UIS Fall 20 1 7
Seongho Sheen
Seoul National University
Graduate School of International Studies
UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Fall 20 1 7 ( Mond ay 13 : 30 – 1 6 : 30 )
Prof. Seongho Sheen
Email:
Tel: 02-880-5810
Office Hours: Rm. 615, Tue. 16:00-18:00 or by appointment
TA: Mr. Lee, Seung-hyung (Rm. 616)
Course Objective
The course discusses national and international security affairs in contemporary world politics. For this, first, the course will explore theoretical and historical literature concerning the role of force and national security strategy. And second, it will examine basic concepts, theories, and historical cases in international security, with particular attention on security dynamics in East Asia and beyond. The course aims to provide students with basic knowledge and training in analyzing and planning national security policies. It also hopes to enhance students’ understanding of contemporary security dynamics and issues in the 21st century international relations and East Asia.
* This is a prerequisite course for East Asian National Security Strategy in spring semester.
Course Requirements
1. Class participation (20%)
2. Mid-term exam (30%)
3. Group presentation (25%)
4. An Executive Briefing (25%)
Guidelines
· Attendance will be important for keeping up with class. Please be advised that questions for mid-term exam will be based on lecture given in class, not textbook. Good attendance and active participation will be reflected in grade.
· The mid-term exam will be a short essay for discussion of major concepts and theories that are examined in lecture. No make-up will be arranged. Please note the exam schedule and plan ahead for it.
· In their p resentation , students would discuss national security strategy of six countries in Northeast Asia; South and North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. For this presentation team should define the national security interest of each country based on David Baldwin’s six criterions; which value, whose value, how much security, through what means, at what cost and in what time span. Especially to define the cost, the presentation should compare the defense spending and social welfare budget of each country. Students would form a country team of their choice and answer the following questions. First, what is the most important national security interest of each country? Second, what is the trend of defense and social welfare spending for last ten years? Third, is each country spending too much or too little for their national security? Especially in terms of their increasing social welfare demand. Finally, policy recommendation for each country’s national security strategy. For this each team is advised to refer resources from SIPRI yearbook, IISS Military Balance, Jane’s Defense Annuls, CIA World Fact Book, Country Report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, defense white papers, government documents and data on demography and social welfare spending of each country. Each team will be given 60 minutes for oral presentation including Q&A. Please note that the content of presentation, not the format, is more important (i.e. do not spend too much time on preparing the Power Point).
· Each student should submit a n executive briefing discussing a topic given by the end of the semester.
· Students are always welcome to ask instructor for clarification during or after class when you feel confused. Yet, if you miss a class, please do not come to instructor for explanation or the lecture note of the missed class. You may contact other students for this. Power Point lecture presentation will be posted on the school web site after each class.
· All students must exhibit professionalism in and out of classroom. Students are required to uphold an honor code regarding “academic standards, cheating, plagiarism, and the documentation of written work,” and be aware of the responsibility.
Class Schedule and Reading Assignment
Week 1 (Sep 1 ) : INTRODUCTION
- Course overview
- Self-introduction
- Q&A
Q. How to best understand making of national security strategy ? Who and how to do it
Week 2 (Sep 15 ) : DEFINING SECURITY
- Conceptual definition of security
- Traditional approaches
- Post-Cold War approaches
Readings:
· David Baldwin, “The Concept of Security,” Review of International Studies (January 1997), pp. 5-26
· Arnold Wolfers, “’National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol,” Robert Art and Robert Jervis, International Politics 2nd ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1985), pp. 42-53
· Joseph Nye, “Conflicts After the Cold War,” Washington Quarterly (Winter 1996), pp. 5-23.
· Bernard Brodie, War & Politics, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1973) pp. 341-374.
· Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (London: Cambridge University Press, 2009), Ch. 1 Defining International Security Studies, pp. 8-20.
· Vincent Boulanin, “Cybersecurity and the arms industry,” SIPRI Yearbook 2013 (Stockholm: SIPRI, 2013), pp. 218-223.
- UNDP, Human Development Report 1994 Ch.2 “New Dimensions of Human Security,” pp. 22-46.
- Lucas Kello, “The Meaning of the Cyber Revolution: Perils to Theory and Statecraft,” International Security Vol. 38, No. 2 (Fall 2013), 7-40.
Q. How to define South Korea ’ s security interest ?
Week 3 ( Sep 29 ) : WAR
- What is war?
