Reflecting, in dialogue, this paper revisits and extends our thinking on wonder as feminist pedagogy, a pedagogy which opens space for critical self-reflection and critical intellectual and embodied engagement to emerge in the classroom. Wonder as feminist pedagogy brings together our teaching experiences with a philosophical engagement of feminist and decolonial theory aiming to articulate and challenge dominant western discourses of knowledge production undergirded by the logic of the Cartesian cogito and its illusory neutrality. In this current paper we theorise how our praxes have developed in response to new teaching contexts, cohorts and the global pandemic. We undertake what Sara Ahmed calls feminist homework, feminist theorising guided by the philosophical lessons and encounters of the everyday, and, using this lens, we extend our thinking to consider bell hooks’ work on engaged pedagogy and teachers’ self-actualisation alongside Luce Irigaray’s work on listening and ethical co-existence. Guided by this work, we argue that we need to learn to reconceptualise the issues we are facing, which ultimately requires a challenge to colonial Cartesian logics and a reimagining of the Human as always-in-relation.

Worldviews provide orientation in the world. They also have worlding power as part of material assemblages within which our responses to political issues are devised. This article turns the gaze inward to “decenter” Western ways of knowing, cosmologies, and stories of the origins of the universe. It questions considering science as a way of knowing completely separated from religious and political thinking and highlights how Western theories of matter became entangled with practices of colonial power. Furthermore, this article argues that by emphasizing uncertainty, relationality, and the relevance of processes of mattering, Quantum Social Theory worldviews challenge the pillars of the onto-epistemologies of the Enlightenment and bring us closer to some elements of Native Peoples onto epistemologies. This piece aims at decentering the ways of knowing of the Empire, building a bridge with non-Western worldviews, and showing that relational onto-epistemological orientations may chang how we engage with other human and non-human beings and how we address political matters.

This Review Essay looks at the two recent book-length publications on the emerging topic of Jus ad vim − justice of limited force: Brunstetter’s Just and Unjust Uses of Limited Force: A Moral Argument with Contemporary Illustrations (2021), and Braun’s Limited Force and the Fight for the Just War Tradition (2023). I argue that although both authors offer insightful and original contributions to the debate surrounding the ethics of limited force, their theorisation of jus ad vim provides the moral backing to military actions conducted by powerful Western states, rather than scrutinising them. Importantly, moreover, the project of jus ad vim, theorised in this manner, follows the Western conceptualisation of just war theory which has historically been used to further the interests of Western states at the expense of weaker nations.

Many domestic regulatory agencies (DRAs) have intensified the use of international cooperation mechanisms, and their decisions increasingly exert a global impact. While the globally interactive nature of DRAs is generally accepted, the theoretical implications of this collaboration remain unexplored. I argue that DRAs have a global-domestic institutional dimension and outline the attributes of this aspect of their authority. Based on my analysis, I claim that the global-domestic dimension of DRAs produces changes in the manner in which they exercise their authority. I further try to ascertain how the political legitimacy of these agencies should be assessed. Finally, I argue that a networked perspective of political legitimacy is normatively sound in capturing and evaluating the global-domestic authority of DRAs.

Over the past two decades the academic literature on global distributive justice has generated a proliferation of positions regarding the question of how to conceive a globally just distribution of goods. One important development within this global justice debate is the emergence and increasing influence of several Pluralist theorists of global justice—including, perhaps most prominently, Fraser, R. Miller, and Risse. This article argues that Pluralists have not yet sufficiently engaged with the difficulty of how their conceptions of global justice could satisfy the publicity condition. This condition requires that the demands of justice must be publicly known to be recognized and fulfilled. This article explains why meeting this condition is especially difficult for the Pluralists. Then, it outlines an Integrated Pluralist position which, by placing special emphasis on global background justice, can meet the publicity condition. This position “integrates” concerns of justice emerging from a plurality of sites of justice. Thereby it follows “Integrationist” approaches to global justice—like those of Caney and Walton—which claim that the contents of justice of a given site of justice must not be determined in isolation from contents of other sites of justice.

Most of the literature examining forum-based social interactions considers arguing and bargaining as the main modes of communication used by negotiating parties, and authors have often claimed that arguing interactions can be distinguished from bargaining ones on the basis of the presence/absence of some validation mechanisms. Starting from this assumption, authors have tried to study real-world international negotiations and to distinguish arguing from bargaining empirically. These attempts, however, have encountered several paralyzing methodological hindrances. This paper claims that the current differentiation between arguing and bargaining is built on erroneous assumptions and on a certain degree of undertheorization of bargaining types of forum interaction. The position advanced in this paper is that both arguing and bargaining types of interaction rely on similar validation mechanisms. Furthermore, the study shows that this erroneous distinction is the reason why authors have hitherto been unable to isolate and distinguish arguing from bargaining while looking at real-world international negotiations. The final goal of this paper is to challenge the current definitions of arguing and bargaining, and to provide the first step of a long-term research project aiming at the reconceptualization of these two types of interaction.

This paper finds its point of departure in Murad Idris’s argument about peace being a fundamentally violent ideal marked by an overarching logic of constitutive aggression. It responds to this categorical statement by reconstructing four distinct variants of the peace/violence nexus, each of which involves a different type of violence, performed by a different type of agent, with a different demeanor, at different times and intervals, and in relation to a different conception of peace. There is not one peace/violence nexus but at least four. What is more, a detailed examination of these peace/violence nexuses puts into doubt their fundamental nature, if by fundamental is meant intrinsic and inescapable. It draws attention to the contingency of their becoming a social and political reality, and thereby confirms that the imbrication of peace and violence may at least theoretically—and temporarily—be avoided.

This contribution to a symposium on Karin Fierke’s 2022 book, Snapshots from Home, reflects on the dialectical aspects of her analysis, her contribution to Global IR, and the implications of her work for the field of International Relations.

This article is part of a forum on Karin Fierke’s book Snapshots from Home: Mind, Action and Strategy in an Uncertain World. In it, the importance of viewing international relations from the intersection of Buddhism and quantum theory is discussed. The ontological implication of Buddhism and quantum theory is extremely important in an uncertain world, and when we accept the uncertainty, we gain a new vision of contemporary world affairs. This is precisely where the gates of ethics open to us.

Will a desirable apparatus always return a desirable end? This short engagement expresses my hope for Karin M. Fierke’s Snapshots from Home: Mind, Action, and Strategy in an Uncertain World (Bristol University Press, 2022).