to become more attractive to History. To foster deeper dialogue, we argue that Historical IR should both work to synthesize the historical elements it brings to IR to make itself more recognizable to historians and engage historiography to target IR’s contributions to historical debates. Doing so, we argue, will not only enhance Historical IR’s contributions to IR, but also make it a more suitable interdisciplinary bridge.

Abbas, Tahir; McNeil-Willson, Richard; Vostermans, Lianne

doi: 10.1177/00108367251407043pmid: N/A

This article explores the connections between systemic Islamophobia, exclusion and Islamist attitudes among young Muslims in four EU countries, utilising mixed-methods data, including 222 survey responses and 114 interviews. Analysis indicates a U-shaped correlation between Islamophobia and Islamism: moderate levels of perceived Islamophobia correlate with lower Islamist tendencies; moderate levels are associated with reduced tendencies; excessive discrimination promotes exclusionary ideas. Multilevel/non-linear regression indicates that perceived Islamophobia significantly affects Islamist attitudes, with education as a moderating factor. Higher education diminishes the connection between discrimination and extremism; however, it paradoxically correlates with a rise in Islamist sentiment due to enhanced understanding of systemic imbalances. The models of national integration and secularism account for over one-third of the variance in intergroup attitudes. Qualitative findings reveal segregation, gender-based discrimination and generational divides influencing reactive identity. A surprising positive correlation between trust in democracy and radicalisation indicates dissatisfaction arising from unmet institutional commitments.

Reinsberg, Bernhard; Faude, Benjamin

doi: 10.1177/00108367261442413pmid: N/A

How does inter-institutional competition emerging from the creation of new multilateral development banks (MDBs) affect the performance of existing institutions? Since newly established MDBs can deprive incumbents of vital resources, existing banks have strong incentives to respond. Using a large dataset of 30 MDBs across 144 countries from 1946 to 2013, we first demonstrate that existing MDBs respond to the establishment of a new competitor by increasing assistance to countries eligible for lending from both the incumbent and the new MDB. Using project performance evaluation data from up to 12,116 projects between 1961 and 2017, we then show for the World Bank that competitive entry increases the performance of new projects, but not ongoing ones. We explain these results as follows: when faced with a new competitor, the World Bank prioritizes the development of high-quality projects that better match borrower demand. In contrast, ongoing projects are “locked in” and receive less staff attention, limiting opportunities for performance improvement. Importantly, these dynamics do not extend to other legacy MDBs. This underscores the World Bank’s unique position as a major institution capable of expanding its operations without compromising project quality in response to new competition.

Khlevniuk, Daria; Levy, Daniel; Noordenbos, Boris

doi: 10.1177/00108367261451112pmid: N/A

This article introduces Conspiratorial Memory (ConMem) as a new paradigm of memory politics in contemporary International Relations. Building on the research on nationally oriented heroic memory regimes of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Nationalist Memory (NatMem)) and the victim-centered, Cosmopolitanized Memory (CosMem) culture that emerged after the Cold War, we argue that the 2020s have witnessed the rise of a hybrid formation that fuses global repertoires of trauma and rights with nationalist triumphalism. ConMem reframes cosmopolitan norms as selectively applied, externally manipulated, or hostile to national sovereignty, even as it hijacks the cosmopolitanized human-rights-based memory regime and its infrastructures by reappropriating core moral vocabularies—victimhood, rights, and historical justice—for exclusionary or illiberal agendas. Its defining feature is a conspiratorial interpretive logic that reads past atrocities and present geopolitical conflicts through narratives of hidden intent, external orchestration, and enemy action, enabling a strategic toggling between victimhood and heroic agency. Conceptually, we develop a tripartite ideal-typology—NatMem, CosMem, and ConMem—to historicize shifts in memory politics across geopolitical epochs. Empirically, we demonstrate ConMem’s explanatory power through analysis of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs discourse (2020–2025), showing how genocide claims, World War II narratives, and conspiratorial reasoning are combined to legitimize foreign policy. While amplified in authoritarian settings, ConMem’s central logics are increasingly visible in democracies that are still considered free (e.g. United States, Israel, Italy), but noted for their increasingly illiberal tendencies and backsliding.

Seo, Woohyeok

doi: 10.1177/00108367261446875pmid: N/A

How did South Korean discourses on nuclear technology politicise and depoliticise collective memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings against ethnic Koreans? While studies on traumas and collective memories of nuclear violence have shown various ways of (de)politicising memories of nuclear violence, they often overlook the broader role of nuclear technology in it. This article addresses that gap by reframing nuclearity as material, symbolic and affective configurations of what is considered nuclear. I argue that collective memories of nuclear violence in South Korea were politicised and depoliticised by material, symbolic and affective nuclearity through four evolving modes – moral justification, technocratic silence, justice claim and foreign policy use – across three periods: 1945–1953, 1954–1963 and 1964–1975. While the first two periods were dominated by depoliticisation through moral justification and technocratic silence, the final period saw emergent politicisation of justice claim and foreign policy use, albeit constrained by depoliticising forces. This argument is demonstrated through discourse tracing a total of 488 archival documents, including South Korean legislative and administrative records, media reports and the survivor group’s publications. The article contributes to collective memory and trauma studies by highlighting the role of weapons and technology in constituting and silencing memories of mass violence.

Charoenvattananukul, Peera

doi: 10.1177/00108367251397185pmid: N/A

Research on status-seeking strategies recognises that moral authority and pro-social foreign policies can enhance small states’ their international standing. Yet, little attention has been given to why small states behave pro-socially after transgressing socio-normative rules in international affairs. Drawing on social psychology, this article introduces the concept of ‘moral guilt’ to explain why small countries adopt pro-social foreign policies even in precarious conditions. It argues that when small-state leaders experience guilt over perceived wrongdoing, they tend to engage in reparative behaviours, prioritising moral atonement over strategic cost-benefit calculations. In other words, they pursue a status redemption policy. To demonstrate this, I examine Thailand’s humanitarian treatment of enemy civilians and prisoners of war during the Second World War. Despite aligning with Japan in 1941 and declaring war on Britain and the United States in 1942, Thailand deviated from Japan’s harsh treatment of captives. Archival evidence shows that Thai leaders not only complied with the Geneva Conventions but also extended humanitarian treatment to those not covered by them. I contend that the Thai leadership experienced moral guilt for bandwagoning with Japan and enacted humanitarian measures as a form of moral reparation to redeem the country’s status in international society.