November 15, 2009
Mohammed El-Khatib
Global Governance and Deliberation
Research Program Proposal
The Knowledge Society and Conceptual Frameworks in International
Relations: Transnational Epistemic Communities and policy framing in Oslo I
and II.
Introduction
Today, there is little to dispute the growing influence and power of epistemic communities in global
governance. The rapid diffusion of ideas and the increasing technical complexity and uncertainty
(Keohane & Nikoladis, 1989, Adler & Haas, 1992) of the issue-areas in global governance has created
a new form of epistemic dependence1 by state actors in their desire to harness the diplomatic and
deliberative leverage while alleviating uncertainty of certain issues.
While much has been said about epistemic communities and their contribution to environmental and
scientific policy, little attention has been paid to their role in conflict resolution. Traditionally, state
actors have had to rely on epistemic communities around information-rich issue-areas to abbreviate
the concepts that can frame policy. This is achieved through Informal transnational networks of
academics, scientists and experts. This network coalesces around an intersubjective position and,
normatively, produces a functioning conceptual framework for dealing with that issue. Epistemic
communities have driven communicative action around many pressing issues-areas including stem
cell research, genetic modification in agriculture and global warming. Much like these issues, I argue
that the art of peace building has become in and of itself a science, one bound to complex realities
and verifiable scrutiny, necessitating the need to move beyond the realist assumption that states
alone can fix the problems alone.
1
Taken from John Hardwig’s paper on the namesake. Hardwig argues that experts create epistemic
dependence because of their intellectual authority.
http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/EpDep.pdf
Yet beyond the
Of the many empirical instances of outcomes involving epistemic communities, the Oslo accords
stands as an ideal case by which to study the role of epistemic communities in framing international
conflict resolution policy. Much like the examples previously highlighted, an informal transnational
body of experts and academics emerged to play a crucial role in building momentum around a
framework that would eventually lead to the ceremonious outcome on the lawn of the White House
in 1993.
Using Oslo as a case study, I seek to advance the position that epistemic communities play a pivotal
role in building conceptual frameworks for resolving conflict. From a normative standpoint, Oslo, as a
conceptual framework, allowed its protagonists to interface with one another on mutually agreeable
terms, thereby facilitating deliberation. In order to demonstrate this, I will use Haas’ typography of
epistemic communities to prove that Oslo features the facets of an epistemic community. I will
approach this by explaining the empirical processes whereby networks of experts, academics and
politicians went about constructing a conceptual framework on which Oslo (and future peace
agreements) is based on. I will then attempt to respond to realist assumptions that the Oslo accords
were solely the manifest of the exogenous political realities (by mega power brokers) and shifting
power dynamics, namely (1) the collapse of the Soviet Union, (2) Shift in American policy and (3) the
threat posed to the ontological security of the Palestinian Liberation Organization 2.
I do not dispute that these factors played a role in catalyzing Oslo. However, I argue that given the
scope, complexity and global reach of the issues presented in Oslo- and the theoretical assumptions
underlying its implementation - are too complex to be conceived heuristically. Finally, I will advance
the position advanced by Anne-Marie Slaughter (as best as I understand her theory) that
These factors are briefly addressed in Weinberger’s book “Co-opting the PLO: A critical
Reconstruction of the Oslo Accords, 1993-1995.” This might be modified in the future.
2
transnational epistemic communities play an important role in creating a foundation of “overarching
values” towards the realization of a transgovernmental constitution for conflict resolution.
The questions that I will investigate to advance my position are as follows:
1.
Were the Oslo Accords a realization of an epistemic community or the product of exogenous
power dynamics (realist assumption)? Where is the proof?
2.
What does a conceptual framework borne out of epistemic networks look like?
3.
How do Epistemic Communities function on a transnational level?
Literature Review
Beyond the periphery of science policy, as a form of civic deliberation, epistemic communities are (1)
a fertile network for creating overarching conceptual frameworks for conflict resolution and (2) a
necessary response to the complexity and uncertainty that pervades social issues. In order to
understand how epistemic communities function in an issue-area like the Palestinian- Israeli conflict,
we must examine the theoretical implications of epistemic networks.
