POL380H1 (S) – Topics in International Politics The Causes of War and Conditions For

July 5, 2011 - August 11, 2011 6pm – 8pm Location: BA 1230

Instructors

Kimberly Carter ([email protected]) and Jamie Levin ([email protected])

Office hours by appointment

Course Description

The modern study of International Relations (IR) began in 1919 at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth in order to study the causes of war and conditions for peace. Little has changed since then. Or has it? Our course will delve into this question, exploring both the causes of war and the various strategies and tactics pertaining to how war has been – and is presently – conducted. Is there an indelible nature of conflict or have the conditions for war changed over time? We will conclude the course by exploring conflict mitigation and peacemaking strategies.

The course takes a pluralistic view of IR . We rely on classical works (c.f. Thucydides), rationalist approaches (c.f. Fearon), structuralist accounts (c.f. Waltz), normative writings (c.f., Waltzer), and constructivist explanations for war and peace (c.f., Waever and Adler and Barnett). Furthermore, this course explores how asymmetric warfare, which often involves non-state actors, offers an additional challenge for existing, state-centric, of IR.

This course will follow a slightly unusual format. The first hour of each class will be given over to a lecture, a guest lecture or a movie; while in the second hour the class will be divided into two seminars. These smaller seminars will allow students to engage in a critical discussion of course readings and – where applicable – apply their relevance to help explain and understand current events. This division of the course into groups of approximately 25 students is intended to create thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion. In order for this to be a fruitful exercise, however, students must do the readings before class as preparation is crucial to making such a format successful.

Prerequisites

Students should have completed at least one introductory course in international relations (e.g. POL 108, POL 208). Basic knowledge of twentieth century and current affairs is presumed.

1

Course Requirements

15% - Paper Proposal: The proposal (2-3 pages) is aimed at ensuring that students are thinking about the essay in advance. It should include a summary of the paper topic and why it was chosen, a statement of the question, a tentative thesis, and an overview of main points to be addressed. Students will have the chance to present their proposals and receive constructive feedback from both the instructors and their peers during regularly scheduled seminars.

35% - Research Paper: The research paper assignment (10-12 double spaced pages) asks students to investigate any topic of interest relating to warfare or in the 21st Century. The paper should build on feedback given in relation to the proposal, as students should come up with a research question and develop a thesis or argument that answers the chosen question consistently throughout the paper. The paper should be analytical, not merely descriptive, and incorporate theories from the course and other literature researched.

25% - Exam: The exam will be written during the exam period (tba) and will cover course material.

25% - Participation, Critical Review, and Ongoing Case Study: Participation marks are assessed based 100% on active participation (not attendance). This means doing all assigned readings, contributing in a thoughtful way to our seminar discussions, and leading one or more tutorial presentations.

Students will present a brief summary and critical response to one of the weeks on the syllabus (including all readings under assigned readings and at least one reading under additional readings). Readings will be assigned the first week of class. Presentations begin in Session 2 and continue throughout the tenure of the course.

Each one of you will be expected to write and discuss at least one critical review. The goal of the critical review is threefold: 1) To develop and practice critical thinking and analytical skills by critiquing the arguments presented in the course literature; 2) To learn to identify flaws in a given argument, concept, model, theory or paradigm; and 3) to spark discussion in tutorial. You will be expected to prepare a one page (maximum) critical review of the assigned readings, which clearly addresses the following questions:

o What is the main argument in the reading? What is the author(s) trying to convince you to believe? o What are some of the assumptions being made by the author(s)? Is this reading influenced by one of the paradigms in International Relations? If so, which one and is the logic of the argument consistent with the central tenants of that paradigm? o What possible counterarguments might refute, weaken or otherwise undermine the argument? o Do you see a practical application for this reading in world politics? o Do you agree or disagree with the author(s)

2

You will discuss your views for no more than five minutes at the beginning of class. Do not simply read your written summary.

