COURSE HANDBOOK. Global Security

(1)

COURSE HANDBOOK

Global Security

PLIT10094

2015/16

Semester 2

Course Convenor

Dr Carmen Gebhard, [email protected]

Guidance and feedback hours: Wednesdays 10-12 (4.20 CMB)

Tutors

Lisa Schweiger, [email protected] Luba Zatsepina, [email protected] Guidance and feedback hours: each by arrangement

Course Secretary

(2)

1. Introduction: the Contemporary Security Agenda (C. Gebhard) 11 2. Analyzing Global Security: What, When and How? (C. Gebhard) 13 3. Global and Regional Security Governance: United We Stand? (C. Gebhard) 20 4. Strategy in the Age of Terror: How to win Asymmetric Wars (C. Gebhard) 23 5. Radicalisation: Explanations and potential lessons for policy (Z. Reeve) 28 6. Just War and Targeted Killing (L. Schweiger) 32 7. The Politics of Securitization and Migration (C. Gebhard) 34 8. Security, Development and Inequality in a Globalised World (C. Gebhard) 38 9. Nuclear Orientalism and the Production of Danger (L. Zatsepina) 41 10. The Enemy Within: Security, Accountability and Civil Liberties (C. Gebhard) 43

Appendix 1 – Student Information 46

Appendix 2 – Coursework Submission, Plagiarism, Penalties 47

(3)

Aims and Objectives

This course aims to discuss a range of contemporary security challenges providing a set of key concepts that help you develop an in-depth understanding of the post-Cold war geopolitical and strategic environment. It seeks to provide you with the analytical tools for analyzing and assessing respective policy responses. In doing so, the course draws on a range of International Relations theories, illustrating ways in which various approaches can serve as a framework for analyzing global and regional security. While international/inter-governmental aspects and the role of power politics take on a prominent place in this course, it also includes non-conventional security issues that transcend the traditionalist focus of conventional IR on states and formal actors alone, such as the role of transnational actors, civil society and NGOs as well as the strategic implications of globalization, climate change and the eradication of the nation state as a unit of analysis.

Intended Learning Objectives/Outcomes

At the end of the course, students will have

a) an understanding of how International Relations theory applies to global security b) the ability to understand key aspects of global security;

c) the ability to search relevant literature and sources;

d) presentation and discussion skills, nurtured in the tutorials; e) factual knowledge about the post-cold war international system;

Teaching Arrangements

This course consists of one lecture plus one tutorial per week. Attendance of lectures and tutorials is compulsory and both are subject of participation assessment.

Lectures

There are 2-hours slots scheduled for each lecture (Tuesdays 14.10-16.00) but the main session will always be held in the first part (14.10-15.00). Any additional time is used for discussions, (voluntary) student contributions, coursework guidance, and, possibly, video streamings on related topics. The first lecture will be held on Tuesday 12 January, 14:10am in H.R.B. Lecture Theatre, Robson Building.

Tutorials

The tutorials are designed to give you an opportunity to engage more deeply with the topics raised in the lecture, to discuss and share your ideas with other students and to develop your communication skills. The success of each session depends on your readiness to invest time in getting prepared and to engage in informed and critical discussions with other students. You will be given specific tutorial tasks each week to guide your reading.

NOTE: You have to sign up for a tutorial group on LEARN during week 1 of the semester. The first tutorial is in week 2.

(4)

Lecture and Tutorial Times and locations

Lecture Tue, 14.10-16.00 H.R.B. Lecture Theatre, Robson Building

Tutorial 1 Thur, 10.00-10.50 Old College, 364

Tutorial 2 Thur, 11.10-12.00 Old College, 364

Tutorial 3 Thur, 12.10-13.00 Old Medical School, Doorway 3, Room 415 (Biomedical Seminar Room 6 )

Tutorial 4 Thur, 13.10-14.00 Old Medical School, Doorway 3, Room 415 (Biomedical Seminar Room 6 )

Tutorial 5 Fri, 10.00-10.50 Old College, 364

Tutorial 6 Fri, 11.10-12.00 Minto House, SR 3

Tutorial 7 Fri, 12.10-13.00 Old College, 364

LEARN – Virtual Classroom

Digital copies of core readings [e-reserves] that are not readily available online or in the library will be provided on LEARN as well as the lecture slides and any material distributed or referred to in the lecture and tutorials. There will also be documents related to feedback, essay and policy brief writing as well as other useful material for the course (www.learn.ed.ac.uk).

Guide to Using LEARN for Online Tutorial Sign-Up

The following is a guide to using LEARN to sign up for your tutorial. If you have any problems using the LEARN sign up, please contact the course secretary by email

([email protected]). Tutorial sign up will open on 13 January 2016 at 10:00 am, i.e. the morning after the first lecture has taken place, and will close at 12 noon on the Friday of Week 1 (15 January 2016).

Step 1 – Accessing LEARN course pages

Access to LEARN is through the MyEd Portal. Once you are logged into MyEd, you should see a tab called ‘Courses’ which will list the active LEARN pages for your courses under ‘myLEARN’.

Step 2 – Welcome to LEARN

Once you have clicked on the relevant course from the list, you will see the Course Content page. There will be icons for the different resources available, including one called ‘Tutorial Sign Up’. Please take note of any instructions there.

Step 3 – Signing up for your tutorial

Clicking on Tutorial Sign Up will take you to the sign up page where all the available tutorial groups are listed along with the running time and location. Once you have selected the group you would like to attend, click on the ‘Sign up’ button. A confirmation screen will display.

(5)

IMPORTANT: If you change your mind after having chosen a tutorial you cannot go back and change it yourself and you will need to email the course secretary. Reassignments once tutorials are full or after the sign-up period has closed will only be made in exceptional circumstances.

Tutorials have restricted numbers and it is important to sign up as soon as possible. The tutorial sign up will only be available until 12 noon on the Friday of Week 1 (15 January 2016) so that everyone is registered to a group ahead of tutorials commencing in Week 2. If you have not yet signed up for a tutorial by this time you will be automatically assigned to a group which you will be expected to attend.

Assessment

Your mark for this course will be based on three components:

Assessment Component

Weighting Deadline (12 noon) Feedback by

Participation 15% not applicable Week 12

Policy Brief 35% 22 February 2016 14 March 2016

Essay 50% 07 April 2016 28 April 2016

Note: All coursework is submitted electronically through ELMA. Please read the School Policies and Coursework Submission Procedures document for important information on submission procedures and assessment polices.

See below for further guidance on each component of assessment.

Word Count Penalties

Any coursework that exceeds the word limit will be penalised of 1 mark for every 20 words over length: this means that anything between (1500 and 1520) words will lose one mark, between (1521 and 1540) two marks, and so on.

You will not be penalised for submitting work below the word limit. However, you should note that considerably shorter pieces of work are unlikely to achieve the required depth and that this will be reflected in your mark.

Please see the annex of this handbook for further information on submission of coursework, ‘Late Penalty Waivers’ etc.

(6)

1) Participation (15%)

Attendance and participation in both lectures and tutorials are essential to do well on this course. We want to give you credit for your work by basing 15% of your overall mark for this course on your contribution to lectures and tutorials.

Attendance will be monitored in both tutorials and lectures, and you are expected to attend all sessions of the course. Should you be unable to attend you must inform us in advance of the relevant session: for tutorials, by contacting your tutor, for lectures, the course organiser. Please be prepared to provide medical evidence where appropriate. Note that repeated or unexcused absence will directly affect your participation mark.

Engagement and active participation are encouraged. We will seek to make sure everybody gets an opportunity to take part in the discussions and in-class activities. Note that overly passive behaviour and disinterest can affect your participation mark.

