¹ Caverley, Jonathan D. and Dombrowski, Peter, ‘Too important to be left to the admirals: The need to study maritime great power competition’, Security Studies, 29:4 (2020), pp. 579–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chang, Felix K., ‘China's naval rise and the South China Sea: An operational assessment’, Orbis, 56:1 (2012), pp. 19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guilfoyle, Douglas, ‘The rule of law and maritime security: Understanding lawfare in the South China Sea’, International Affairs, 95:5 (2019), pp. 999–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keil, Kathrin, ‘The Arctic: A new region of conflict? The case of oil and gas’, Cooperation and Conflict, 49:2 (2013), pp. 162–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kraska, James, Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Bueger, Christian and Edmunds, Timothy, ‘Blue crime: Conceptualising transnational organised crime at sea’, Marine Policy, 119 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lehr, Peter, Violence at Sea: Piracy in the Age of Global Terrorism (London and New York: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar; Murphy, Martin N., Small Boats, Weak States, Dirty Money: Piracy and Maritime Terrorism in the Modern World (London: C. Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd, 2010)Google Scholar; Percy, Sarah, ‘Counter-piracy in the Indian Ocean: A new form of military cooperation’, Journal of Global Security Studies, 1:4 (2016), pp. 270–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bueger, Christian and Larsen, Jessica, ‘Maritime insecurities’, in Hampson, Fen Osler, Özerdem, Alpaslan, and Kent, Jonathan (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Peace, Security and Development (London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 149–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Michel, David and Sticklohr, Russel, Indian Ocean Rising: Maritime Security and Policy Challenges (Washington, DC: Stimson Center, 2012)Google Scholar; Ross, Robert S., ‘China's naval nationalism: Sources, prospects, and the U.S. response’, International Security, 34:2 (2009), pp. 46–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Adler, Emanuel, World Ordering: A Social Theory of Cognitive Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nexon, Daniel H. and Neumann, Iver B., ‘Hegemonic-order theory: A field-theoretic account’, European Journal of International Relations, 24:3 (2018), pp. 662–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Mattern, Janice Bially, Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis and Representational Force (New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Flockhart, Trine, ‘The problem of change in constructivist theory: Ontological security seeking and agent motivation’, Review of International Studies, 1:22 (2016), pp. 799–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Saskia Sassen, Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages (California: Universities Presses of California, 2006).

⁸ Müller, Martin, ‘Opening the black box of the organization: Socio-material practices of geopolitical ordering’, Political Geography, 31:6 (2012), pp. 379–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Adler, World Ordering.

¹⁰ Nexon and Neumann, ‘Hegemonic order’.

¹¹ Avant, Deborah D., ‘Pragmatic networks and transnational governance of private military and security services’, International Studies Quarterly, 60:20 (2016), pp. 330–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Adler, World Ordering; Christian Bueger and Frank Gadinger, International Practice Theory (2^nd edn, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

¹³ Koslowski, Rey and Kratochwil, Friedrich V., ‘Understanding change in international politics: The Soviet Empire's demise and the international system’, International Organization, 48:2 (1994), p. 216CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Related early arguments using the concept of practice can be found in the institutionalism of March, James G. and Olson, Johan P., ‘The institutional dynamics of international political orders’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 943–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ The core premises of practice theory are outlined in Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent, ‘International practices’, International Theory, 3:1 (2011), pp. 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bueger and Gadinger, ‘International practice theory’.

¹⁵ Reckwitz, Andreas, ‘Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, 5:2 (2002), p. 555CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ Hopf, Theodor, ‘Change in international practices’, European Journal of International Relations, 24:3 (2017), pp. 687–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ulrich Franke and Gunther Hellmann, American Pragmatism in Foreign Policy (Oxford: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2017); Ulrich Franke and Ralph Weber, ‘At the Papini Hotel: On pragmatism in the study of International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:4 (2011), pp. 669–91; Sebastian Schmidt, ‘Foreign military presence and the changing practice of sovereignty: A pragmatist explanation of norm change’, American Political Science Review, 108:4 (2014), pp. 817–29; and Simon Frankel Pratt, ‘Pragmatism as ontology, not (just) epistemology: Exploring the full horizon of pragmatism as an approach to IR theory’, International Studies Review, 18:3 (2016), pp. 508–27.

¹⁹ Kevin A. Clarke and David M. Primo, A Model Discipline: Political Science and the Logic of Representation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

²⁰ Ibid., p. 9.

