About the Conference
Amid escalating global conflicts and growing threats to civilian populations, this conference brings together leading scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to examine the evolving landscape of human protection.
Two keynote speeches and a roundtable will examine the challenges and opportunities for protection norms and practices in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape, with a particular focus on the role of the UN Security Council and Denmark's efforts to advance the protection agenda.
Preliminary Conference Programme – Day 1 (public)
|
Date |
Time |
Event |
Moderator/Presenters |
|
30 January 2025, Room 4.2.26 Centre for Health and Society, Department of Political Science, Building 4, 2nd floor Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1353 Copenhagen, |
2:30pm-3pm |
Welcome and introduction |
Chiara De Franco (SDU) |
|
3pm-3:45pm |
Keynote speech 1 |
Trine Flockhart (European University Institute) |
|
|
3:45pm-4:30pm |
Keynote speech 2 |
Kwesi Aning (Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre) |
|
|
4:30pm-5pm |
Coffee Break |
||
|
5pm-6pm |
Roundtable: The politics of protection in the UNSC: what role for Denmark? |
Trine Flockhart (EUI), Kwesi Aning (KAIPTC), Ole Wæver (KU), Rikke Ishøy (Danish Red Cross), Alexander Borum (EUISS) Moderated by Chiara De Franco (SDU), Carina Lamont (SEDU) and Linnéa Gelot (SEDU) |
|
|
6pm-6:15pm |
Thanks and Farewell |
Chiara De Franco (SDU) |
|
|
7pm |
Social dinner with all present conference participants |
Detailed Programme
Day 1 - 30 January 2025
2:30pm-3pm: Welcome and introduction – Chiara De Franco (SDU)
3pm-3:45 pm: Keynote speech 1 - Trine Flockhart (European University Institute): “All Change for the Post-Liberal World”. Followed by Q&A moderated by Chiara De Franco (SDU)
Trine Flockhart is full Professor at the European University Institute, where she is Chair of Security Studies in the Florence School of Transnational Governance. Trine’s current research is focused on global order and processes of change and transformation, the crisis in the liberal international order, NATO and transatlantic relations, ontological security, constructivism, English School theory, and resilience. Her recent work includes “NATO in the Multi-Order World”, International Affairs; Rebooting Global International Society - Contestation, Change, and Resilience, Palgrave MacMillan (with Zachary Paikin); “War in Ukraine: Putin and the multi-order world”, Contemporary Security Policy (with Elena Korosteleva).
3:45pm-4:30pm: Keynote speech 2 - Kwesi Aning (Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre): “Looking into a crystal ball? Protecting civilians in an era of declining UN peacekeeping.” Followed by Q&A moderated by Linnéa Gelot (SEDU)
Kwesi Aning is a Professor and Senior Consultant for a newly established Office for International Cooperation at the Centre at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC) in Accra. Professor Aning has advised both the AU and UN and served on the World Economic Forum’s council on conflict prevention since 2007. His academic work centers on politics, peace and security at local and national levels, especially in West Africa. Aning has published more than 150 books, book chapters, journal articles and policy briefs, including in International Affairs, International Studies Review and International Peacekeeping.
4:30pm-5pm – Coffee Break
5pm-6pm: Roundtable on “The politics of protection in the UNSC: what role for Denmark?”
Moderated by Chiara De Franco (SDU) and Linnéa Gelot (SEDU).
With Prof Trine Flockhart, Prof Kwesi Aning (KAIPTC), Prof Ole Wæver (KU), Rikke Ishøy (Danish Red Cross), Alexander Borum (EUISS)
Ole Wæver is Professor of International Relations at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, founded the research centers CAST (Centre for Advanced Security Theory, director 2008-13) and CRIC (Centre for Resolution of International Conflicts, dir. 2013-). He coined the concept of ‘securitization’ and co-developed what is known as the Copenhagen School in security studies. Beyond security theory, his research interests include climate change, conflict analysis/resolution, the history and sociology of the International Relations discipline, philosophy of science, sociology of science, religion in international affairs, politics of technology, conceptual history, and speech act theory. He served on the Danish Defense Commission of 1997 and numerous other policy advising bodies on security, climate and research policy; member of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; honorary doctorate at University of Turku.
