International Security Studies (PIM11) - University of … · International Security Studies (PIM11) Module Handbook Module Convenor: Dr Andreas Behnke Department of Politics and

Graduate Institute for Political and International Studies

University of Reading, 2013/14

International Security Studies (PIM11)

Module Handbook

Module Convenor:

Dr Andreas Behnke Department of Politics and International Relations Email: [email protected]

International Security Studies 2011/12

2

Aims • To introduce students to different concepts of security, such as international, global and

human security. • To facilitate progression in international security studies from the particular to the

abstract. • To examine empirical problems in their historical context. • To facilitate an understanding and appreciation of the changes and continuities of security

problems from the Cold War to the present. • To develop an in-depth understanding of different approaches to security problems, both

in their historical context as well as in the contemporary debate. • To develop critical understanding of the complex dimensions of security and the nature of

various threats to security. • To explore military and non-military approaches to security threats and develop critical

facilities to appraise their suitability for meeting contemporary security challenges. • To provide students with an intellectual environment for enhancing and testing critical,

independent analysis of international and global security. • To provide the analytical and intellectual basis for single discipline or interdisciplinary

academic research in international security studies or for careers which require a sound understanding of the roots and condition of the contemporary security environment.

• To enhance students’ critical and analytical skills through engaging with a diverse and challenging theoretical and empirical literature and to demonstrate these in seminar discussions, presentations, essays and examinations.

Intended learning outcomes

Assessable outcomes • To provide a solid foundation of knowledge of international security studies which will

be tested in examinations. • To equip students for critical and informed analysis and research of international

security studies which they will demonstrate in essays and examinations.

Additional outcomes • Effective oral presentation of critical analyses. • Knowledge of the status of academic research and points of departure for further research

or study of international security. • Enhanced knowledge, understanding and ability to analyse problems in international

security.

Transferable Skills

• Informed and critical approach to using primary and secondary sources, incl. web-based information, through preparation of all coursework.

• Enhanced confidence in and effectiveness of oral and written communication through seminar discussions, presentations and essays.

• Improved time management through meeting deadlines and regular seminar preparation. • Independent and team-work through individual and group preparation of coursework.


3

Seminar Outline The course is divided into four parts:

AUTUMN TERM: Part 1: Introduction Week 1Business Meeting Part 2: Concepts of Security Week 2: What is Security?

Week 3: Realist Concepts of Security

Week 4: Liberal Institutionalism, Security Communities and Democratic Peace Theory

Week 5: Critical Security Studies

Week 6: Human Security

Part 2: The Cold War Legacy

Week 7: The Political and Strategic Legacy of the Cold War

Week 8:From the End of the Cold War to the War on Terror

SPRING TERM

Part 3: Current Issues in Security and War

Week 1: Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention

Week 2: Security and Global Liberal Governance

Week 3: Proliferation and Non-Proliferation in the 21st Century

Week 4: The Changing Security Agenda: Terrorism

Week 5: The Changing Security Agenda: War as Risk Management

Week 6: From Security Studies to Critical War Studies?

Part 4: Conclusion: Prospects for Security Week 7: Student Debate: Human/International/Global: What Future for Security?


4

Brief description of teaching and learning methods: The class is taught in seminars. The seminars consist of student presentations as well as group discussion with occasional short lectures. Students are expected to develop their knowledge of the subject through a high level of independent study combined with group work, which will inform the class discussions. Presentations, essays and exams are designed not only to test students’ knowledge and ability to think critically and analytically in a variety of environments, but also to reinforce independent study and to ensure a careful and judicious consideration of it. Presentations are also designed to enhance transferable skills. They should aim to communicate concise, critical analyses effectively and raise topics for the subsequent discussion. Students are encouraged to explore different presentation techniques and present freely from brief notes. Questions not covered by individual presentations will be prepared in groups. With guidance from the tutor, groups will sub-divide the topic and assign specific issue areas to individual members. Groups will collate and shape individual research results into a brief presentation (5-10 minutes). The presenter will be selected on the day of the session.

Coursework

Presentations

Individual presentations should not be longer than 20 minutes and should be accompanied by a one-page summary of the main points. Students may choose the topic from sessions not marked as group work. The essay topic must differ from that of the individual presentation.

Essays Students who take International Security Studies as a core unit for the MA International Security Studies are required to submit a formative essay (1 x 1000 words) in week 4. Summative essays (2 whose combined total equals 7,000 words) are due in week 10 of each term. The topic for the summative essay will be provided by the course tutor in due time. Assessment: Presentations

Presentations and seminar contributions are marked and components of end of term student progress reports. They are not part of the formal assessment, but may influence decisions on a marginal final mark. Coursework Two summative essays (each 3.500 words), each contributing 25% of grade for the module. Relative percentage of coursework : 50% Penalties for late submission:

Deduction of 10 marks for essays delayed by up to one week; thereafter a mark of 0 will be awarded. Marks will also be deducted for essays that are too short or too long by 10% of the


5

word limit. For further rules applying to essays, students are requested to refer to the GSEIS Handbook. Examination:

One three-hour examination. Students will have to write three essays chosen from 10 questions. Each essay is worth 1/3 of the examination grade. The examination grade is worth 50% of the final grade. Requirements for a pass: Students must achieve an overall mark 50% after coursework and exam marks have been combined. A grade of 50% will reflect the following characteristics in: Examinations A coherent answer to the question displaying a succinct though sound basic knowledge and critical understanding of the subject. Small factual errors allowed. Essays A coherent answer to the question displaying a solid knowledge of the subject and core readings; critical skills and a developed analysis; sound documentation of sources.