Preparation for tutorial tasks and discussion is essential because the tutorial depends on your contributions as much as others’. Make sure you read both the core readings and the more specific tutorial readings before the session. Always bring some ideas or points for discussion and be ready to be asked to share your perspective on topics raised in the lecture and in the readings.

Listening to others is as important as talking. Listening carefully to the contributions of others will help you develop your own communication skills. Ideally, you will be able to incorporate and build off the ideas of others as well.

A grade will be awarded for each of the above components; these will then be averaged out to give you an overall mark for the participation element (15% of your total mark for the

course). You will also receive specific feedback by your tutor.

Please keep in mind that the aim of participation assessment is mainly to reward your

contribution to the course, and not to catch you out or continuously monitor you. The criteria set out in the feedback sheet (see appendix 3 of this course handbook) are meant to make the marking process more transparent, but you should not be too concerned about this or even feel forced to e.g. compete for talking time or to constantly “prove” that you are prepared. The aim is really just to get everybody involved and to give you an incentive to participate.

(7)

2) Policy Brief (35%) – max. 1500 words: due Monday, 22 February 2016, 12:00noon.

Policy briefs offer a useful training tool and more realistic types of tasks that you may be faced with after university, especially in the domains of politics and international relations. They typically ask for an assessment of and recommendations to deal with a specific challenge, and comprise an executive summary, situation brief, policy options/recommendation and a list of key sources, as would be presented to decision-makers or managers. As such, they require a broader skill set than a regular undergraduate essay. The educational rationale of policy briefs as a teaching tool is discussed in:

- Keating, Michael F. and James D. Boys, (2009) ‘The Policy Brief: Building Practical and Academic Skills in International Relations and Political Science’, Politics 29:3, 201-208. The specific assignment for the policy brief will be posted on LEARN at the beginning of the semester.

You will also receive plenty of guidance by the course organiser (both in class and on LEARN) on how to write a policy brief. In week 2, on Tuesday 19 January 2016 (straight after the lecture, at 3pm in the same room) we will hold a Policy Brief Information Session

that you are strongly advised to attend.

We encourage you to start working on the brief early in the semester and to discuss your draft plan/outline with the course organiser or your tutor.

The policy brief is specifically assessed on (1) Research Effort, (2) Understanding, (3) Quality of Analysis, (4) Evaluation of Options and Recommendation, and (5) Presentation but otherwise follows the general marking criteria for coursework.

Please note that policy briefs going over the maximum word count will incur penalties according to the school Honours guidelines. All parts of the policy brief count towards the word count except for the bibliography. See annex for the policy brief feedback sheet.

3) Essay (50%) – max. 2500 words: due Thursday, 7 April 2016 by 12:00noon.

Part of assessment for this course is also a classic essay on a question you can choose from a range of options. You can seek guidance for your essay throughout the semester with the course organiser as well as with your tutor. Please make a particular effort to use quality sources in your essay and read and research broadly. We suggest that instead of referencing the textbook you engage with the specific academic sources it refers to throughout and cite those on your essay instead. Remember that textbooks are specifically designed for learning and do not normally constitute original research – they are summaries of research! Please see general marking descriptors for coursework for an overview of essay assessment criteria. Specific essay topics will be posted on LEARN at the start of the semester.

As for the policy brief, the maximum word count is non-negotiable. All parts of the essay including references (be they in text or in footnotes) count towards your word count, the bibliography, however, is not included. See annex for the essay feedback sheet.

(8)

Course textbook

The following textbook provides useful discussions on nearly all topics we will cover throughout the semester, which is why many of the core readings are taken from it. Note we will not be able to provide e-reserves of more than one chapter, so it is recommended for purchase:

The book is available for a specially negotiated UoE student price at Blackwell's, 53-59 South Bridge, Edinburgh (£23.99). That said, we suggest you compare prices online as Blackwell’s do not continuously match theirs.

Other useful textbooks are:

• Baylis, John et al. (eds) (2013) Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies (4th_{edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.}

• Collins, Alan (ed.) (2013) Contemporary Security Studies (3rd_{edition). Oxford: OUP.}

• Dannreuther, Roland (2013) International Security: The Contemporary Agenda (2nd edition). Cambridge: Polity.

• Hough, P. et al. (2015) International Security Studies. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

• Huysmans, J. (2014) Security Unbound: Enacting Democratic Limits. Routledge.

• Peoples, Columba and Nick Vaughan-Williams (2010) Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

• Williams, P. (ed.) (2012) Security Studies: An Introduction (2nd_{ed.). London: Routledge.}

NOTE: as Security Studies are such a fast changing field, make sure you always try to get the most recent editions of these textbooks. Also, as highlighted above, these textbooks are all specifically designed for learning, which is why you should not reference them in your essay. You are instead encouraged to explore the more specialized research literature that these textbooks refer to, such as peer-reviewed journal articles or research monographs.

Peer-reviewed journals and other useful sources

The following peer-reviewed journals are particularly relevant for this course: Contemporary Security Policy, Cooperation and Conflict, Foreign Affairs, International Affairs, International Peacekeeping, International Security, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Strategic Studies, Millennium, Review of International Studies, Security Dialogue, Security Studies, Survival, Third World Quarterly.

Consider consulting non-mainstream platforms like www.opendemocracy.net/. See next page for more recommendations.

(9)

Make use of the Oxford University Press online bibliographies (you must be logged into EASE): http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/obo/page/international-relations

Useful websites

Please make sure to use all of these sources critically, i.e. consider their background and own agenda before taking their opinions and findings as ‘facts’.

International organisations

www.un.org/Docs/sc/ www.nato.int, www.europa.eu, www.osce.org Non-governmental organisations

End Genocide www.endgenocide.org Human Rights Watch www.hrw.org

International Committee of the Red Cross/Crescent www.icrc.org

Independent International Commission on Kosovo www.kosovocommision.org International Crisis Group www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm

Minority Rights Group www.minorityrights.org Prevent Genocide www.preventgenocide.org

Research centres, projects and online documentation

Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs www.cceia.org Council on Foreign Relations www.cfr.org

Center for Defence and International Security Studies www.cdiss.org/ Center for Peace and Human Security www.peacecenter.sciences-po.fr/ European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) www.iss.europa.eu/ Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) www.globalr2p.org/ Human Security Center www.humansecuritycentre.org/

Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy http://ifsh.de/en/ Institute for War and Peace Reporting www.iwpr.net/

International Institute for Strategic Studies www.iiss.org/

International Relations and Security Network www.isn.ethz.ch/net/prin/hsc.cfm140 RAND Corporation www.rand.org

Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) https://www.rusi.org/

Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies www.trudeaucentre.ca/ Web Genocide Documentation Centre www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide.htm

Yale University Avalon Project (for international treaties from the sixteenth century to the present) www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon

(10)

Weekly topics and dates

Week

Lecture date

Lecture Topic

1

12 Jan 2016 Introduction: the Contemporary Security Agenda (C. Gebhard)

2

19 Jan 2016 Analyzing Global Security (C. Gebhard)

Policy Brief Information Session (C. Gebhard)

3

26 Jan 2016 Global and Regional Security Governance (C. Gebhard)

4

2 Feb 2016 Strategy in the Age of Terror: How to win Asymmetric Wars (C. Gebhard)

5

9 Feb 2016 Radicalisation: Explanations & potential lessons for policy (Z. Reeve)

INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK (no lecture)

6

23 Feb 2016 Just War and Targeted Killing (L. Schweiger)

7

1 Mar 2016 The Politics of Securitization (and Migration) (C. Gebhard)

8

8 Mar 2016 Security, Development and Inequality (C. Gebhard)

9

15 Mar 2016 Nuclear Orientalism and the Production of Danger (L. Zatsepina)

10

(11)

Weekly readings

There are three sets of readings for each week of the course:

• Core readings: these are compulsory readings (most from the recommended textbook), which you should ideally read before coming to the lecture. That way you will find it much easier to follow the session as they give you useful background to what we discuss in class.

