POL 571 - Global Security

The objective of this course is to have students understand the context of security. Various perspectives on security and varieties of conflict will be scrutinized to understand the how the context of security has been transforming. In this context, this course aims to enhance students’ skills for the following objectives:

•    Understand security concepts

•    Recognize the complexity of security and its transformation

•    Develop skills to think critically, systematically and comparatively about emerging security concepts and practices,

•    Evaluate different approaches and models to interpret security conceptualization

•    Examine contemporary security readings

The course will cover a wide range of themes those appear to be what the changing nature of the security from hard to soft contextualization. This is an introductory course to the multidisciplinary conceptualization of security. This course introduces the fundamental concepts, theoretical frameworks and practical applications of security. The course is designed to introduce students to academic thinking about security readings in various contexts. Students will get familiar with the transformation of the concepts, key theorists and important debates within the field. Practical applications of the knowledge that is produced in the field and major securitization approaches will be briefly introduced. The course will also discuss the relevance and practical utility of the concepts and processes within different real-life contexts.

The weekly courses will be performed in two phases of which are student presentations and discussions through seminar and my contribution to present the conceptual framework / further discussions.

The overall course is organized along two parts; the first part will cover the main concepts and witnessed transformation of security while the second part will be built on term papers prepared by the students. The expected mood is not only focus on concepts but also practices.

Each student will respond the submitted question of every week, prior to the class but based the weekly readings. (!!!) Discussions will be built on the findings of the students based on their readings and drafted outlines. The outlines must be at least one-page-length see the basic structures of the articles other than the outline on the weekly question.

There will be a mid-term examination at the 8^th week. You will write an essay in the classroom based on submitted question. (1200-1500 words)

Students are required to draft a term paper as an academic essay, which will be counted as final exam sheet. The topics will be proposed by you at the third week. The essay will be 5000-7000 words in length and must be based on research, ethical rules and reference system (APA-6). Each student will present his/her essay after 11^th week and turn in the essay at the 15^th week.

The curriculum is in English. Turkish papers and discussions will not be accepted.

