1

Political Science 102, Sections 1-7 Roy Licklider Introduction to International Relations Fall 2016 e-mail: [email protected] Scott 123 (lecture)

CAREERS: Students often want information about jobs related to international affairs. We have prepared a variety of materials on the department website (www.polisci.rutgers.edu/undergrad/careers), including an essay on careers in international relations, material on the popular two-year policy programs leading to Masters degree, biographies of Rutgers alums who have interesting jobs, and a list of relevant websites. Material is being added routinely so keep an eye on the site.

OFFICE HOURS: DROP-IN HOURS—NO APPOINTMENT NECESSARY Mondays: 1:30-2:30 in the Starbucks next to the Barnes & Noble/Rutgers Bookstore OTHER HOURS BY APPOINTMENT—CONTACT ME BY E-MAIL

TEACHING ASSISTANTS: Wei-Chih (Kenny) Chen Tatsiana Kulakevich

This course satisfies the Core Curriculum requirement for Social Analysis (SCL)

Core Curriculum Learning Goals Met by this Course: i. Explain and be able to assess the relationship among assumptions, method, evidence, arguments, and theory in social and historical analysis n. Apply concepts about human and social behavior to particular questions or situations

Department Learning Goals Met by this Course: A solid foundational understanding of foreign and international politics, including the operation of the international system.

Additional Learning Goals Met by this Course: How to discuss controversial topics with people of different views in a respectful way that contributes to mutual learning

COURSE GOALS: We hope that you will learn at least four particular things from this course: (1) the technique of testing general statements against reality which we call the science method; (2) some basic concepts used in studying international relations; (3) 2 techniques for analyzing moral issues in international affairs; and (4) basic information about a few global issues which are likely to be important during your lifetime.

The syllabus lists readings for each class meeting. You must read this material before the class meets; lectures will build on assigned reading rather than repeating it, and simulations, discussion sections, groupworks, and reading quizzes will all require you to use materials from the reading in class.

BOOKS REQUIRED FOR PURCHASE (paperback, abbreviated in the syllabus by titles, will be available in the Rutgers Bookstore and New Jersey Books on Easton Avenue):

Karen Mingst and Ivan Arreguín, Essentials of International Relations (7th edition only) Mark R. Amstutz, International Ethics (4th edition only)

OTHER READINGS are on the course Sakai site; go to https://sakai.rutgers.edu and enter your Rutgers identification. This will take you to your workspace, and the course site will be automatically available if you are registered in the course. On the course site, go to Resources; items are listed alphabetically by title (as they are listed on the syllabus). When you locate the item you want, just click on it. If something is not available, please let me know immediately so I can do something about it. You are responsible for having read all assigned materials before the class when they are assigned. I have also listed optional reading for students who want to pursue some of these topics at greater length; these materials are not on the Sakai site and will not be on the reading quizzes or exams.

CLASS FORMATS: Because of the large size of this course, several different class formats will be used, as indicated in the syllabus. L = lecture in Scott 123, usually every Monday and any Wednesday when no other session is scheduled for that week P = a paper is due that day; the class will meet in Scott 123 to discuss the paper in detail (students often find these sessions among the most valuable of the course, although not always the most comfortable). If you have not completed your paper for any reason, do not attend these sessions. D = discussion sections on Wednesday or Friday, usually every alternate week, each section in the room and time assigned to it; there are no Wednesday lectures on these weeks. S = simulation on Wednesday or Friday in the same times and rooms as discussion sections–again no Wednesday lectures those weeks G = groupwork on Wednesday or Friday in the same times and rooms as discussion sections with no lecture on Wednesday those weeks 3

NOTE: This class only meets two times a week. Therefore there will be no Wednesday lecture on weeks when you have discussion sections, simulation, or groupworks, and sections will not meet on the (few) weeks when there is a Wednesday lecture.

GRADING POLICY: Paper #1 15% Paper #2 15% Paper #3 15% Reading quizzes (top 6 grades) 15% Groupwork (top 2 grades) 15% Participation in discussion section 10% Final exam 15% NOTE: Students must complete at least one version of all three papers and the final exam in order to pass the course.

PAPERS: The papers should be no more than five double-spaced pages or about 1500 words. The papers require thought rather than research and will be graded accordingly. They may not be submitted by e-mail except by special permission. We expect them to be written in standard English; students with writing problems will be required to go to the Writing Centers and expected to improve. Late papers without a reasonable excuse will be reduced a full letter grade for each class period that they are late. Papers may be rewritten for credit if the original grade was C+ or below; the second version will be graded independently and averaged with the first to calculate the grade for that paper. Students must talk to the individual who graded their papers before rewriting them. Rewritten papers will be accepted for approximately three weeks after they have been returned. Because of the size of this class, two political science graduate students have been assigned as teaching assistants; they will also grade many of the papers. To ensure that our grading standards are the same, we begin each assignment by grading and discussing papers until we are giving the same grades to the same papers. When rewriting a paper or discussing an exam graded by someone other than me, you should first talk to the original grader. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of this discussion, you may appeal the grade to me.

READING QUIZZES: Nine reading quizzes will be given during the semester at the beginning of class; they will not be announced in advance, and no makeups, excuses, or rewrites will be accepted. Each quiz will require you to demonstrate that you have read a specified part of the reading assignment for that day; outlining the major points and noting a few things which are unique to the assignment are the obvious ways to do this. Written notes (but no books or xeroxes) may be used. All computers must be closed during the quizzes. Quizzes will be graded pass or fail. Students with six or more passing grades will 4 be given an A for the reading quiz portion of their final grade. Students with five passing grades will get a B, those with four will get a C, those with three will get a D, and those with fewer than three will get an F.

GROUPWORK: Four times during the semester the class will meet in groups of five students at the times and places of the discussion sections. Each group will be given an assignment which will normally involve analyzing a problem related to the reading and writing a brief group paper during the class period. Groups of two or fewer people should combine. Make a serious effort to reach agreement within the group. After the discussion, students who wish to do so may leave the group before the paper is written and write their own paper; however, any paper submitted by only one student will be reduced one full letter grade. Students who do not participate in a useful way may be asked by the group to leave. All those who participated in the process should put their names on the paper and will all receive the same grade. The top two groupwork grades will be averaged and count 15% of your final grade. No makeups will be allowed.

SIMULATION: Three class periods will be devoted to a simulation, in the times and places of discussion sections. The results will be used in papers #2 and #3. Teams will be announced.

DISCUSSION SECTION PARTICIPATION: On weeks noted in the syllabus, the class will meet in discussion sections led by the teaching assistants. You are responsible for having read the assigned class material and for discussing it intelligently and seriously; participation will count for 10% of your grade.

SAKAI DISCUSSIONS: Since the discussion sections only meet five times during the semester, the Sakai discussion system will be used to encourage interaction at other times among members of each section. In the latter part of the semester, a question related to the course will be posted on each system every week or so; students are encouraged to respond to them and to one another on their section list serve. Participation will count as verbal discussion in section meetings. It is perfectly appropriate to disagree strongly with views expressed on the list, but attacks on individual participants (flaming, etc.) will not be tolerated.

Students are expected to attend all classes; if you expect to miss one or two classes, please use the University absence reporting website https://sims.rutgers.edu/ssra/ to indicate the date and reason for your absence. An e-mail is automatically sent to me.

Cheating and Plagiarism 5

Cheating on tests or plagiarizing materials in your papers deprives you of the educational benefits of preparing these materials appropriately. It is personally dishonest to cheat on a test or to hand in a paper based on unacknowledged words or ideas that someone else originated. It is also unfair, since it gives you an undeserved advantage over your fellow students who are graded on the basis of their own work. It is the theft of ideas. The University deals in ideas; that’s what we do. So it takes their theft very seriously, as do I. I report all suspected cases of cheating and plagiarism to the Office of Judicial Affairs which will evaluate the case and recommend penalties appropriate to the gravity of the infraction. The university's policy on Academic Integrity is available at http://academicintegrity.rutgers.edu/academic-integrity-policy I strongly advise you to familiarize yourself with this document, both for this class and for your other classes and future work. To help protect you, and future students, from plagiarism, we require all papers to be submitted through Turnitin.com. Since what counts as plagiarism is not always clear, I quote the definition given in Rutgers' policy:

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the use of another person’s words, ideas, or results without giving that person appropriate credit. To avoid plagiarism, every direct quotation must be identified by quotation marks or appropriate indentation and both direct quotation and paraphrasing must be cited properly according to the accepted format for the particular discipline or as required by the instructor in a course. Some common examples of plagiarism are: • Copying word for word (i.e. quoting directly) from an oral, printed, or electronic source without proper attribution. • Paraphrasing without proper attribution, i.e., presenting in one’s own words another person’s written words or ideas as if they were one’s own. • Submitting a purchased or downloaded term paper or other materials to satisfy a course requirement.

A SPECIAL NOTE: Students often assume that because information is available on the Web it is public information, does not need to be formally referenced, and can be used without attribution. This is a mistake. All information and ideas that you derive from other sources, whether written, spoken, or electronic, must be attributed to their original source. Such sources include not just written or electronic materials, but people with whom you may discuss your ideas, such as your roommate, friends, or family members. They deserve credit for their contributions too! Judgments about plagiarism can be subtle. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me for guidance. (This discussion of plagiarism is taken from the spring 2010 syllabus for Andy Egan’s 01:730: 252.) 6

I. BASIC IDEAS

9/7: Course introduction and initial discussion of some important ideas (L)

9/12: ”How Do We Know What We Know?” by Roy Licklider (L) “America’s Knowledge Deficit” by Benjamin Barber, The Nation, November 10, 2010), pp. 21-22 (on Sakai site)

9/14-16: ”International Relations: Wisdom or Science?” by Charles McClelland, in (D) James Rosenau, International Politics and Foreign Policy (1969), pp. 3-5 Essentials of International Relations, pp. 3-6, 11-15, and chapter 3

9/19: "The Behavioral Science Approach to International Relations: Payoff and (L) Prospects" by J. David Singer, SAIS Review, X (Summer, 1966), pp. 12-20 "National Alliance Commitments and War Involvement, 1818-1945" by J. David Singer and Melvin Small, Papers of the Peace Research Society (International), V (1966), pp. 109-140.

9/21-23: "Japan's Fatal Blunder" by Sir George Sansom, International Affairs (D) (October 1948), pp. 543-549 (rest of the article is interesting but optional) "The Calculus of Deterrence" by Bruce M. Russett, Journal of Conflict Resolution, VII (1963), pp. 97-109 "The Flow of Policy-Making in the Department of State" by Charleton Ogburn, Appendix C, in H. Haviland Field, The Formulation and Administration of United States Foreign Policy, pp. 172-177. “The State System Exercise” by William Coplin, all [print and bring to class for discussion]

9/26: Review the first reading in the course, “How Do We Know What We (P) Know?” PAPER #1: (1) DOES THE STATE DEPARTMENT USE "SCIENCE" OR "WISDOM" TO GAIN EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE, ACCORDING TO OGBURN? AND (2) WHICH APPROACH DID OGBURN HIMSELF USE IN WRITING 7

THE ARTICLE? Hints: Identify several different components of science and wisdom; then cite specific examples from the Ogburn article and relate them to particular parts of your definitions. The object is to demonstrate that you understand these terms well enough to be able to use them.

II. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

A. NATIONS, STATES AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS

9/28-30: SIMULATION IN ROOMS AND TIMES SCHEDULED FOR (S) DISCUSSION SECTIONS Essentials of International Relations, pp. 20-56 International Politics by K. J. Holsti, chapter 2 “The State System Exercise” by William Coplin, all [print and bring to class]

10/3: Essentials of International Relations, chapter 4 (L)

10/5-7: SIMULATION IN ROOMS AND TIMES SCHEDULED FOR (S) DISCUSSION SECTIONS Essentials of International Relations, pp. 57-69 “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers” by Walter Russell Mead, Foreign Affairs, 93, 3 (May/June 2014), 69-79 “The Illusion of Geopolitics” by John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs, 93, 3 (May/June 2014), 80-91 “The State System Exercise” by William Coplin, all [bring to class]

B. COOPERATION IN ANARCHY

1. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

10/10: Essentials of International Relations, pp. 210-242 and 248-256 (L) “The Rise of China and the Future of the West,” by G. John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs, 87, 1 (January/February 2008), 23-37 8

2. INTERNATIONAL LAW

10/12-14: Essentials of International Relations, pp. 242-248 and 256-260 (D) International Ethics, chapter 255-265 “Committing War Crimes for the ‘Right Reasons’,” by Glenn Greenwald, Salon, December 17, 2008, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ 2008/12/17/douthat/index.htm Review International Politics by K. J. Holsti, chapter 2 “Policy Analysis and Argument” by Roy Licklider