Rikke Ishøy has a background in the Red Cross Movement and currently leads the Danish Red Cross’ policy work, including collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Denmark’s UNSC membership and EU Presidency. Previously, she served as an IHL advisor and held various roles with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) since 2002, including protection delegate, coordinator, and management positions in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Liberia, and Georgia. Most recently, she was ICRC’s operational coordinator in Geneva and head of the COVID-19 Crisis Team, as well as part of the Crisis Team for Ukraine in 2022. She holds a master’s degree in law from Copenhagen University and has prior experience as a prosecutor with Copenhagen Police.
Alexander Borum is a Consultant on Hybrid Threats at the EU Institute for Security Studies and a Crisis Management Expert specializing in Security Sector Governance and Reform with the Deployment Facility for Peace and Democracy under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. He has served as a Policy Leader Fellow on European Security and Defence Policy at the European University Institute and as EU Advisor on Political and Security Affairs in Somalia. Alexander brings extensive expertise in international security, crisis management, and peacebuilding, with a focus on improving security governance, addressing non-state armed groups and addressing non-traditional security threats in complex environments.
Carina Lamont is Senior Lecturer at the Swedish Defence University, Department of International and Operational Law. She holds a PhD in Public International Law from the University of Kent (2020). She started her professional career in policing, and after app. 20 years in various national and international policing functions, she left the Swedish Police Authority for positions in other governmental agencies and then academia. Her research focuses primarily on the distinction between police and military roles and functions, and on international human rights law and law of armed conflict. She’s the author of “International Law in the Transition to Peace: Protecting civilians under jus post bellum” (Routledge, 2021).
6pm-6:15: Thanks and Farewell – Chiara De Franco (SDU)
7pm: Social dinner with all present conference participants (by invitation only)
Preliminary Conference Programme – Day 2 (workshop only for invited participants)
|
31 January 2025 Room 4.2.49 Torshavn, Centre for Health and Society, Department of Political Science, Building 4, 2nd floor Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1353 Copenhagen
|
8:30 -9:00 |
Coffee for 13 people |
|
|
9am-9:20am |
Introduction to the Special Forum |
Chiara De Franco (SDU) |
|
|
9:20am-11am |
Theme 1 – Principles |
Nina Græger (KU), Kerstin Carlson (RUC), Alessandra Russo (Trento), David Birchall (Macquarie University) Moderated by Chiara De Franco (SDU) |
|
|
11am-11:15am |
Coffee Break (coffee and small cakes for 13 people) |
||
|
11:15am-13:00pm |
Theme 2 – Actors |
Mariana Lorens Zabala (NUPI), Qiaochu Zhang (SDU), Peter Albrecht (DIIS), Kwesi Aning (KAIPTC), Niklas Bremberg (SU), Anniek Barnhoorn (SIPRI) Moderated by Linnéa Gelot (SEDU) |
|
|
13:00-13:45pm |
Lunch Break (smørrebrod, drinks, coffee for 13 people) |
||
|
13:45-15:00pm |
Theme 3 – Practices |
Chiara De Franco (SDU), Linnéa Gelot (SEDU), Anastasia Prokhorova (EUI) Moderated by Trine Flockhart (EUI) |
|
|
15:00-15:20pm |
Paper 13 – Conclusion to the Special Issue |
Trine Flockhart (EUI) Moderated by Chiara De Franco (SDU) |
|
|
15:20pm-15:40pm |
Coffee Break (coffee, tea, small cakes for 13 people) |
||
|
15:40pm-16:15pm |
The way ahead: Special Issue and future collaborations |
Chiara De Franco (SDU) and Linnéa Gelot (SEDU) |
|
|
16:15pm-16:30pm |
Conclusion and thanks |
Chiara De Franco (SDU) and Linnéa Gelot (SEDU) |
9am-9:20am:
Paper 1 - Introduction to the special issue – “Redefining Human Protection: A Political-Sociological Approach to Global Governance”
Authors: Chiara De Franco (SDU)
Feedback: Everybody
