POSC 281Global Society and World Politics

Spring 2005

Willis 203, MW 3:10 to 4:20, F 3:30-4:30

Instructors

Kelly Kollman

Willis 403 ext. 4449

Office Hours: MW 4:30-5:30, Tues 11-12 and 1-2; by appointment

B. Gregory Marfleet

Willis 404, ext 4116

Office Hours: Wed 11:00 to 1:00, Th 9:00 to 12:00 or by appointment

Course Goals:

The purpose of this course is to introduce students to the new theoretical debates that have arisen in international relations since the end of the Cold War. There is a widespread perception by both academics and policy makers that the international system has changed dramatically since the fall of the Berlin Wall. One of the features of the Post-Cold War world has been the increased salience of issues such as terrorism, the environment, the influence of transnational corporations, the world-wide AIDS epidemic, and the rise of powerful Intergovernmental Organizations. The proliferation of such problems and the rise of new actors illustrate the limitations of state-centric international relations theory. This course examines several new (and some rediscovered) theoretical approaches to global politics that seek to understand how non-state actors and structures influence emerging patterns of global governance. We will debate as a class the extent to which a global society approach to world politics helps us to understand these transnational problems and the extent to which the traditional approaches are still relevant.

Textbooks/ Readings

Jackson, Robert M. (2004) Ed. Annual Editions Global Issues 04/05 Twentieth Edition. Dushkin Press.

Katzenstein, Peter J., Robert O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner. 2000 Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics

In addition various articles other chapters are available via JSTOR, e-reserves, or the Collab course folder.

Assignments

Movie Response Papers (2 x 50 pts) 100 pts

Debate Preparation Group Paper200 pts

Simulation Preparation Paper200 pts

Final Paper350 pts

Participation 150 pts

Total1000 pts

Movie Response Papers

On Friday of Week 4 and Week 9 we will devote our class time to viewing a video related to the themes of that week (terrorist networks and gender issues in international politics). On the Monday following the movie session, you will be asked to submit a 2 page response paper (typed, double spaced 12 point font). While these papers are open with regard to specific topic (any point of entry into the discussion is acceptable), they must endeavor to incorporate relevant course readings.

Debate Papers

On Friday of Weeks 3, 5 and 8 we will devote our class time to debating an important issues in Global Politics. For each debate, one third of the students (approx. 8) will be divided into two groups of 4 members representing the pro and con side of the main debate question. Each group of 4 students will be required to submit ONE (collectively authored) paper of no more than 5 pages (typed, double spaced 12 point font) outlining their side of the argument. The researching and writing of these papers is intended to serve as preparatory exercises for our in-class session in which each side will:

  1. Present an opening statement – 2-3 minutes
  2. Present their main argument – 5-7 minutes
  3. Present a formal rebuttal of the opposing argument – 3-5 minutes
  4. Field questions from the audience

The remaining two thirds of the class should prepare for these debate session by completing the relevant readings and participate by asking challenging questions of the panelists. This participation will be a significant component of your participation score. At the end of the session the audience will be asked to judge the debate teams in terms of preparation, quality of argument and poise under questioning. This judgment will be considered in the assignment of participation points.

Debate Topics

  1. Resolved: The protection of human rights should supercede existing norms of state sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs thereby justifying military intervention by international organizations and/or multinational coalitions when deemed necessary to protect these rights.
  2. Resolved: The United Nations should be reformed in accordance with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s proposal so that it better represent the world’s population and is able to respond to contemporary world problems.
  3. Resolved: The nuclear non-proliferation regime should be strengthened by enacting the “Additional Protocol” suggested by US President Bush that seeks to close the loophole that allows states to develop nuclear weapons technology under the guise of civilian programs.

Simulation Paper Background (‘inspired’ by true events)

In 2001, Indian generic drug manufacturing company Cipla Ltd. agreed to begin supplying the humanitarian organization Doctors without Borders (Medecins sans Frrontieres) with a low cost version of the highly effective “triple–therapy” anti-retroviral drug to combat AIDS in Africa. Since joining the WTO in 1995, India has come under increasing pressure to curtail the activities of its generic drug industry to conform with the Trade Related intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS) and was the target of a 1996 WTO dispute proceeding. At the time of the MSF announcement, GlaxoSmithKline, the British company that developed these drugs and which own the exclusive marketing rights for Lamivudine (one of the components), issued stern warnings to the India government regarding its intellectual property rights under the WTO. More recently,Bristol-Myers Squibb, the US company that holds the rights to Zerit, another triple-therapy component, has also objected to the Indian government’s failure to curb the production of generic versions of its drug. As this course begins, the US and UKgovernments acting as WTO membershave filed dispute petitionson behalf of these companies against the Indian government. In our simulation we join the WTO dispute resolution process late in the consultation stage as it prepares to enter the second or “panel” stage.