Reassessment arrangements

Re-sit examinations in September or following May; re-submission of coursework by September or May; resubmission of dissertation by May of following year.


6

VI. READINGS Central readings are listed below in the schedule of seminar topics. Most are available via the main library, often through electronic databases. Selected readings will be handed out in class. Other materials, most of which are available in or through the University Library, are suggestions for further reading. Many listed readings also contain extensive bibliographies. Journals of particular interest to students of international security include International Affairs, Foreign Policy, Global Governance, International Security, Security Studies, Security Dialogue, Survival, Review of International Studies, International Organization, International Peacekeeping, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Environmental Values, and Global Environmental Change. BASIC TEXTs: Students who takes this module (above all those without a background in security studies) are advised to procure a copy of the following introductory text: Williams, Paul D. (ed.) Security Studies. An Introduction. 2nd edition (London: Routledge 2013) For historical background, the following books are particularly useful: Calvocoressi, Peter, World Politics Since 1945 (Harlow: Pearson Longman 2009, 9th edition). Cooper, Robert The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the 21st Century (London: Atlantic Books, 2003). Useful websites include: Acronym Institute: http://www.acronym.org.uk/ [disarmament and arms control]

Arms Control Association: http://www.armscontrol.org/

British American Security Information Council: http://www.basicint.org/

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace http://www.ceip.org

Centre for Strategic and International Studies: http://www.csis.org/

Crisis Group: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm

Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org

Institute for Science and International Security http://www.isis-online.org/

International Institute for Strategic Studies: http://www.iiss.org

International Relations and Security Network: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/

Monterey Institute for International Security http://www.cns.miis.org

Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/

Nuclear Threat Initiative: http://www.nti.org/


7

RAND Corporation http://www.rand.org/

NATO: http://www.nato.int

UN: http://www.un.org

PART I: Introduction and Concepts of Security

Week 1: Business Meeting

Week 2: What is Security?

1. What makes ‘security’ a ‘contested concept’?

2. What does the expansion of the concept of security suggest about who can best

provide security, for whom it should be provided, and how?

Reading Essential Reading Ayoob, Mohammed, “The Security Problematic in the Third World”, World Politics, 43

(1991).

Baldwin, David, "The Concept of Security", Review of International Studies 23 (1997) 3, pp. 5-26.

Huysmans, Jef, ‘Security! What Do You Mean?’, European Journal of International Relations 4(2) 1998, pp. 226-255.

Rothschild, Emma, “What is Security?”, Daedalus, 124/3 (Summer 1995). Smith, Steve, “The Contested Concept of Security” in Ken Booth (ed.), Critical Security

Studies and World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005), pp. 27-62. Further Reading:

Brauch, H-G., Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks in Environmental and Human Security (SOURCE, 2005) at http://www.ehs.unu.edu/article/read/72. (Chapters on re-conceptualising security).

Buzan, Barry., "Rethinking Security after the Cold War", Cooperation and Conflict 32 (1997) 1, pp. 5-28.

Holsti, Kalevi J., The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (chapters 1, 2, and 6)

Krause, Keith; Michael Williams, “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods,” Mershon International Studies Review, 40 (1996) 2, pp. 229-254.

Tuchman Mathews, J., "Redefining Security", Foreign Affairs, Spring 1989.

Walker, R.J.B., “The Subject of Security”, in K. Krause; M. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies – Concepts and Cases (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 61-81.


8

Week 3: Realist Concepts of Security 1. How do the central assumptions of Realist theories of International Relations shape

their understanding of ‘security’. 2. Explain the ‘security dilemma’ and examine its ramifications for international

security.

Reading Essential Reading

Brooks, Stephen, “Duelling Realisms”, International Organization 51 (1997) 3, pp. 445-477. Jervis, Robert, “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma”, World Politics 30 (1978) 2, pp.

167-214. J.W. Legro & A. Moravcik ‘Is anybody still a Realist?’, International Security 24(2), 1999.

Mabee, B., “Security Studies in the ‘Security State’ – Security Provision in Historical Context”, International Relations 17 (2003) 2, pp. 135-151.