Abstract: This introductory article challenges conventional institutionalist and normative perspectives on what is normally referred to as the “human protection regime” by advancing a broad and inclusive political-sociological approach to human protection. Notwithstanding existing differences between different frameworks, such as assemblage theory, communities of practice, complexity theory, etc., we build on political sociological perspectives’ common curiosity for the entanglements of territoriality, normativity, and agency that shape international regimes. By dissecting existing norms and practices of protection, unpacking the agency of distinct multilateral and private organizations, and investigating processes of territorialization/deterritorialization, we introduce a novel perspective on human protection as a dynamic global governance arrangement. In so doing, we redefine dominant scholarly narratives relating to how norms matter in practice, the dynamics of cooperation and competition between different international actors, and the impact of protection arrangements on different territories. Drawing on the nuanced analyses provided by our collection’s contributors, this article illustrates the forum’s added value in exploring the “human protection regime’s” flexibility amidst global shifts and presents policy pathways to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of the human protection agenda.
Discussion moderated by Chiara De Franco (SDU)
9:20am-11:00am: Theme 1 – Principles
Paper 2 – “Human protection as practice and norm: The duty of care of the EU and NATO”
Author: Nina Græger (Copenhagen University)
Abstract: The crisis of the Liberal International Order (LIO) and ongoing geopolitical (re)ordering of international relations have put the power and role of international organizations under pressure. This paper investigates the degree to which these parallel international developments are affecting the dynamics of cooperation and competition involving the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) within the area of human protection. Theoretically, the paper expands on existing research on the concept of the duty of care and the practice theory agenda in IR, arguing that the duty of care is both a norm and a practice of human protection. Using illustrations from conflict or post-conflict areas (e.g. Ukraine, Kosovo, Somalia) or exposed areas (e.g. Baltic states), it explores how NATO and the EU have enacted their duty of care by engaging in formal and informal practices to safeguard civilians, ranging from norm promotion and financial support mechanisms, to partnerships, police support operations or military missions. Finally, the paper discusses the potential implications of a continued pressure against key international organizations and, hence, the resources allocated to their work within human protection.
Paper 3 – “Macrocriminality: New Methods of Recognizing Harm and Attributing Responsibility in Post-Conflict Colombia”
Author: Kerstin Carlson (Roskilde University)
“Macrocriminality” is a new criminal law method practiced in post-conflict Colombia by a special court, the JEP. Macrocases, and macrocriminal modes of liability, configure collective patterns of harm and collective patterns of behavior to attribute individual criminal responsibility. “Macrocriminality” is an innovative judicial method capable of addressing mass crime and it has been yielding results: since the historic Colombian peace accord’s finalization in 2016, both rebel and state actors have worked with the JEP to document crimes and acknowledge responsibility. As the JEP continues to pursue macrocases and macrocriminal liability, it is coming under increasing pressure, however. This is because macrocriminality arguably transgresses liberal judicial guarantees, both substantive and procedural. After nearly a decade of institutional success, the JEP’s next decade promises challenges, not least from the Colombian Constitutional Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and possibly from the International Criminal Court. This article examines “macrocriminality,” the novel judicial method developed and applied by the JEP, and situates it within and against the LIO.