²¹ Ibid., pp. 8, 12–13; Andrew Abbott, Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences (New York: Norton, 2004), p. 34.

²² Margaret Morisson and Mary S. Morgan, ‘Models as mediating instruments’, in Mary S. Morgan and Margaret Morisson (eds), Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 14.

²³ Clarke and Primo, A Model Discipline, p. 8.

²⁴ George Pavlich, ‘Paradigmatic cases’, in Alberts J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos, and Elden Wiebe (eds), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010), p. 646; as well as Bent Flyvbjerg, ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’, in Clive Seale, Giampietro, Gobo, Jaber F. Gubrium, and David Silverman (eds), Qualitative Research Practice (London and Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2004), pp. 420–34.

²⁵ John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (New York: Swallow Press, 1946).

²⁶ Mark B. Brown, Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), p. 141.

²⁷ Brown, Science in Democracy.

²⁸ Roger Deacon, ‘Theory as practice: Foucault's concept of problematization’, Telos, 118 (2000), pp. 127–42; Paul Rabinow, ‘Dewey and Foucault: What's the problem?’, Foucault Studies, 11 (2011), pp. 11–19.

²⁹ Deacon, ‘Theory as practice’, p. 131.

³⁰ Michel Foucault, The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon, 1984), p. 389.

³¹ Rabinow, ‘Dewey and Foucault’.

³² Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Random House, 1977).

³³ Collin Koopman and Tomas Matza, ‘Putting Foucault to work: Analytic and concept in Foucaultian inquiry’, Critical Inquiry, 39:3 (2013), p. 827.

³⁴ John G. Ruggie, ‘International responses to technology: Concepts and trends’, International Organization, 29:3 (1975), pp. 557–83.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Thierry Balzacq, Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011); Donald MacKenzie, Fabian Muniesa, and Lucia Siu, Do Economists Make Markets: On the Performativity of Economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

³⁷ Trine V. Berling, ‘Science and securitization: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), pp. 385–97; MacKenzie, Muniesa, and Siu, Do Economists Make Markets.

³⁸ Friedrich Kratochwil, The Status of Law in World Society: Meditations on the Role and Rule of Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 102–08.

³⁹ See, among others, Jochen Prantl, ‘Informal groups of states and the UN Security Council’, International Organization, 59:3 (2005), pp. 559–92; Vincent Pouliot and Jean-Philippe Therien, ‘Global governance in practice’, Global Policy, 9:2 (2018), pp. 163–72; Ramesh Thakur, Andrew F. Cooper, and John English, International Commissions and the Power of Ideas (Tokyo, New York, and Paris: United Nations University Press, 2005); Avant, ‘Pragmatic networks and transnational governance of private military and security services’.

⁴⁰ An example is the Responsibility to Protect doctrine: proposed by a blue ribbon panel, it was discussed at a UN reform summit before it was embraced in the formal UN bodies. See Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008).

⁴¹ Brown, Science in Democracy; Tanja Bogusz, Experimentalismus und Soziologie: Von der Krisen- zur Erfahrungswissenschaft (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2018).

⁴² Bogusz, Experimentalismus und Soziologie; Astrid Schwarz, Experiments in Practice (New York and London: Routledge, 2014).

⁴³ Gráinne De Búrca, Robert O. Keohane, and Charles Sabel, ‘Global experimentalist governance’, British Journal of Political Science, 44:3 (2014), pp. 477–86; Mark T. Nance and Patrick Cottrell, ‘A turn toward experimentalism? Rethinking security and governance in the twenty-first century’, Review of International Studies, 40:2 (2013), pp. 277–301; Schwarz, Experiments in Practice.

⁴⁴ De Búrca, Keohane, and Sabel, ‘Global experimentalist governance’.

⁴⁵ Brown, Science in Democracy; Schwarz, Experiments in Practice.

⁴⁶ Ron Robin, The Making of the Cold War Enemy: Culture and Politics in the Military-Intellectual Complex (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001).

⁴⁷ Lisa Stampnitzky, ‘Disciplining an unruly field: Terrorism experts and theories of scientific/intellectual production’, Qualitative Sociology, 34:1 (2010), pp. 1–19.

⁴⁸ Schwarz, Experiments in Practice.

⁴⁹ Steven Bernstein and Hamish van der Veen, ‘Best practices in global governance’, Review of International Studies, 43:1 (2017), pp. 1–23.