• Tutorial readings: these are readings that you have to read before the tutorial to be able to contribute to the discussion and activities. They build on the core readings of each week, so make sure you read those first (see above).

• Further readings: these are suggested readings that are intended to give you more specific insights into a topic you are particularly interested in. They are also a starting point for your essay research but note that you are expected to research well beyond these non-exhaustive lists.

Lecture 1: Tuesday, 12 January 2016

Introduction: the Contemporary Security Agenda (C. Gebhard)

In this lecture we will discuss structure of the course, assessment and expectations, and will then move on and try to answer some fundamental questions in the study of security: What is security? Whose security are we talking about (what is the ‘referent object’)? What counts as a security issue? And how can security be achieved? What is the role of security policy? We will then take a look at the contemporary security agenda: What kinds of issues, threats and fears are perceived as primary challenges to security today? What focal points are prioritised in security strategies and geostrategic surveys?

Core readings

1. Bourne, M. (2014) Understanding Security. London: Palgrave [Intro and chapter 1]. 2. AND skim-read these with a focus on the range and nature of security challenges in focus:

- US National Security Strategy (NSS) (2002, 2006, 2010, 2015)

- ‘European Security Strategy (ESS): A Secure Europe in a Better World’ (2003) and ‘Report on the Implementation of the ESS: Providing Security in a Changing World’ (2008) eeas.europa.eu/csdp/about-csdp/security_strategy_for_europe/index_en.htm

Further readings

Defining and conceptualising security

Baldwin, D. (1997) ‘The Concept of Security’, Review of International Studies 23:1, 5-26. Booth, K. and N.J. Wheeler (2008) The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in

World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ciutǎ, F. (2009) Security and the problem of context: a hermeneutical critique of securitisation theory. Review of International Studies, 35:2, 301-326.

Haftendorn, H. (1991) ‘The Security Puzzle: Theory-Building and Discipline-Building in International Security’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, 3-17.

Huysmans, J. (1998) ‘Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier’, European Journal of International Relations 4:2, 226–255.

(12)

Keen, D. (2000) ‘War and Peace: What’s the Difference?’, International Peacekeeping, 7(4), 1-22.

Krause, K. and M.C. Williams (1996) ‘Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods’, Mershon International Studies Review 40:2, 229-254.

Mathews, J. (1989) ‘Redefining Security’, Foreign Affairs 68:2, 162-177. Rothschild, E. (1995) ‘What is Security?’, Daedalus 124:3, 53-98.

Ullman, R.H. (1983) ‘Redefining Security’, International Security 8:1, 129-153. Wolfers, A. (1952) ‘”National Security” as an Ambiguous Symbol’, Political Science

Quarterly 67:4, 481-502.

Zedner, L. (2003) ‘The Concept of Security: an Agenda for Comparative Analysis’, Legal Studies 23:1, 153-175.

Global Security after the end of the Cold War

Baldwin, D.A. (1995) ‘Security Studies and the End of the Cold War’, World Politics 48:1, 117-141.

Bialasiewicz, L. et al. (2007) ‘Performing Security: the Imaginative Geographies of Current US Strategy’, Political Geography 26:4, 405–422.

Booth, K. and N.J. Wheeler (2008) The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brown, M. E. (ed.) (2003) Grave New World: Security Challenges in the 21st century. Georgetown University Press.

Buzan, Barry (1991) People, States and Fear: an Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf. [chapters 5 and 10].

Buzan, B (1997) ‘Rethinking Security after the Cold War’, Cooperation and Conflict 32:1, 5-28. Buzan, B. and L. Hansen (2009) The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, chapter 3.

Buzan, B, O. Waever and J. de Wilde (1998) Security: A Framework for Analysis. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner [chapters 1 and 2 in particular].

Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (2003) Regions and powers: the structure of international security, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chandler, D. (2008) ‘Review Article: Theorising the shift from security to insecurity – Kaldor, Duffield and Furedi’, Conflict, Security & Development 8:2, 265-276. Deudney, D. and G. J. Ikenberry (2009) ‘The Unravelling of the Cold War Settlement’.

Survival 51:6, 39-62.

Ferguson, N. (2004) ‘A World Without Power’, Foreign Policy, 32-39.

Freedman, L. (1998) ‘International Security: Changing Targets’, Foreign Policy, 48-63. Freedman, L. (2006) ‘The Transformation of Grand Strategy’, Adelphi Papers, 45:379, 27-48. Fukuyama, F. (1989) ‘The End of History?’, The National Interest 16 (Summer): 3-18.

Gray, C. (1999) ‘Clausewitz Rules, OK? The Future is the Past with GPS’, Review of International Studies

Gray, C. (2005) Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare. London: Phoenix [ch. 4 ‘Grand Narratives of War 1800-2100’].

(13)

Hampson, F. O. and Daudelin, J. (2002) Madness in the multitude: Human security and world disorder. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press.

Holland, J. (2013) ‘Foreign Policy and Political Possibility’, European Journal of International Relations 19:1, 49-68.

Huntington, S. P. (1992) ‘The Clash of Civilizations’, Foreign Affairs 72: 22.

Inglehart, R. and P. Norris (2003) ‘The True Clash of Civilizations’, Foreign Policy, 63-70. James, A., & Teichler, T. (2014) ‘Defence and security: new issues and impacts’,

Foresight-The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy 16:2, 165-175.

Krahmann, E. (ed.) (2005) New Threats and New Actors in International Security. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lake, D. A. (2013) ‘Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 19:3, 567-587.

Mandelbaum, M. (1995) ‘Lessons of the Next Nuclear War’, Foreign Affairs 74:2, 22-37. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1990) ‘Why we Will Soon Miss the Cold War’, The Atlantic Monthly,

266:2, 35-50.

Kaplan, R.D. (1994) ‘The Coming Anarchy’, The Atlantic Monthly.

Roberts, A. (2008) ‘International Relations after the Cold War’, International Affairs 84:2, 335-350.

Skidmore, D. (1999) ‘Huntington's Clash Revisited’, Global Change, Peace & Security 11:1, 63-73.

Brown, M. (ed.) Grave New World. Security Challenges in the 21st_{Century. Washington:}

Georgetown University Press.

Peral, L. (ed.) (2009) ‘Global Security in a Multi-Polar World’, Chaillot Paper, No. 118. Paris: EUISS.

Van Evera, S. (1990-91) ‘Primed for Peace: Europe after the Cold War’, International Security 15:3, 7-57.

Van Creveld, Martin (2006) The Changing Face of War. Lessons of Combat, from the Marne to Iraq. New York: Presidio Press.

Walt, S.M. (1991) ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International Studies Quarterly 35:2, 211–239.

Analyzing Global Security: What, When and How? (C. Gebhard)

In this session we will look at how Security Studies as a discipline has evolved and how International Relations Theory has been employed to analyse security issues in the past and in the contemporary context. We discuss the key elements of dominant theoretical traditions, their epistemological and ontological underpinnings, and look at the kinds of questions they each focus on. In the tutorial, we will look at examples of the realist, liberalist, constructivist (Securitization) and the critical/feminist tradition in the context of the debate over nuclear weapons. In doing so, we look at differences in the ontological (How are threats ‘real’?) and epistemological (to what extent is security material, how the study of it

(14)

objective/subjective/contextual?) assumptions of each tradition, the way they each view the role of security politics, and which areas of security they are more focused on (military/non-conventional, internal/external). This will help us develop an overview of issues we will discuss in greater detail throughout the semester.

