Topics in International Relations: Contemporary Security Issues

Contemporary Security Issues Williams

INTRL GA 1731-002

Fall 2016

Professor Michael John Williams 19 University Place, 531 New York, NY 1003 [email protected]

Course Meeting: KIMM 808 Monday, 12:30-3:00PM

Office Hours: Monday, 3.00-4.30-PM Wednesday, 9.00-10.00AM & 1.30-2.30PM other times by appointment only

The information contained in this course syllabus is correct at the time of publication, but may be subject to change as part of the IR Program’s policy of continuous improvement and development. Every effort will be made to notify you of any such changes.

1 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

OVERVIEW OF MODULE Before the end of the Cold War, security was mainly defined as the threat or use of military force by nation-states, and was therefore primarily of concern for students who were interested in inter-state relations. This is because before 1991 security was largely defined as the ability of a state to defend against external attack and ensure the continued existence of the state. The ‘referent’ object of security was the state rather than the individual.

Our security environment today, however, is radically different from the environment that has governed conceptions of security since the creation of the modern international system in 1648. As Wittes and Blum argued in their book The Future of Violence (2015):

Much of what we think we know about privacy, liberty, security and threat is no longer true. Much of what we have been taught about what threatens us, what protects us, and about the risks and benefits of state power versus individual empowerment is obsolete (p. 5)

Whereas in the past the study of security was associated with the ability of a state to threaten and successfully attack another state, today there are instead a myriad array of security risks and threats. Super empowered individuals can create change at a global level. Modern technology makes life easier, but opens up societies to potentially crippling ‘cyber’ war. This raises the question – what exactly is cyber ‘war’? In the 1930s policy-makers worried about strong states, like Japan or Germany, going on the offensive. But today weak states, such as Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan or Syria are of seemingly greater danger than strong states. Global climate change may alter the environment in such a way that in creates mass conflict, but how can a Ministry of Defence provide ‘security’ against climate change? These are the issues that we will explore in this course.

As Paul Williams writes in your textbook, there are four key questions that this seminar will seek to answer:

What is security? Whose security are we talking about? What counts as a security issue? How can security be achieved?

To explore these questions this course consists of mainly two parts – the first part is conceptual. The second part is applied. It is impossible to answer these questions without first having an intellectual paradigm(s) to make sense of the vast amount of ‘information’

2 Contemporary Security Issues Williams available. Information without analysis is not particuarily useful. The create security policy, one has to have an idea of what security is and who is being secured. From this point a policy to achieve security can be created. Consequently the first part of this course looks at the last few decades, during which, the domain of security studies broadened to include, at one end, questions of the well-being of the human individual, and at the other end, questions about how to sustain the globe as such. The contemporary debate about how to define security, who should provide it, and who or what should be secured, pays tribute to the increasing complexity of our globalised world, and the necessity of engaging with phenomena that transcend the nation-state, such as global terrorism or climate change. The aim of this course is to trace the security studies discipline from its traditional approaches through its evolution to include ever more transnational dynamics. It outlines how scholars have traditionally understood security before progressing to examine how the study of security has developed. Each week of the course is designed to introduce students to important aspects of security studies to give them the theoretical and conceptual awareness to apply to issues of security today. The second part will then turn to the analysis of particular contemporary security issues, taking place at three different levels: the level of the individual (human security), the level of the state (with the example of so-called ‘failed states’) and the global level (with the examples of global terrorism and environmental change). The seminar will work through these security issues with a problem base learning approach that will require participants to utilize the theoretical tools provided to them in part one to create possible working policy options for senior policy makers.

3 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

By the end of this course, students should:

(A) Subject Specific

• understand the development of the security studies discipline.

• appreciate the transnational dynamics affecting how we understand security both conceptually and as in the practice of security policy.

• demonstrate competence in explaining and using different approaches to security studies.

B) Generic:

• Critically analyse and evaluate both academic and policy texts.

• Communicate clearly, construct coherent arguments, both in seminars and in written work.

• Work independently on research tasks in order to formulate hypotheses, devise methodologies appropriate to a research task, and generate research materials.

• Adapt knowledge to specific contexts.

• Present complex arguments with clarity and concision.

• Communicate effectively in speech and writing.

• Work independently, demonstrating time management and self-organization.

TEACHING AND LEARNING METHODS

The course is taught through a weekly brief lecture (about 45-60 minutes) and a subsequent 60-75 minutes seminar, which includes discussions that are based on students’ discussion papers, responding to the weekly readings. Students are expected to have done the core readings from the reading list (usually three journal articles or book chapters) in preparation for the seminar, to write a short critical response paper on three different occasions, and to take part in discussion.

