International Security

Author

Kadir Jun Ayhan

Published

April 19, 2024

Syllabus (2024 Spring)

Course Title International Security Course No.: IS518
Department/ Major GSIS Credit/ Hours: 3
Class time / Classroom Thursday 15:30 – 18:15 / IEB 902
Instructor Name: Kadir Jun Ayhan Department : GSIS
: ayhan ewha.ac.kr : 02-3277-4628
Office Hours/ Location Make an appointment here

1 Course Overview

1.1 Course Description

The main target of this course is graduate students who are interested in international security. The course aims to provide students with a theoretical understanding of various aspects of international security. The course begins with an overview of international relations theories, and levels of analysis in its study. Throughout the course, we will continue to discuss different international relations theories’ approaches to security, without being limited to only “mainstream” theories. More specifically, we will cover different strands of realism, liberalism, neo-institutionalism, constructivism, the English School, the Copenhagen School, poststructuralism, and feminism, among others. We will delve into major concepts related to international security beginning with security itself, followed by anarchy, and order. This will be followed by discussions on the role of international institutions and security communities for international security. We will then discuss securitization theory, ontological security, and the role of reputation and status for security. Finally, we will learn about security in the digital age. There are many active learning exercises embedded into the course throughout the semester, including a simulation and games, to help visualize abstract theoretical concepts to facilitate students’ meaningful learning.

1.2 Prerequisites

None.

1.3 Course Format

Lecture Discussion/ Presentation Experiment/ Practicum
20% 40% 40%

This course is designed to facilitate student-centric learning. The assignments for this course are not merely for grading but designed in a way to help students practice and improve their critical thinking, researching, presentation and academic writing skills. There are no in-class exams for this course. This is because, I believe that you put so much effort in writing papers in exams to be read only by one person. On the other hand, writing papers give students an opportunity to research and keep their writings as working papers which can be improved in the future.

Active participation in discussion is strongly encouraged for this course. In order to motivate students to read all required articles and come to class prepared for discussion, response papers and discussion participation constitute 30% of students’ grade for this course. In the beginning of every lecture, you will be asked to share what you have written in your response papers to stimulate discussion (based on what you have already prepared). We will discuss your response papers in the first part of the class. The second part of the class will begin with my summary and clarification of some of the arguments and concepts in the assigned readings. Then, we will have one or two student presentations (depending on the number of students) which will apply the theoretical concepts in the readings to a case study. The requirements of the assignments are detailed below.

I expect students to attend classes, to arrive on time, and to come to class prepared to engage in class discussion by reading at least the required readings, taking note of the key arguments, and identifying strengths, weaknesses, and contradictions in these arguments.

1.4 Course Objectives

Learning objectives:

  • Recognizing various international relations theories’ approaches to international security at different levels of analysis.
  • Comparing and interpreting strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to international security, as well as inferring their implications.
  • Applying theoretical understanding of international security to case studies (presentation), and to other new settings (games); and analyzing and critiquing these cases.

1.5 Evaluation System

Mid-term Paper Final Paper Response Papers Presentation Participation and Discussion
15% 40% 10% 15% 20%

Explanation of the evaluation system:

Response Papers

Length: Less than half a page.

In order to prepare for class discussion, you must read all required articles and submit weekly response papers beginning from Week 6. Each student needs to submit at least four response papers (that is for four different weeks). The presenter(s) should not submit a response paper. For the response paper, you will feed ChatGPT some concepts/ theories/ frameworks based on the readings and ask it to write a one-page essay applying it to a specific case study. Then critique this essay. You need to submit weekly response papers to Cyber Campus before class time. You are encouraged to, but you don’t have to, make comments to your colleagues’ response papers.

Example:

Question: Apply Barnett and Duvall’s power taxonomy to a case study.

Answer: Sure, let’s consider the case of the United States’ intervention in Iraq in 2003.

  1. Material power: The United States possessed significant military and economic resources that it used to exert power over Iraq. The U.S. military intervention was a clear demonstration of material power, as the United States was able to overpower the Iraqi military and control territory.

  2. Institutional power: The United States used its institutional power to shape the rules and norms that governed the international community’s response to Iraq. The U.S. government made a case to the international community that Iraq posed a threat to international security and violated international law, which allowed the United States to justify its intervention. The United States also formed a “coalition of the willing” to support its intervention and gain legitimacy in the international community.

  3. Discursive power: The United States used its discursive power to shape the way the public and the international community perceived Iraq and the legitimacy of its intervention. The U.S. government used language and imagery to portray Iraq as a threat to international security and to justify its intervention as a necessary response to this threat.