After the lecture: Policy Brief Information Session (3-4pm, same location)

Core reading(s)

1. Bourne, M. (2014) Understanding Security. London: Palgrave [revise chapter 1 and browse chapters 2 and 3].

NOTE: you’ll find readings for this week are relevant for all aspects covered by the course as they give you an overview of the theoretical literature.

General: Security Studies as sub-field of IR

Baldwin, D.A. (1995) ‘Security Studies and the End of the Cold War’, World Politics 48:1, 117-141.

Bevir, M., Daddow, O. and Hall, I. (eds) (2013) Interpreting global security. London: Routledge.

Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: an Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf. [chapter 4]

Buzan, B. and L. Hansen (2009) The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 2 (important table on p. 38!!). [e-reserve]

De Carvalho, B. et al. (2011) ‘The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919,’ Millennium 39:3, 735-758.

Ferejohn, J. and Satz, D. (1995) ‘Unification, universalism, and rational choice theory’, Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 9:1-2, 71-84.

Gray, C. (1999) ‘Clausewitz Rules, OK? The Future is the Past with GPS’, Review of International Studies

Green, D. P. and Shapiro, I. (1994) Pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Green, D. P. and Shapiro, I. (1995) ‘Pathologies revisited: Reflections on our critics’, Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 235-276

Tutorial readings

Sagan, S. D. and K. Waltz (2010) ‘The Great Debate – Is Nuclear Zero the best Option?’, National Interest. (focus on Waltz in particular)

Cohn, Carol (1987) ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (4): 687–718.

(15)

Laudan, L. (1996) Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method, and evidence. Westview Press.

Powell, R. (1994) ‘Anarchy in International Relations Theory: the Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate’, International Organization 48:2, 313-344.

Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (eds) (1996) International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [e-book, library]

Snyder, J. (2004) ‘One World, Rival Theories’, Foreign Policy, 145, 53-62. Wæver, O. (2011) ‘Politics, security, theory’, Security Dialogue, 42:4-5, 465-480.

Walt, S. M. (1998) ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’, Foreign Policy, 110 (Special Edition: ‘Frontiers of Knowledge’), 29-46.

Wendt, A. (1992) ‘Levels of analysis vs. agents and structures: part III’, Review of International Studies, 18:2, 181-185.

Realisms

Labs, E.J. (1997) ‘Beyond Victory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims’, Security Studies 6:4, 1-49.

Fearon, J. D. (1995) ‘Rationalist Explanations for War’, International Organization 49:3, 379-414.

Glaser, C.L. and C. Kaufmann (1998) ‘What Is the Offense-Defense Balance and How Can We Measure It?’ International Security 22:4, 44-82.

Grieco, J. M. (1988) ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: a Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’, International Organization 42:3, 485-507. Kirshner, J. (2000) ‘Rationalist Explanations for War?’ Security Studies 10:1, 143-150. Legro, J. W. and A. Moravcsik (1999) ‘Is Anybody still a Realist?’, International Security,

24:2, 5-55.

Mearsheimer, John J. (1994) ‘The false promise of international institutions’, International Security 19:3, 5-49. (see also Keohane and Martin 1995 below)

Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton. Morgenthau, Hans J. 1993 [1985] Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and

Peace. Brief edition revised by Kenneth W. Thompson. Boston, McGraw-Hill. Schweller, R. (1996) ‘Neorealism’s Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?’ in Frankel,

B. (ed.) Realism: Restatements and Renewal. London: Frank Cass, 90-121.

Walt, S. M. (1991) ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 211-239.

Waltz, K. N. (1954) Man, the State and War. A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.

Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Boston, McGraw-Hill. Waltz, K. N. (1988) ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, The Journal of

Interdisciplinary History 18:4: 615-628.

Waltz, K. N. (1990) ‘Nuclear Myths and Political Realities’, American Political Science Review 84:3, 731–745.

Waltz, Kenneth N. (1993) ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security 18:2, 44-79.

(16)

Liberalisms

Adler, E. and M. Barnett (eds) (1998) Security Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chan, S. (1997) ‘In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise’, Mershon International Studies Review 41:1, 59–91.

Deudney, D. and G. Ikenberry, (1999) ‘The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order’, Review of International Studies 25:2, 179-196.

Doyle, Michael W. (1986) ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review 80:4, 1151–1169.

Glaser, C. (1997) ‘The Security Dilemma Revisited’, World Politics 50:1, 171-201.

Jervis, R. (1978) ‘Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma’, World Politics 30:2, 167-214. Keohane, Robert O., and J. S. Nye (1987) ‘Power and Interdependence Revisited’,

International Organization 41:4, 725-753.

Keohane, Robert O. and Lisa L. Martin (1995) ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security 20:1, 39-51.

Keohane, Robert O. (2005) [reprint of 1984]. After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Krasner, S. (ed.) (1983) International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kratochwil, F. and J.G. Ruggie (1986) ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’, International Organization 40:4, 753-775.

Lebow, Richard Ned (2003) The Tragic Vision of Politics. Ethics, Interests and Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mansfield, Edward D. and Brian M. Pollins (2001) ‘The Study of Interdependence and Conflict’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 45:6, 834-59.

Moravcsik, A. (1997) ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A liberal theory of International Politics’, International Organization 51:04, 513-553.

Oye, K. A. (ed.) (1986) Cooperation under Anarchy. Princeton: P. University Press.

Van Evara, Stephen (1999) Causes of War. Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Constructivisms

Balzacq, Thierry (2010) ‘Constructivism and Securitization Studies’, in Dunn Cavelty, M. and Victor Mauer (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. London: Routledge. [preprint available online]

Campbell, D. (1998) Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Giddens, A. (2013) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration (revised edition). Cambridge: Polity.

Farrell, T. (2002) ‘Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program’, International Studies Review 4:1, pp.49–72.

Huysmans, J. (2002) ‘Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: the Normative Dilemma of Writing Security’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27:1, 41–62.

(17)

Jackson, P. T. and Nexon, D. H. (2004) ‘Constructivist Realism or Realist‐Constructivism?’ International Studies Review, 6:2, 337-341.

Wendt, A. (1992) ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: the Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization 46:2, 391-425.

Wendt, A. (1995) ‘Constructing International Politics’, International Security, 20:1, 71-81. Williams, Michael C. (2001) ‘The Discipline of the Democratic Peace: Kant, Liberalism and

the Social Construction of Security Communities,’ European Journal of International Relations 7:4, 525–553.

Securitization and threat construction

Aradau, C. and Van Munster, R. (2012) Politics of Catastrophe: Genealogies of the Unknown. London: Routledge.

Buzan, B, O. Waever and J. de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner, chapter 2. [e-reserve]

Balzacq, Thierry (2005) ‘The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context’, European Journal of International Relations Vol. 11:2, 171-201.

Balzacq, Thierry et al. (2015) ‘What Kind of Theory – if any – is Securitization?’, International Relations Vol. 29:1, 96-136.

Booth, K. and N.J. Wheeler (2008) The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Campbell, D. (1992) Writing Security. United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ciutǎ, F. (2009) Security and the problem of context: a hermeneutical critique of securitisation theory. Review of International Studies, 35:2, 301-326.

Debrix, F. and Lacy, M. (2009) The Geopolitics of American Insecurity – Terror, Power and Foreign Policy. London: Routledge.

Guzzini, S. (2011) ‘Securitization as a causal mechanism’, Security Dialogue 42:4-5, 329-341. Hansen, L. (2000) ‘The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender

in the Copenhagen School’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29:2, 285-306. Hansen, L. (2006) Security as Practice. Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London:

Routledge.