OPTIONAL READING: Mark Drumbl, “Self-Defense and the Use of Force: Breaking the Rules, Making the Rules, or Both?” International Studies Perspectives, 4 (2003), pp. 409-432 Bartram S. Brown, “Barely Borders: Issues of International Law,” Harvard International Review (Spring 2004), pp. 52-57 (legality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq) Adam Branch, “Uganda’s Civil War and the Politics of ICC Intervention,” Ethics and International Affairs, 21 (Summer 2007), pp. 179-198 Jim Wurst, “The Mine Ban Treaty: Ten Years On,” The Interdependent, 5, 2 (Summer 2007), pp. 21-25

10/17: Review especially J. David Singer, "The Behavioral Science Approach to (P) International Relations: Payoff and Prospects" and other materials in the first reading assignment of the course PAPER #2: CONVERT THE "FACTS" FROM THE HISTORICAL MATERIALS IN THE HOLSTI INTERNATIONAL POLITICS READING, AND THE EXPERIENCE OF THE STATE SYSTEM EXERCISE INTO "DATA" AND TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS: "MULTIPOLAR INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS ARE MORE STABLE THAN BIPOLAR INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS." Hints: Classify each system as (1) bipolar, multipolar, or other and (2) stable, unstable, or other. For purposes of this paper, treat the simulation results as "real." Use Holsti’s facts, not his definitions and treat the Chinese material as three systems and the Greek material as two. Classify bipolarity at the beginning of each system and stability at the end. Assume that your reader does not have a copy of the simulation results. Combine the historical and simulated systems in your analysis.

OPTIONAL READING: William Wohlforth et. al., “Testing Balance-of- Power Theory in World History,” European Journal of International Relations, 13, 2 (2007), pp. 155-185 9

C. FUTURE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: COMPETITION, HEGEMONY, INTEGRATION, OR ANARCHY?

10/19-21: Essentials of International Relations, pp. 171-181 (G) Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, pp. 7-10, 67- 69, and 151-184

III. FOREIGN POLICY: CHOOSING ENDS AND MEANS

A. POWER AND FOREIGN POLICY

10/24: Essentials of International Relations, pp. 134-164 (L) "Where Are the Great Powers? At Home with the Kids," by Edward Luttwak, Foreign Affairs, 73 (July/August, 1994), pp. 23-29. OPTIONAL READING: Stephen Biddle, “Strategy and War,” P.S.: Political Science and Politics, 40, 3 (July 2007), pp. 416-467

B. MORALITY AND CHOICE IN FOREIGN POLICY

10/26-28: International Ethics, chapters 1-2 (D)

10/31: International Ethics, chapters 3 and 7 (L)

11/2-4: International Ethics, chapter 8 (G) “Responding to Terrorism: Challenges for Democracy,” Choices for the 21st Century Education Program, Thomas J. Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, pp. 1-45 “Is There a Good Terrorist” by Timothy Garten Ash, New York Review of Books, 48, 19 (November 29, 2001), pp. 30-33 “Does Terrorism Really Work? Evolution in the Conventional Wisdom since 9/11,” by Max Abrahms, Defence and Peace Economics, 22, 6 (December 2011), pp. 583-594 10

OPTIONAL READINGS: Michael Ignatieff, “Lesser Evils,” New York Times Magazine, May 2, 2004. John Mueller, “Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?” Foreign Affairs, 85, 5 (September/October 2006) Daniel Byman, “Do Targeted Killings Work?” Foreign Affairs, 85, 2 (March/April 2006), pp. 95-111 Peter R. Neumann, “Negotiating With Terrorists,” Foreign Affairs, 86, 1 (January/February 2007), pp. 128-138 Max Abraham, “What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy,” International Security, 32, 4 (Spring 2008), pp. 78-105

C. HOW ARE FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS ACTUALLY MADE?

11/7: Essentials of International Relations, pp. 164-171 and chapter 6 (L) American Foreign Policy Making and the Democratic Dilemmas, pp. 17-31

11/9-11: International Ethics, chapter 9 (S) Foreign Policy Decision-Making by William Coplin and J. Martin Rochester, revised by Roy Licklider (print and bring to class)

IV. GLOBAL ISSUES

A. WAR AND PEACE

1. NUCLEAR AND THERMONUCLEAR WAR

11/14: Essentials of International Relations, pp. 262-309 (L) International Ethics, pp. 67-74 “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability” by Kenneth Waltz, Foreign Affairs, 91, 4 (July-August 2012), 2-5 and “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Discussion.”