Overall, the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 can be seen as an exercise of power that relied on a combination of material, institutional, and discursive capacities. The intervention relied on the United States’ military and economic resources to exert direct control over Iraq, while also using its institutional and discursive power to shape the rules and norms that governed international relations and the perception of the intervention.

You would be critiquing this essay based on your reading of Barnett and Duvall’s power taxonomy and its application to the case study.

Presentations

Length: Around 15 minutes

All students will make one presentation on a case study. The presenter must read the assigned readings carefully when preparing for the presentation. You are asked to present a case study that is related to the required readings. You must make use of the theories/ frameworks/ concepts in the assigned readings for your analysis of the case study of your choice. For example, if the required article looks at NATO as a security community, you can apply a similar approach to analyze the case of ASEAN as a security community. Make sure that you are not merely summarizing another article. The point of the presentation is for you to apply what you learned from the readings to a case study. You must show your analysis and your value-added. Discussion will follow presentations (based on discussion questions prepared by the presenter), and all students must actively participate in this discussion.

Diplomacy Game and Mid-term Paper

Due date: 6 May 23:59

We will play the Diplomacy board game which simulates the European balance of power at the time of World War I. You will write a short paper (900-1100 words) connecting what happened in the game with different theoretical approaches to international security.

You can find the game instructions and information here.

You can find the guidelines for the essay here. You will submit your mid-term to Cyber Campus (Turnitin).

Please note that there will not be a class on 2 May in lieu of mid-term exam week.

Final Paper

Proposal date: 23 May Class time

Due date: 13 Jun 23:59

Word count: 4000-6000 words

You can select any topic that is relevant to international security. You must choose your topics by Week 6 and begin your research. You must consult with me for your topic of choice. There are two ways you can write your final paper. You can conduct your own research and present your findings on your topic. I don’t expect a full-fledged journal article, but your research must have a good research question, literature review, and research design. Those who choose this can have a foundation upon which you can build to make it a publishable piece later. Alternatively, you can do a critical literature review on a specific topic. For the critical literature review, you will summarize and evaluate what has been written on your chosen topic. You will identify common themes and contrasting views in different papers. Finally, you will critically discuss completeness of the literature and identify gaps for future research in that field. Students will propose their final papers on 30 May to get feedback from me and from their colleagues. By the time of the proposal, you must have a clear research question, research design, and literature review. You will have seven minutes for your proposals, which will be followed by Q/A and feedback.

Here are guidelines that you can refer to when writing your final paper:

  • Ackerman, E. (2018). “Analyze This”: Writing in the Social Sciences. In G. Graff, C. Birkenstein, & R. Durst (Eds.), “They Say, I Say”: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings (pp. 187-205). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Gustafsson, K., & Hagström, L. (2018). What is the point? Teaching graduate students how to construct political science research puzzles. European Political Science, 17(4), 634-648. (see especially 643-645)

These short guidelines on writing may also be helpful:

Crafting Good Research Questions; Summary & Description vs. Analysis & Argument; Critical Thinking and Reflection; A short guide to critical writing.

If you want to write a publishable article (by improving your final paper later), I strongly encourage you to have this book:

Bonus Points

There will be bonus points for the winners of the Diplomacy game. This bonus point scheme and rules will be explained during the semester.

2 Course Materials and Additional Readings

2.1 Required Materials

No required textbooks. Refer to the detailed course schedule below.

2.2 Supplementary Materials

Refer to the detailed course schedule below.

2.3 Optional Additional Readings

Refer to the detailed course schedule below.

3 Course Policies

3.1 Citation and Plagiarism

Students must use proper citation and avoid plagiarism. Any citation style is fine as long as it is consistent throughout the paper. Please use the ASA citation style in line with the department’s thesis regulations. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and severely punished. The papers will be uploaded to Turnitin (via Cyber Campus).

“Plagiarism: presenting others’ work without adequate acknowledgement of its source, as though it were one’s own. Plagiarism is a form of fraud. We all stand on the shoulders of others, and we must give credit to the creators of the works that we incorporate into products that we call our own. Some examples of plagiarism:]

  • a sequence of words incorporated without quotation marks;

  • an unacknowledged passage paraphrased from another’s word;

  • the use of ideas, sound recordings, computer data or images created by others as though it were one’s own.” Source.

See also this link.

3.2 Late Submissions

For late submissions, you will get 80% of your grading unless you have a valid excuse. You can always contact me if you have a valid excuse to ask for extension. I do not require students to submit official documents (doctor report etc.). Your word is enough for me.