Huysmans, J. (1998) ‘Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier’, European Journal of International Relations 4:2, 226–255.

Huysmans, J. (2006) The Politics of Insecurity. Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.

Huysmans, J. (2011) ‘What’s in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings." Security Dialogue 42:4-5, 371-383.

Huysmans, J., Dobson, A. and R. Prokhovnik (eds) (2006) The Politics of Protection. Sites of Insecurity and Political Agency. London: Routledge.

Jaffe, Greg (2012) ‘The World is Safer but no one in Washington can talk About it’, Washington Post, 4 November 2012.

Krause, K., & Latham, A. (1998) ‘Constructing Non-Proliferation and Arms Control: The Norms of Western Practice’, Contemporary Security Policy 19:1, 23-54.

(18)

Lupovici, A. (2014) ‘The Limits of Securitization Theory: Observational Criticism and the Curious Absence of Israel’, International Studies Review, 16:3, 390-410.

McDonald, M. (2008) ‘Securitization and the Construction of Security’, European Journal of International Relations 14:4, 563-587.

Prozorov, S. (2007) ‘The Narratives of Exclusion and Self-Exclusion in the Russian Conflict Discourse on EU–Russian Relations’, Political Geography 26:3, 309–329.

Roe, P. (2012) ‘Is Securitization a ‘Negative’ Concept? Revisiting the Normative Debate over Normal Versus Extraordinary Politics’, Security Dialogue 43:3, 249-266.

Sjöstedt, R. (2013) ‘Ideas, identities and internalization: Explaining securitizing moves’, Cooperation and Conflict 48:1, 143-164.

Weldes, J. et al. (eds) (1999) Cultures of Insecurity. States, Communities, and the Production of Danger. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wilkinson, C. (2007) ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe?’, Security Dialogue 38:1, 5-25.

Williams, M. C. (2003) ‘Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics’, International Studies Quarterly 47:4, 511-531.

Williams, M. C. (2011) ‘Securitization and the liberalism of fear’, Security Dialogue 42:4-5, 453-463.

Critical Security Studies: General

Aas, K.F. Oppen Gundhus, H. and H.M. Lomell (eds) (2008) Technologies of InSecurity: the Surveillance of Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

Acharya, A. and B. Buzan (2007) ‘Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7:3, 287-312. Agier, M. (2011) The undesirables of the world and how universality changed camp.

OpenDemocracy. Available at http://www.opendemocracy.net/michel-agier/undesirables-of-world-and-how-universality-changed-camp

Aradau, C. and A. Neal (2015) Virtual Special Issue: Foucault and Security Studies. Beyond biopolitics?, Security Dialogue (available at

http://sdi.sagepub.com/site/Virtualspecialissues/FoucaultSecurityStudies.xhtml) Barkawi, T. and M. Laffey (2006) ‘The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies’, Review of

International Studies 32:2, 329-352.

Bilgin, P. (2008) ‘Thinking Past Western IR?’, Third World Quarterly 29:1, 5-23.

Bilgin, P. (2010) ‘The “Western-Centrism” of Security Studies: “Blind Spot” or Constitutive Practice?’, Security Dialogue 41:6, 615-622.

Booth, K (ed) (2005) Critical Security Studies and World Politics, London: Lynne Rienner. c. a. s. e. collective (group authorship) (2006) ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: a

Networked Manifesto’, Security Dialogue 37:4, 443–487.

Collins, A. (ed.) (2013) Contemporary Security Studies (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [chapter 6]

Cox, R. W. (1981) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10:2, 126-155.

(19)

Dalby, Simon (1988) ‘Geopolitical Discourse: the Soviet Union as Other’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 13:4, 415–442.

Fierke, K. M. (2007) Critical approaches to international security. Cambridge: Polity. Jones, R. W. (1995) ‘'Message in a bottle'? Theory and praxis in critical security studies’,

Contemporary Security Policy 16:3, 299-319.

Kent, A. (2006) ‘Reconfiguring Security: Buddhism and Moral Legitimacy in Cambodia’, Security Dialogue 37:3, 343-361.

Krause, K. and M.C. Williams (eds) (1997) Critical Security Studies. Concepts and Cases. London: UCL Press.

Krause, K. (1998) ‘Critical Theory and Security Studies. The Research Programme of Critical Security Studies’, Cooperation and Conflict 33:3, 298-333.

Levine, D.J. (2013) Recovering International Relations: The Promise of Sustainable Critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linklater, A. (1996) ‘13 The achievements of critical theory’, in Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (eds) (1996) International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 279-. [e-book, library]

Martin. J. (2013) Politics and Rhetoric. A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.

McCormack, T. (2013) Critique, Security and Power. The Political Limits to Emancipatory Approaches. London: Routledge.

Mustapha, J. (2013) ‘Ontological theorizations in critical security studies: making the case for a (modified) post-structuralist approach’, Critical Studies on Security 1:1, 64-82.

Newman, E. (2010) ‘Critical human security studies’, Review of International Studies 36:1, 77-94. Nunes, J. (2012) ‘Reclaiming the political: Emancipation and critique in security studies’,

Security Dialogue, 43:4, 345-361.

Peoples, C. and N. Vaughan-Williams (2010) Critical Security Studies. An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Salter, M.B., and C.E. Mutlu (eds) (2013) Research Methods in Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge. [e-book]

Shepherd, L. J. (ed.) (2013) Critical Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. London: Routledge.

Feminism and Security

Cohn, C., F. Hill and S. Ruddick (2005) The Relevance of Gender for Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction. Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.

Collins, A. (ed.) (2013) Contemporary Security Studies (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [chapter 9]

Hansen, L. (2000) ‘The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29:2, 285-306. Hansen, L. (2000) ‘Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security’,

International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 3:1, 55-57.

Stern, M. (2011) ‘Gender and Race in the European Security Strategy: Europe as a ‘Force for Good’ Quest’, Journal of International Relations and Development 14:1, 28-59.

(20)

Tickner, J. A. (2004) ‘Feminist responses to international security studies’, Peace review 16:1, 43-48.

Wibben, A. (2010) Feminist security studies: a narrative approach. London: Routledge. Young, I.M. (2003) ‘Feminist Reactions to the Contemporary Security Regime’, Hypatia

18:1, 223-231.

Critical reflection of Critical Security Studies and Feminism

Hobson, J.M. (2007) ‘Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian Towards a Postracist Critical IR’, Review of International Studies 33, 91-116.

Mohanty, C.T. (1986) ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses’, Boundary 2, 12:3, 333–58.

Stern, M. and Zalewski, M. (2009) ‘Feminist Fatigue (s): Reflections on Feminism and Familiar Fables of Militarisation’, Review of International Studies 35:3, 611-630.

Global and Regional Security Governance: United We Stand? (C. Gebhard)

This session deals with the role of international and regional security institutions in the management of conflict and peace. We will look at the fundamental tenets of (liberal) institutionalist and regime theory as well as at the concept of “security governance” before turning to specific examples of global and regional institutions, such as the UN, NATO, the OSCE and the EU. We discuss the way the role of institutions and alliances has changed in the face of globalization and the increasingly transnational nature of perceived security challenges. In the tutorial, we discuss recent conflict situations where security governance has been challenged by political interests and circumstance, and look at potential reforms to global and regional security regimes in the specific context of the collective authorization of the use of force.