You will follow your thoughts with (two or three) kick-off question meant to start discussions in tutorial. These should not be ‘factual’ questions but, instead, questions that get to the heart of the readings.

You must email us with your review outline (handout) and planned activity for comments and clarification 24 hours prior to the tutorial in question.

Students are expected to prepare an ongoing case study of an international conflict of their choice. Students will select a conflict during the first tutorial and prepare notes on that conflict for future tutorials. Discussion can include a variety of the following: process of war termination, role of mediators, peacekeepers, spoilers, and/or a critique of peacekeeping and success/failure. Students should be prepared to use their case in an ongoing fashion as examples during tutorials.

Course Regulations

If you have concerns regarding your grade (either a paper grade or a midterm grade) you should present a detailed written explanation of why you feel the grade is unjustified either to Kimberly or Jamie within two weeks of receiving the grade in question. Once an appeal is submitted the entire assignment will be reexamined, not just the question or paragraph mentioned in the appeal. The appeal process can, therefore, result in one of three outcomes: no change to the original grade, a higher grade, or a lower grade.

THE FINAL GRADES IN THIS COURSE ARE FINAL. We will not round grades up or add a few points to the grade. The grades are not arbitrary; they reflect our assessment of your work. If you need to maintain a certain average, or get a specific minimum grade in this class, make sure that the quality your work warrants this grade. We will be happy to offer help prior to the paper/midterms. However, once the grades are in, we will not make any changes to the grade even if you are “only missing two points” and not rounding up the grade is “mean, evil and certain to ruin your life.”

Racist, sexist, and otherwise derogatory remarks will not be tolerated. Avoid personal attacks on your classmates. If you disagree with an idea, aim your criticism at the idea not the person, but try and wear a ‘thick skin’ to class.

Office hours are by appointment.

We will endeavor to respond to emails within 48 hours, weekends not included. Email is for short clarification questions only. If you have concerns or questions that cannot be answered in a short response please see us during office hours.

Show up to lectures and seminars on time (or not at all) and turn your cell-phones off.

3

We encourage you not to use a computer during the seminar as the seminar is about active participation (this is hard to accomplish when you are hidden behind a computer screen). Participation marks are assessed based 100% on active participation (not attendance). This means doing the readings, contributing in a thoughtful way to tutorial discussions, and leading one or more tutorial presentations.

We will reserve 10 minutes of each class for administrative matters and clarification.

Extensions and permission to write make-up mid-terms will only be granted in extenuating unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances outlined to either Kimberly or Jamie in writing or via email prior to the due date in question. Extensions will not be granted in any case after the submission deadline or mid-term. Extensions are typically only granted for extraordinary cases (including, but not limited to, medically documented illness). Late papers and make-up mid- terms must be accompanied by appropriate paperwork. Penalties for lateness are 2% per day (including weekends). Late-assignments should be submitted to the main desk of the Department (on the 3rd floor of Sidney Smith Hall). Students should make sure that late submissions are signed and dated by departmental staff.

Spelling and grammar count. Your grade is based on constructing a convincing argument. A poorly written paper is not very convincing! Essay style is also important. You must have a clear thesis, which you set out to prove.

You may use any citation method you like as long as you do so consistently.

We encourage you to use the writings centers (each college has one).

All papers should be printed, double spaced, 12 font, with proper margins, page numbers and securely stapled. Papers that go beyond the stated page limit for the assignment, or papers that do not conform to the directions above, may be penalized. Only hard copies are acceptable. You are strongly advised to make electronic and hard copies of your assignments before submitting them as well as keep drafts and rough work until all assignments have been returned.

Plagiarism is a serious academic offence and will not be tolerated in any form. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, failing to cite the work or ideas of someone else, sharing papers, etc. For further clarification and information, please see the University of Toronto’s policy on Plagiarism at http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/plagsep.html.