Mearsheimer, John J., “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War”, International Security 15 (1990) 1, pp. 5-56. [see also subsequent debate in IS]

Mearsheimer, John J., “Get Real - The False Promise of International Institutions”, International Security 19 (1994-95) 3, pp.5- 49 [see also the subsequent debate in IS].

Further Reading:

Ayoob, Mohammed, “Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective”, in K. Krause; M. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies – Concepts and Cases (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 121-146.

Booth, Ken, “Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice”, International Affairs 67 (1993) 3, pp. 527-545.

Davis, James W. et al., “Correspondence: Taking Offense at Offense-Defense Theory”, International Security 23 (1998-99) 3, pp. 179-206 [discussion of van Evera].

Mearsheimer. John J., ‘Reckless States and Realism’, International Relations 23(2), 2009.

Mewssari, Nizar, “The State and Dilemmas of Security”, Security Dialogue 33 (2002) 4, pp. 415-427.

Van Evera, Stephen, “Offense, Defense and the Causes of War”, International Security 22 (1998) 4, pp. 5-43.

Walt, Stephen, "The Renaissance of Security Studies", International Studies Quarterly, 35 (1991) 2, pp. 211-239.

Waltz, Kenneth, “The Emerging Structure of International Security”, International Security 18 (1993) 2, pp. 44-79.


9

Week 4: Liberal Institutionalism, Security Communities and Democratic Peace Theory

1. Examine critically the Liberal assumption that international norms and institutions are security-building.

2. What is the relationship between democracy and security?

3. Explain and assess the utility of the concept of ‘security community’.


Adler, Emanuel; M. Barnett, “Security Communities in Theoretical Perspective”, in E. Adler, M. Barnett (eds.), Security Communities (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), pp. 3-28.

Chan, Steve, “In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise”, Problems and Prospects in the Study of International Norms”, Mershon International Studies Review 41 (1997) 1, pp. 59-91.

Hoffman, Stanley, “Liberalism and International Affairs”, in Stanley Hoffman, Janus and Minerva: Essays in the Theory and Practice of International Politics (London: Westview Press, 1987), pp. 394-417.

Lake, David A., “Beyond Anarchy – The Importance of Security Institutions”, International Security 26 (2001) 1, pp. 129-160.

Further Reading Adler, Emanuel; M. Barnett, “A Framework for the Study of Security Communities”, in E.

Adler, M. Barnett (eds.), Security Communities (Cambridge: CUP, 1998), pp. 29-65. Brown, Michael, Lynn-Jones, Sean and Miller, Steven (eds.), Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996). Bush, George W., Inaugural Address, Washington D.C., 20 January 2005.

Buzan, Barry, ‘From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School,’ International Organization, 47, 3, 1993, pp. 327-352.

Doyle, Michael, ‘A More Perfect Union? The Liberal Peace and the Challenge of Globalisation,’ Review of International Studies, 2000, 26, pp. 81-94.

Falk, Richard, "Democratising, Internationalising, and Globalising", Third World Quarterly 13 (1993) 4.

Ikenberry, John, “US Strategies and Global Order: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Persistence of American Postwar Order”, International Security 23 (1998-99) 3, pp. 43-78.

Ikenberry, John, After Victory. Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 2000).

Jervis, Robert, “Realism, Neoliberalism and Co-operation: Understanding the Debate”, International Security 24 (1999) 1, pp. 42-63.

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


10

Mann, Michael, The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (Cambridge: CUP, 2005).

Mansfield, Edward D., and Snyder, Jack, `Democratic Transition, Institutional Strength, and War’, International Organization, (Spring 2002).

Moravcsik, Andrew, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization 51 (1997) 4, pp. 513-553.

Paris, Roland, At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

Owen, John, “Give Democratic Peace a Chance? – How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace”, International Security 19 (1994) 2, pp. 87-125.

Week 5: Critical Security Studies 1. Why do critical approaches to security studies object to traditional, especially

Realist, concepts of security and security policy and how do they re-define security?

2. What can critical security studies contribute to the study of international relations that traditional ‘problem-solving’ approaches cannot?

Reading Essential Reading: Lipschutz, Ronnie D, ‘On Security’ in R.D. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security, New York:

Columbia University Press, 1995 Der Derian, James, ‘The Value of Security’, in R.D. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security, New York:

Columbia University Press, 1995 Wæver, Ole ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’, in R.D. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security, New

York: Columbia University Press, 1995. Williams, Michael C and Keith. Krause, ‘Preface: Toward Critical Security Studies’ in K.

Krause & M.C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies, London: Routledge 1997. Krause, Keith; and Michael C. Williams, “From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical

Security Studies”, in K. Krause; M. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies – Concepts and Cases (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 33-60.

Fierke, Karin M. ‘Constructivism’ in T. Dunne, M Kurki, S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: OUP 2010 (2nd edition).

Campbell, David ‘Poststructuralism’ in T. Dunne, M Kurki, S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: OUP 2010 (2nd edition).