Core readings

1. Bourne, M. (2014) Understanding Security. London: Palgrave [chapter 6]

2. Drezner, D. W. (2008) ‘Two Challenges to Institutionalism’, in Alexandroff, A. (ed.) Can the World Be Governed? Possibilities for Effective Multilateralism. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 139-159. [e-reserve of whole book on LEARN]

Further readings Tutorial readings

Brooks, S. G. and Wohlforth, W. C. (2009) ‘Reshaping the World Order – How Washington Should Reform International Institutions’, Foreign Affairs 88, 49-63. Fearon, J. D. (2008) ‘International Institutions and Collective Authorization of the Use of

Force’, in Alexandroff, A. (ed.) Can the World Be Governed? Possibilities for Effective Multilateralism. Waterloo, Ontario: W. Laurier University Press, 160-193. [e-reserve of whole book on LEARN]

(21)

Institutionalism and Regimes

Alter, K.J., and S. Meunier (2009) ‘The Politics of International Regime Complexity’, Perspectives on Politics 7:1, 13-24.

Breslin, S. and Croft, S. (2012) Comparative Regional Security Governance. London: Routledge.

Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: an Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf. [chapter 4 on Security and the International Political System]

Buzan, B. and O. Wæver (2003) Regions and Powers: the Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Caporaso, J. A. (1992) ‘International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: the Search for Foundations’, International Organization 46:3, 599-632.

Cortell, A. and Davis, J. (1996) ‘How do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms’, International Studies Quarterly, 451-478. Diehl, P.F. and Frederking, B. (2010) The Politics of Global Governance: International

Organizations. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Ehrhart, H. G., Hegemann, H. and Kahl, M. (2014) ‘Putting security governance to the test: conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges’, European Security 23:2, 119-125. Haftendorn, H., Keohane, R. O. and C.A. Wallender (eds) (1999) Imperfect Unions: Security

Institutions over Time and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press..

Keohane, R.O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Keohane, R.O. (1982) ‘The Demand for International Regimes’, International Organization 36:2, 325-355.

Keohane, R.O. (1988) ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly 32:4, 379-396.

Keohane, R.O. (1998) ‘International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?’ Foreign Policy, 82-194.

Keohane, R.O. and L.L. Martin (1995) ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security 20:1, 39-51.

Koschut, S. (2014) ‘Regional order and peaceful change: Security communities as a via media in International Relations theory’, Cooperation and Conflict (online)

Krahmann, E. (2003) ‘Conceptualizing security governance’, Cooperation and Conflict 38:1, 5-26.

Krahmann, E. (2005) ‘American Hegemony or Global Governance? Competing Visions of International Security’, International Studies Review 7:4, 531-545.

Krasner, S.D. (1983) (ed.) International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Krasner, S.D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kratochwil, F. and J.G. Ruggie (1986) ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an

Art of the State’, International Organization 40:4, 753-775.

Lazarou, E. et al. (2010) The Evolving ‘Doctrine’ of Multilateralism in the 21st Century. MERCURY E-paper no. 3.

(22)

Mearsheimer, J.J. (1994) ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security 19:3, 5-49. [see also Keohane and Martin (1995) above]

Moravcsik, A. (1997) ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization 51:4, 513–53.

North, D.С. (1991) ‘Institutions’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5:1, 97-112. Schweller, R.L. and D. Priess (1997) ‘A Tale of Two Realisms: Expanding the Institutions

Debate,’ Mershon International Studies Review 41:1, 1–32. Sperling, J. (2014) Handbook of Governance and Security. Edward Elgar.

Thomas, C. (2001) ‘Global Governance, Development and Human Security: Exploring the Links’ Third World Quarterly 22:2, 159-175.

Wallensteen, P. (2012) Understanding Conflict Resolution. London: Sage. [chapter 8 ‘Conflict Complexes and Conflict Resolution]

Security institutions and alliances

Adler, E. and Greve, P. (2009) ‘When security community meets balance of power: overlapping regional mechanisms of security governance’, Review of International Studies 35:S1, 59-84.

Bremberg, N. (2014) ‘The European Union as Security Community‐Building Institution: Venues, Networks and Co‐operative Security Practices’, Journal of Common Market Studies (online first).

Brooks, S.G. and W.C. Wohlforth (2008) World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Daalder, I. and J. Goldgeier (2006) ‘Global NATO’, Foreign Affairs 85:5, 105-.

Duffield, J.S. (2013) ‘Alliances’, in Williams, P.D. (ed.) Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 339-354.

Dorussen, H. and Kirchner, E. J. (2014) ‘Better a good neighbor than a distant friend: the scope and impact of regional security organizations’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 14:1, 117-146.

Gheciu, A. (2008) Securing Civilization? The EU, NATO and the OSCE in the Post-9/11 World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harsch, M.F. and Varwick, J. (2009) ‘NATO and the UN’, Survival 51(2), 5-12.

Hofmann, S.C. (2011) ‘Why Institutional Overlap Matters: CSDP in the European Security Architecture’, Journal of Common Market Studies 49:1, 101-120.

Kirchner, E. J. and Dominguez, R. (2014) ‘Security governance in a comparative regional perspective’, European Security 23:2, 163-178.

Krahmann, E. (2005) ‘Security governance and networks: new theoretical perspectives in transatlantic security’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 18:1, 15-30. Rees, W. (2011) The US-EU Security Relationship: The Tensions between a European and a

Global Agenda. London: Palgrave.

Smith, K.E. (2014) European Union foreign policy in a changing world (3rd edition). Cambridge: Polity.

Sperling, J. and Webber, M. (2014) ‘Security governance in Europe: a return to system’, European Security 23:2, 126-144.

(23)

Telo, M. and Ponjaert, F. (eds) (2013) EU's foreign policy: what kind of power and diplomatic action? Aldershot: Ashgate.

Walt, S.M. (1987) The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Whitman, R. G., & Wolff, S. (2012) ‘The EU as a Global Conflict Manager’, European Union as a Global Conflict Manager. London: Routledge, 3-19. [e-book]

Lecture 4: Tuesday, 2 February 2016

Strategy in the Age of Terror: How to win Asymmetric Wars (C. Gebhard)

In this lecture we discuss the changing nature and modalities of “warfare”. How have approaches to warfare changed in view of the ‘new’ security agenda? We look at some classic tenets of strategy before turning to recent trends in contemporary warfare like counterinsurgency, expeditionary and network-centric warfare, comprehensive approaches, integrated missions, and identify four tendencies: new enemy definition, decreased importance of state sovereignty, the blurring of distinctions between military and civil society/non-combatants, and changes in technology used. We discuss the way the “conﬂation of ‘war’ and ‘terror’, and of ‘strategy’ and ‘policy’, […] contributes to the incoherence of the response” (Strachan 2005) to contemporary challenges, and asymmetric threats in particular. In the tutorial we discuss the concept of counter-insurgency operations as they have been introduced in recent years in an attempt to draw lessons from early experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. We look at the case of Somalia and the repercussions the “Global War on Terror” has had on the country and the region.

Core reading(s)

1. Bourne, M. (2014) Understanding Security. London: Palgrave [chapter 5 and 11; also relevant: chapter 7].

New Warfare and Strategic Trends

Abrahamsen, R. and Williams, M.C. (2010) Security Beyond the State. Security Privatization and International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gilmore, J. (2011) ‘A kinder, gentler counter-terrorism: Counterinsurgency, human security and the War on Terror’, Security Dialogue 42: 1, 21-37.

Malito, D. V. (2015) ‘Building terror while fighting enemies: how the Global War on Terror deepened the crisis in Somalia’, Third World Quarterly, 36(10), 1866-1886. Explore: Hoffman, B. et al. (2015) A Global Strategy for Combating al Qaeda and the

Islamic State. American Enterprise Institute. Available at https://www.aei.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/A-Global-Strategy-for-Combating-al-Qaeda-and-the-Islamic-State-online.pdf (last accessed 5 January 2015)

(24)

Anderson, B. (2011) ‘Facing the Future Enemy: US Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Pre-insurgent’, Theory Culture Society, Vol 28, no.7-8 (2011), pp. 216-240.

