This article develops a theoretical explanation of the patterns of violence and distribution of conflict in contemporary world. It combines the international political thought of Carl Schmitt with an exploration of the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria and tensions over the South China Sea in order to envisage a new spatialisation of the world based around Großräume – ‘large spaces’, that is, powerful agglomerations of states – and peripheral lands in-between. It is thereby stipulated that while direct violence between Großräume (...) is limited, inter- Großraum competition is channelled towards the periphery, and the three cases presented in this article demonstrate how the exact nature and means of conflict depend on a particular inter- Großraum alignment. This reconceptualisation of the international order is presented in the wider context of Schmitt’s political thought, particularly his notions of the political, sovereignty and the exception in order to elucidate the latent processes behind the formation of state groupings and their willingness to engage in conflict beyond their borders. (shrink)

The paper examines the introduction of the so-called professor’s privilege in Sweden in the 1940s and shows how this legal principle for university patents emerged out of reforms of techno-science and the patent law around World War II. These political processes prompted questions concerning the nature and functions of university research: How is academic science different than other forms of knowledge production? What are the contributions of universities for economy and welfare? Who is the rightful owner of scientific findings? Is (...) academic science “work”? By following the introduction of the professor’s privilege, the paper shows how spokespersons for the academic profession addressed such questions and contributed to a new definition of university science through boundary-setting, normative descriptions, and by producing symbolic relationships between science and the economy. The totality of those positions is here referred to as a “nomos” – that is: a generic and durable set of seemingly axiomatic claims about universities. This Swedish nomos, as it took shape in the 1940s, amalgamated classical notions of academic science as exceptional and autonomous with emerging ideas of inventiveness and close connections between academics and business. Crucially, though, the academic-industrial relations embedded in this nomos were private and individual, thus in sharp conflict with the ideas of entrepreneurial universities evolving globally by the end of the 20th century. (shrink)