My research at the intersection of international security and global governance focuses on security regionalism, multilateral diplomacy, and the role of meaning-making practices in world politics. As an IR scholar and a Southeast Asianist, through my developing research programme on multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific, I strive to produce original findings that derive from in-depth study of this region and local practitioners, but that can inform broader debates in the discipline as well as our understanding of more traditional (Western-centric) objects of study. I have published in English and French in International Studies Quarterly, PS: Political Science & Politics, The Pacific Review, L'Espace politique, and Monde Chinois, among others. In addition to 1. a book manuscript in preparation adapted from my doctoral dissertation on security community-building in the context of ASEAN, I am developping two other major projects on 2. practices of multilateral diplomacy in Southeast Asia and 3. competing crisis narratives about the rules-based international order.

Mes recherches situées à l'intersection de la sécurité internationale et de la gouvernance globale portent sur le régionalisme sécuritaire, la diplomatie multilatérale et le rôle du discours dans la construction sociale de la politique mondiale. Mes travaux ont été publiés en anglais et en français dans International Studies Quarterly, The Pacific Review, Pacific Affairs, L'Espace politique, and Monde Chinois, entre autres. Outre 1. un livre en préparation sur la construction d'une communauté de sécurité dans le contexte de l'ASEAN, je travaille actuellement à la réalisation de deux autres projets principaux sur 2. les pratiques diplomatiques en Asie Sud-Est et 3. le rôle des récits de crise dans l'évolution de l'ordre international.
 
1. Enacting Security in the Asia-Pacific: Discourse in the Making of an ASEAN Community

I am adapting and expanding my doctoral research into a book manuscript titled Enacting Security in the Asia-Pacific: Discourse in the Making of an ASEAN Community. The book develops an original discourse-based framework for the study of security community-building as a way to better our understanding of the polysemy of this process in the 21st century and its effects on the resilience of international/regional institutions. I use the case of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a basis to highlight the omnidirectional and contested character of security community-building in practice.The book covers the whole spectrum of issues that make up the regional security governance agenda, from transnational crime to the South China Sea disputes as well as the Rohingya crisis. It looks at how actors from the main "tracks" of Asia-Pacific multilateralism (official, expert/informal, and non-governmental) advance distinct and competing positions on the meaning of security and the boundaries of the regional community,  thus simultaneously unsettling and reproducing ASEAN's identity as a security community "in the making". The time is ripe for looking at ASEAN's characterization as a "talk shop" from a new angle that makes room for the productive power of discourse in world politics.
  • n.d. Enacting Security in the Asia-Pacific: Discourse in the Making of an ASEAN Community, book mss. in preparation.

​This project has already led to two peer-reviewed articles in major journals in IR.

Abstract: This article contributes to ongoing debates on security community-building in IR by focusing on the productive role of discursive contestation in this process. It builds on recent work associated with the “practice” turn, discourse theory, and the study of security communities in the Global South to propose a new understanding of how the diversification of security governance impacts security community-building. The article develops an original discourse-based approach that conceptualizes security community-building as a polysemic, omnidirectional, and contested process in which social agents debate the meaning of security and the boundaries of community. It applies this approach to the case of ASEAN to show how contestation over the organization’s identity as a security community “in the making” takes place along two dimensions. First, different (and potentially incompatible) versions of the community compete for dominance. Second, contestation also unfolds “internally”, among social agents who agree on which version ought to prevail. I illustrate this part of the argument through an examination of the debate over ASEAN’s identity as a “people-centered” community. The demonstration is supported by the analysis of “texts” enacted in the discursive field where the security community is talked into existence, as well as interviews with practitioners. Abstract: ‘Non-traditional security’ (NTS) is prominently featured in the agenda of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other ASEAN-led institutions in the Asia-Pacific. ‘NTS’ brings together a series transnational and non-military security threats that are considered common among regional states, urgent for them to attend to, and non-sensitive all at the same time. This a priori makes it a self-evident focus of attempts to bring regional security cooperation ‘to a higher plane’. However, this paper reveals that the uncontroversial character of NTS is overestimated, by shedding light on the co-existence of divergent – and potentially contradictory – interpretations of its meaning and implications in ASEAN and the wider region. In a context where ASEAN's relevance to the pursuit of regional security is increasingly being measured against its (in)ability to provide a coherent approach to security challenges that affect the region, the contested nature of NTS has important implications for the grouping's resilience in the twenty-first century.