Angstrom, J., & Widen, J. J. (2014) Contemporary Military Theory: The Dynamics of War. London: Routledge.

Arquilla, J. and D. Ronfeldt (2001) Networks and Netwars, 2001. Also www.rand.org. Arquilla, J. (2007) ‘The End of War as We Knew It? Insurgency, Counterinsurgency and

Lessons from the Forgotten History of Early Terror Networks’, Third World Quarterly, 28:2, 369-386.

Benbow, T. (2008) ‘Talking ‘Bout Our Generation? Assessing the Concept of “Fourth-Generation Warfare”’, Comparative Strategy 27:2, 148-163.

Betts, R. K. (1997) ‘Should Strategic Studies Survive?’, World Politics 50, 7-33.

Burton, B. and J. Nagl, ‘Learning as We Go: The US Army Adapts to Counterinsurgency in Iraq, July 2004–December 2006’, Small Wars & Insurgencies, 19:3 (2008): 303-27. Byman, D.L. (2006) ‘Friends Like These: Counterinsurgency and the War on Terrorism’,

International Security 31:2, 79-115.

Cornish, P. (2009) ‘The United States and Counter-Insurgency’, International Affairs 85:1, 61-79.

Dalby, S. (2009) ‘Geopolitics, the Revolution in Military Affairs and the Bush Doctrine’, International Politics 46:2, 234-252.

Duffield, M. (2001) Global Governance and the New Wars, London: Zed Books. Duffield, M. (2002) ‘War as a Network Enterprise: the New Security Terrain and its

Implications’, Cultural Values 6:1/2, 153-165.

Echevarria II, A. J. (2005) ‘Deconstructing the Theory of Fourth-Generation War’, Contemporary Security Policy 26:2, 233-241.

Galula, D. (2006) Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. Greenwood: Praeger. Graham, S. (2009) ‘Cities as Battlespace: The New Military Urbanism’, City 13:4, 383-402. Graham, S. (2012) ‘When Life Itself is War: On the Urbanization of Military and Security

Doctrine’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 136-155. Gray, C. (2012) ‘Concept Failure? COIN, Counterinsurgency and Strategic Theory’, Prism

3:3, 17-32.

Gregory, D. (2011) ‘The Everywhere War’, The Geographical Journal 177:3, 238–250. Hammes, T. X. (2005) ‘War Evolves into the Fourth Generation,’ Contemporary Security

Policy, 26:2, 189-221.

Response by Freedman, L. (2005) ‘War Evolves into the Fourth Generation: A comment on Thomas X. Hammes’, Contemporary Security Policy 26:2, 254-263.

Hoffman, B. (2006) ‘Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 29:2, 103-21.

Jones, D. M. and Smith, M. (2010) ‘Whose Hearts and Whose Minds? The Curious Case of Global Counter-Insurgency,’ The Journal of Strategic Studies 33:1, 81-121.

Kilcullen, D. (2006) ‘Counter-Insurgency Redux’, Survival 48:4, 111-130

Kilcullen, D. (2009) The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One. Oxford: Oxford University Press [e-book in library]

(25)

Matulich, P. (2012) ‘Why COIN Principles Don't Fly with Drones’, Small Wars Journal 24:7. Available at smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/why-coin-principles-dont-fly-with-drones Melander, E., Öberg, M. and Hall, J. (2009) ‘Are ‘New Wars’ more Atrocious? Battle Severity,

Civilians Killed and Forced Migration Before and After the End of the Cold War’, European Journal of International Relations 15:3, 505-536.

Omand, D. (2005) ‘Countering International Terrorism: the Use of Strategy’, Survival 47:4, 107-116.

Martin, S. (2005) The New Western Way of War: Risk-Transfer War and its Crisis in Iraq. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Sloan, E.C. (2012) Modern Military Strategy: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Winning and Losing Asymmetric War

Arreguin-Toft, I. (2001) ‘How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict’, International Security 26:1, 93-128.

Benbow, T. (2009) ‘Irresistible Force or Immoveable Object? The “Revolution in Military Affairs” and Asymmetric Warfare’, Defense and Security Analysis 25:1, 21-36.

Buzan, B. (2006) ‘Will the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ be the new Cold War?’, International Affairs 82:6, 1101-1118.

Duyvesteyn, I. (2008) ‘Great Expectations: the Use of Armed Force to Combat Terrorism’, Small Wars and Insurgencies 19:3, 328-351.

Fallows, J. (2004) ‘Blind into Baghdad’, The Atlantic Monthly, 53-74.

Fettweis, C. J. (2014) ‘Threatlessness and US Grand Strategy’, Survival 56:5, 43-68. Freedman, L. (2004) ‘War in Iraq: Selling the Threat, Survival 46:2, 7-49.

Gordon, P. H. (2007) ‘Winning the Right War’, Survival 49:4, 17-45.

Mack, A. (2008), ‘Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: the Politics of Asymmetric Conflict’ in Mahnken, T. and J. Maiolo (eds) Strategic Studies: A Reader, London: Routledge. Mahadevan, Prem (2014) ‘The ‘talibanization’ of insurgency’, Center for Security Studies:

Strategic Trends 2014, 49-64. [available at

www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/Strategic-Trends-2014.pdf]

Marrin, S. (2011) ‘The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks: A Failure of Policy Not Strategic Intelligence Analysis’, Intelligence and National Security, 26:2-3, 182-202.

Martel, W.C. (2015) Grand Strategy in Theory and Practice. The Need for an Effective American Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mazarr, M.J. (2009) ‘The Folly of ‘Asymmetric War’, Washington Quarterly 31:3, 33-53. McCormack, T. (2009) The Geopolitics of American Insecurity – Terror, Power and Foreign

Policy. London: Routledge.

Merom, G. (2012) ‘The Age of Asocial War: Democratic Intervention and Counterinsurgency in the 21st Century’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 66:3, 365-380.

Owen, D. (2003) ‘Transnational Mass Media Organizations and Security’, in Brown, M. (ed.) Grave New World. Security Challenges in the 21st_{Century. Washington: Georgetown}

(26)

Record, J. (2005), ‘The Limits and Temptations of America’s Conventional Military Primacy’, Survival 47:1: 33-49.

Smith, S. et al. (2012) (eds) Foreign Policy. Oxford: OUP. [chapter 16 ‘Neoconservatism… Operation Iraqi Freedom]

Strachan, H. (2005) ‘The Lost Meaning of Strategy’, Survival 47:3, 33-54. Strachan, H. (2008) ‘Strategy and the Limitation of War’, Survival, 50(1), 31-54. Thornton, R (2006) Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the 21st Century.

Cambridge: Polity.

Tierney, D. (2014) ‘Mastering the Endgame of War’, Survival 56:5, 69-94.

Van Creveld, M. (2011) ‘The Rise and Fall of Air Power’, RUSI Journal 156:3, 48-54. Pre-emption

Buchanan, A. (2007) ‘Justifying Preventive War’, in D. Rodin and H. Shue (eds) Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buckley, C.A. (2012) ‘Learning from Libya, Acting in Syria’, Journal of Strategic Security, 5:2, 10.

Dalby, S. (2009) ‘Geopolitics, the Revolution in Military Affairs and the Bush Doctrine’, International Politics 46:2, 234-252.

De Goede, M. (2008) ‘The Politics of Preemption and the War on Terror in Europe’, European Journal of International Relations 14:1, 161-185.