4 Course Schedule

Week Date Topics & Class Materials, Assignments
1 07 Mar Introduction of the Course
2 14 Mar Overview of International Relations Theories
3 21 Mar Diplomacy Game 1
4 25 Mar Diplomacy Game 2 and Debriefing
5 28 Mar Analyzing International Security Data
6 18 Apr Analyzing International Security Data 2
7 25 Apr Anarchy, Order, and Security
8 2 May International Institutions and Security
9 6 May Mid-term Week
10 09 May Security Communities
11 16 May Securitization Theory
12 23 May Final Paper Proposals
13 30 May Ontological Security
14 06 Jun Reputation and Status for Security
15 13 Jun Wrap Up and Submission of Final Papers

5 Detailed Course Schedule with Readings

Week 1: Introduction of the Course

Introduction of the course including course contents, assignments, and expectations.

Week 2: Overview of International Relations Theories

Required Readings:

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). TAKING STOCK: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 391–416. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.391
  • Oneal, J. R., & Russett, B. (1999). The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992. World Politics, 52(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100020013
  • Waltz, K. N. (1993). The emerging structure of international politics. International Security, 18(2), 44–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539097

Recommended Readings:

  • Buzan, B. (2014). An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. (12-39)
  • Hobden, S., & Jones, R. W. (2014). Marxist theories of international relations. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Eds.), The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations (6th Edition ed., 141-154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012 [1997]). Power and Interdependence (4th ed.). Boston: Longman, Chapters 1-3.
  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2013). Structural Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (3rd Edition ed., 77-93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Mingst, Karen and Arreguin-Toft, Ivan M. (2017). Essentials of International Relations (7th Edition), W.W. Norton Company, Ch. 3
  • Nau, H. R. (2019). Perspectives on international relations: power, institutions, and ideas (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: CQ Press, 52-54, 151-161.
  • Singer, J. D. (1961). The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations. World Politics, 14(1), 77-92. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations (170-194). London: SAGE Publications.
  • Sjoberg, Laura, & Tickner, J. Ann (2013). Feminist Perspectives on International Relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. - A. Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2011). International Relations, Principal Theories. In R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law.
  • Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(02), 391-425.
  • Zehfuss, Maja (2013). Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, and Postcolonialism. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations (145-169). London: SAGE Publications.

Week 3: Diplomacy Game 1

Here are the guidelines for the game, and the instructions for the essay based on the game.

Recommended Readings:

  • Bull, H. (2012 [1977]). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (4th ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6.
  • Wight, Martin (1991). The Three Traditions of International Theory. In International Theory: The Three Traditions, eds. G. Wight and N. Porter. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 7–24.

Week 4: Diplomacy Game 2 and Debriefing

In the latter half of the class, we will discuss what we have learned from this active learning exercise in an interactive session.

Recommended Readings:

  • Charles L. Glaser (1997). The Security Dilemma Revisited. World Politics, 50(1), 171-201.
  • Christensen, T. J., & Snyder, J. (1990). Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity. International Organization, 44(2), 137-168. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706792
  • Jervis, Robert (1978). Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167-214.
  • Leeds, Brett Ashley (2003). Alliance reliability in times of war: Explaining state decisions to violate treaties. International Organization, 57(4), 801-827.
  • Snyder, G. H. (1984). The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics. World Politics, 36(4), 461-495.
  • Walt, S. M. (1985). Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power. International Security, 9(4), 3-43.

Week 5: Analyzing International Security Data

Watch these videos (Installing RStudio, R Basics, Data “Wrangling”, Visualization) and practice what you learn on your computer before arrival. If you don’t watch the videos and practice beforehand, the classes may not be as helpful for you.

Required Readings:

Recommended Readings:

Week 6: Analyzing International Security Data 2

Continuing from Week 5.

Week 7: Anarchy, Order, and Security

Required Readings:

Recommended Readings:

Recommended Readings:

  • Acharya, Amitav (2017). After liberal hegemony: The advent of a multiplex world order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31(3), 271-285.
  • Barnett, Michael (2020). COVID-19 and the Sacrificial International Order. International Organization, 1-20.
  • Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2016). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in the Twenty-first Century: China’s Rise and the Fate of America’s Global Position. International security, 40(3), 7-53. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00225
  • Finnemore, Martha (2009). Legitimacy, hypocrisy, and the social structure of unipolarity. World Politics, 61(1), 58-85.
  • Goddard, Stacie E., & Nexon, Daniel H. (2016). The Dynamics of Global Power Politics: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Global Security Studies, 1(1).
  • Hall, John A. (1996). International orders. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Chapter 1.
  • Hobson, J. M. (2014). The twin self-delusions of IR: why ‘hierarchy’ and not ‘anarchy’ is the core concept of IR. Millennium, 42(3), 557-575.
  • Ikenberry, John (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
  • Lebow, R. Ned (2008). A Cultural Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1, 2, 3, 10.
  • Park, Seo-Hyun (2017). Sovereignty and Status in East Asian International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wohlforth, W. C. (1999). The Stability of a Unipolar World. International Security, 24(1), 5-41.