2. Multilateral Diplomacy as Practice: Identity, Contest and Change in Asia-Pacific Regionalism

Multilateralism increasingly occurs on a regional basis and in venues not primarily controlled by the West. As a result, what counts as appropriate diplomatic practice is the terrain of increasing contestation. This is the core focus of this research program, which studies the impact of contestation over diplomatic practice on the resilience of multilateral institutions. At the empirical level, I focus on the Indo-Pacific and the case of ASEAN in particular as a prime example of this emerging but understudied trend in regional and global governance. This project is the next step in my broader research program on the evolution of multilateral governance in Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific, which builds on areas of inquiry arising from doctoral and post-doctoral research. It draws on recent debates in the International Relations literature on the role of discourse and practice in the social construction of world politics, and makes empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions to the study of global governance, multilateralism, and diplomacy. Its main objective is to develop a new framework to better account for the role of contestation in the resilience of multilateral institutions beyond the West. I will achieve this objective by conducting a detailed analysis of key instances of contestation in the recent evolution of ASEAN, supported by semi-directed interviews with practitioners of Indo-Pacific multilateralism.

  • n.d., with Aarie Glas. “Debunking the ‘ASEAN Way’: The Contested Meaning and Practice of Diplomatic Norms in Southeast Asia", under review.
Abstract: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as a diplomatic community of diverse member states, is often seen as grounded in a strict adhesion to a common set of diplomatic norms, central among them non-interference and consensus through consultation. The so-called “ASEAN Way” of diplomacy and conflict management is as much lauded as it is maligned, but it remains at the center of discussions over ASEAN’s resilience as a community of states. However, it is also recognized as a “loosely-used concept whose meaning remains vague and contested” (Acharya 2014). This paper addresses this contestation by bridging and building on insights from discourse theory and the “practice turn” in International Relations, as well as recent theoretical debates over norm contestation. We argue that the “ASEAN Way” is best understood as a rhetorical commonplace, around which a debate is currently unfolding over what counts as competent diplomatic practice among regional states. This debate is both a prolongation and a reconfiguration of long-standing divisions within ASEAN membership, as it pits different interpretations of what counts as appropriate diplomatic practice in ASEAN against one another. We document this contestation and its effects through an analysis of ASEAN’s response to recent developments in the South China Sea and the Rohingya Crisis.

***This article won the 2019 Best Paper Award and 2019 Best New Scholar Award from the ISA Asia-Pacific Region.

  • n.d. "Returning Discourse to the Practice Turn: The Contested Practice of Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific Community", conference paper in preparation.
Abstract: While the “practice turn” and discourse scholarship have mostly evolved on separate paths in IR, the possibility of building a bridge between them has been increasingly emphasized. This exercise, however, typically takes place under terms that implicitly favour the “practice turn” by reproducing a false duality between practice and discourse, and misconstruing the latter. This paper adopts a different view, suggesting that a return to discourse can shed new light on the power dynamics at play in defining what counts as competent practice within a particular field. This opens up space for considerations of gender and race that the “practice turn” brackets out. Building on earlier engagements of the “practice turn” from a discourse perspective, the paper critically reviews recent attempts at finding a “via media” between the two theoretical strands. It then grounds this assessment in empirical context through an examination of contestation over competent practice in the Asia-Pacific diplomatic community. The paper finds that a commitment to “background knowledge” is not necessary to account for how the “struggle over mastery” (Pouliot 2010;2016) plays out in a diplomatic field, and that the way in which discourse is currently incorporated into the study of diplomatic practice is unduly constricted.

3.  Competing Narratives on the Rules-Based International Order In and Beyond the "Indo-Pacific"

I am developping a new project on the battle of narratives surrounding the "crisis" of the rules-based international order. The first step in this project resulted in a policy paper for the Defence and Security Foresight Group (an expert network in which I co-lead the Asia-Pacific Team), which I am currently in the process of adapting for submission to a scholarly journal.
  • 2020. “Unpacking the Crisis of the Rules-Based International Order: Competing Hero Narratives and Indo-Pacific Alternatives.” DSFG Working Paper. Online: https://uwaterloo.ca/defence-security-foresight-group/sites/ca.defence-security-foresight-group/files/uploads/files/dsfg_workingpaper_martel_rbio.pdf
  • n.d. “Unpacking the Crisis of the Rules-Based International Order: Competing Hero Narratives and Indo-Pacific Alternatives," journal article in preparation.
Abstract: There is a broad consensus today that the "rules-based international order" (RBIO) is facing an unprecedented crisis. This situation has led to a proliferation of calls to protect, improve, or reform the RBIO to ensure its resilience in an evolving global landscape. Underlying most of these calls is a view of the RBIO as a self-evident set of rules and institutions, with a fixed, consensual meaning. In practice, the RBIO is much less consensual than it seems. This article argues that the "crisis" of the RBIO involves a clash of narratives about what a legitimate order ought to look like, who gets to be situated within or outside of it, and who is in a position to claim the authority of making this distinction. I distinguish between two types of RBIO narratives currently on display which, drawing from popular culture, I refer to as "Marvel" and "Manga" narratives, because they both advance specific representations of the heroes and villains of the RBIO story. While Marvel narratives rely on radical Othering, Manga narratives, such as those currently emerging from the “Indo-Pacific”, eschew radical Othering, introduce benevolent anti-heroes, and are better able to gather support from a broad diversity of stakeholders. Instead of reducing the crisis of the RBIO to a clash of material interests and/or ideational factors, this article shows that a focus on the power of narratives can improve our understanding of this "crisis," by making the RBIO strange instead of taking it for granted. ​