⁵⁰ See, for example, the discussion of Avant's ‘Pragmatic Networks’ in ‘Can Networks Govern’, International Studies Quarterly Online Symposium, 6 October 2017, available at: {http://www.dhnexon.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ISQSymposiumAvant.pdf} accessed 30 November 2020.

⁵¹ Avant, ‘A Pragmatic Response’, International Studies Quarterly Online Symposium, 6 October 2017, pp. 13–14, available at: {http://www.dhnexon.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ISQSymposiumAvant.pdf} accessed 30 November 2020.

⁵² Stefano Guzzini, ‘Power in Communitarian Evolution’, DIIS Working Paper No. 4 (Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, 2020), p. 3.

⁵³ Guzzini, ‘Power in Communitarian Evolution’; Adler, ‘World ordering’, Peter Katzenstein, ‘Protean power: A second look’, International Theory, 12:3 (2020), pp. 481–99, Michael N. Barnett and Raymond Duvall, ‘Power in international politics’, International Organization, 59:2 (2005), pp. 39–75.

⁵⁴ Although sporadically, international security concerns brought some attention to the oceans, such as the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the ‘tanker war’ in the Persian Gulf in 1984–7, and the so-called ‘Turbot War’ between Canada and Spain in 1994–6.

⁵⁵ Yet, from the 1980s onwards there was a growing awareness for the health of the oceans and gave rise to an environmental problematisation. Our analysis focuses on security at sea.

⁵⁶ See Christian Bueger, ‘What is maritime security?’, Marine Policy, 53 (2015), pp. 159–64; Christian Bueger and Timothy Edmunds, ‘Beyond seablindness: A new agenda for maritime security studies’, International Affairs, 93:6 (2017), pp. 1293–311; Basil Germond, ‘The geopolitical dimension of maritime security’, Marine Policy, 54 (2015), pp. 137–42.

⁵⁷ Bueger, ‘What is maritime security?’.

⁵⁸ U Government, ‘The National Strategy for Maritime Security’ (2005), p. 2, available at: {https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/maritime-security.html} accessed 30 November 2020.

⁵⁹ Ibid., pp. 3–6.

⁶⁰ Philippe Leymarie, Philippe Rekacewicz, and Agnès Stienne, ‘UNOSAT Global Report on Maritime Piracy: A Geospatial Analysis, 1995–2013’, United Nations Institute for Training and Support’, available at: {https://unitar.org/sites/default/files/media/publication/doc/UNITAR_UNOSAT_Piracy_1995-2013.pdf} accessed 30 November 2020.

⁶¹ Paolo Campana, ‘Out of Africa: The organisation of migrant smuggling across the Mediterranean’, European Journal of Criminology, 15:4 (2018), pp. 481–502; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Combating Transnational Organized Crime Committed at Sea (New York: United Nations, 2013).

⁶² United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Review of Maritime Transport 2020 (New York: United Nations, 2020), p. 20

⁶³ Justin V. Hastings, ‘Geographies of state failure and sophistication in maritime piracy hijackings’, Political Geography, 28:4 (2009), pp. 213–23; Sarah Percy and Anja Shortland, ‘Contemporary maritime piracy: Five obstacles to ending Somali piracy’, Global Policy, 4:1 (2013), pp. 65–72.

⁶⁴ Chang, ‘China's naval rise and the South China Sea’; Walter C. Ladwig, ‘Drivers of Indian naval expansion’, in Harsh V. Pant (ed.), The Rise of the Indian Navy: Internal Vulnerabilities, External Challenges (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2012), pp. 19–40.

⁶⁵ Jonathan D. Caverley and Peter Dombrowski, ‘Cruising for a bruising: Maritime competition in an anti-access age’, Security Studies, 29:4 (2020, pp. 671–700.

⁶⁶ Margareth Blunden, ‘Geopolitics and the northern sea route’, International Affairs, 88:1 (2012), pp. 115–29; Ketian Zhang, ‘Cautious bully: Reputation, resolve and Bejing's use of coercion in the South China Sea’, International Security, 44:1 (2019), pp. 117–59.

⁶⁷ Jacques deLisle, ‘Troubled waters: China's claims and the South China Sea’, Orbis, 56:4 (2012), pp. 608–42; Guilfoyle, ‘The rule of law and maritime security’.