4 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

PROFESSIONALISM

My hope is that our classroom can be a learning community. That requires students to be willing to venture ideas and offer differing perspectives and be treated with respect. Let us make sure to critique ideas rather than the people offering them. I also hope to create an atmosphere where all of us can be candid and intellectually open. On the off chance that you might be tempted to, say, blog about something your classmates wrote or your professor said, please don’t. This is doubly true for guest speakers.

WRITING The academic field of International Relations and the practice of international affairs both require expert analytical skills, as well as exceptional writing skills. This seminar is designed to help you improve your ability to write in both a scholarly and an applied fashion. This seminar, however, is not a writing course. If you feel that you need more assistance with writing, it is highly recommended that you consider taking whilst at NYU the IR Program’s course “Expository Writing for International Relations”.

At the graduate level you are expected to know how to write an academic essay that conforms to best practice in the Anglo-American university system. Students are expected to seek out resources from the library to write their research paper and policy memos. Students are also expected to know how to properly reference a scholary paper.

This course will teach you how to write a policy memo, but the course will not teach you how to write a scholarly essay. If you would like some pointers to improve your writing I suggest the following texts:

Joseph M. Williams & Joseph Bizup, Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace (Boston: Pearson, 2005). Kate L. Turabin, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses and Dissertation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013). George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) in George Orwell: the Collected Essays, Journalism & Letters: In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950 (David R. Godine Publisher, 2007).

For assistance writing POLICY MEMOS you should visit the USC Libraries online resource, “Organizing your Social Science Research Paper: Writing a Policy Memo” available at: http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/policymemo

A good example of a policy memo written by a grad student can be found here: https://american.edu/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=2960663

5 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

A policy memo is a short paper written for government officials (as well as in the private sector, NGOs, IOs etc) intended to present a senior policy maker with an overview of a current challenge, selected paths of actions and then a recommended policy. Generally, a brief offers THREE options. These should be three REALISTIC outcomes – not a sandwich brief, which is one good option stuck between two unpalatable options. These documents should be written in crisp, succinct prose. The writer should avoid excessive language. These documents must get to the point quickly and they cannot be longer than three single spaced pages, approximately 1,500 words. Policy makers generally won’t read longer documents. In real life, a brief does not include a bibliography. For this class you MUST include a list of works consulted, although you should not footnote/cite in the brief as you would in an academic paper. Examples of good policy briefs will be posted on NYU classes.

Assessment Policy Brief 1 FORMATIVE (MAX 1,500 words) Due: 28 October 2016, 5PM Policy Brief 2 25% - (MAX 1,000 words) Due: 9 December 2016, 5PM Book Review 25% - (2,000 words) Due: 11 November 2016, 5PM Research Essay 50% - (5,000 words +/- 10%) DUE: 20 December 2016, 5PM

All papers are to be submitted via email by the DATE and TIME above. Documents should be submitted in MSWORD. Email papers to: [email protected]

All work must be original work. Plagiarism – plagiarism is copying someone else’s work and portraying it as your own without properly referencing it (i.e. not citing it). Plagiarism can be done purposefully or accidentally – either way it is still plagiarism. Plagiarism will be dealt with according to University Regulations. This is a severe offense – not to be taken lightly. Plagiarism can result in the termination of the MA degree studies and expulsion from the university.

ESSAYS: There will be one research essay for this course. You are expected to write approximately 5,000 words in an academic research standard from one of selected guide questions. This paper should be footnoted and contain a comprehensive bibliography. Papers that are not formatted properly will have marks deducted. The bibliography is NOT optional. Essay questions will be supplied to you during the term.

The assessment in this course is based on your ability to apply theories and cases to advance an argument in a cogent, logical manner befitting a superior university education. Simply regurgitating facts onto the paper does not satisfy this requirement. You are expected to develop your own argument to support it with theories and evidence, was well as to critique others for their shortcomings. The best examples of this type of writing can be

6 Contemporary Security Issues Williams found in a variety of academic journals such as International Affairs, International Security, International Organization, or International Studies Quarterly.

There is no exam for this course.

GENERIC MARKING CRITERIA For written work, the following criteria are relevant: 95-100% - Work displaying some or all of the following features, depending on the nature of the assignment or task: • Publishable quality • Outstanding research potential • Ability to plan, organise and execute independently a research project to the highest professional standards • Exceptional degree of creativity, originality, and independence of thought • Ability to make informed judgements, develop original insights, and construct productive hypotheses in the absence of complete data • Highest professional standards of competence, expression and presentation (written, oral, visual) • Ability to assemble information from different sources to produce exceptionally well-organised and original answers • Ability to analyse data critically and formulate questions which lead to original lines of enquiry • Ability to evaluate critically existing methodologies and suggest new approaches to current research or professional practice • Flexibility of thought, and the ability to employ different approaches to the solution of highly complex and novel problems • Ability to evaluate published or publicly-presented work critically and to the highest professional standards • Penetrating analysis of primary sources of literature and information • A exceptionally high level of understanding of current research techniques and how they can be applied most effectively to investigate challenging new problems • Outstanding levels of accuracy and technical competence 90-95% - Work displaying some or all of the following features, depending on the nature of the assignment or task: • Excellent research potential • Ability to plan, organise and execute independently a research project to a very high professional standard • Very high professional standards of competence, expression and presentation (written, oral, visual) • High degree of creativity, originality and independence of thought • Ability to assemble information from different sources to produce very well- organised and original answers • Ability to analyse data critically and formulate questions which may lead to