- Realism and causes of war
- Macro vs Micro cause of war
- Offense & Defense dynamics
- International system structure
Readings:
· Sun-Tzu, The Art of War (New York: The Modern Library, 2000), pp. 71-123.
· Carl von Clausewitz, On War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), pp. 75-126, 577-610.
· Bernard Brodie, War & Politics, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1973) pp. 276-340.
· Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Understanding International Conflicts (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005), pp. 12-20.
· John J. Mearsheimer, “The Causes of Great Power War, “ in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001), pp. 334-402
· Nuno P. Monteiro, “Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity is not Peaceful,” International Security Vol. 36, No. 3 (Winter 2011/2012), 9-40.
· William C. Wohlforth, “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War,” World Politics 61, no. 1 (January 2009), 28-57.
· Stephen Van Evera, “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War,” in The Use of Force, pp. 44-69
· David Kang, “International Relations Theory and the Second Korean War,” International Studies Quarterly (2003) 47, 301–324.
- Zheng Bijian, “China’s Peaceful Rise,” Foreign Affairs, September 2005,
- US DOD, “Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013” (Office of the Secretary of Defense).
Q. What could be a p ossible cause of war in East Asia?
Week 4 (Oct 20 ) : S RATEGY
- National Security and Strategy
- The National Security Decision-making process
- Executive branches, legislature, intelligence, the military
- Civil-military relations
Readings:
· B. H. Liddell Hart, Strategy (A Meridian Book, 1954), pp. 319-360.
· Bernard Brodie, War & Politics, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1973) pp. 433-496.
· Paul Kennedy, “Grand Strategy in War and Peace: Toward a Broader Definition,” in Grand Strategy in War and Peace, ed. Paul Kennedy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991)
· Hal Brands, What Good is Grand Strategy? (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014), 1-16.
· Williamson Murray, MacGregor Knox and Alvin Bernstein, eds., The Making of Strategy: Rulers, States, and War (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994), Ch. 1, pp. 1-23
· Hew Strachan, “The Lost Meaning of Strategy,” Survival Vol. 47, No. 3, Autumn 2005, pp. 33-54
· White House, National Security Strategy (May 2010)
· Eliot A. Cohen, Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime (New York: The Free Press, 2002), pp. 1-51.
· Hew Strachan, “Strategy or Alibi? Obama, McChrystal and the Operational Level of War,” Survival, Vol 52, No. 5, pp. 157-182.
· Michael Hastings, “Runaway General” The Rolling Stone Magazine 2010
- Jordan, Taylor, and Mazarr, American National Security, pp. 93-195
- Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander NATO International Security Assistance Force, U.S. Forces, Afghanistan “Commander’s Initial Assessment,” (30 August 2009)
Q. Who should lead the making of security strategy? M ilitary commander vs civilian leadership?
Week 5 ( Sep 22 ): ALLIANCE
- Means of security
- Collective Security
- Collective Defense
- Alliance
Readings:
· Glenn H. Snyder, Alliance Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. 129-161
· Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), pp. 1-49, 262-286
· Randall L. Schweller, Deadly Imbalances (New York: Colombia University Press,1998), pp. 1-91.
· Thomas Christensen and Jack Snyder, “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks,”
· Bruno Tertrais, “The Changing Nature of Military Alliances,” The Washington Quarterly Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 2004. pp. 135-150
· Kurt M. Campbell, “The End of Alliance? Not So Fast, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2. Spring 2004, pp. 151-163
· Stephen M. Walt, “Alliances in a Unipolar World,” World Politics, 61, no. 1 (January 2009), pp. 86-120.
· James L. Cook, “Military Alliances in the 21st Century: Still Relevant after all These Years?” Orbis. (Fall 2013), 559-573.
· Michael Beckley, “The Myth of Entangling Alliance: Reassessing the Security Risks of US Defense Pacts,” International Security , Vol. 39, No. 4 (Spring 2015), pp. 7-48
· Robert Dujarric, “US Military Presence and Northeast Asian Regional Stability: Comparative Perspective between US-Japan Alliance and US-Korea Alliance and the Future of the Alliances,” Byung-Kie Yang ed. Korean Peninsula: From Division toward Peaceful Unification (The Korean Political Science Association, 2005), pp. 97-115.
· Gui Yontao and Yuichi Hosoya, “Will Japan’s Plan to Exercise Its Collective Self-Defense Right Make Asia More or Less Secure?” Global Asia, vol8, No. 4. Winter 2013, pp. 46-52.
