International Conference “Italian Biopolitical Theory”
24th – 25th May 2013, Ljubljana


The enigmatic nexus between sovereignty and biopolitics left opened by Foucault’s seminal work is the starting point of a reflection that has concerned Italian biopolitical thought over the last two decades.  What marks the difference between Foucault’s notion of biopolitics and most recent theorizations? How should we envision resistance without proposing new metaphysical forms of salvation? How has the commodification of life transformed 20th and 21st century biopolitics? Is the “object” of biopolitics the symbolic life of the political body, bare-natural life, or the excess of its immanence?
To thematise the relationship between life and politics means to sit astride the wall that today separates history from nature, human from natural sciences, opening up the possibility of undermining the terms in which this relation has been articulated so far.  What are “politics” and “life”? Are these two terms to be considered as originally distinct or intrinsically linked? What does it mean to develop a philosophy “no longer in opposition with the concept, or better the natural reality, of the bìos” (Esposito, 2011)? Does Italian biopolitical theory give a satisfactory account of the biological inscription of logos into bìos? And finally, does it allow us to think a post-metaphysical notion of subjectivity?
Starting off from these questions, the aim of the present conference is to foster a debate on biopolitics, which will be articulated at the intersection between Italian biopolitical theoryand other theoretical approaches.

More information:




8th Pan – European Conference on International Relations
One International Relations or Many? 
Multiple Worlds, Multiple Crises


Wednesday 18 – Saturday 21 September 2013, Warsaw, Poland

‘The world in crisis’ is a phrase that we often hear, especially in recent years – be it the eurozone crisis, the global economic crisis after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the crisis of legitimacy for a number of states in North Africa and the Middle East, the crisis of US hegemony, climate change and (un)sustainable development, and so on. Curiously, this has led to remarkably little self-reflection among International Relations communities, especially with regard to two key aspects of the phrase: (1) whose ‘world’ is it that is in crisis, and (2) what is labelled as a ‘crisis’ and what is not.
This forces us to ask why and how this might be the case; in particular, this Call for Papers calls attention to the ways in which contemporary ‘real-world’ crises are frequently viewed as indicative of crises of the paradigms and frameworks promoted by others and not ourselves. As such, this conference asks whether IR is able to respond effectively to the challenges posed to its assumptions and frameworks as such. That is, if international relations is characterised by multiple worlds and multiple crises then what does this say about the discipline of International Relations?
We are particularly interested in the plurality of perspectives that exist within (and can be brought into) IR in order to highlight how these different perspectives allow us to see four things: (1) our view of IR as a discipline; (2) our conception of ‘the world(s)’ that we live in and study; (3) our view of what is important and/or appropriate for IR to study in the world(s) that we live in; (4) our assessment of crises and their significance, which extends to whether we view them as crises or not in the first place (and thus the question ‘crises for whom?’). In other words, are there many rather than one International Relations and does this mean that there are multiple worlds and crises which IR scholars could study? And why and how does this matter?
While participants are especially invited to respond to the conference theme, proposals on all aspects of International Relations will be considered. 

More information: