1
Spring 2015
POIR 680 – International Security and Foreign Policy
Instructor
Professor Patrick James
Office Hours: by appointment
Course Description
The range of material that might be included in this seminar is vast, so an effort will be made to balance overall coverage with the need to look in more depth at some especially salient areas in the literature. The seminar unfolds in five parts. Each will be described in turn.
Part I, which consists of one session, takes an initial look at the subfields of international security and foreign policy analysis within the discipline of International Relations.
In Part II, the subfield of international security is addressed over the course of five sessions. We begin with a selective overview of international security and then shift to realism, the most time-honored approach, as it has developed over the last few decades into contemporary variants. Ideas about security from constructivism and the Copenhagen School are considered next. The section finishes up with recent developments, such as engagement with the concept of intervention and identity politics.
Part III consists of five sessions that address the subfield of foreign policy analysis. We once again begin with a selective overview and move on to how leaders struggle with changing course in response to error, along with foreign policy at a regional level. The section continues with a recent and controversial application of counterfactual analysis to the Iraq War and finishes up with some recent developments.
In Part IV, intersections involving foreign policy analysis and international security, along with new directions, are explored over two sessions. Intersections between and among international studies, foreign policy analysis and political economy come first. The second session focuses on a wide range of potential new directions.
Part V of the course is a session that takes a final look at international security and foreign policy. In sum, what have we learned in an overall sense?
Course Requirements
Take-Home Mid-term Examination (available February 25 – dueMarch 315%
at 9 a.m.)
Take-Home Final Examination (available April 29 – due May 7 at 9 a.m.)25%
Term Essay (due April 29, two-page outline due March 25)30%
Seminar Leadership15%
Class Participation15%
Review sheets (i.e., study guides) will be provided on emailso you can prepare effectively for the take-home mid-term and final exams. All of the material from the assigned readings and class discussions will be tested on the exams. The mid-term will appear on email on February 25 and a ten-page, double spaced answer is due by 9 a.m. on March 3. The respective dates for the final exam are April 29 and May 7. The final exam will be 15 double spaced pages.
The term essay, limited to 25-double spaced pages (i.e., text and notes), is due in class on April 29. The format is straightforward. I expect you to focus in greater depth on any one of the major subjects we cover on a weekly basis. A two-page outline and bibliography for your paper is due on March 25 or there will be a 20% penalty. This should be sent to me for review and approval via email. Please do visit with me as you begin to put together your outline. I expect to see a proposal for a paper that offers constructive criticism and some ideas for synthesis in a significant area of the literature on international conflict, crisis and war. The paper may take the form of a review essay, case study or aggregate data analysis; choice of method will depend upon the problem under study.
Each student will take a turn as seminar leader at one point during the semester. The date at which you will serve as seminar leader will be determined by a lottery held in the first class session. (Trades between students are permitted but must be approved in advance by the instructor.) The seminar leader is expected to (a) prepare a set of discussion points about the material that I then put up on Blackboard on the Thursday preceding class; and (b) take primary responsibility for leading the discussion throughout the seminar session. The discussion points are due to me(i.e., at y email attachment) at the beginning of the week before your session as seminar leader. For example, if you are seminar leader for November 8, your material is due on November 2.
A successful seminar will involve a mixture of discussion including both theory and its application to the real world. Thus the seminar leader should try to provide a series of provocative questions and issues that bring together the reading material for the week under more encompassing themes.
Your participation is very important to the success of this seminar. Thus a grade for participation in sessions other than those for which you are seminar leader also is included.
All assignments are subject to change as noted in class, although none is expected at this time.
Be sure to back up all of your computer files. Do not turn in your only copy of any requirement.
The grading scale is as follows: A (90-100); B (80-89); C (70-79); D (60-69); F (< 60).
Americans with Disabilities Act
If you have special needs as addressed by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and need assistance, please notify the Office of Disability Services, A048 Brady Commons, 882-4696, or me, immediately. Reasonable efforts will be made to accommodate your special needs.
Make-up Requirements
There will be no make-up assignments or tests for unexcused absences. Acceptable excuses, meaning medical or family emergencies and official university-related business, must be provided either to me in person, in writing, or by phone before an absence and in writing afterwards in order to be considered. Students who are unable to complete a requirement for legitimate reasons that do not quality as excused under university guidelines, and who notify me ahead of time may, at my discretion, complete a requirement belatedly. Any requirement turned in on the day that it is due but after the time specified will face a 20% penalty. Each additional late day will mean a further 20% deduction.
Policy on Academic Ethics and Honesty
The academic work of all students must comply with all policies that appear in the Schedule of Classes and the University Catalogue. Academic honesty is fundamental to the activities and principles of a university. All members of the academic community must be confident that each person’s work has been responsibly and honorably acquired, developed and presented. Any effort to gain an advantage not given to all students is dishonest whether or not the effort is successful. The academic community regards academic dishonesty as an extremely serious matter, with serious consequences that range from probation to expulsion. When in doubt about plagiarism, paraphrasing, quoting or collaboration, consult the course instructor.
Required Books
Freyberg-Inan, Annette, Ewan Harrison and Patrick James, eds. 2009. Rethinking Realism: Between Tradition and Innovation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, Frank P. 2011. Explaining the Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hassner, Ron E. 2009. War on Sacred Grounds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hermann, Charles F. 2012. When Things Go Wrong: Foreign Policy Decision Making Under Adverse Feedback. New York, NY: Routledge.