Paper 4 – “Cultural heritage protection rationales in conflict-ridden Eastern peripheries of Europe”
Author: Alessandra Russo (University of Trento)
Abstract: Cultural heritage (CH) sites have been recently targeted, i.e. weaponized, militarized and securitized in Nagorno-Karabakh and in Ukraine. A number of CH protection initiatives were also promoted as political technologies of human security. This article focuses on these two cases to contribute to an emerging literature that sees a new kind of heritage-oriented governance, diplomacy and, foreign policy taking shape. It seeks to unveil overlapping patterns of convergence and divergence among public and private, global and local sources of norms, political rationalities, practices and policies that construct and define why and how CH is in danger. In that sense, security assemblages emerge to contour spaces to be protected and possibly governed. Premising on these assumptions, the articles aims at mapping, through qualitative instruments, the actors involved in CH reconstruction and recovery and the type of actions undertaken. It also seeks to explain cross-case variations to highlight sited mechanisms for its protection. All in all, it intends to provide contextual indications about the interplay between CH and civilians in conflict and post-conflict settings, as well as the interactions between the local and the international fields when it comes to defining (political, social and spatial) practices informing protection and reconstruction.
Paper 5 – “Rethinking Business and Human Rights Governance: A Critique of EU Due Diligence Laws”
Author: David Birchall (Macquarie University)
Abstract: This article takes a socio-legal approach to business and human rights (BHR) governance, particularly recently enacted human rights due diligence laws (HRDD) in the EU. The aim of BHR governance is to ensure that corporations respect human rights. HRDD laws mandate that businesses investigate how their activities may adversely impact human rights, including through their supply chains, subsidiaries, and partnerships. The article builds on two interconnected critiques of HRDD laws. First, that they empower European corporations to govern businesses abroad, strengthening private authority and becoming a form of neo-colonialism. Second, that they ignore structural problems such as value extraction and global poverty, failing to address legalised exploitation through property rights and disregarding the realization of rights and development. The article uses Mill’s harm principle and the claim rights approach to elaborate the moral limits of liberal human rights as a governance technique. It demonstrates that human rights governance prioritizes negative freedom (for the individual and the corporation) trammelled by a specified set of red lines, defined by human rights violations. Structural problems such as poverty, inequality, and climate change are inadequately captured. The limits of this ideology are sharpened in the current geopolitical reordering.
Discussion and Feedback moderated by Chiara De Franco (SDU)
11:00-11:15: Coffee Break
11:15-13:00: Theme 2 – Actors.
Paper 6 – “Safeguarding Civilians: Understanding the Multinational Joint Task Forces Approach to the Protection of Civilians”
Authors: Andrew Edward Yaw Tchie (NUPI) and Mariana Lorens Zabala (NUPI)
Abstract: The deployment of Ad-hoc Security Initiatives (ASI) in Africa has allowed affected states to increase their use of joint security operations to address the growing threats(s) posed by non-state armed groups in unpredictable environments. While ASIs provide a flexible and rapid response to deal with insecurity, these operations tend to be military-heavy. Drawing on the evolution of the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) in the Lake Chad Basin, this paper explores how this security arrangement challenges extant theoretical perspectives of protection of civilians (PoC). We find that, despite not having a PoC mandated task, the MNJTF has developed its own unique ways of providing PoC. While these in some respects align with most liberal PoC and human security practices, there are important differences in normative sources underpinning them as well as the means used to provide them. To understand this, we explore the overlaps in approaches and unclear hierarchies between the MNJTF, regional and continental actors as well as informal actors. By so doing, we question the ability of regime complexity theory to explain the layers of complexity caracterizing how the MNJTF delivers PoC. We also draw policy-relevant lessons suggesting that the MNJTF needs to adapt a whole-of-mission, context-specific approach adapting the AU’s PoC guidelines to its context and environment.
