EU diplomacy as a quantum superposition: towards a conceptual common ground for interdisciplinary studies of a pluralising phenomenon?

Steffen Bay Rasmussen

doi:10.14422/cir.i06.y2016.002

Authors

Steffen Bay Rasmussen Universidad de Deusto

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14422/cir.i06.y2016.002

Keywords:

EU diplomacy, pluralisation, quantum superposition, intersubjectivism

Abstract

This article seeks to define diplomacy and related concepts in order to establish a conceptual common ground for multidisciplinary research on contemporary diplomacy, considering both the nature of diplomacy itself and the epistemological implications of multiparadigmatic scientific enquiry. Diplomacy is immersed in a process of pluralisation in terms of both actors and practices, which, along with the necessity of accommodating very diverse empirical approaches, leads to a contingent definition of diplomacy in terms of the management of the relations of alienated peoples. The solution to the problem of studying this pluralising phenomenon from different paradigmatic positions simultaneously was found in the conceptualisation of EU diplomacy in terms of the superposition of different quantum states. The article rounds off with a discussion of the epistemological consequences of the multiparadigmatic enquiry that would be made possible by considering EU diplomacy as a quantum superposition.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Koops, J. A. & Macaj, G. (Eds.). (2015). The European Union as a diplomatic actor. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kratochwil, F. (2006). Constructing a new orthodoxy? Wendt’s Social Theory of International Politics and the constructivist challenge. In S. Guzzini & A. Leander (Eds.), Constructivism and International Relations. Alexander Wendt and his critics (pp. 21-47). New York: Routledge.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

Manners, I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(2), 235-258.

Novotná, T. (2014). Where have all the women gone? Women in EEAS and EU Delegations, Italian Institute for International Political Studies. ISPI analysis, 239. Retrieved from http://www.ispionline.it/en/publications/Analysis?page=4

Phillips, L. & Jørgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage Publications.

Rasmussen, S. B. (2014). The conceptual field of contemporary public diplomacy. Comillas Journal of International Relations, 1(1), 29-40.

Smith, M., Keukeleire, S. & Vanhoonacker, S. (Eds.). (2016). The Diplomatic System of the European Union: Evolution, change and challenges. London: Routledge.

Spence, D. & Bátora, J. (Eds.). (2015). The European External Action Service: European diplomacy post-Westphalia. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

United Nations. (1961). Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Retrieved from http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Van Schaik, L. & Schunz, S. (2012). Explaining EU Activism and Impact in Global Climate Politics: Is the Union a Norm- or Interest-Driven Actor? Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(1), 169-186.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wendt, A. (2006). Social Theory as Cartesian science: an auto-critique from a quantum perspective. In S. Guzzini & A. Leander (Eds.), Constructivism and International Relations. Alexander Wendt and his critics (pp. 181-219). New York: Routledge.