Simulation participants will be divided into groups of 4 students with the following simulation roles:

  1. US and UK government trade officials
  2. Pharmaceutical executives from the Drug manufacturing companies
  3. Indian government trade officials
  4. Pharmaceutical executive of Cipla and other Indian generic drug manufacturers
  5. Representatives of MSF
  6. WTO dispute panelists

In preparation for this simulation these each students will independently prepare a research paper of not more than 5 pages. For the groups 1 through 5, the position paper will outline their ‘role perspective’ on the intellectual property vs. generic drug dispute (for the US and UK this means building your dispute proposal documents, for India a response, the companies will stake out their position and argument to their respective governments). The 6th group will investigate the WTO dispute resolution system, the TRIPS rules and the history of the 1996 dispute involving India. These students will be responsible for conducting the hearings and issuing a preliminary judgment in class during week 6.

Final Paper

As a final exercise for the course each student will write a 7-10 page paper in which they analyze a contemporary global problem from a rationalist perspective as well as from one of the alternative approaches we have discussed in the course (constructivism, global civil society, feminist, complexity, private authority, Marxism/critical theoryetc). Students are to compare and contrast how the two approaches would explain the root causes of the problem and what types of solutions the different approaches might suggest. They are to conclude by making some judgment about which approach is most useful for understanding their problem or to what extent a synthesis of the approaches is necessary. Students will be required to submit a proposal that outlines both the global problem they will address in their paper as well as which alternative approach they will use to analyze it.

Participation

Enthusiastic participation in the reading-centered discussions throughout the term, the debates and the simulation during week 6is essential to each student’s learning process and that of their peers. Participation will be judged relative to an average score of 127 pts (85%). Below average or above average participants will earn bonuses or deductions from that baseline value in accordance with the instructors’ evaluation of their conscientious preparedness, commitment and engagement with the material.

Late papers will be penalized at the rate of 5 points per day unless documentation of extenuating circumstances is provided.

Points to Grade conversion: A 940+, A- 939 to 900, B+ 899 to 870, B 869 to 830, B- 829 to 800, C+ 799 to 770, C 769 to 730, C- 729 to 700, D + 699 to 670, D 669 to 630, D- 629 to 600, F 599 or less.

Readings and Topics

3/28Introduction

3/30Ontology and Theory Building in IR

  • ECSWP, Katzenstein, Keohane and Krasner “International Organization and the Study of World Politics” p5
  • ECSWP, Woever “The Sociology of a not so International Discipline p 47

4/1Cold War Ontology and Rational IR Theory

  • ECSWP, Mastanduno “Economics and Security in Statecraft and Scholarship” p185
  • ECSWP, Kahler “Rationality in International Relations” p 279

4/4The promise of Classical Realism

  • ECSWP: Jervis “Realism in the Study of World Politics” p331
  • Ashley, Richard (1984) “The Poverty of Neorealism” International Organization: 38,2, pp 225-286 (J-STOR)

4/6English School and Idealists — Bringing Global Society Back In

  • Buzan, Barry (1993) “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory meet the English School” International Organization: 47, 3 pp 327-352. (JSTOR)
  • Richard Little, 'The English School’s Contribution to the study of International Relations', presented to BISA Annual Conference, 20-22 December 1999, University of Manchester. (in Collab Course folder)

4/8Applying Theory to Problems: An overview of global issues

  • GI, Chapters 1,2,3 ,4.