Paper 7 – “China as a norm entrepreneur? Unpacking China’s contestation and entrepreneurship in shaping long-term visions of global human protection”
Author: Qiaochu Zhang (University of Southern Denmark)
Since the 2000s, China has become increasingly active in global human protection initiatives, driven by its expanding overseas interests and efforts to project itself as a responsible great power. As part of this, China has emerged as both a leading troop-contributing country and a significant financial contributor to UN peacekeeping operations. However, China’s approach to these initiatives differs from that of its liberal counterparts, often contesting established international norms and principles, particularly those related to the Protection of Civilians (POC) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Existing studies have examined China’s contestation practices in the field of human protection from different perspectives, such as through the lens of norm theory, status politics, strategic foreign policy analysis, and cultural studies. However, the majority of these studies primarily focus on the key divergence between the short-term and long-term approaches adopted by China and liberal states. That is, liberal states typically favour direct and immediate actions to address atrocity crimes and human rights violations, but China places greater emphasis on economic development and long-term strategies aimed at addressing the root causes of these issues. This paper departs from the existing literature by arguing that, beyond the short-term versus long-term divergence, China and liberal states also employ distinct approaches to achieving long-term and sustainable human protection, particularly through their development assistance efforts. This paper finds that, in advancing its vision of long-term human protection, China does not merely dissent from existing norms and principles but actively acts as a norm entrepreneur. Instead of working within dominant institutional frameworks, such as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), China has developed its own institutions and mechanisms––including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Institute of South-South Cooperation and Development––to promote alternative standards and principles that define what constitutes appropriate, competent, and effective aid practices. The paper also explores the broader implications of these practices for the liberal international order.
Paper 8 – “What’s in an abbreviation? Protection of Civilians (POC) and Ghana’s role in Rwanda”
Author: Peter Albrecht (DIIS) and Kwesi Aning (KAIPTC)
Abstract: This article offers a critical assessment of the Protection of Civilians (POC) discourse in UN peacekeeping, suggesting that the formalization of POC principles in 1999 reinterpreted practices already in peacekeeping before the term POC was coined. This reading challenges temporal boundaries related to POC, emphasizing that its formal acknowledgment not only codifies existing practices but also sets UN peacekeeping up for potential failure. In the context of peacekeeping missions’ deployment in increasingly violent contexts, formalized POC raises expectations of what peacekeeping can accomplish. Simultaneously, it disregards protection achievements made prior to 1999, when POC was articulated in response to the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan genocide. Ghana’s role in the Rwandan genocide serves as a lens for examining this argument. Despite orders to evacuate, Ghanaian peacekeepers remained, viewing their actions as a commitment to protecting civilians in extreme circumstances. Ghana’s role in Rwanda also provides rare insight into what can reasonably be expected from peacekeeping, especially in contexts of open conflict such as the Sahel, an important question both academically and in policy. It contributes to a reinterpretation of the POC’s historical roots, the impact of formalizing POC, and recognition of pre-1999 civilian protection efforts. The article is based on long-term qualitative fieldwork in Ghana.
Paper 9 – “Regional organizations and climate security: communities of practice in EU, NATO and OSCE”
Authors: Niklas Bremberg (Stockholm University) & Anniek Barnhoorn (SIPRI)
Abstract: Climate change is compounding transnational security risks for humans, societies and states. While research suggests that intergovernmental organizations are getting increasingly involved in efforts to mitigate, adapt and respond to such risks, their responses to date do not sufficiently address the security challenges posed by a rapidly changing climate. This raises multiple questions: What explains why, how and under what conditions climate security gets onto to the policy agendas of International Organizations (IOs)? How do discourse and practice on climate security develop and diffuse in and across IO? How is human security and state security related in international cooperation on climate security in a changing geopolitical context? This paper aims to advance our understanding on the role of (more or less) informal groups of diplomats and officials in advancing intergovernmental cooperation on climate-related security risks. The paper applies a framework based on communities of practice and draws on a unique set of data derived from informal communications and interviews with diplomats and officials working closely with or at the EU, NATO and OSCE as well as participant observation from relevant events organised by or in partnership with the EU, NATO and the OSCE. A deeper understanding of how diplomats and officials work to promote intergovernmental cooperation on climate security is crucial to advance policy-relevant research on this topic as well as better grasping the potential trade-offs between human security and state security in a changing climate.
