When asked to discuss the most high-stake struggles facing the ISA community, I had to first ask myself—what is the ISA community? In very general terms, it is a community of scholars and teachers who study and teach around international relations, and—on occasion—they meet at conferences and workshops (especially the annual convention of the International Studies Association held in North America) and collaborate with each other. As diverse as the members of this community are, the truth of the matter is that those of us who have participated in ISA organized events are really just familiar with those whose work we have read and shared panels with. Although this may cause some (if not most of us) to fall into a niche trap in what I like to call “the silos of Homo Academicus” (cf. Bourdieu 1988), I personally do not have much of an issue with this. What we read, write, and cite is highly influenced by our research interests. So, when pondering what the ISA community is, the challenge to me does not lie in whether or not the ISA community is an open and inclusive community for all international relations (IR) scholars. Rather, I am concerned about the fact that such participation is full of exclusions and marginalization that can delegitimize certain knowledge over others. In other words, the challenge of cooperation, contention, and (lack of) creativity from within the ISA community lies in how the elite nature of the community can cause its members to (re)produce knowledge that perpetuates epistemic violence.

Den här rapporten ger en sammanfattning av de seminarier som organiserades under våren 2021 av PHEDKommissionen för framtiden för hälso- och sjukvården efter covid-19, som bjöd in till vittnesmål från hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal, tjänstemän, tankesmedjor, forskare, civilsamhället och andra intresserade parter baserat på de erfarenheter de fått och lärt sig av under pandemin. De vittnesmål som framfördes kom från många olika geografska platser och många olika nivåer, vilket gjorde dem relevanta både för Sverige och globalt. De fastställer fera centrala rekommendationer för att skydda och förbättra folkhälsan. Dessa rekommendationer både kompletterar och i hög grad utökar de rekommendationer som togs fram i den första rapporten, som var mer fokuserad på Sverige (”Ojämlikhet i samhället gör oss sårbara för pandemier”) och baserad på vittnesmål från hösten 2020, och som kan nås via: https://phed.uni.mau.se/. Den stora mängd erfarenheter som sammanfattas här går långt utöver pandemiperioden och tillhandahåller idéer och praktisk vägledning för att skydda och stärka människors hälsa så att den blir mer motståndskraftig inför framtida kriser. 

This report summarises the Spring 2021 sessions of the PHED Commission on the Future of Healthcare Post Covid-19, which invited testimony from healthcare practitioners, civil servants, thinktanks, researchers, civil society, and other interested parties based on their experiences learnt during the pandemic. The evidence presented came from multiple geographies and levels, making it relevant both to Sweden and globally. It identifes several key recommendations for protecting and improving public health. These recommendations supplement and greatly expand upon those identifed in the report (‘Societal inequity makes us vulnerable to pandemics’) based on testimony from Fall/Autumn 2020, which can be accessed via: https://phed.uni.mau.se/. The wealth of experience summarized here goes well beyond the pandemic period, providing ideas and practical guidance for protecting and strengthening human health to be more resilient in the face of future crises.

To say that Africa/ African Union (AU) and European Union (EU) relations are postcolonial in nature should be stating the obvious, and yet studies that discuss and analyse Africa- EU relations from a postcolonial perspective or through postcolonial approaches are hard to come by. This chapter outlines the importance of postcolonial approaches for the study of Africa- EU relations. It contextualises such approaches in negotiation practices and outcomes of the EU proposed Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Though academic literature on Africa- EU relations tends to define such relations as being asymmetrical, the politics around the negotiations of the EPAs through postcolonial lenses reveals contestations around the assumptions of such asymmetries. In particular, the dominant narratives of asymmetry locate African states as being in a weaker position, thus silencing the articulations of African agency. Yet in undertaking a postcolonial account and paying attention to resistance towards the EU’s imposed EPAs – through diplomacy by state actors and the actions of civil society – this chapter is able to highlight African agency in the context of Africa- EU relations.

Throughout this chapter, references to and examples of the politics around EPA negotiations– launched in 2000 and which were supposed to be finalised by 2007 in order to meet a World Trade Organization (WTO)- mandated deadline – are analysed through postcolonial approaches with the aim of contextualising the reasons as to why negotiations did not lead to the signing of EPAs by the 2007 deadline. Accordingly, after discussing what postcolonial approaches are, this chapter discusses how to consider and analyse colonial legacy by decentring Europe, how to analyse partnership from a postcolonial perspective, how to contextualise market liberalisation in a changing world order within a context of a postcolonial global economy, as well as how regional actorness should be analysed through the politicisation and rearticulation of subjectivity.