The University of Toronto is committed to accessibility. If you require accommodations for a disability, or have any accessibility concerns about the course, the classroom, or course materials, please let Kimberly or Jamie know and/or contact Accessibility Services as soon as possible at [email protected] or http://studentlife.utoronto.ca/accessibility.

4

Course Readings and Schedule

Session 1: July 5th – Introduction (Jamie)  Albert Somit, "Humans, Chimps, and Bonobos: The Biological Bases of Aggression, War, and Peacemaking," Journal of Conflict Resolution 34 (1990), 553-582.  Jack S. Levy, "The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace," Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1998), 139-166.  Edward Luttwak, “Give War a Chance,” Foreign Affairs 4 (1999), 36-44.

Suggested Readings:  Thucydides, Peloponnesian War  Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. by Peter Paret, Michael Howard and Bernard Brodie ( Press, 1976), book I, Ch. 1.  Machiavelli, The Prince  J. David Singer, "The Correlates of War Project," World Politics 24/2 (1972), 243-270.  Robert Powell, “Guns, Butter, and Anarchy,” The American Political Review 87/1 (1993), 115-132.  Bruce M. Russett, “Defense Expenditures and National Well Being,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 76, No. 4, (1982), pp. 767-777.  Stephen D. Nelson, "Nature/Nurture Revisited I: A Review of the Biological Bases of Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution 18 (1974), 285-335.

Is War Necessary?

Session 2: July 7th – Rationalist/Structural Accounts (Jamie) ***Tutorials Begin (sign up for ongoing case studies)***  Kenneth N. Waltz, "The Origin of War in Neorealist Theory," in Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb, eds., The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars, (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 39-52.  James D. Fearon, "Rationalist Explanations of War," International Organization 49/3 (Summer 1995), 379-414.

Session 3: July 12th – Reflectivist/Constructivist Accounts (Jamie)  Ole Waever, "Securitization and Desecuritization," in R. Lipschutz, On Security ( Press 1995), 46-86.  Jennifer Mitzen, "Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and Security Dilemma, " European Journal of International Relations, 12/3, September 2006, 241-370.

Suggested Readings:  Jack S. Levy, “The Diversionary Theory of War: A Critique,” in Manus Midlarski, ed., Handbook of War Studies, (Unwin Hymann, 1989), ch. 11

5

 Matthew A. Baum, “The Constituent Foundations of the Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon,” International Studies Quarterly 46/2 (2002), 263-298.  William C Wohlforth, Richard Little, Stuart J. Kaufman, David Kang, Charles A. Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Doudney, and William L Brenner, “Testing Balance of Power Theory in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations 13 (2) (2007), 155-185.  Jon M. Dicicco and Jack S. Levy, "Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program," Journal of Conflict Resolution 42/4 (1999), 675-704.  Homer-Dixon, Thomas, “Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: evidence from cases,” International Security, 19: 1 (Summer 1994), 5-40.  Valerie Hudson et. al., “The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States,” International Security, 33:3, 2008/9, 7-45.  Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, , the Highest Stage of , 1916. (available online)  Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, "Democratization and the Danger of War," International Security 20 (Summer 1995), 5-35.  Stephen Walt, “Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power,” International Security 9/4 (Spring 1985), 3-43.  Jack Snyder, "Anarchy and Culture: Insights from of War," International Organization 56/1 (2002), 7-45.  Charles L. Glaser, “The Security Dilemma Revisited,” World Politics 50/1 (1997), 171-201.  Stephen Van Evera, “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War,” International Security 9 (1984), 58-108.  Charkes L. Glaser and Chaim Kaufmann, “What is the Offense-Defense Balance and Can We Measure It? International Security, Vol. 22, No. 4, (1998), pp. 44-82.  Stephen Biddle, “Rebuilding the Foundations of Offense-Defense Theory,” Journal of Politics 63/3 (2001), 741-774.  Richard Stoll, “The Guns of November: Presidential Reelections and the Use of Force, 1947-1982,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, (1984), 231-246.  Alastair Smith, “International Crises and Domestic Politics,” American Political Science Review 92/3 (1998), 622-638.  Jack S. Levy, “Organizational Routines and the Causes of War,” International Studies Quarterly 30/2 (1986), 193-222.  Manus Mildarski, ed., "Big Wars, Little Wars -- A Single Theory?" International Interactions (Special Issue) 16/3 (1990).  R. Harrison Wagner, "What Was Bipolarity?" International Organization 47 (1993), 77-106.  Dale Copeland, "Neorealism and the Myth of Biopolar Stability," Security Studies 5/3 (1996), 28-89.  Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lahman, War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives, (Yale University Press, 1992), ch.1-3.  Alastair Smith, “Alliance Formation and War,” International Studies Quarterly, 39/4 (1995), 405-425.