Paquin, Jonathan, and Patrick James, eds. 2014. Game Changer: The Impact of 9/11 On North American Security. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Walker, Stephen G., Akan Malici and Mark Schafer. 2011. Rethinking Foreign Policy Analysis: States, Leaders, and the Microfoundations of Behavioral International Relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Yetiv, Steve A. 2011. The Petroleum Triangle: Oil, Globalization, and Terror. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Other Required Readings
All other reading will be made available through Blackboard and/or a CD ROM.
Schedule
Part I: Overview
January14International Security and Foreign Policy Analysis
Part II: International Security
21A Selective Overview of International Security
Walt, Stephen M. 1991. “The Renaissance of Security Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 35: 211-239.
Kolodziej, Edward A. 1992. “Renaissance in Security Studies: Caveat Lector!” International Studies Quarterly 36: 421-438.
Friedberg, Aaron L. 1992. “Why Didn’t the United States Become a Garrison State?” International Security 16: 109-142.
Wohlforth, William. 1999. “The Stability of a Unipolar World.” International Security 21: 5-41.
Sagan, Scott. 2011. “The Causes of Nuclear Proliferation.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 225-244.
28Realism and Security Studies
Jervis, Robert. 1979. “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 30: 167-214.
Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War.” International Security 15: 5-56.
Posen, Barry. 1996/1997. “Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategies.” International Security 21: 5-53.
Taliaferro, Jeffrey. 2001. “Security Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited.” International Security 25: 128-161.
February 4Contemporary Realism
Freyberg-Inan, Annette, Ewan Harrison and Patrick James, eds. 2009. Rethinking Realism: Between Tradition and Innovation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11Constructivism and the Copenhagen School
Huysmans, Jef. 1998. “Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, the Creative Development of a Security Studies Agenda in Europe.” European Journal of International Relations 4: 479-505.
Hansen, Lene. 2000. “The Little Mermaids Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29: 285-306.
Hopf, Ted. 2005. “Identity, Legitimacy, and the Use of Military Force: Russia’s Great Power Identities and Military Intervention in Abkhazia.” Review of International Studies 31: 225-243.
Hayes, Jarrod. 2012. “Securitization, Social Identity, and Democratic Security: Nixon, India, and the Ties That Bind.” International Organization 66: 63-93.
18Class Cancelled (Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association)
25Recent Developments in International Security
Michael J. Gilligan and Ernest J. Sergenti. 2008. “Do UN Interventions Cause Peace? Using Matching to Improve Causal Inference.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 3: 89-122.
Hassner, Ron E. 2009. War on Sacred Grounds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Note: Midterm exam available – due March 3 at 9 a.m.
Part III: Foreign Policy Analysis
March 4A Selective Overview of Foreign Policy Analysis
Allison, Graham T. 1969. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” American Political Science Review 63: 689-718.
Axelrod, Robert. 1973. “Schema Theory: An Information Processing Model of Perception and Cognition.” American Political Science Review 67: 1248-1266.
Breuning, Marijke. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-26.
Hudson, Valerie M. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 3-33.
Alden, Chris, and Amnon Aran. 2012. Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1-13.
11Changing Course?
Hermann, Charles F. 2012. When Things Go Wrong: Foreign Policy Decision Making Under Adverse Feedback. New York, NY: Routledge.
18Class Cancelled (Spring Break)
25Foreign Policy at a Regional Level
Jonathan Paquin and Patrick James, eds. 2014. Game Changer: The Impact of 9/11 On North American Security. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Note: Two-page outline of term essay is due.
April 1Counterfactuals and Foreign Policy
Harvey, Frank P. 2011. Explaining the Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8Recent Developments in Foreign Policy Analysis
Houghton, David Patrick. 2007. “Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Toward a Constructivist Approach.” Foreign Policy Analysis 3: 24-45.
Walker, Stephen G., Akan Malici and Mark Schafer. 2011. Rethinking Foreign Policy Analysis: States, Leaders, and the Microfoundations of Behavioral International Relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Part IV: Intersections and New Directions
15International Security, Foreign Policy Analysis and Political Economy
Gholz, Eugene, and Daryl Press. 2010. “Protecting the Prize: Oil and U.S. National Security.” Security Studies 19: 453-485.
Yetiv, Steve A. 2011. The Petroleum Triangle: Oil, Globalization, and Terror. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22New Directions
Mello, Patrick A. 2010. “Review Article: In Search of New Wars: The Debate About a Transformation of War.” European Journal of International Relations 16: 297-309.
Beckley, Michael. 2011/12. “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure.” International Security 36: 41-78.
Nunes, João. 2012. “Reclaiming the Political: Emancipation and Critique in Security Studies.” Security Dialogue 43: 345-361.
Petersen, Karen Lund. 2012. “Risk Analysis – a Field within Security Studies?” European Journal of International Relations 18: 693-717.
Rathbun, Brian C. 2012. “From Vicious to Virtuous Circle: Moralistic Trust, Diffuse Reciprocity, and the American Security Commitment to Europe.” European Journal of International Relations 18: 323-344.
Bentley, Michelle. 2013. “War and/of Words: Constructing WMD in US Foreign Policy.” Security Studies 22: 68-97.
Kang, David C. 2013. “International Relations Theory and East Asian History: An Overview.” Journal of East Asian Studies 13: 181-205.
Part V: What Have We Learned?
April29A Final Look at Conflict, Crisis and War
(Review all previous reading.)
Note: Term Essay Due
Note: Final exam available – due May 7 at 9 a.m.