7 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

productive lines of enquiry • Flexibility of thought, and the ability to employ different approaches to the solution of complex and novel problems • Ability to evaluate published or publicly-presented work critically and to a high professional standard • Ability to analyse primary sources of literature and information critically • Very high levels of accuracy and technical competence 84-90% - Work displaying some or all of the following features, depending on the nature of the assignment or task: • Very good professional standard of competence, expression and presentation (written, oral, visual) • Clear evidence of the potential to undertake original research given appropriate guidance and support • Evidence of some creativity, originality and independence of thought • Ability to assemble information from different sources to produce well- organised and insightful answers • Ability to analyse data critically • Flexibility of thought, and the ability to solve complex, though not entirely original problems • Some ability to evaluate published or publicly-presented work • Some ability critically to analyse primary sources of literature and information • Good degree of accuracy and technical competence 75-84% - Work displaying some or all of the following features, depending on the nature of the assignment or task: • Sound knowledge and understanding of the relevant literature and other key sources of information • Ability to produce satisfactory answers to problems and questions • Ability to construct coherent and relevant answer to questions, though with few signs of originality • A competent professional standard of organisation and expression • Ability to engage in research involving a moderate degree of originality, when provided with close supervision and support • Satisfactory degree of competence and technical accuracy 70-75% - Work displaying some or all of the following features, depending on the nature of the assignment or task: • Basic knowledge and understanding of some of the essential literature and other key sources of information, but answers are either incomplete or not entirely coherent • Shows some grasp of the problem or topic but lacks clarity in written or oral presentation • Little evidence of independent thought • Little or no evidence of originality in answers • Work which is just below an acceptable basic professional standard 60-70% - Work displaying some or all of the following features, depending on the nature of the assignment or task:

8 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• Fragmentary knowledge and understanding of the essential literature and other key sources of information, yielding answers which show only a limited degree of understanding • Shows little grasp of the problem or topic, and lacks clarity in written or oral presentation • Almost no evidence of independent or original thought • Work that is clearly below an acceptable basic professional standard Below 60% - Work displaying some or all of the following features, depending on the nature of the assignment or task: • Almost entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding of the essential literature and other key sources of information, yielding answers which, at best, show only the most rudimentary understanding of the question • Shows almost no insight into the problem or topic • Confused and incoherent written or oral presentation • Totally devoid of independent or original thought • Work that is far below an acceptable basic professional standard

9 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

COURSE TEXTBOOK – available at the NYU BOOKSTORE, please purchase Williams, Paul D. (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 20013 – 2nd edition).

KEY BIBLIOGRAPHY These additional books are useful for the study of international security. You are NOT required to purchase these books. Baylis, John, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations (Oxford: OUP, 2008). Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977). Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde, Security: a New Framework for Analysis (Lynne Rienner, 1998) Carr, E.H. The Twenty Years Crisis (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001). Chandler, David, and Nik Hynek (2011), Critical Perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in International Relations (London and New York: Routledge, 2011) Dannreuther, Roland, International Security: the Contemporary Agenda (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007) Fierke, Karin, Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007) de Goede, Marieke, and Louise Amoore (eds), Risk and the War on Terror (2008) Lipschutz, Ronnie (ed.), On Security (New York: Columbia, 1995) Mearsheimer, John. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W. W. Norton & Co, 2001). Parker, Geoffrey (ed), The Cambridge History of Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Chapters 1-4. Snyder, Craig (ed.), Contemporary Security and Strategy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999), 77-101. Strassler, Robert B. (ed) The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (New York: Touchstone, 1998). Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001).

Relevant Journals: Scholary International Security European Journal of International Security Security Dialogue Review of International Studies

10 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

Cooperation and Conflict European Journal of International Relations International Political Sociology

Policy Foreign Affairs (USA) International Affairs (UK) Survival (UK) Berlin Policy Journal (GER)

SEMINAR SCHEDULE

Week 1: Introduction to the Course, Establishment of Working Groups, Brief Introductory Discussion

Week 2: The Study of Security Before and During the Cold War Course Textbook: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 1-4, 11, 13, 14

• Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, ‘Strategic Studies, Deterrence, and the Cold War’, in The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 66-100. • Stephen Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies”, International Studies Quarterly, 35:2 (1991), 211-239. • Kenneth N. Waltz, “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities”, American Political Science Review, 84:3 (1990), 731-745.