2. PEACE FOR THE RICH, WAR FOR THE POOR?

11

11/16-18: World Politics: The Menu for Choice, by Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr, (D) chapter 14 Essentials of International Relations, pp. 309-319 “Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon” by Stephen Biddle, Foreign Affairs, 85, 2 (March/April 2006), pp. 2-14

11/21: PAPER #3: Make data from the “facts” of the Foreign Policy Decision- Making (P) simulation and test two hypotheses, one about the effects of different kinds of problems and one about the effects of different kinds of decision groups. Assume that your readers do not have access to the information about the decisions that you have.

11/23-25: AFTER MONDAY THERE WILL BE NO MEETINGS OF THIS CLASS, EITHER LECTURES OR SECTIONS, THIS WEEK. SOMETHING TO GIVE THANKS FOR? 12

3. PEACE AFTER CIVIL WARS

11/28: “Enemies into Friends,” Foreign Affairs, 89 (March/April 2010), 120-134 (L) “Civil War Outcomes” by Roy Licklider, pp. 193-226 in Manus Midlarsky (ed), Handbook of War Studies III: The Intrastate Dimension. International Ethics, chapter 6

B. INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

1. DEVELOPMENT AND THE NORTH-SOUTH DIVISION

11/30-12/2: “The Mystery of Growth” by Robert Sidelsky, New York Review of Books, (G) 50, (March 13, 2003), pp. 28-31 “Why People Still Starve” by Barry Bearak, New York Times Magazine (July 13, 2003) “Show Them the Money: Why Giving Cash Helps Alleviate Poverty” by Christopher Blattman and Paul Niehaus, Foreign Affairs, 93, 3 (May/June 2014), 117-126 “The Good News” by Paul Krugman, The New York Times (November 28, 2003), p. A43 “The Mystery of Capital” by Hernando de Soto, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs

OPTIONAL READING: John Gerring, “Global Justice as an Empirical Question,” PS (American Political Science Association), January 2007, pp. 67-76 20:21 Vision: Twentieth-Century Lessons for the Twenty-first Century by Bill Emmott, chapter 10 (pp. 257-280) “Why Democracies Excel” by Joseph T. Siegle, Michael M. Weinstein, and Morton H. Halperin, Foreign Affairs, 83, 5 (September/October 2004), pp. 57-71

2. GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISES

12/5: Essentials of International Relations, chapter 9 (L) International Ethics, pp. 201-212 OPTIONAL READING: Fixing Global Finance by Martin Wolf, pp. 58-81 13

“Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession” by Paul Krugman, Foreign Affairs, 73 (March, 1994), pp. 28-44 and discussion, Foreign Affairs, 73 (July, 1994), pp. 186-203.

C. ECOLOGY

12/7-9: Essentials of International Relations, pp. 400-422 (G) International Ethics, 243-255 “Ozone Diplomacy" by Richard Benedick, "Issues in Science and Technology, VI (Fall, 1989), pp. 43-50 “The Montreal Protocol—The Little Treaty That Could” by Justin Gillis, New York Times, December 10, 2013 “Copenhagen’s Inconvenient Truth” by Michael Levi, Foreign Affairs, 88, 5 (September/October 2009), pp. 92-104

OPTIONAL READING: “The Question of Global Warming” by Freeman Dyson, New York Review of Books, 55, 10 (June 12, 2008), Thomas C. Schelling, "Climate Change: The Uncertainties, the Certainties and What They Imply About Action," The Economists' Voice, 4,3 (2007); http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art3 David G. Victor, Charles F. Kennel, and Veerabhadran Ramanathan, “The Climate Threat We Can Beat - What It Is and How to Deal With It,” Foreign Affairs (May/June 2012), 112-121

D. HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE, AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE?

12/12: Essentials of International Relations, chapter 10 (L) International Ethics, pp. 110-112 Essentials of International Relations, pp. 440-446 International Ethics, Conclusion

OPTIONAL READING: Essentials of International Relations, pp. 422-440 “Ethical Considerations: Law, Foreign Policy, and the War on Terror” by Albert Mora, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5403.html “Ethical Advice: Conflict Management vs. Human Rights in Ending Civil Wars” by Roy Licklider, Journal of Human Rights, 7 (2008), pp. 376- 387

12/14: Lecture-discussion topics picked by students 14

FINAL EXAM