4/11Constructivist Critiques of Rationalist IR Theory

  • ECSWP, Ruggie “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Cosntructivist Challenge” p215

4/13Constructivism cont.: Norms, Identity and Socialization

  • ECSWP, Finnemore and Sikkink “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change” p.247
  • Berger, “Norms, Identity and National Security in Germany and Japan” in The Culture of National Security : Norms and Identity in World Politics(on e-reserve)

4/15 Constructivism cont.: Human Rights Regime

  • GI 04/05, Chapters 29 and 34
  • Debate #1: Humanitarian Intervention

4/18Global Civil Society –The Rise of Non-state Actors and Networks

  • Wapner, “Politics beyond the state: Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics”World Politics, 47, 1995, pp.311-40. (JSTOR)
  • Glasius and Kaldor, “The State of Global Civil Society Before and After September 11” in TheGlobal Civil Society 2002, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. (on e-reserve)

4/20Global Civil Society cont: Private Authority

  • Cutler, Haufler and Porter, “Private Authority in International Affairs” in Private Authority and International Affairs,Albany: SUNY University Press. (on e-reserve)
  • Gereffi, Garcia-Johnson and Sasser, “The NGO-Industrial Complex” Foreign Policy, July/August 2001, pp. 56-65. (on e-reserve)

4/22Global Civil Society cont.: Terror Networks

  • Movie: The Search for Bin Laden

4/25International Organizations: Rationalist vs. Sociological Approaches

  • ECSWP, Martin and Simmons, “Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions” p. 89
  • ECSWP, March and Olsen “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders” p 303

4/27The Promise of IOs?

  • Barnett and Finnemore, “The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International Organizations” International Organization, 53,4 p699-732 (JSTOR)
  • Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions” International Security, 19, Winter 1994/95 p. 5-40 (JSTOR)

4/29International Organizations cont.

  • Debate #2: UN Reform
  • GI, Chapters 29

5/4Simulation

  • Simulation Readings (TBA)

5/6Simulation cont.

5/9Economic Globalization and Sovereignty: Skeptics vs. Globalists

  • Held and McGrew, “The Great Globalization Debate” (on e-reserve)
  • ECSWP, Garrett Chapter

5/11Marxist / Critical Theory Interpretations of Globalization

  • Callinicos, “Marxism and Global Governance” in Governing Globalization, Cambridge: Polity Press (on e-reserve)
  • Cox, “Democracy in Hard Times: Economic Globalization and the Limits of Liberal Democracy” in The Transformation of Democracy? Globalizationand Territorial Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press (on e-reserve).

5/13Discussion Day: Does Economic Globalization Promote Conflict or Peace?

  • Fukuyama, “The End of History” in The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press. (on reserve)
  • Rodrik, “Has Globalization Gone Too Far” in The Global Transformations Reader, Cambridge: Polity Press (on e-reserve).

5/16Complexity and World Politics

  • Jervis, Robert (1997)“Complexity and the Analysis of Political and Social Life” Political Science Quarterly:112, 4 pp. 569-593 (JSTOR)
  • Hamman, Henry (1998) “Remodeling International Relations: New Tools from New Science” Chapter 8 in International Relations in a Constructed World, Kubalkova, Onuf and Kowert Eds. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. (e-reserves)

5/18Complex Problems

  • GI, Chapters 5, 6, 9, 22

5/20Complex Problems cont.

  • Debate # 3 NPT and Weapons Proliferation
  • GI, Chapters 24, 26, 27, 28, 31

5/23Feminist Critiques of IR / Security Studies

  • Tickner, J. Ann. 1997. You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feministsand IR Theorists. International Studies Quarterly 41(4). (JSTOR)
  • Cohn, Carol (1987) “Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals” Signs: 12, pp 687-718. (on e-reserve)
  • GI, Chapter 38

5/25Feminist Critiques of IR / Globalization

  • Locher, Birgit and Elisabeth Prugl. 2001. Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart orSharing the Middle Ground? International Studies Quarterly 45(1): 111-129 (JSTOR)
  • Tickner J. Ann (2001) “Gender in the Global Economy” Chapter 3 in Gendering World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. (e-reserves)

5/27Feminism and IR cont.

  • Movie, Beyond Beijing

5/30The Blurring of Borders: Are Comparative Politics and IR Merging?

  • ECSWP, Milner “Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis Among International, American and Comparative Politics” p. 119
  • Slaughter, “Disaggregated Sovereignty: Towards the Accountability of Global Government Networks”Government and Opposition,39,2, pp.159-90. (on e-reserve).

6/1Summing Up: Rationality and Its Critics Revisited

  • ECSWP, Kahler chapter (re-skim)