6

 Andrew Kydd, "Sheep in Sheep's Clothing: Why Security Seekers Do Not Fight Each Other," Security Studies 7/1 (1997), 114-154.  Andrew Kydd, “Game Theory and the Spiral Model,” World Politics 49 (1997), 371-400.  Dan Reiter, “Military Strategy and the Outbreak of International Conflict: Quantitative Empirical Tests, 1903-1992,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 43/3 (1999), 366-387.  Robert Powell, “War as a Commitment Problem,” International Organization 60/1 (January 2006), 169-203.  Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, (Princeton University Press, 1976), ch. 2  Ernst B. Haas, “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda,” World Politics 5/4 (1953), 442-477.  Robert Powell, "Stability and the Distribution of Power," World Politics 48/2 (1996), 239-267.  Eric J. Labs, "Do Weak States Bandwagon?," Security Studies 1/3 (1992), 383- 416.  Robert G. Kaufman,"To Balance or to Bandwagon? Alignment Decisions in 1930s Europe," Security Studies 1/3 (1992), 417-447.  Stephen M. Walt, "Alliance, Threats, and US Grand Strategy: A Reply to Kaufman and Labs," Security Studies1/3 (1992), 448-482.  John J. Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the ," International Security 15/1 (1990), 5-56  Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, "The Power Transition Research Program: Assessing Theoretical and Empirical Advances," in Manus I. Midlarski, ed., The Handbook of War Studies II, (University of Michigan Press, 2000).  Michael C. Williams, "Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics," International Studies Quarterly 47/4 (December 2003), 511-532.  Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, eds., Security Communities, Cambridge University Press, 1998. 3-28.  Acharya, Amitav. 2001. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge. Introduction and pages 47-79; 196-202 (optional).

The Changing Face of War?

Session 4: July 14th – Civil War (Kim)  Sambanis, Nicholas. 2004. “What is civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48/6: 814-858.  Kalyvas, Stathis. ““New” and “Old” Civil Wars: A Valid Distinction?” World Politics 54 (October 2001): 99-118.  James Fearon and David Laitin, “ and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity,” International Organization, 54:4, 2000, 845-877.

7

Session 5: July19th - Counterinsurgency/Terrorism (Kim)  Lake, David. 2002. “Rational Extermism: Understanding Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century,” Dialogue IO, 1:15-29.  Victoroff, Jeff. 2005. “The Mind of the Terrorist: a Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49/1:3-42.  Mack, Andrew. “Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict” in World Politics, 27/2: 175-200.

Session 6: July 21st – Responses to Terrorism (Kim)  “Insurgency and Counterinsurgency” in The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, U.S. Army Field Manual No. 3-24, Marine Corps Warfighting Publication No. 3-33.5, 1-29.  Robert F. Trager and Dessislava P. Zagorcheva, "Deterring Terrorism," International Security 30/3 (2005/6), 87-123.