Further Reading: Alker, Hayward, ‘Emancipation in the Critical Security Studies Project’, in Ken Booth (ed.),

Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005), pp. 189-213.

Cox, Robert, ‘Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, in Robert Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), pp.204-254.


11

Hansen, Lene, “The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the. Copenhagen School,” Millennium, 29:2 (2000), 285-306.

Hudson, Valerie M., Mary Caprioli, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Rose McDermott, Chad F. Emmett, ‘The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States’, International Security Vol.33/3 (Winter 2009).

Lipschutz, Ronnie .D., "Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global Civil Society", Millennium 21 (1992) 3, pp. 389-420.

Price, Richard, and Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism’, European Journal of International Relations 4/3 (1998), 259-94.

Steans, Jill, “The ‘Warrior Hero’ and the Patriarchal State”, in J. Steans, Gender and International Relations – An Introduction (Cambridge: Polity, 1998), pp. 81-103.

Tickner, Ann, “Gendered Dimensions of War, Peace and Security”, in Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics – Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era (New York: Columbia UP, 2001), pp. 36-64.

Tooze, Roger, “The Missing Link: Security, International Political Economy, and Community”, in Ken Booth (ed.), Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005), pp. 133-158.

Ullman, R. H., "Redefining Security", International Security, 8 (1983) 1, pp. 129-153.

Wyn Jones, Richard, “On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity, and Concrete Utopias”, in Ken Booth (ed.), Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005), pp. 215-235.

Week 6: Human Security 1. What is ‘human security’ and is it a useful concept for the analysis and promotion of

contemporary security?

2. What factors have promoted the emergence of the concept of human security?

Reading Symposium on ‘Human Security’, Security Dialogue 35(3), September 2004.

Bellamy, Alex; M. McDonald, “’The Utility of Human Security’: Which Humans? What Security?”, Security Dialogue 33 (2002) 3, pp. 373-377.

Christie, Reyerson, ‘Critical Voices and Human Security: To Endure, To Engage, or To Critique?’, Security Dialogue 41(2), pp. 169-90.

King, G.; C. Murray, “Rethinking Human Security”, Political Science Quarterly 116 (2001-02) 4, pp. 585-610.

Paris, Roland, “Human Security – Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?”, International Security 26 (2001) 2, pp. 87-102.

Human Security Report, at www.humansecurityreport.org

Further Reading


12

Behringer, Thomas, “Middle Power Leadership on the Human Security Agenda”, Co-operation and Conflict 40 (2005) 3, pp. 305-342.

Chenoy, Anuradha M., “A Plea for Engendering Human Security”, International Studies 42 (2005) 2, pp. 167-179.

Grayson, Kyle, ‘Securitization and the Boomerang Effect: A Rejoinder to Liotta and Smith-Windsor’, Security Dialogue 34(3) 2003, pp. 337-343.

Hudson, Heidi, “Doing Security as Though Humans Matter: A Feminist Perspective on Gender and the Politics of Human Security”, Security Dialogue 36(2) 2005), pp. 155-174.

Linklater, A., “Political Community and Human Security”, in K. Booth (ed.), Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder, CO: L. Rienner, 2005), pp. 113-131.

Liotta, P.H., “Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security”, Security Dialogue 33 (2002) 4, pp. 473-456.

Neil MacFarlane and Yuen Foong Khong, Human Security and the UN: A Critical History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006).

Owen, Taylor, ‘Human Security – Conflict, Critique, and Consensus’, Security Dialogue 35/3 (2004). See also the short individual contributions on human security in this special issue.

Thomas, N.; W. Tow, “Gaining Security by Trashing the State? – A Reply to Bellamy & McDonald”, Security Dialogue 33 (2002) 3, pp. 379-382.

Thomas, Nicholas; William Tow, “The Utility of Human Security”, Security Dialogue 33 (2002) 2, pp. 177-192.

Part II: The Cold War Legacy

Week 7: The Political and Strategic Legacy of the Cold War 1. What do a) containment and b) détente tell us about Western perceptions of the Soviet

threat? 2. Evaluate the role of nuclear doctrines and strategies in thinking about and planning

for security during the Cold War.


Gaddis, John L., Strategies of Containment: a Critical Appraisal of post-War American National Security Policy (1982).

Gaddis, John L., We Now Know. Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford: Clarendon 1997). Jervis, Robert, ‘Was the Cold War a Security Dilemma?’, Journal of Cold War Studies, iii

(2001). Trachtenberg, Marc, A Constructed Peace: the Making of the European Settlement 1945-

1963 (1999)

:


13

Cox, Michael, “From the Truman Doctrine to the Second Superpower Détente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War”, Journal of Peace Research 27 (1990) 1, pp. 25-41.

Gould-Davies, Nigel, ‘Rethinking the Role of Ideology in International Politics during the Cold War’, Journal of Cold War Studies 1999.

Jervis, Robert, “The Impact of the Korean War on the Cold War”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution 24 (1980) 4, pp. 563-597.