Further literature:

Early literature: • John Herz , “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma”, World Politics 1950, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 157–180 • Arnold Wolfers, “’National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol”, Political Science Quarterly, 67:4 (1952), 481-502

Cold War literature:

11 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• John Mueller, “The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World”, International Security, 13:2 (1988) • D. A. Baldwin, ‘Power Analysis and World Politics’, World Politics 31 (1979), pp.161-94. • Waltz and Art, The Use of Force (older editions, e.g. 1988) • Joseph Nye and Sean Lynn-Jones, “International Security Studies: a Report of a Conference on the State of the Field”, International Security, 12:4 (1988), 5-27. • Richard Ullman, “Redefining Security”, International Security, 1983, 8, pp.129-153

On nuclear weapons: • Robert Jervis, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980). • Waltz, Kenneth N. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better, Adelphi Papers No. 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies,1981). • Robert Jervis, “The Political Effects of Nuclear Weapons: A Comment”, International Security, 13:2 (1988). • Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Steven e. Miller, and Stephen van Evera (eds), Nuclear Diplomacy and Crisis Management (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press). • John Mueller, The Obsolescence of Major War (New York, 1988).

The history of the Cold War: • John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).

If not familiar with International Relations Theory: • Paul R. Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi, International Relations Theory (2011, or earlier editions). • Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War: a Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001). • Kenneth Waltz, “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory”, Journal of International Affairs (1990). • Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977). • John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton & CO, 2001).

Week 3: Transnational Security? The End of the Cold War and the Globalisation of Politics Course Textbook: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 10, 12,

12 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• Neta Crawford, “Once and Future Security Studies”, Security Studies, 1:2 (1991), 283- 316. • Lawrence Freedman, “International Security: Changing Targets?”, Foreign Policy, 110 (1998), 48-63. • John Baylis, “International and global security”, in John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.), The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations, Oxford, OUP, 4th edition, 2008, chapter 13

Further literature: The process of globalisation: • David Held, Democracy and the Global Order (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995). • David Held, et al., Global Transformations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999).

Reviewing security studies: • Jessica Tuchman Matthews, “Redefining Security”, Foreign Affairs, 68:2 (1989), 162-77. • Barry Buzan (1991), People, States and Fear: an Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 2nd ed., 1991). • David E. Baldwin, “Security Studies and the End of the Cold War”, World Politics, 48:1 (1995), 481-502. • Richard K. Betts, “Should Strategic Studies Survive?”, World Politics, 50:1 (1997), 7-33. • Steve Smith, “The Increasing Insecurity of Security Studies: Conceptualizing Security in the Last Twenty Years”, Contemporary Security Policy, 20:3 (1999), 72-101. • Roland Dannreuther, International Security: the Contemporary Agenda (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007).

Week 4: What Is Security? New Critical Perspectives Course Textbook: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 5, 6, 12

• Ken Booth, "Security and Emancipation," Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), 313- 326. • Ole Waever, “Securitization and Desecuritization”, in Ronnie Lipschutz (ed.), On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 46-86. • David Mutimer, “Beyond Strategy: Critical Thinking on the New Security Studies”, in Craig Snyder (ed.), Contemporary Security and Strategy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999), 77-101.

13 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

Further literature: Textbooks: • Ken Booth (ed.), Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005). • Karin Fierke, Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007).

General: • Keith Krause and Michael Williams, “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods”, Mearshon Review of International Studies, 40 (1996), 229-54. • Simon Dalby, "Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas in Contemporary Security Discourse" in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 3-31. • David Mutimer, “Reimagining Security: The Metaphors of Proliferation,” in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 187-221. • Tarak Barkawi, “From War to Security: Security Studies, the Wider Agenda and the Fate of the Study of War”, Millennium, 39:3 (2011), 701-716

Securitization: • Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998). • Anthony Burke, “Aporias of Security”, Alternatives, 27 (2002), 1-27. • Michael C. Williams, “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics”, International Studies Quarterly, 47 (2005), 511-31.

Constructivism: • Peter J. Katzenstein, Cultural Norms and National Security (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996). • Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

Critical Theory: • Robert Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in Robert O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986). • Ken Booth, "Security and Emancipation", Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), 313- 326.

14 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• Columba Peoples, “Security after Emancipation? Critical Theory, Violence and Resistance”, Review of International Studies, 37 (2011), 1113-1135.