Week 8: International Institutions and Security

Required Readings:

  • Cui, S., & Buzan, B. (2016). Great Power Management in International Society. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 9(2), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pow005
  • Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv3znx0v, Chapter 2.

Recommended Readings:

  • Boehmer, C., Gartzke, E., & Nordstrom, T. (2004). Do intergovernmental organizations promote peace? World Politics, 57(1), 1-38.
  • Jervis, R. (1982). Security Regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 357-378.
  • Lake, David A. (2001). Beyond anarchy - The importance of security institutions. International Security, 26(1), 129-160.
  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
  • Pouliot, V. (2016). Hierarchy in Practice: Multilateral Diplomacy and the Governance of International Security, European Journal of International Security, 1(1), 5-26.
  • Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379-415.

Week 9: Mid-term Week

See Mid-term Section (Section 1.5.3) for details.

Week 10: Security Communities

Required Readings:

Recommended Readings:

  • Adler, Emanuel, & Greve, Patricia (2009). When Security Community Meets Balance of Power: Overlapping Regional Mechanisms of Security Governance. Review of International Studies, 35, 59-84.
  • Adler, Emanuel and Michael N. Barnett (1996). Governing Anarchy: A Research Agenda for the Study of Security Communities. Ethics & International Affairs, 10, 63-98.
  • Bially Mattern, Janice (2005). Ordering International Politics Identity, Crisis, and Representational Force. New York: Routledge. Chapter 1.
  • Bially Mattern, Janice (2005). Why `Soft Power’ Isn’t So Soft: Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 33(3), 583-612.
  • Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and powers: the structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1-3.
  • Koschut, S. (2014). Emotional (security) communities: the significance of emotion norms in inter-allied conflict management. Review of International Studies, 40(3), 533-558.
  • Pouliot, Vincent (2008). The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities. International Organization, 62(2), 257-288.

Week 11: Securitization Theory

Required Readings:

Recommended Readings:

  • Balzacq, T., Guzzini, S., Williams, M. C., Wæver, O., & Patomäki, H. (2014). What kind of theory – if any – is securitization? International Relations, 29(1), 96-96.
  • Balzacq, T. (2015). The ‘Essence’ of securitization: Theory, ideal type, and a sociological science of security. International Relations, 29(1), 103-113.
  • Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner. Chapters 1-2.
  • Lipscy, P. Y. (2020). COVID-19 and the Politics of Crisis. International Organization, 1-30.
  • Vaughan-Williams, N., & Stevens, D. (2015). Vernacular theories of everyday (in)security: The disruptive potential of non-elite knowledge. Security Dialogue, 47(1), 40-58.
  • Wæver, O. (2011). Politics, security, theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5), 465-480.

Week 12: Final Paper Proposals

See Final Paper Section (Section 1.5.4) for details.

Week 13: Ontological Security

Required Readings:

Recommended Readings:

  • Browning, Christopher S., & Joenniemi, Pertti (2016). Ontological security, self-articulation and the securitization of identity. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 31-47.
  • Kinnvall, Catarina (2016). Feeling ontologically (in)secure: States, traumas and the governing of gendered space. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 90-108.
  • Lebow, R. N. (2016). National identities and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2.
  • Pacher, A. (2019). The diplomacy of post-Soviet de facto states: ontological security under stigma. International Relations, 33(4), 563-585.
  • Pratt, S. F. (2017). A relational view of ontological security in international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 78-85.
  • Zarakol, Ayşe (2016). States and ontological security: A historical rethinking. Cooperation and Conflict, 52(1), 48-68.

Week 14: Reputation and Status for Security

Required Readings:

Recommended Readings:

  • Ayhan, K. J. (2019). “Rethinking Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy as a Nation Branding Project.” KOREA OBSERVER 50: 1.
  • Bry, S. (2015). The Production of Soft Power: Practising Solidarity in Brazilian South–South Development Projects. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement, 36(4), 442-458.
  • Brewster, R. (2009). The limits of reputation on compliance. International Theory, 1(2), 323-333. https://doi.org/10.1017/s175297190999008x
  • Cull, N. (2018). The Quest for Reputational Security: The Soft Power Agenda of Kazakhstan, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.- Dafoe, A., et al. (2014). “Reputation and Status as Motives for War.” Annual Review of Political Science 17(1): 371-393.
  • Dafoe, A., Renshon, J., & Huth, P. (2014). Reputation and Status as Motives for War. Annual Review of Political Science, 17(1), 371-393.
  • de Carvalho, B., & Neumann, I. B. (2014). Small State Status Seeking: Norway’s Quest for International Standing: Taylor & Francis.
  • Duque, M. G. (2018). Recognizing International Status: A Relational Approach. International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 577-592. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy001
  • Hwang, K.-D. (2014). Korea’s Soft Power as an Alternative Approach to Africa in Development Cooperation. African and Asian Studies, 13(3), 249-271.- Lebow, R. N. (2008). A Cultural Theory of International Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ch. 2
  • Jervis, Robert, Yarhi-Milo, Keren, & Casler, Don (2020). Redefining the Debate Over Reputation and Credibility in International Security: Promises and Limits of New Scholarship. World Politics, 1-37.
  • Khong, Y. F. (2019). Power as prestige in world politics. International Affairs, 95(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy245
  • Lebow, R. N. (2005). Power, Persuasion and Justice. Millennium, 33(3), 551–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298050330031501
  • Mercer, J. (2013). Emotion and Strategy in the Korean War, International Organization, 67(2), 221-252.
  • Park, Seo-Hyun (2017). Sovereignty and Status in East Asian International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Paul, T. V., Larson, D. W., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2014). Status in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wohlforth, W. C. (2009). Unipolarity, status competition, and great power war. World Politics, 61(1), 28-57.
  • Wohlforth, W. C., Carvalho, B. de, Leira, H., & Neumann, I. B. (2017). Moral authority and status in international relations: Good states and the social dimension of status seeking. Review of International Studies, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000560
  • Yarhi-Milo, Keren (2018). Who fights for reputation: the psychology of leaders in international conflict. Princeton University Press. Introduction chapter.

Week 15: Wrap Up and Submission of Final Papers

See Final Paper Section (Section 1.5.4) for details.

Recommended Readings:

  • Barkawi, T., & Laffey, M. (2006). The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 329-352.
  • Barkawi, Tarak (2016). Decolonising war. European Journal of International Security, 1(2), 199-214.
  • Browning, C. S. (2013). International security: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Burke, A. (2017). Security. In J. George, R. Devetak, & S. Percy (Eds.), An Introduction to International Relations (3rd ed., pp. 198–209). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316855188
  • Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817762, Chapters 1-3.
  • Buzan, Barry (2015). The English School: A neglected approach to international security studies. Security Dialogue, 46(2), 126-143.
  • Haftendorn, Helga (1991). The Security Puzzle: Theory-Building and Discipline-Building in International Security. International Studies Quarterly, 35(1), 3-17.
  • Hudson, Valerie M., Mary Caprioli, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Rose McDermott, and Chad F. Emmett (2009). The heart of the matter: The security of women and the security of states. International security, 33(3), 7-45.
  • Lebow, R. Ned (2010). Why Nations Fight: Past and Future Motives for War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1.
  • Levy, Jack S. (1998). The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace. Annual Review of Political Science, 1(1), 139-165.
  • Paris, R. (2001). Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, 26(2), 87-102.
  • Pasha, M. K. (1996). Security as Hegemony. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 21(3), 283-302.
  • Pratt, Nicola (2014). Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries in International Security: The Case of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on “Women, Peace and Security”. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 772-783.
  • Rothschild, E. (1995). What Is Security? Daedalus, 124(3), 53–98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027310
  • Suganami, H. (2017). The causes of war. In J. George, R. Devetak, & S. Percy (Eds.), An Introduction to International Relations (3rd ed., pp. 224-234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6 Special Accommodations

  • According to the University regulation section #57-3, students with disabilities can request for special accommodations related to attendance, lectures, assignments, or tests by contacting the course professor at the beginning of semester. Based on the nature of the students’ request, students can receive support for such accommodations from the course professor or from the Support Center for Students with Disabilities (SCSD). Please refer to the below examples of the types of support available in the lectures, assignments, and evaluations.
Lecture Assignments Evaluation
Visual impairment: braille, enlarged reading materials. Hearing impairment: note-taking assistant. Physical impairment: access to classroom, note-taking assistant. Extra days for submission, alternative assignments. Visual impairment: braille examination paper, examination with voice support, longer examination hours, note-taking assistant. Hearing impairment: written examination instead of oral. Physical impairment: longer examination hours, note-taking assistant.

  • Actual support may vary depending on the course.

  • If you have other special needs, please let me know. I will do my best to flexibly accommodate your needs.

Notes

The contents of this syllabus are not final. I may update them later.

Read the Syllabus!