Conference Program

This paper examines the impact of the demise of the post-Cold War Liberal International Order on the international nuclear weapons order. It uses the English School theoretical framework to explore what we mean by a nuclear weapons order? How is it constructed and what holds it together? When it comes to nuclear weapons, is order more important than justice? To what extent is this a great power order comprising of nuclear weapons states, and to what extent is an international society of states and civil society? Do nuclear great powers act on narrow national interest or broad global responsibility? Does the 'nuclear taboo' still hold? Using a combination of historicism and interpretivism it examines great power management from The Lisbon Protocol (1992) through to the JCPOA (2015) to the 'great unravelling' with the collapse of the INF Treaty (2019) and stalemate of the NPT Review Conference (2022). Has the nuclear order simply mirrored the global order in moving from solidarism to re-pluralisation and is it heading towards an inevitable collapse, or are its institutions (primary and secondary) more resilient and its political leadership more rational than we may think?

During our speech, the migration and accommodation behavior of two nationalities: Turkish and Polish in Western Europe (namely Gemarmy, Austria and Switzerland) will be analyzed. We rely on several assumptions. Firstly, both nations come from countries considered conservative, where religious values are still associated with public discussion. Secondly, their accommodation in a liberal, multicultural, secural countries as a new home. We will analyze their voting behavior, and cultural and axiological accommodation as well as changes in their social and political development. We rely on the theoretical assumptions of post-liberal and post-migration theories, which result from the fact that both concepts considered in the classical era of multiculturalism, multinational states, and globalization, are no longer applicable to new reality. The concept of a new era - post-liberalism or post-migration concept - appears more and more often in academic discourse, because neither liberalism in its classic form nor the definition of migration correspond to contemporary realities. In our presentation we would like to look at this new terminology and new directions while analyzing the case studies of aforementioned Polish and Turkish diasporas.

The discipline of international relations relies on an epistemic framework that shapes our political imaginaries in a terrestrial mode of thinking. A dycothomie Earth/Ocean undermines what the Western gaze represents as valid knowledge: verifiable and solid assumptions. Concepts like citizenship and belongingness depend on the social construction of knowledge as grounded and anchored. Consequently, migration and movement appear in most IR literature as “problems” that migration policies must control or eliminate. This paper discusses how the Hawaiian concept of Kahiki (Case, 2021) can disrupt the traditional frame in which citizenship and belongingness represent terrestrial technologies of inclusion and exclusion. Kahiki is where the Hawaiian people come from: “an unspecified place in the Pacific Ocean.” This origin narrative can unsettle at least three accepted ideas in the discipline. First, identity must have a land foundation, reproducing the terrestrial imaginary. In the case of Hawaiians, they identify with a “wet imaginary” and call themselves Pacific people. The second is that even when they mention an island in the Pacific, they do not know which island specifically they are referring to. Therefore, the memory of origin relies on a mutable, unstable, and fluid ground. Our third point is that in Kahiki, migration, and movement constitute the origin narrative. The article suggests that a wet epistemology can dismantle the terrestrial way of knowing prevalent in IR.