Haas identifies four aspects of epistemic communities (Quoted from Sundström, 2000 pp. 5):
 A shared set of normative and principled beliefs, which provide a value-based rationale for the
social action of community members.
 Shared causal beliefs, which are derived from their analysis of practices leading or contributing to a
central set of problems in their domain and which then serve as the basis for elucidating the
multiple linkages between possible policy action and desired outcomes
 Shared notions of validity-that is, intersubjective, internally defined criteria for weighing and
validating knowledge in the domain of their expertise
 A common policy enterprise- that is, a set of common practices associated with a set of problems to
which their professional competence is directed, presumably out of the conviction that human
welfare will be enhanced as a consequence.
Underpinning this definition is the repeated reference to a shared value system built upon an
organic, informal network of experts- which draws them into the larger, more provocative argument
on the effectiveness of informal networks of value systems on the effects of global deliberation.
Haas’ framework touches upon two important dimensions concerning epistemic communities in
Global governance. The first concerns the role of networks in global governance (Sikkink, 2009,
Slaughter, 2004). The second is the role of non-governmental actors in global governance3. Both
dimensions converge on the fault line between neoliberal and neorealist perspectives of the
legitimacy and efficacy of NSA’s in policy making.
I bring this up because the dichotomous interpretation of Epistemic Communities is important to
studying the ways in which the Oslo accords were interpreted. As I had mentioned previously,
neorealists ruled that the circumstances leading to Oslo were purely exogenous and power related. I
however contest this by arguing that epistemic communities played a large role in bringing both
sides to the table- by creating a conceptual framework that was amicable to peace. Ultimately
however, the real answers concerning the origins of Oslo lies somewhere in between; as a confluence
of both neorealist and neoliberalist assumptions (Risse-Kappen, 1994).
In sum, a theoretical understanding of epistemic communities must include inquiry into the theories
of networks in global governance, and the way these networks- as NSA’s, influence policy. Lastly, we
must also look into the ways in which conceptual frameworks create communicative action, whichin this case- concerns negotiations and peace building.
Conclusion
Within the liberal tribe, creating conceptual frameworks for peace building cannot be achieved by
states alone. Instead, the multidimensional complexities of statecraft necessitates the existence of
transnational epistemic communities.
3
I will flesh these perspective out in more detail come time for my final paper.
Works Cited
Haas, Peter M. "Addressing the Global Governance." Global Environmental Politics 4.4 (2004): 1-15.
Muse. MIT Press. Web. 11 Nov. 2009.
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/global_environmental_politics/v004/4.4haas.html>.
Haas, Peter M. "Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination." International
Organization, 46.1 (1992): 1-35. JSTOR. MIT Press. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2706951?seq=1>.
Hardwig, John M. "Epistemic Dependence." Journal of Philosophy 82.7 (1985): 335-49. JSTOR. Journal of
Philosophy Inc. Web. 11 Nov. 2009. <http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/EpDep.pdf>.
Keohane, Robert O. International Institutions And State Power: Essays In International Relations Theory
(Paperback). Westview, 1989. Print.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. "Ideas do not Flow Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the
End of the Cold War." International Organization 48.2 (1994): 185-214. JSTOR. The MIT Press. Web. 11
Nov. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706930>.
Sikkink K. "The Power of Networks in International Politics." Networked Politics: Agency, Power and
Governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2009. 228-47. Print.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. "Chapter 4: A Disaggregated World Order." A New World Order. New York:
Princeton UP, 2004. Print.
Sundström, Mikael. ""A Brief Introduction: What is an Epistemic Community?"" (2000): 1-9. Print.
Weinberger, Peter. Co-opting the PLO A Critical Reconstruction of the Oslo Accords, 1993-1995. New
York: Lexington Books, 2007. Print.