Week 5: Feminism, Postcolonialism, Poststructuralism Course Textbook: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 7, 8

• Gunhild Hoogensen and Svein Vigeland Rottem, “Gender Identity and the Subject of Security”, Security Dialogue, 35:2 (2004), 155-71. • Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies”, Review of International Studies 32 (2006), 329-52. • David Campbell, “Violence, Justice, and Identity in the Bosnian Conflict,” in Jenny Edkins, Nalini Persram and Veronique Pin-Fat (eds.), Sovereignty and Subjectivity (London: Lynne Rienner, 1999), 21-37.

Further literature:

Textbooks: • Chapter 4 (Identity) in Karin Fierke, Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007)

Postcolonialism: • Edward Said, “Introduction,” in Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), 1-28.

Feminism: • Cynthia Enloe, “Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations,” in Steve Smith, et. al. (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 186-202. • Cynthia Enloe, “Masculinity as a foreign policy issue’, Foreign Policy in Focus, 5:36 (2000). • Carol Cohn, with Felicity Hill and Sara Ruddick, “The Relevance of Gender for Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction”, The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission Papers, 38 (2005), www.wmdcommission.org/files/No38.pfd. • Chandra Talpade Mohanty. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” Boundary 2 12:3 (Spring-Autumn, 1984), 333-58. • Sandra Whitworth, “The Practice, and Praxis, of Feminist Research in International Relations” in Richard Wyn Jones, ed., Critical Theory and World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 2000), 149-60.

15 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

Poststructuralism and International Political Sociology: • William E. Connolly, “Identity and Difference in Global Politics,” in J. Der Derian and M. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (New York: Lexington, 1989), 223-42. • David Campbell, “On Dangers and their Interpretation,” in Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), 1-15. • James Der Derian, “The Value of Security: Hobbes, Marx, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard“ in Campbell and Dillon, eds. The Political Subject of Violence (New York: Manchester University Press, 1993), 94-113. • Roxanne Lynn Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996). • Roxanne Lynn Doty, “Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines”, International Studies Quarterly 37 (1993), 297-320. • David Campbell, National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998). • Beate Jahn, “IR and the State of Nature: The Cultural Origins of a Ruling Ideology”, Review of International Studies, 25 (1999), 411-34. • Cynthia Weber and Mark Lacy, “Securing by Design”, Review of International Studies, 37 (2011), 1021-1043. • Stefan Elbe, “Should HIV/AIDS be Securitized? The Ethical Dilemmas of Linking HIV/AIDS and Security,” International Studies Quarterly, 50.1 (2006), 119-144. • Jef Huysmans, “The Question of the Limit: Desecuritization and the Aesthetics of Horror in Political Realism”, Millennium, 27:3 (1998), 569-89. • Jef Huysmans, “Security? What do you mean?”, European Journal of International Relations, 4:2 (1998), 226-255. • CASE Collective, “Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: a Networked Manifesto”, Security Dialogue, 37:4 (2006), 443-487.

Week 6: Securing the Individual: Human Security Course Textbook: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 19, 20, 17

• P.H. Liotta, “Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security”, Security Dialogue, 33 (2002), 473-488. • Mary Kaldor, Mary Martin and Sabine Selchow, “Human Security: A New Strategic Narrative for Europe”, International Affairs, 83:2 (2007), 273-288.

16 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• Mark Neocleous, ‘Inhuman Security’, in Critical Perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in International Relations (London and New York: Routledge, 2011), 186-197

Further literature:

General: • Keith Griffin, “Global prospects for development and human security”, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, XVI:3 (1995), 359-370. • Lloyd Axworthy, “Human Security and Global Governance,” Global Governance 7:1 (2001), 19-23. • Gary King and Christopher Murray, “Rethinking human security”, Political Science Quarterly, 116:4 (2001/02), 585-610. • Fen Osler Hampson, et al., Madness in the Multitude (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002). • Andrew Mack, Human Security Report 2005: War and Peace in the 21st Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). • Mary Kaldor, Human Security (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007).

Critical perspectives: • Yuen Foong Khong, “Human security: a shotgun approach to alleviating human misery?”, Global Governance, 7:3 (2001), 231-236. • Roland Paris, “Human security: paradigm shift or hot air?”, International Security, 26:2 (2001), 87-102. • Caroline Thomas, “Global governance, development and human security: exploring the links’, Third World Quarterly, 22:2 (2001), 159-175. • Edward Newman, “Human security and constructivism”, International Studies Perspective, 2:2 (2001), 239-251. • Alex J. Bellamy and Matt McDonald, “’The Utility of Human Security’: Which Humans? What Security? A Reply to Thomas and Tow”, Security Dialogue, 33:3 (2002), 373-8. • Barry Buzan, “What is Human Security? A Reductionist, Idealistic Notion that Adds Little Analytical Value”, Security Dialogue, 35:3 (2004), 369-70. • S. Neil MacFarlane and Yuen Foong Khong, Human Security and the UN: A Critical History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006). • Edward Newman, “Critical Human Security Studies”, Review of International Studies, 36 (2010), 77-94. • David Chandler and Nik Hynek, Critical Perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in International Relations (London and New York: Routledge, 2011).