Discussion and Feedback moderated by Linnéa Gelot (SEDU)
13:00-13:45: Lunch Break
13:45-15:00: Theme 3 – Practices
Paper 10 – “Assembling Protection: inter-IGOs engagements on human rights in peace operations”
Authors: Chiara De Franco (SDU) and Linnéa Gelot (SEDU)
Abstract: This article investigates the African Union (AU)-European Union (EU)- United Nations (UN) cooperation on the set up of a Human Rights Compliance Framework for AU peace operations as an entry point to discuss how practices of human protection are assembled in Somalia and the Sahel. Building on the literature on global security assemblages and Bourdieusian sociology, we study the compliance framework as an assemblage invested with strategic purpose. We discuss how it enables inter-IOs alignments on protection practices, and how it expresses the requisites of LIO-aligned powers to direct conduct over “urgent” problems. Building on fieldwork carried out in Brussels, Addis Ababa, New York, Nairobi, Mogadishu, and remotely since February 2016, we show how the compliance framework produces a particular rationality of rule. We find that efforts to sustain and bring coherence to the “civilian harm mitigation” operations are strenuous as they take place in the context of power struggles and under conditions of contestation of the appropriate rules and practices. These findings have important consequences on organizational understandings of protection duties and responsibilities and their life and death effects. The article contributes to the emerging field of inter-organizational studies with a novel understanding of IOs mutual engagements with fundamental norms and ethical responsibilities.
Paper 11 – “A bricolage approach to human protection in peace operations”
Author: Anastasia Prokhorova (EUI)
Abstract: Protection is a multifaceted policy objective, challenging to implement in peace operations, where multinational military, police, and civilian personnel from different organizations co-exist, interact and sometimes conflict as they pursue ways to protect civilian populations. To better understand how peacekeepers interpret and enact protection in these environments, I theorize them as ‘bricoleurs’ who – akin Levi Strauss’ original handyman – pragmatically piece together old ideas in innovative ways. Departing from the existing literature that employs ‘bricolage’ as a key concept, including practice theory, I develop a theoretical framework which is particularly well-suited to situate global shifts in the international order in concrete tangible contexts, capture experimental character of contemporary global governance, and unpack the politics of protection which structures social relations by marking some subjects as deserving protection and others as threatening. To operationalize specific instances of bricolage – which are (i) innovative, (ii) hybrid and (iii) pragmatic – I revisit some of the recent protection practices that emerged on the field-level of complex emergencies in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and Mali. By reconstructing how peacekeepers have combined different logics of protection at these sites from reports and secondary sources, I make visible particular modes of governance brought into being via protection technologies such as the camp (POC sites), the shield (FIB), policing (FPUs), and surveillance (ISR units).
Discussion and Feedback moderated by Trine Flockhart (EUI)
15:00-15:20:
Paper 12 – Conclusion to the Special Issue – “Human Protection in a world of Growing Diversity, Complexity, and Interconnectedness”
Author: Trine Flockhart (European University Institute)
Abstract: In this concluding piece of the special forum, I integrate insights from the featured articles, employing a framework rooted in the concepts of “resilience as self-governance” and “resilience as diversity governance.” This framework reveals that while the various actors and institutions in the human protection field, as discussed in this issue, are all responding to a common catalyst – the decline of the liberal international order – their processes of “resilience as self-governance” are likely to yield divergent outcomes. I explore how the diverse human protection ordering domains in the multi-order world reflect each order’s unique norms, practices, and power structures and their particular vision for “the good life.” The evolving discourse on human protection, I argue, is therefore not merely changing; it is undergoing a fundamental reimagining based on orders’ divergence rather than convergence around new norms for human protection. At the heart of my analysis is the conviction that the future of human protection will not emerge from a uniform approach under a singular global order. Rather, it will be moulded by the wealth of perspectives and practices offered by these multiple orders. Recognizing and navigating this diversity is crucial for developing “trading zones,” which can support sustainable human protection strategies in a world marked by growing diversity, complexity, and interconnectedness.
Discussion and Feedback moderated by Chiara De Franco (SDU)
15:20-15:40: Coffee Break
15:40-16:15: The way ahead: Special Issue and future collaborations – Chiara De Franco and Linnéa Gelot
16:15-16:30: Conclusion and thanks – Chiara De Franco and Linnéa Gelot