Nijman, J., “The Limits of Superpower: The United States and the Soviet Union since World War II”, Annals of the American Society of Geographers 82 (1993) 4, pp. 681-695.

Gorodetsky, Gabriel, “The Origins of the Cold War: Stalin, Churchill and the Formation of the Grand Alliance”, Russian Review 47 (1988) 2, pp. 145-170.

Adler, Emanuel, “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control”, International Organization 46 (1992) 1, pp. 101-145.

Jervis, Robert, “Arms Control, Stability and Causes of War”, Political Science Quarterly 108 (1993) 2, pp. 239-253.

Krause, Joachim, ‘Enlightenment and Nuclear Order’, International Affairs 83/3 (2007), pp.483-99.

Further Reading on Containment and Détente: Gray, Colin S., ‘Strategy in the Nuclear Age: The United States, 1945-91’, in Murray, Williamson, Knox, MacGregor, Bernstein, Alwin, The Making of Strategy: Rulers, States and War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Mr. X, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct”, Foreign Affairs, July 1947, pp. 566-582. Bowker, Mike, and Williams, Phil, Superpower Détente: A Reappraisal (1988).

Davy, Richard (ed.), European Détente: A Reappraisal (1992).

Thomas, Daniel C., The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human Rights, and the Demise of Communism, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)

Further Reading on Nuclear Strategy and Disarmament: Bluth, C., "Strategic Nuclear Weapons and US-Russian Relations: From Confrontation to

Cooperative Denuclearization." Contemporary Security Policy 15 (1994) 1, pp. 80-108.

Diehl, Paul F., “Ghosts of the Arms Control Past”, Political Science Quarterly 105 (1990-91) 4, pp. 597-615.

Gray, Colin S., ‘Strategy in the Nuclear Age: The United States, 1945-91’, in Murray, Williamson, Knox, MacGregor, Bernstein, Alwin, The Making of Strategy: Rulers, States and War.

Kugler, Jacek; A.F.K. Organski; Daniel Fox, “Deterrence and the Arms Race – The Impotence of Power”, International Security 4 (1980) 4, pp. 105-138.

Lebow, R. N.; J. Gross Stein, “Deterrence and the Cold War”, Political Science Quarterly 110 (1995) 2, pp. 157-181.


14

MccGwire, Michael, “Deterrence, the Problem not the Solution”, International Affairs 62 (1985-86) 1, pp. 55-70.

Plous, S., “The Nuclear Arms Race – Prisoner’s Dilemma or Perceptual Dilemma?”, Journal of Peace Research 30 (1993) 2, pp. 163-179.

Sienkiewicz, Stanley, “SALT and Soviet Nuclear Doctrine”, International Security 2 (1978) 4, pp. 84-100.

Smith, Roger K., “Explaining the Non-Proliferation Regime: Anomalies for Contemporary International Relations Theory”, International Organization 41 (1987) 2, pp. 253-281.

O’Hanlon, M., ‘Star Wars Strikes Back’, Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 1999.

Glaser, C., ‘The Flawed Case for Nuclear Disarmament’, Survival, Spring 1998.

Glaser, C., ‘The Flawed Case for Nuclear Disarmament’, Survival, Spring 1998.

Week 8: From the End of the Cold War to the War on Terror

1. Why did the Cold War end? 2. What are the ‘root causes’ of the War on Terror? Is it actually a ‘war’?.


Brooks, S.G.; W. C. Wohlforth, “Power, Globalization, and the End of the Cold War”, International Security 25 (2000-01) 3, pp. 5-53. [see also subsequent debate in IS]

Deudney, Daniel, and John G. Ikenberry, ‘The International Sources of Soviet Change’, International Security, 16:3, Winter 1991/92.

Gaddis, John L.,” International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War”, International Security 17 (1992-93) 3, pp. 5-58.

Bergen, Peter, Holy War, Inc. Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (London: Phoenix 2002).

Booth, Ken, and Tim Dunne, Terror in Our Time (London: Routledge 2012).

Hellmich, Christina, Al-Qaeda. From Global Network to Local Franchise (London and New York, NY: Zed Books 2011.

Further Reading

Chernoff, Fred, ‘Ending the Cold War: The Soviet Retreat and the US Military Buildup’, International Affairs, 67 (1991) 1, pp. 111-126.


15

Herrmann, Richard K., and Richard Ned Lebow, ed., Ending the Cold War: Interpretations, Causation, and the Study of International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

Risse-Kappen, Thomas, ‘Did “Peace Through Strength” End the Cold War?’, International Security 16 (Summer 1991) 1, pp. 162-188.

Press-Barnathan, Galia, “The Changing Incentives for Security Regionalisation – From 11/9 to 9/11”, Co-operation and Conflict 40 (2005) 3, pp. 281-304.

Booth, Ken and Tim Dunne (eds) Worlds in Collision. Terror and the Future of Global Order (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan 2002)

Devji, Faisal, Landscapes of the Jihad. Militancy, Morality, Modernity (London: Hurst 2005).