De Goede, M., Simon, S. and Hoijtink, M. (2014) ‘Performing preemption’, Security Dialogue 45:5, 411-422.

Fisk, K. and J.M. Ramos (2013) ‘Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Preventive Self-Defense as a Cascading Norm’, International Studies Perspectives. Early View.

Flint, C. and Ghazi-Walid, F. (2004) ‘How the United States Justified its War on Terrorism: Prime Morality and the Construction of a ‘Just War’’, Third World Quarterly 25:8, 1379-1399.

Freedman, L. (2003) ‘Prevention, Not Preemption’, The Washington Quarterly 26:2, 105-114. Freedman, L. (2004) ‘War in Iraq: Selling the Threat, Survival 46:2, 7-49.

Gormley, D.M. (2004) ‘The Limits of Intelligence: Iraq's lessons’, Survival 46:3, 7-28. Gow, J. (2011) ‘Principles of pre-emption’, in A. Hehir, N. Kuhrt and A. Mumford (eds).

International Law, Security and Ethics. London: Routledge, 111-128.

Gray, C. (2006) Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. [chapter 9 in particular, on the usefulness and futility of war].

Heath-Kelly, C. (2012) ‘Reinventing Prevention or Exposing the Gap? False Positives in UK Terrorism Governance and the Quest for Pre-emption’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 5:1, 69-87.

Heisbourg, F. (2003) ‘A Work in Progress: the Bush Doctrine and its Consequences’, The Washington Quarterly 26:2, 73-88.

Holland, J. (2013) ‘Foreign Policy and Political Possibility’, European Journal of International Relations 19:1, 49-68.

(27)

Jervis, R. (2006) ‘Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: The Case of Iraq’, The Journal of Strategic Studies 29, 1, 3-52.

Jensen, M.A. (2012) ‘Intelligence Failures: What Are They Really and What Do We Do about Them?’, Intelligence and National Security 27:2, 261-282.

Kahl, C. H. (2012) ‘Not Time to Attack Iran: Why War Should Be a Last Resort’, Foreign Affairs 91, 166.

Kroenig, M. (2012) ‘Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike is the Least Bad Option’, Foreign Affairs 91, 76.

Lennon, A. T. and Eiss, C. (eds) (2004) Reshaping Rogue States: Preemption, Regime Change, and US Policy Toward Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Boston: MIT Press. Luban, D. (2004) ‘Preventive War’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 32, 207-248.

Mueller, J. (2005) ‘Simplicity and spook: terrorism and the dynamics of threat exaggeration’, International Studies Perspectives 6:2, 208-234.

Mueller, J. (2005) ‘The Iraq Syndrome’, Foreign Affairs, 84:6, 44-54. [public opinion in USA] Mueller, J. (2011) ‘The Iraq Syndrome Revisited’, Foreign Affairs, 90 (web).

Niva, S. (2013) ‘Disappearing Violence: JSOC and the Pentagon’s New Cartography of Networked Warfare’, Security Dialogue 44:3, 185-202.

Oberman, K. (2015) ‘The Myth of the Optional War: Why States are Required to Wage the Wars They are Permitted to Wage’, Philosophy & Public Affairs Vol. 43: 4 (online first). Record, J. (2003) ‘The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq’, Parameters 33:1, 4-21.

Record, J. (2004) ‘Executive Summary: Nuclear Deterrence, Preventive War, and Counterproliferation’, CATO Institute: Policy Analysis 519.

Rodin, D. and H. Shue (eds) (2007) Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, B. C. and Williams, M. C. (2008) ‘The Bush doctrine and the Iraq War: neoconservatives versus realists’, Security Studies 17:2, 191-220.

Schmitt, M.N. (2012) ‘Responding to Transnational Terrorism Under the jus ad Bellum: a Normative Framework’, Essays on Law and War at the Fault Lines. TMC Asser Press, 2012, 49-86.

Smith, S. et al. (2012) (eds) Foreign Policy. Oxford: OUP. [chapter 16 ‘Neoconservatism… Operation Iraqi Freedom]

Zajac, D.L. (2002) ‘The Best Defense is a Good Offense: Preemption, Ramifications for the Department of Defense’, Strategy Research Project, US Army War College. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415796

RMA and New Technologies (also look at the readings on drones in week 6) Bonelli, L. and F. Ragazzi (2014) ‘Low-tech security: Files, notes, and memos as

technologies of anticipation’, Security Dialogue 45:5, 476-493.

Brigety II, R. E. (2014) Ethics, Technology and the American Way of War: Cruise Missiles and US Security Policy. London: Routledge.

Gray, C. (2001) ‘The RMA and Intervention: A Sceptical View’, Contemporary Security Policy 22:3, 52-65.

(28)

Reynolds, M.A. (2013) ‘Return of the Maxim Gun? Technology and Empire in an Age of Austerity’, Global Discourse 3:1, 120-128.

Schulzke, M. (2014) ‘The Morality of Remote Warfare: Against the Asymmetry Objection to Remote Weaponry’, Political Studies (online first).

Sloan, E.C. (2002) Revolution in Military Affairs. McGill-Queen's Press.

Waddington, C. (2013) ‘Precision-Strike Technology and Counter-Terrorism: Conflating Tactical Efficiency with Strategic Effectiveness?’, in Hitting the Target? How New Capabilities are Shaping International Intervention, edited by M. Aaronson and A. Johnson. Whitehall Report 2-13, 79-88.

See also readings of week 5 on Counter-Terrorism.

Lecture 5: Tuesday, 9 February 2016

Radicalisation: Explanations and potential lessons for policy (Z. Reeve)

In this lecture we will be looking at why and how terrorism occurs, and what kinds of responses governments pursue to try and tackle this problem. We will cover the problem of defining concepts like terrorism and radicalisation, which continues to be a core difficulty when addressing this topic. Then, we will move on to look at some of the causes of terrorism, before going on to discuss the related issue of radicalisation. An important feature of

understanding the radicalisation process is that most people, even those who do become radicalised, are unlikely to actually participate in violence, so there are different levels of engagement in terrorism. We will discuss the way in which counter-terrorism policies that look at preventing violent extremism are pursued by governments and critically evaluate their effectiveness. In the tutorial, we will discuss the rise of ISIS and the ways in which

government (and societal) responses have changed in response to this threat.

Core readings

1. Horgan, J. (2008) ‘From Profiles to Pathways and Roots to Routes: Perspectives from Psychology on Radicalization into Terrorism’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 618:1, 80-94.

2. Crenshaw, M. (1981) ‘The Causes of Terrorism’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 13:4, 379-399.

Federal Bureau Of Investigation (2006) The Radicalization Process: From Conversion to Jihad (10 May 2006), https://cryptome.org/fbi-jihad.pdf

Thomas, P. (2010) ‘Failed and Friendless: The UK’s “Preventing Violent Extremism” Programme’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 12(3), 442–458.

COURSE HANDBOOK. Global Security

COURSE HANDBOOK

Global Security

PLIT10094

2015/16

Semester 2

Table of Contents

Aims and Objectives

Intended Learning Objectives/Outcomes

Teaching Arrangements

Lecture and Tutorial Times and locations

LEARN – Virtual Classroom

Assessment

Course textbook

Peer-reviewed journals and other useful sources

Useful websites

Weekly topics and dates

Weekly readings

Introduction: the Contemporary Security Agenda (C. Gebhard)

Analyzing Global Security: What, When and How? (C. Gebhard)

Global and Regional Security Governance: United We Stand? (C. Gebhard)

Strategy in the Age of Terror: How to win Asymmetric Wars (C. Gebhard)

Radicalisation: Explanations and potential lessons for policy (Z. Reeve)