In addition to these major projects, I am currently working on a number of additional, collaborative projects on:

The Productive Role of Crisis in Institutional Resilience
  • n.d. with Anne-Laure Mahé, “(Re)Conceptualizing Institutional Resilience in World Politics: Insights from the Global South”, under review.
Abstract: The concept of resilience is widely used in current analysis of world politics. It has been applied to the study of international institutions, communities facing civil war and natural disasters, and authoritarian regimes. While it is generally mobilized to describe a situation where institutions are surprisingly sustained against otherwise dire prospects, it is typically used interchangeably with longevity, stability, or survival. This creates important analytical confusion in descriptions of the phenomena described as “resilience,” and more importantly, it tends to limit discussions of institutional resilience to the preservation of the status quo, under-appreciating the dynamic character of resilience in practice. Drawing from recent work on the concept of resilience in the study of world politics, we identify a need for a reconceptualization of resilience that makes more room for the study of crisis as a fundamental component of the resilience process. This paper argues that institutional resilience is best conceived as a process rooted in a co-constitutive relationship between crisis and adaptation. Furthermore, this requires an understanding of crisis as social “all the way down”. We illustrate this through the examination of a variety of resilient institutions from political regimes to international institutions, with special attention given to how this process unfolds in the Global South. The aim of this paper is to set the stage for the development of a new research agenda that can contribute to a better understanding of how institutions that are portrayed as frail and unstable not only survive, but transform over time.

Canadian Contributions to the Study of International Relations in the Global South
  • n.d. with J. Andrew Grant and Nadège Compaoré, "Embracing the Diversity of Canadian IR: A Genealogy of Canadian Contributions on the Social Constructedness of World Politics", R&R, International Studies Perspectives.
Abstract: Observers of the evolution of International Relations (IR) theory often point to an American hegemony on the discipline on a global level. However, more recent analyses show that there has been a systematic and increasing Canadianization of IR scholarship in Canada since the 1990s, facilitated by government policies that fostered the hiring of domestic candidates and the creation of Canadian foreign policy research centers. This process has by no means been a cohesive one, yet it reflects a tendency in Canadian IR to make room for a pluralism in ontological as well as epistemological and methodological terms. This opening up of space for diversity is an important yet underappreciated characteristic of Canadian IR’s contribution to the discipline, which has not been seriously examined beyond the study of Canadian foreign policy. This article assesses the impact of Canadian IR scholarship on the development of a “Global IR” through an examination of its contributions to Asia-Pacific and African IR. We argue that despite its heterogeneity, Canadian IR scholarship in both areas is characterized by a common set of elements that, taken together, reflect a distinctly Canadian way of studying and practicing IR in relation to the Global South: reflexive pluralism.

Gender, Peace and Security in the Asia-Pacific
  • n.d. with Jennifer Mustapha, Sarah Sharma and Isabelle Côté. “Contrasted Meanings and Practices of Gender, Peace, and Security in the Asia-Pacific: A Multi-Scalar Regional Analysis,” journal article (in preparation).
Abstract: Although the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda is 20 years old, it has only just taken off in the Asia-Pacific. Recently, more states in the region are articulating formal WPS national action plans. Regional institutions have begun adopting joint statements on WPS, signaling an emerging regional take on the global WPS agenda. Expert diplomacy networks are prudently investing in this new facet of the regional security dialogue. Importantly however, outside of these elite-dominated venues, the intersections between gender and security are not a new focus. Civil society actors in the region have long been active in various aspects of the WPS agenda in ways that are autonomous and distinct from how the agenda is promoted by governments and in formal regional organizations. Within this broader context, new opportunities for engagement in the WPS agenda are also arising. This paper maps out the ongoing emergence of a regional, multi-scalar field of practice around WPS. It analyses how dynamics of diffusion, localization, and resistance unfold in various regional spaces of conversation around WPS. The paper argues that new areas of ambiguity, friction, and tension are emerging as competing meanings of the intersection between gender and security are developed, negotiated, and opposed. 
​
Interpreting Maritime Disputes in the Asia-Pacific

Territorial disputes among states remain prevalent, particularly in the Asia-Pacific. While they are often reduced to a manifestation of competing material interests among states, this project looks at the South China Sea disputes and other bilateral conflicts in Southeast Asia from a different, interpretative perspective. It shows that participation to territorial disputes also serve as an important mechanism through which the identity of the state is performed and reproduced in practice. It points to the persistence of conventional modes of state territoriality through the emergence of innovative bordering practices, which serve as a way for actors to delineate, reproduce, and sometimes extend the contours of the national body in the name of the state beyond other understandings of where its boundaries ought to be.

Finally, a previous research project looked at the securitization of drug trafficking and other forms of transnational crime in Southeast Asia. Publications deriving from this project are:
​You can find the complete list of my publications in my C.V., following this link.