Mueller, John, and Mark G. Stewart, The Terrorism Delusion. America’s Overwrought Response to September 11’, International Security 37(1) 2012, pp. 81-110.

Wright, Lawrence, The Looming Tower. Al Qaeda’s Road to 9/11 (London: Allen Lane 2006).

SPRING TERM Part III: Current Issues in Security and War

Week 1: Human Rights and ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ 1. Does the so-called international community have a ‘responsibility to protect’? 2. Whose security have so-called humanitarian military interventions protected since the

end of the Cold War?


Ayoob, Mohammed, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 6/1 (2002), 81-102.

Bellamy, Alex, “Humanitarian Responsibilities and Interventionist Claims in International Society”, Review of International Studies 29 (2003) 3, pp. 321-340.

Dunne, Tim; N. Wheeler, ‘We the Peoples’: Contending Discourses of Security in Human Rights Theory and Practice”, International Relations 18 (2004) 1, pp. 9-23.

McFarlane, Neil et al., “The Responsibility to Protect: Is Anyone Interested in Humanitarian Intervention?”, Third World Quarterly 25 (2004) 5, pp. 977-992.

Further Reading Farer, T. et al., “Roundtable: Humanitarian Intervention after 9/11”, International Relations

19 (2005) 2, pp. 211-250.


16

Finnemore, M., ‘Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention’, in Katzenstein ed., The Culture of National Security, (1996) pp. 153 – 185.

Fitzpatrick, Joane, “Speaking Law to Power: The War on Terrorism and Human Rights”, European Journal of International Law 14 (2003) 2, pp. 241-264.

Foot, Rosemary, “Human Rights and Counterterrorism in Global Governance: Reputation and Resistance”, Global Governance 11 (2005), pp.291-310.

Gheciu, Alexandra, and Jenifer Welsh, ‘The Imperative to Rebuild: Asse4ssing the Normative Case for Post-Conflict Reconstruction’, Ethics and International Affairs Vol.23/2 (2009).

International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), The Responsibility to Protect, 2000, at http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/

Paris, Roland, “International Peacebuilding and the ‘Mission Civilisatrice’”, Review of International Studies 28 (2002) 4, pp. 637-656.

Tesón, Fernando, “The liberal case for humanitarian intervention’, in L Holzgrefe and R Keohane (eds.), Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp.93-129.

Thakur, Ramesh, ‘Human Rights: Amnesty International and the United Nations’, Journal of Peace Research 31 (1994) 2, pp. 143-160.

Welsh, Jennifer (ed.), Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Zaum, Dominik, “The Authority of International Administrations in International Society”, Review of International Studies, 32/3 (2006).

Week 2: Security and Global Liberal Governance 1. What role does ‘human security’ play in the liberal governance of global politics?

2. What role does sovereignty platy in the liberal governance of global politics?

Reading Essential Reading: De Larrinaga, Miguel and Marc G. Doucet, ‘Sovereign Power and the Biopolitics of Human

Security’ Security Dialogue 39(5), pp. 517-537. De Larrinaga, Miguel and Marc G. Doucet, ‘Governmentality, Sovereign Power, and

Intervention: Security Council Resolutions and the Invasion of Iraq’ in De Larrinaga, Miguel and Marc G. Doucet (eds.). Security and Global Governmentality. Globalization, Governance and the State (London: Routledge 2010).

Jabri, Vivienne, ‘War, Security, and the Liberal State’, Security Dialogue 37(1), pp. 47-64. Neumann, Iver B. and Ole Jacob Sendling, Governing the Global Polity. Practice, Mentality,

Rationality (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press 2010), chapters 1, 2, and 5. Shimizu, Kosuke, ‘Human Security, Governmentality, and Sovereignty’ in François Debrix

and Mark J. Lacy (eds.) The Geopolitics of American Insecurity (London: Routledge 2009).


17

Further Reading: Barkawi, Tarak, Globalization & War (Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield 2006).

Dillon, Michael and Louis Lobo-Guerrero, ‘Biopolitics of Security in the 21st Century: an

Introduction’, Review of International Studies 34 (2008), pp. 265-292

Abstract.

Dillon, Michael and Julian Reid The Liberal Way of War. Killing to Make Life Live (London: Routledge 2009).

Dillon, Michael and Andrew W. Neal (eds) Foucault on Politics, Security and War (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan 2011).

Duffield, Mark, ‘Development, Territories, and People: Consolidating the External Sovereign Frontier’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 32 (2007), pp. 225-246.

Freedman, Lawrence, ‘The Age of Liberal Wars’, Review of International Studies 31 (2005), pp. 93-107

Freedman, Lawrence, ‘Iraq, Liberal Wars and Illiberal Containment’, Survival 48(4) 2006, pp. 51-66.

Joseph, Jonathan, ‘The Limits of Governmentality: Social Theory and the International’ European Journal of International Relations 16(2) 2010, pp. 223-246.