⁶⁸ Pavlich, ‘Paradigmatic cases’.

⁶⁹ James R. Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara, ‘China's naval ambitions in the Indian Ocean’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 31:3 (2008), pp. 367–94; James A. Russell, ‘The Indian Ocean’, in Daniel Moran and James A. Russell (eds), Maritime Strategy and Global Order (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2016), p. 185.

⁷⁰ Pavlich, ‘Paradigmatic cases’, p. 646.

⁷¹ The following discussion draws on a long-term study of maritime security in the Western Indian Ocean and draws on document analysis, ethnographic interviews with over eighty practitioners, as well as short-term participant observation at the experimental sites described below. Details of this broader project and the methodological approach are discussed in Christian Bueger, ‘Conducting field research when there is no “field”: A note on the praxiographic challenge’, in Sarah Biecker and Klaus Schlichte (eds), The Political Anthropology of Internationalized Politics (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2021), pp. 29–45 and Christian Bueger, ‘Experimenting in global governance: Learning lessons with the contact group on piracy’, in Richard Freeman and Jan-Peter Voß (eds), Knowing Governance: The Epistemic Construction of Political Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015), pp. 87–104.

⁷² Other experiments discussed in the literature, but not further investigated here, include the use of private security companies or best management practices; see, for example, Eugenio Cusumano and Stefano Ruzza, ‘Contractors as a second best option: The Italian hybrid approach to maritime security’, Ocean Development and International Law, 46:2 (2015), pp. 111–22; Christian Bueger, ‘Territory, authority, expertise: Global governance and the counter-piracy assemblage’, European Journal of International Relations, 24:3 (2018), pp. 614–37.

⁷³ Sarah Percy, ‘Maritime crime and naval response’, Survival, 58:3 (2016), pp. 155–86.

⁷⁴ Andrew C. Winner, ‘Combating transnational threats in the Indian Ocean: A focused US regional strategy’, in Peter Dombrowski and Andrew C. Winner (eds), The Indian Ocean and US Grand Strategy: Ensuring Access and Promoting Security (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2014), p. 182; Percy, ‘Maritime crime and naval response’.

⁷⁵ Justin V. Hastings, ‘The fractured geopolitics of the United States in the Indian Ocean region’, Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 7:2 (2011), p. 187.

⁷⁶ US Naval Forces Central Command, ‘Combined Maritime Forces’, available at: {https://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Combined-Maritime-Forces/} accessed 30 November 2020.

⁷⁷ Russell, ‘The Indian Ocean’, p. 195.

⁷⁸ See James Kraska, Contemporary Maritime Piracy: International Law, Strategy, and Diplomacy at Sea (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishers, 2011); Basil Germond and Michael Smith, ‘Re-thinking European security interests and the ESDP: Explaining the EU's anti-piracy operation’, Contemporary Security Policy, 30:3 (2009), pp. 573–93; and Carmen Gebhard and Simon J. Smith, ‘The two faces of EU-NATO cooperation: Counter-piracy operations off the Somali Coast’, Cooperation and Conflict, 50:1 (2015), pp. 107–27 for a discussion of these operations.

⁷⁹ See Kraska, Contemporary Maritime Piracy, pp. 98–9.

⁸⁰ Jon Huggins and Jens Vestergaard Madsen, ‘The CGPCS: The evolution of multilateralism to multi-stakeholder collaboration’, in Thierry Tardy (ed.), Fighting Piracy off the Coast of Somalia: Lessons Learned from the Contact Group (Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 2014), p. 27.

⁸¹ Piracy Daily, Maritime TV panel discussion with Donna Hopkins, US State Department Coordinator on Counter Piracy and Maritime, Security, 26 June 2013.

⁸² Matthew Macleod and William M. Wardrop, Operational Analysis at Combined Maritime Forces, 32nd International Symposium of Military Operational Research, p. 3, available at: {http://www.lessonsfrompiracy.net/files/2015/12/32ismor_macleod_wardrop_paper.pdf} accessed 30 November 2020.

⁸³ Gebhard and Smith, ‘The two faces of EU-NATO cooperation’, p. 12.

⁸⁴ Ibid.

⁸⁵ Rowan Watt Pringle, ‘How to Catch a Pirate: Cooperation is Key’, Naval-technology (2011), available at: {http://www.naval-technology.com/features/featurehow-to-catch-a-pirate-cooperation-is-key/} accessed 30 November 2020.