17 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

Human rights: • Paul Gordon Lauren, The Evolution of Human International Rights: Visions Seen (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998). • Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998). • Nicholas Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 21-52. • Anne Orford, Reading Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). • Nicholas J. Wheeler, “A Victory for Common Humanity? The responsibility to protect after the 2005 World Summit”, electronic document available at http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2160/1971/1/a%20victory%20for%20commo n%20humanity,%20Wheeler.pdf • James Pattison, Humanitarian Intervention & the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? (2010).

Particular regions: • Larry A. Swatuk and Peter Vale, “Why democracy is not enough: Southern Africa and human security in the twenty-first century’, Alternatives, 24 (1999), 361-389. • William T. Tow, Ramesh Thakur and In-Tayek Hyun (eds), Asia’s Emerging Regional Order: Reconciling Traditional and Human Security (Tokyo: UN University Press, 2000

Week 7: Collective Security Past and Present Course Textbook: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 13, 23, 24, 25,

• Kelly-Kate S. Pease, ‘NATO Today’, in International Organizations: Perspectives on Governance in the Twenty-First Century, 3rd ed. 2008 (New Jersey: Pearson) • Michael C. Williams and Iver B. Neumann, “From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity”, Millennium, 29:2 (2000), 357-387. • M. J. Williams, “Enduring, but Irrelevant? Britain, NATO and the Atlantic Alliance”, International Politics, 50: 3 (2013), 360-386. • Brian Urquhart, “The UN and International Security after the Cold War”, in Adam Roberts and Benedict Kingsbury (eds.), United Nations, Divided World (2nd edn., 1993)

Further literature: General:

18 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• Stephen Walt, “Alliance Formation and the Balance of Power”, International Security, 9:4 (1985). • Chapter 20 (‘Alliances’) in Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2008). • Hurrell, Andrew, On global order: power, values, and the constitution of international society, Oxford, OUP, 2007, chapter 7: War, violence, and collective security (pp. 165- 194)

NATO: • Tomas Valasek, “The Fight against Terrorism: Where’s NATO?”, World Policy Journal, Winter 2001/02. • Jef Huysmans, “Shape-shifting NATO: Humanitarian Action and the Kosovo Refugee Crisis”, Review of International Studies, 28 (2002), 599-618. • Jamie Shea, “NATO and Terrorism”, RUSI Journal, April (2002), 32-40. • Christopher J. Bowie, Robert P. Haffa, Jr., and Robert E. Mullins, “Political-Military Shifts in the Security Environment”, in Future War: What Trends in America’s Post-Cold War Military Conflicts Tell Us About Early 21st Century Warfare, Analysis Center Papers (January 2003). • Richard G. Whitman, “NATO, the EU and ESDP: an Emerging Division of Labour?”, Contemporary Security Policy, 25:3 (2004), 430-451. • Lawrence S. Kaplan, NATO Divided, NATO United: The Evolution of an Alliance (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004). • ‘NATO Today’, in Pease, Kelly-Kate S., International Organizations: Perspectives on Governance in the Twenty-First Century, 3rd ed. (New Jersey: Pearson, 2008).

The UN: • The Charter of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml). • Jonathan Moore, The UN and Complex Emergencies: Rehabilitation in Third World Transitions (Geneva: UNRISD, 1996). • Glennon, Michael J., “Why the Security Council Failed”, Foreign Affairs, (May/June 2003). • Terrence Chapman and Dan Reiter, “The United Nations Security Council and the Rally Round the Flag Effect”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48:6 (2004). • Mats Berdal, ‘The UN’s Unnecessary Crisis’, Survival, 2005, 47(3), pp.7-32. • Thomas G. Weiss et al., The United Nations and Changing World Politics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 5th ed., 2007). • Chapter on UN in Kelly-Kate S. Pease, International Organizations: Perspectives on Governance in the Twenty-First Century, 3rd ed. 2008 (New Jersey: Pearson).

19 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

Week 8: Securing the State: “Failed States” and Global Security Course Textbook: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 32, 33

• Jean-Germaine Gros, “Towards a Taxonomy of Failed States in the New World Order: Decaying Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda and Haiti”, Third World Quarterly, 17:3 (1996), 455- 71. • M. J. Williams, “Empire Lite Revisited: NATO, the Comprehensive Approach and State- Building in Afghanistan”, International Peacekeeping, 18: 1 (2011), 64-78. • Pinar Bilgin and Adam David Morton, “Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold War Annexation of the Social Sciences?” Third World Quarterly, 23:1 (2003), 55-80. • Charles T. Call, ‘Beyond the “Failed State”: Toward Conceptual Alternatives”, European Journal of International Relations, 17:2 (2011), 303-326.