Suggested Reading:  Richard K. Betts, “The Soft Underbelly of American Primacy: Tactical Advantages of Terror,” Political Science Quarterly 117/1 (2002), 19-36.  Barry R. Posen, “The Struggle Against Terrorism: Grand Strategy, Strategy, and Tactics,” International Security 26/3 (2001), 39-56.  Pape, Robert. 2003. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Bombing.” American Political Science Review, 97/3:343-361.  Chenoweth, Erica et. al. 2009. “What Makes Terrorists Tick?” International Security, 33/4:180-202.  Byman, Daniel L. 2006. “Friends like These: Counterinsurgency and the War on Terrorism.” International Security, 31/2: 79-115.  Mueller, John. 2000. “The Banality of ‘Ethnic War.” International Security, 25/1: 42-70.  Singer, P.W. “Outsourcing War.” Foreign Affairs (May-June 2005): 119-132.  Galula, David. “Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice” in Strategic Studies: A Reader. Edited by Thomas G. Mahnken and Joseph A. Maiolo. New York: Routledge, 2008, 287-307.  Lyall, Jason and Isaiah Wilson III. “Rage Against the Machines: Explaining Outcomes in Counterinsurgency Wars.” International Organization 63 (Winter 2009): 67-106.  Sepp, Kalev I. “Best Practices in Counterinsurgency.” Military Review (May-June 2005): 8-12.  Kilcullen, David. “Countering Global Insurgency.” Journal of Strategic Studies 28, 4 (2005): 597-619  Krueger, Alan B. and David D. Laitin. 2004. “ ‘Misunderstanding’ Terrorism: The State Department’s Big Mistake,” Foreign Affairs, 85/5:8-13.  Abrahms, Max. 2008. “What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy,” International Security, 32/4:78-105.  Stern, Jessica. “Mind Over Martyr: How to Deradicalize Islamist Extremists” in Foreign Affairs, 89:1, Jan-Feb 2010, 95-108

8

 Andrew H. Kydd and Barbara F. Walter, "The Strategies of Terrorism," International Security 31/1 (2006), 49-80.  Patricia L. Sullivan, “War Aims and War Outcomes: why Powerful States Lose Limited Wars? Journal of Conflict Resolution 51/3 (June 2007) 496-524.  Stathis N. Kalyvas, “The Paradox of Terrorism in Civil War,” Journal of Ethics 8/1 (2004), 78-138.  Todd Sandler and Walter Endres, “An Economic Perspective on Transnational Terrorism,” European Journal of Political Economy 20/2 (2004), 301-316.

Session 7: July 26th – PAPER PROPOSAL PRESENTATIONS

The Rules and the Conduct of War

Session 8: July 28th – Changing Nature of Just War (Kim)  Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, Basic Books, 1992. Pages 21-50; 329-36.  Neta Crawford, “Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War,” Perspectives on Politics 1/1 (2003), 5-25.  Richard Price and Nina Tannenwald, "Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboos" (114-152); in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security (Columbia University Press, 1996).

Session 9: August 2nd – War Weapons and Human Security (Kim)  Roland Paris, "Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?" International Security 26/2 (Fall 2001), 87-101.  Carter, K. R. “Should International Relations Consider Rape a Weapon of War?” in Politics & Gender, 3: 6, 2010, 343-71.  Mayer, Jane. “The Predator War: What are the Risks of the C.I.A.’s Drone Program?” The New Yorker, October 26, 2009.

Session 10: August 4th – The Battle for Algiers (movie) or The Fog of War (Movie) or Guest Lecture (TBA)

Suggested Readings  Suhrke, "Human Security and the Interests of States," Security Dialogue 30/3 (1999), 265-276.  Gary King and Christopher Murry "Rethinking Human Security," Political Science Quarterly 116/4 (January 2002), 585-610  Wood, Elizabeth Jean. “Variation in Sexual Violence during War,” Politics & Society, 34/3: 307-342.  Luban, David. “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb.” Virginia Law Review 91, 6 (2005): 1425-1461.  Laura Sjoberg, “Why Just War Needs Feminism Now More Than Ever,” International Politics, 45:1, Jan. 2008, 1-18.