- White House, “Joint Vision Statement for US-ROK Alliance in the 21st Century,” May 2009
- Victor Cha, “What’s Next for the US-Korea Alliance” Statement before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific (June 6, 2012 Washington D.C.) /files/ts120606_Cha.pdf
Q. Will there be a change in the nature of alliance in the 21 st century?
Week 6 ( Oct 6 ) : USE OF FORCE
- Defense, Deterrence, Compellence, Swaggering
- Preemption vs prevention
- Coercive diplomacy
Readings:
· Robert Art, “The Four Functions of Force,” in Robert Art and Robert Jervis, International Politics 5th ed. (New York: Longman, 2000), pp. 156-168.
· Alexander L. George, “Coercive Diplomacy,” in Art and Waltz, The Use of Force, pp. 70-76.
· Bruce W. Jentleson and Christopher A. Whytock, “Who ‘Won’ Libya? The Force-Diplomacy Debate and Its Implications for Theory and Policy,” International Security Vol. 30, No. 3 (Winter 2005/06), pp. 47-86.
· Robert Art, “The Fungibility of Force,” in Art and Waltz, The Use of Force, pp. 3-22
· Daniel W. Drezner, “Military Primacy Doesn’t Pay (Nearly As Much As You Think)” International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Summer 2013), 52-79.
· Crisis Group Report, “North Korea: The Risk of War in the Yellow Sea,” (December 23, 2010)
Q. How to manage crisis on the Korean peninsula in case of North Korean military provocation ? Carrot or stick?
Week 7 ( Oct 27 ): NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
- Use of the Atomic Bomb
- Three debate: nuclear deterrence, missile defense, nuclear terrorism
- US extended deterrence and Korea
Readings:
· Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman, The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation (Zenith Press, 2009), pp. 8-53.
· Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1966), pp. 1-51.
· Bernard Brodie, War & Politics, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1973) pp. 375-432.
· Louis Morton, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” in The Use of Force, pp. 165-180
· Kenneth N. Waltz, “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities,” in The Use of Force, pp. 102-118
· , “Missile Defense and the Multiplication of Nuclear Weapons,” in The Use of Force, 6th ed., pp. 347-352
· Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2003), pp. 46-124.
· Graham Allison, “How to Stop Nuclear Terror,” Foreign Affairs January/February 2004, pp. 64-74
· Nuno P. Monteiro and Alexandre Debs, “The Strategic Logic of Nuclear Proliferation,” International Security Vol. 39, No. 2 (Fall 2014), 7-51.
· John Mueller, Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism From Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda, (Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2010), 1-70.
· Kenneth N. Waltz, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” Foreign Affairs, Vol 91, No. 4, July/August 2012, pp. 2-5.
· M. Taylor Fravel and Evan S. Medeiros, “China’s Search for Assured Retaliation: The Evolution of Chinese Nuclear Strategy and Force Structure,” International Security, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Fall 2010), 48-87.
· Thomas Karako, “The Future of Missile Defense in the Asia Pacific,” The Foreign Policy Initiative, May 31, 2017 /files/2017-05-31-Analysis-The%20Future%20of%20Missile%20Defense%20in%20the%20Asia%20Pacific_0.pdf
·
·
- Mary Beth Nikitin, “North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons: Technical Issues,” CRS Report for Congress (April 3, 2013)
- Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Understanding International Conflicts (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005), pp. 135-145.
- The U.S. Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010.
Q. How dangerous are the North Korea ’ s nuclear weapons?
Week 8 ( Oct 13 ) : MORALITY AND WAR
- Morality and Just War
- Sovereignty and intervention
- Ethical issues and humanitarian intervention
· Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Understanding International Conflicts (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005), pp. 20-28.
· George Kennan, “Morality and Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs 64 (Winter 1985/1986), pp. 205-218
· Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Harper Perennial, 2002), Preface, 1-46.
· International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law: Answer to Your Question, file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/0703_002_IHL-answers_LR.pdf
· ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001, XII,
· http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf
· Barry Posen, “Military Responses to Refugee Disasters,” in Art and Waltz, The Use of Force, pp. 415-435
- Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal, “The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs May/June 2003, pp. 2-7.
- Karin von Hippel, Democracy by Force: US Military Intervention in the Post-Cold War World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 1-27.
- Michael Smith, “Humanitarian Intervention: An Overview of Ethical Issues,” Joel Rosenthal ed., Ethics and International Affairs (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, 1999), pp. 63-79
Q. How to deal with North Korean human rights issue including defectors in China ?
Week 9 ( Nov 3 ) : MID-TERM EXAM