Further literature: Primary literature: • Foreign Policy Fund for Peace (2011), “The Failed State Index 2011”, Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failedstates.

Further secondary literature: • William Reno, “The Politics of Insurgency in Collapsing States,” Development and Change 33.5 (2002), 837-58. • Christopher Clapham, “The Challenge to the State in a Globalised World”, in Jennifer Milliken (ed.), State Failure, Collapse and Reconstruction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 25- 44. • Pinar Bilgin and Adam David Morton, “From ‘Rogue’ to Failed States? The Fallacy of Short-termism,” Politics 24.3 (2004), 169-80. • Stewart Patrick, “Weak States and Global Threats: Fact or Fiction?” The Washington Quarterly, 29.2 (2006), 27-53. • Aidan Hehir, “The Myth of the Failed State and the War on Terror,” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1.3 (2007). • Radhai Desai. “From National Bourgeoisie to Rogues, Failures and Bullies: 21st Century Imperialism and the Unravelling of the Third World,” Third World Quarterly 25.1 (2004), 169-85. • Stefan Wolff, “The Regional Dimensions of State Failure”, Review of International Studies, 37 (2011), 951-972

20 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

Week 9: Irregular Warfare: Counter-Insurgency in the 21st Century Course Textbook: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 26, 31,

• David Kilcullen, “Counterinsurgency Redux”, Survival 48:4 (2006). • Paul Dixon, “’Hearts and Minds?’ British Counter Insurgency Strategy from Malaya to Iraq” Journal of Strategic Studies 32: 3 (2009).

• Thomas Renard & Stephanie Taillat, “Between Clausewitz and Mao: Dynamic Evolutions of the Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq (2003-2008)” Small Wars Journal (www.smallwarsjournal.com).

Further Literature: • Walter Laquer, “Postmodern Terrorism”, Foreign Affairs (1996). • Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 2002). • John Nagl, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife (Westport: Prager, 2002). • Alexander Alderson, “US COIN Doctrine and Practice: An Ally’s Perspective”, Parameters (Winter 2007-2008). http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/07winter/alderson.pdf • US Army Counter-Insurgency Manual. http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf • The Small Wars Journal http://smallwarsjournal.com/

Week 10: Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Textbooks: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2008), 15, 30

• Ulrich Beck, “The Silence of Words: On Terror and War”, Security Dialogue, 34:3 (2003), 255-67. • John Mueller, “Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration”, International Studies Perspective, 6:2 (2005).

21 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• Richard Jackson, “Constructing Enemies: Islamic Terrorism in Political and Academic Discourse,” Government and Opposition, 42:3 (2007), 394-426.

Further literature:

Further on terrorism: • Walter Laquer, “Postmodern Terrorism”, Foreign Affairs (1996). • Craig Calhoun, Paul Price, and Ashley Timmer (eds), Understanding September 11 (New York: The New Press, 2002). • Mats Berdal, Philip Windsor Essays, ch. 17: ‘Terrorism and International Order’ (2002). • Audrey Kurth Cronin, “Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism”, International Security (2002/03). • Richard A. Clarke, Against all Enemies: inside America’s War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004) • Thomas Carothers, “Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror”, Foreign Affairs (2003). • Paula J. Doriansky, ‘Response: Democracy Promotion’, Foreign Affairs (2003). • Audrey Kurth Cronin and James J. Ludes (eds), Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004). • Ruth Wedgwood and Kenneth Roth “Combatants or Criminals: How Washington Should Handle Terrorists,” Foreign Affairs, 83:3 (2004), 126-9. • John Mueller, “Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration”, International Studies Perspective, 6:2 (2005). • Caroline Kennedy-Pipe and Nicholas Rengger, “Apocalypse Now? Continuities and Disjunctions in World Politics after 9/11”, International Affairs 82:3 (2006), 539-52. • Richard Jackson, “Constructing Enemies: Islamic Terrorism in Political and Academic Discourse,” Government and Opposition, 42:3 (2007), 394-426.

Critical perspectives: • Noam Chomsky, “Who are the Global Terrorists?,” in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne (eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 128-140. Also available online at http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm. • Richard Johnson, “Defending Ways of Life: The (Anti-) Terrorist Rhetorics of Bush and Blair,” Theory, Culture and Society 19.4 (2002), 211-232. • Krista Hunt, “The strategic co-optation of women’s rights: discourse in the ‘War on Terrorism’”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 4:1 (2002), 116-121. • Eric Hershberg and Kevin W. Moore (eds), Critical Views of September 11: Analyses from around the World (New York: The New Press, 2002).