Kienscherf, Markus, ‘A Programme of Global Pacification: US Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Biopolitics of Human (In)Security’, Security Dialogue 42(6), pp. 517-535.

Larner, Wendy and William Walters, ‘Globalization as Governmentality’ Alternatives: Global, Local, Political (29(5) 2004, pp. 495-514

Week 3: Proliferation and Non-Proliferation in the 21st Century 1. Examine the underlying rationale and effectiveness of rules and norms based

approaches to non-proliferation with special reference to WMD and ballistic missiles.

2. Are strengthening deterrence with ‘useable nuclear weapons’, missile defence and pre-emptive defence the most suitable non- or counter-proliferation strategies for the 21st century?

Reading Essential Reading The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (1968) at

http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html Braun, Chaim, and Christopher F. Chyba, ‘Proliferation Rings. New Challenges to the

Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime’, International Security 29(2) 2004, pp. 5-49.

Fitzpatrick, Mark, ‘Iran and North Korea: The Proliferation Nexus’, Survival, 48/1 (2006): 61-80.

Powell, Robert, “Nuclear Deterrence Theory, Nuclear Proliferation, and National Missile Defense”, International Security 27 (2003) 4, pp. 86-118.


18

Pilat, Joseph, ‘The end of the NPT Regime’, International Affairs 83/3 (2007), pp.469-82. Frost, Robin, Nuclear Terrorism after 9/11, Adelphi Paper 378 (Routledge for the IISS

2005). Further Reading

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Nuclear Policy at http://carnegieendowment.org/programs/npp/index.cfm?fa=proj&id=116

Barletta, Michael (ed.), After 9/11: Preventing Mass-Destruction Terrorism and Weapons Proliferation (Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International Studies, Occasional Paper No 8, May 2002). http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers.htm

Cha, Victor, “Hawk Engagement and Preventive Defence on the Korean Peninsula”, International Security 27 (2002) 1, pp. 40-78.

Hanson, Marianne, “Nuclear Weapons as Obstacles to International Security”, International Relations 16 (2003) 3, pp. 361-379.

Howard, Sean, “A Receding Disarmament Horizon? Lessons from an Era of Retreat and Defeat”, Disarmament Diplomacy 73 (October-November 2003) at http://www.acronym.org.uk follow link to Disarmament Diplomacy

Knopf, J., “Misapplied Lessons? 9/11 and the Iraq Debate”, Nonproliferation Review 9 (2002) 3.

Mistry, Dinshaw, “Beyond the MTCR – Building a Comprehensive Regime to Contain Ballistic Missile Proliferation”, International Security 27 (2003) 4, pp. 119-149.

Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Policy Brief on the Implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Oslo: NUPI, April 2005) available on 22 September 2005 at http://www.nupi.no/IPS/filestore/PolicyBriefsApril2005.pdf

Paine C.E. et al., Countering Proliferation or Compounding It?- The Bush Administration’s Quest for Earth-Penetrating and Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons (Washington, DC: Natural Resources Defense Council, May 2003) at http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/bush/abb.pdf

Perkovic, George, and James Acton, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, Adelphi Paper 396 (Routledge for the IISS, 2008).

Potter, William and G. Mukhatzhanova, ;Divining Nuclear Intentions’, International Security 33/1 (2008).

Roberts, Brad, “From Nonproliferation to Antiproliferation”, International Security 18 (1993) 1, pp. 139-173. [dated in detail, but useful survey of proliferation problem and historical perspective]

Seaboyer, Anthony, and Oliver Thränert, “What Missile Proliferation Means for Europe”, Survival, 48/2 (2006), pp.85/96.

Slocombe, Walter, “Force, Pre-emption and Legitimacy”, Survival 45 (2003) 1, pp. 117-130. Sofaer, Abraham D., “On the Necessity of Pre-emption”, European Journal of International

Law 14 (2003) 2, pp. 209-226. U.S. National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, December 2002.

UNIDIR, Disarmament Forum: Nuclear Terrorism (2003) 2 http://www.unidir.ch/html/en/latest_disarmament_forum.php


19

Week 4: The Changing Security Agenda I: Terrorism 1. Is global terrorism a new phenomenon? 2. How far have the responses to global terrorism been effective?

Reading Essential Reading Gearson, John, “The Nature of Modern Terrorism”, The Political Quarterly 73 (2002) 1, pp.

7-24. Kurth-Cronin, Audrey, “How al-Quaeda Ends”, International Security 31/1 (2006).

Roberts, Adam, ‘The "War on Terror" in Historical Perspective’, Survival, London, vol. 47, no. 2, Summer 2005.

von Hippel, Karin, “The Roots of Terrorism – Probing the Myths”, The Political Quarterly 73 (2002) 1, pp. 25-39.