⁸⁶ Gebhard and Smith, ‘The two faces of EU-NATO Cooperation’, p. 12.

⁸⁷ Robin Geiss and Anna Petrig, Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea: The Legal Framework for Counter-Piracy Operations in Somalia and the Gulf of Aden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 26.

⁸⁸ Guilfoyle, Douglas, ‘Prosecuting pirates: The contact group on piracy off the Coast of Somalia, governance and international law’, Global Policy, 4:1 (2013), p. 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁹ Danielle A. Zach, Conor Seyle, and Jens Vestergaard Madsen, Burden-Sharing Multi-level Governance: A Study of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (Colorado: Once Earth Future Foundation, 2013), p. 7.

⁹⁰ Henk Swarttouw and Donna L. Hopkins, ‘The contact group on piracy off the coast of Somalia: Genesis, rationale and objectives’, in Tardy (ed.), Fighting Piracy, pp. 11, 14, 17.

⁹¹ Antonio Missiroli and Maciej Popowski, ‘Foreword’, in Tardy (ed.), Fighting Piracy, p. 4.

⁹² European External Action Service (2014), ‘Communiqué: Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia 16th Plenary Session’ (12 January 2015).

⁹³ See the contributions in Tardy (ed.), Fighting Piracy.

⁹⁴ See Prantl, ‘Informal groups of states and the UN Security Council’.

⁹⁵ Tardy (ed.), Fighting Piracy; Guilfoyle, ‘Prosecuting pirates’.

⁹⁶ Not all of these experiments were necessarily successful. See, for example, Huggins and Vestergaard Madsen, ‘The CGPCS’, pp. 31–2.

⁹⁷ See the detailed analysis of this system and the role of the CGPCS in Guilfoyle, ‘Prosecuting pirates’ and the contributions in Scharf, Michael P., Newton, Michael A., and Sterio, Milena (eds), Prosecuting Maritime Piracy: Domestic Solutions to International Crimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁸ UN Doc. S/2011/30, 2011.

⁹⁹ Liisberg, Jonas Bering, ‘The legal aspects of counter-piracy’, in Thierry Tardy (ed.), The Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS): A Lessons Learnt Compendium (Paris: EU Institute for Security Studies, 2014), p. 35Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Scharf, Michael P., ‘Introduction’, in Scharf, Michael P., Newton, Michael A., and Sterio, Milena (eds), Prosecuting Maritime Piracy: Domestic Solutions to International Crimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰¹ See Tardy (ed.), Fighting Piracy.

¹⁰² See the documentation provided in Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS), ‘Lessons From Piracy’ (2016), available at: {http://www.lessonsfrompiracy.net} accessed 30 November 2020.

¹⁰³ For a discussion of the experimental nature of these practices, see Bueger, Christian and Tholens, Simone, ‘Theorizing capacity building’, in Bueger, Christian, Edmunds, Timothy, and McCabe, Robert (eds), Capacity Building for Maritime Security: The Western Indian Ocean Experience (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2020), pp. 37–9Google Scholar; Edmunds, Timothy and Juncos, Ana E., ‘Constructing the capable state: Contested discourses and practices in EU capacity building’, Cooperation and Conflict, 55:1 (2020), pp. 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Gilmer, Brittany, Political Geographies of Piracy: Constructing Threats and Containing Bodies in Somalia (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ See, for example, Ejdus, Filip, ‘Local ownership as international governmentality: Evidence from the EU mission in the Horn of Africa’, Contemporary Security Policy, 39:1 (2018), pp. 28–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ The Information Fusion Centre in Singapore hosts Shared Awareness Meetings (SAM), which discusses maritime security in the South East Asian region. The so-called SHADE Med was introduced in December 2015 by the European Union to coordinate activities with NATO forces but also other actors such as the shipping industry, the US Navy, and UN organisations addressing migration at sea.

¹⁰⁷ Flyvbjerg, ‘Five misunderstandings’.

¹⁰⁸ Bueger, Christian, ‘Piracy studies: Academic responses to the return of an ancient menace’, Cooperation and Conflict, 49:3 (2014), pp. 406–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Flyvbjerg, ‘Five misunderstandings’, p. 427.

¹¹⁰ March and Olson, ‘The institutional dynamics of international’, p. 968.

¹¹¹ Clarke and Primo, A Model Discipline.