22 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• Ulrich Beck, “The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited”, Theory, Culture & Society, 19:4 (2002). • Buelent Goekay and R.B.J. Walker, (eds), 11 September 2001: War, Terror and Judgment (London and Portland: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003). • Iris Marion Young, “The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the Current Security State,” Signs 29.1 (2003), 1-25. • Anna Agathangelou and L.H.M. Ling, “Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11”, International Studies Quarterly, 48 (2004), 517- 538. • S. Kline, “The Culture War Gone Global: Family Values and the Shape of U.S. Foreign Policy,” International Relations 18.4 (2004), 453-66. • M. J. Williams, “(In)Securiry Studies, Reflexive Modernization and the Risk Society”, Cooperation and Conflict, 43: 1 (2008), 57-79. • Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, “It Sounds like a Riddle: Security Studies, the War on Terorrism and Risk”, Millennium, 33:2 (2004). • Carol Stabile and Deepa Kumar, “Unveiling Imperialism: Media, Gender, and the War on Afghanistan,” Media, Culture, and Society 27.5 (2005), 765-82. • Krista Hunt and Kim Rygiel (eds.), (En)gendering the War on Terror: War Stories and Camouflaged Politics (Ashgate, 2006), 27-50. • Leo Panitch, “Violence as a Tool of Order and Change: The War on Terrorism and the Anti-Globalization Movement,” (4 pages), electronic document available online. • Marieke de Goede and Louise Amoore (eds), Risk and the War on Terror (2008).

• Claudia Aradau, “The Myth of Preparedness”, Radical Philosophy, 161 (2010), 2-7.

Week 11: Nuclear Weapons and the International Arms Trade Textbooks: • Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2013), chapters 27, 29

• Karen Litfin, “Constructing Environmental Security and Ecological Interdependence”, Global Governance, 5 (1999), 359-377. • Chapter out of Simon Dalby, Environmental Security (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002) • Mark J. Lacy, “The World is a Laboratory” in his Security and Climate Change: International Relations and the Limits of Realism (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2005), 29-54.

Week 12: Securing the Globe: Environmental Degradation and Climate Change

23 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

Further literature:

Textbooks: • Chapter 18 (Environmental Change) in Paul D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An Introduction (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2008).

Environmental Degradation and Security: • Mark A. Levy, “Is the Environment a National Security Issue?”, International Security, 20 (1995), 35-62. • Robert D. Kaplan, “The Coming Anarchy”, The Atlantic Monthly, 273:2 (1994), 44-76. • Felix Dodds and Tim Pippard (eds), Human and Environmental Security: An Agenda for Change (London: Earthscan, 2005).

Climate Change: • Braden Allenby, ‘Environmental Security: Concept and Implementation’, International Political Science Review, 21:1 (2000).

• Jon Barnett, “Security and Climate Change”, Global Environmental Change, 13 (2003), 7– 17. • Mark J. Lacy, Security and Climate Change: International Relations and the Limits of Realism (Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2005). • Kurt M. Campbell, The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change (Washington: CSIS, 2007) (online document) • Marieke de Goede and Samuel Randalls, “Precaution, Preemption: Arts and Technologies of the Actionable Future”, Environment and Planning D, 27 (2009), 859- 878.

Week 13: New Fundamental Threats? Cyber-security

• Myriam Dunn Cavelty, ‘Systemic Cyber/In/Security – from Risk to Uncertainty Management in the Digital Realm’, paper given at the Expert Hearing New Dimensions in Cyber Risk, Swiss Re Center for Global Dialogue, 7 April 2011,http://cgd.swissre.com/global_dialogue/topics/cyber_digital_risks/Systemic_Cyb er_In_Security.html#8

24 Contemporary Security Issues Williams

• William J. Lynn III, ‘Defending a New Domain: the Pentagon’s Cyberstrategy’, Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct (2010)

• Jonathan A. Ophardt, ‘Cyber Warfare and the Crime of Aggression: the Need for Individual Accountability on Tomorrow’s Battlefield’, Duke Law and Technology Review, no. 3 (2010), http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2010dltr003.html

Further literature:

• Myriam Dunn Cavelty, ‘Cyber-Security’, in Contemporary Security Studies, ed. Allan Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2055122. • Paul Cornish et al., On Cyber Warfare (Chatham House/Brookings Institution Press, 2011).

• Ralph D. Clifford (ed), Cybercrime: the Investigation, Prosecution and Defense of Computer Related Crime (Carolina Academic Press, 2011).

• Robert Moore, Cybercrime (Elsevier, 2011).

• Robert K. Knake, Internet Governance in an Age of Cyber Insecurity (Council on Foreign Relations/Brookings Institutions Press, 2010).