Further Reading Behnke, Andreas, “Terrorising the Political: 9/11 Within the Context of the Globalisation of

Violence”, Millennium 33 (2004) 2, pp. 279-312. Bothe, Michael, “Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force”, European Journal of

International Law 14 (2003) 2, pp. 227-240. Brown, Chris, “The ‘Fall of the Towers’ and International Order”, International Relations 16

(2002) 2, pp. 263-267. Chalk, Peter, “Non-Military Security in the Wider Middle East, Studies in Conflict and

Terrorism 26 (2003), pp. 197-214. Dodge, T., “US Intervention and Possible Iraqi Futures”, Survival 45 (2003) 3, pp. 103-122.

George, L. N., “Pharmacotic War and the Ethical Dilemmas of Engagement”, International Relations 19 (2005) 1, pp. 115-125.

Hellmich, Christina, Al-Qaeda. From Global Network to Local Franchise (London and New York, NY: Zed Books 2011).

Hellmich, Christina and Andreas Behnke, Knowing al-Qaeda. The Epistemology of Terrorism (Farnham: Ashgate 2012).

Hoffman, Bruce, Inside Terrorism. Revised and expanded edition (New York, NY: Columbia University Press 2006).

Jervis, Robert, ‘An Interim assessment of September 11: What has Changed and What has Not?’, Political Science Quarterly, 117 (2002) 1, pp 37-54.

Mégret, Frédéric, “Justice in Times of Violence”, European Journal of International Law 14 (2003) 2, pp. 327-345.

Navias, M., “Finance Warfare as a Response to International Terrorism”, The Political Quarterly 73 (2002) 1, pp. 57-79. [please note that the whole journal issue is focused on international terrorism]

Rasmussen, Mikkel V., “’A Parallel Globalization of Terror’: 9-11, Security and Globalization”, Cooperation and Conflict 37 (2002) 3, pp. 323-349.


20

Rhodes, Edward, “The Good the Bad and the Righteous: Understanding the Bush Vision of a New NATO Partnership”, Millennium 33 (2004) 1, pp. 123-143.

Roberts, Adam, “Counter-Terrorism, Armed Force and the Laws of War”, Survival 44 (2002) 1, pp. 7-32.

Stern, Jessica, “Dreaded Risks and the Control of Biological Weapons”, International Security 27 (2002/03) 3, pp. 89-123.

Week 5: The Changing Security Agenda II: War as Risk Management

1. ?

2. ?

Essential Reading: Coker, Christopher, Globalisation and Insecurity in the Twenty-First Century: NATO and the

Management of Risk. Adelphi Paper 345 (Oxford: OUP for the IISS 2002). Heng, Yee-Kuang, War as Risk Management. Strategy and Conflict in an Age of Globalised

Risks (London: Routledge 2006), chapters 1-3. Rasmussen, Mikkel V.. ‘Reflexive Security: NATO and International Risk Society’,

Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30(2) 2001: 285-309. Rasmussen, Mikkel V., “’It Sounds Like a Riddle’: Security Studies, the War on Terror and

Risk”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33(2) 2004, pp. 381-395. Mythen, Gabe and Sandra Walklate, ‘Terrorism, Risk and International Security: The Perils

of Asking 'What If?' Security Dialogue, 39(2-3) 2008, pp. 221-242. Further Reading:

Coker, Christopher, War in an Age of Risk (Cambridge: Polity Press 2009). Heng, Yee-Kuang, War as Risk Management. Strategy and Conflict in an Age of Globalised

Risks (London: Routledge 2006), chapters 4-7.

Rasmussen, Mikkel V. The Risk Society at War. Terror, Technology and Strategy in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: CUP 2006).

Reading: Week 6: From Security Studies to Critical War Studies? Essential Reading:

Barkawi, Tarak, ‘From War to Security: Security Studies, the Wider Agenda and the Fate of the Study of War’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39(3) 2011, pp. 701-716.

Barkawi, Tarak and Shane Brighton, ‘Powers of War; Fighting, Knowledge, and Critque’, International Political Sociology 5(2) 2011, pp. 126-143.

Further Reading:


21

Aradau, Claudia, ‘Security, War, Violence – The Politics of Critique: A Reply to Barkawi’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41(1) 2012, pp. 112-123.

Barkawi, Tarak, ‘Of Camps and Critiques: A Reply to “Security, War, Violence”’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41(1) 2012, pp. 124-130.

Foucault, Michel, Society Must Be Defended (London: Penguin Books 2004), Lectures 1-3. Holmqvist-Jonsäter, Caroline and Christopher Coker (eds.) The Character of War in the 21st

Century (London: Routledge 2010). McNeill, William H., The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society Since

A.D. 1000 (Oxford: Blackwell 1983). Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 (Cambridge: Blackwell

1992).

Part IV: Prospects for Security STUDENT DEBATE:

‘The Concept of International Security is Obsolete in the 21st Century’

International Security Studies (PIM11) - University of … · International Security Studies (PIM11) Module Handbook Module Convenor: Dr Andreas Behnke Department of Politics and

Documents