9

 Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization, 52:4, 1998, 887-917.  Michael Walzer, Arguing About War (Yale University Press, 2004).  David Welch, Justice and the Genesis of War (Cambridge University Press, 1994)  Jean Bethke Elshtain, “How to Fight a Just War,” in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, eds., Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, (Palgrave, 2002).  James T. Johnson, Can Modern War Be Just?, (Yale University Press, 1986).  Geoffrey Best and Francis Andrew, Humanity in Warfare, (Columbia University Press, 1980).  John A. Vasquez, “Ethics, Foreign Policy, and Liberal Wars: The Role of Restraint in Moral Decision Making,” International Studies Perspectives 6/3 (2005), 307-315.

After the War

Session 11: August 9th – Peacemaking (Jamie) ***RESEARCH PAPER DUE (In Class)***  Kenneth A. Schultz, “The Politics of Risking Peace: Do Hawks or Doves Deliver the Olive Branch?,” International Organization, Vol. 59/1 (2005), 1-38.  William Zartman, “Ripeness: The Hurting Stalemate and Beyond," in International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War, (eds.) Paul C. Stern and Daniel Druckman (Washington: National Academy Press, 2000), pp. 225-250.  Virginia Page Fortna, “Scraps of Paper? Agreements and the Durability of Peace,” International Organization 57/2 (2003), 337-372.

Session 12: August 11th - Conclusion and Review (Jamie)  Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, "The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies," Review of International Studies 32 (2006), 329-352

Suggested Readings:  Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal, “Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992,” International Studies Quarterly, 2003, 47, 371-393.  Michael Williams, "The Discipline of the Democratic Peace: Kant, Liberalism and the Social Construction of Security Communities," European Journal of International Relations 7/4 (December 2001), 525-554.  Ernst B. Haas, Collective security and the future international system, 1968.1-32.  Virginia Page Fortna, “Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace? International Intervention and the Duration of Peace after Civil War,” International Studies Quarterly 48/2 (2004).  Stephan Stedman, “Spoiler Problems in Peace Processes," International Security 22/2 (1997), 5-53.

10

 Mark Knight and Alpaslan Özerdem, “Guns, Camps and Cash: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reinsertion of Former Combatants in Transitions from War to Peace,” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 41, no. 4, 2004, 499–516.  Johan Galtung, "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research 6 (1969), 167-91.  Michael Barnett, Hunjoon Kim, Madalene O'Donnell, and Laura Sitea, “Peacebuilding: What Is in a Name?” Global Governance, vol.13, no.1, 2007, 35- 58.  Michael W. Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis, “International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis,” American Political Science Review 94/4, (2000), 779-801.  J. Michael Greig, "Moments of Opportunity: Recognizing Conditions of Ripeness for International Mediation Between enduring Rivals," Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 45 (2001), pp. 691-718  Kenneth Boulding, "Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung," Journal of Peace Research 14 (1977), 75-86.  Herbert C. Kelman, "Reflections on the History and Status of Peace Research," Conflict Management and Peace Science 5 (1991).  Cecilia Albin, Justice and Fairness in International Negotiations (Cambridge: University Press, 2001), pp. 141-180.  David Baldwin, "The Concept of Security," Review of International Studies 23 (1997), 5-26.  Arie M. Kacowicz & Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, “Stable Peace: A Conceptual Framework,” in Stable Peace Among Nations (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), (eds.), Arie M. Kacowicz, Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, Ole Elgestrom & Magnus Jerneck, pp. 11-35.  Daniel Bar-Tal and Gemma H. Bennick, "The Nature of Reconciliation as an Outcome and as a Process," in From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation (ed.), Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 11-38.  Augustine S. J. Park, “Child soldiers and distributive justice: Addressing the limits of law?” Crime Law Soc Change (2010) 53:329–348.  Dyan Mazurana, Angela Raven-Roberts, and Jane Parpart with Sue Lautze, “Introduction: Gender, Conflict, and Peacekeeping,” in Gender, Conflict, and Peacekeeping, New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, 1-26.

11