• David Baldwin, “The Concept of Security”, Review of International Studies, 23:1, 1997
• Emma Rothschild, “What is Security?” Dedalus, 1995, 53-98.
• Stephen M. Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 211-239
• Edward Kolodziej, “Renaissance of Security Studies? Caveat Lector!” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 36 (December 1992): 421-438)
• The Security Puzzle: Theory-Building and Discipline-Building in International SecurityAuthor(s): Helga HaftendornSource: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 3-17
• Barry Buzan, Rethinking security after the Cold War, Cooperation and Conflict, 1997, Vol 32, Issue 1
• Baldwin, D. A. (1995). Security Studies and the end of the Cold War. World Politics, 48(01), 117–141.
• HUYSMANS, J. (1998). Security! What Do You Mean? European Journal of International Relations, 4(2), 226–255.
• Ayoob, M. (1983). Security in the Third World: the worm about to turn? International Affairs, 60(1), 41–51.
• Richard Ullman, “Redefining Security,” International Security, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Summer 1983), 129-53.
• John A. Vasquez, Distinguishing Rivals That Go to War from Those That Do Not: A Quantitative Comparative Case Study of the Two Paths to War, International Studies Quarterly, Volume 40, Issue 4, December 1996, Pages 531–558,
• John A. Vasquez, Why Do Neighbors Fight? Proximity, Interaction, or Territoriality, First Published August 1, 1995 Research Article
• Colin S. Gray The Changing Nature of Warfare?, Naval War College Review Vol. 49, No. 2 (SPRING 1996), pp. 7-22 (16 pages)
• W.S. Lind, Nightengale, K., K. Schmitt J. F., Sutton J. W., “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation,” Marine Corps Gazette, Ekim 1989, 22-26.
• Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol.18, No. 4 (Spring, 1988) pp.615:628.)
• Jack S. Levy, “The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace,” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 1 (1998), pp. 139-165.
• Stephen Van Evera, “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War,” International Security (1998).
• Robert Jervis, “Theories of War in an Era of Leading Power”, American Political Science Review, Vol 96, NO 1, March, 2002, 1:14
• Robert Gilpin, “The Theory of Hegemonic War,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1988), 591-613.
• Jack S. Levy, “Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War,” World Politics, Vol. 40, No. 1 (October 1987), 82-107.
• James D. Fearon, “Rationalist Explanations for War,” International Organization, Vol.  4, No. 3 (Summer 1995), 379-414.
• Stephen M. Walt, “Alliance Formation and the Balance of Power,” International Security (Spring 1985). (BB)
• Charles A. Kupchan and Clifford A. Kupchan, “The Promise of Collective Security,” International Security (Summer 1995). (BB)
• John J. Mearsheimer The False Promise of International Institutions, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter, 1994-1995), pp. 5-49
• Randa Schweller, “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In” International Security (19) (Summer) 1994, 72:107.
• G. John Ikenberry, “Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Persistence of American Postwar Order,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Winter 1998/99), 43-78.
• Glaser, Charles L. “The Causes and Consequences of Arms Races.” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (June 2000): 251–276.
• Charles L. Glaser, “When Are Arms Races Dangerous: Rational Versus Suboptimal Arming”, International Security, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Spring 2004), pp. 44–84
• Robert J. Art, “To What Ends Military Power?”, International Security, Vol 4, No 4, Spring 1980, 3:35
• Intriligator, M. D., & Brito, D. L. (1984). Can Arms Races Lead to the Outbreak of War? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(1), 63–84.
• Scott D. Sagan, 1996/7. “Why do States Build Nuclear Weapons?” International Security, 21/3: 54-86.
• Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers, Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981)
• Kenneth N. Waltz, “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 84, No. 3 (September 1990), 731-45.
• Nina Tannenwald, “Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo,” International Security, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005), pp. 5-49.
• Richard Price, 1995. A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo. International Organization 49/01: 73-103.
• David M. Edelstein, “Occupational Hazards: Why Military Occupations Succeed or Fail,” International Security, vol. 29, no. 1 (Summer 2004).
• Tanisha Fazal, “State Death in the International System,” International Organization, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Winter 2004), 311-344.
• Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs, “Intervention and Democracy,” International Organization, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Summer 2006), 627-649.
• David C. Rapoport, “The four waves of modern terrorism”, Terrorism & Political Violence, 2004.
• Martha Crenshaw, “The Debate over “New” vs. “Old” Terrorism”, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago,   www.start.umd.edu/start/publications/New_vs_Old_Terrorism.pdf
• Max Abrahms, “Why Terrorism Does Not Work”, International Security, Vol 31, No 2, Fall 2006, 42:78
• Audrey K. Cronin, “How al-Qaida Ends: The Decline and Demise of Terrorist Groups,” International Security, vol. 31, no. 1 (2006): 7-9 and 17-32.
• Ivan Arreguin-Toft, “How The Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict,” International Security (Summer 2001). (BB)
• Robert Trager and Dessislava Zagorcheva, “Deterring Terrorism,” International Security (Winter 2005/ 2006), pp. 87-111.  
• Max Abrahams, “What Terrorist Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy”, International Security, Vol 32, Issue 4, Spring 2008, 78:105
• Andrew J. R. Mack, “Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict,” World Politics 27, no. 2 (January 1975): 175-200
• Jason Lyall and Isaiah Wilson, III, “Rage against the Machines: Explaining Outcomes in Counterinsurgency Wars,” International Organization
• Collier, Paul, The Market of Civil War, Foreign Policy, 136: 40-45
• Chaim Kaufman, “Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars,” Inter- national Security 20 (Spring 1996): 136-75.
• Fearon, James D. and David D. Latin, 2003, Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War, American Political Science Review, 97(1): 75-90.
• Mueller, John, 2000, The Banality of Ethnic War, International Security,25 (1): 42-70
• Joseph Nye Jr. “Cyber Power,” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, May 2010. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA522626&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
• James Farwell and Rafal Rohozinski, “The New Reality of Cyber War,” Survival Volume 54, Issue 4, 2012
• Shashank Joshi and Aaron Stein, “Emerging Drone Nations,” Survival, vol. 55, no. 5 (2013): 53-78.
• Andrea Gilli and Mauro Gilli, “The Diffusion of Drone Warfare? Industrial, Organization, and Infrastructural Constraints,” Security Studies, vol. 25, no. 1 (2016): 50-53 and 62-83.

Michael J. Boyle, “The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare,” International Affairs, vol. 89, no. 1 (2013): 1-29.

METHOD OF EVALUATION

GRADING CRITERIA

For more information on grading, see IZU Regulations for Undergraduate Education:

http://www.izu.edu.tr/tr-TR/lisans-egitim-ve-ogretim-yonetmeligi/662/Page.aspx

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE INDIVIDUAL EXAMS:

Students must ensure that they adhere to the word limit set for any piece of assessed work and should indicate word count on the title page.  If students breach the upper limit specified, they may gain an unfair advantage and markers are not required to read beyond the stated word limit. Moreover, meeting the stipulated requirements is one of the skills that is being assessed and achieving the stipulated length is directly related to other assessment criteria (such as a concise argument, clear focus, etc). Thus, marks will be deducted for work that exceeds the prescribed word limit. The deductions for over-length work as follows:

Unless justified by certified medical reasons, late essays/assignments will be penalised at the rate of 5 percentage points per day (including weekends) to a maximum of 25 percentage points. Essays/Assignments submitted more than 5 days after the deadline will receive a grade of 0%. Students are encouraged to discuss potential problems regarding the submission of assessed work with the course lecturer well in advance of the respective deadlines.

Class Norms/ Expectations:

•    Attendance-Participation

Students are reminded that attendance at Lectures is compulsory according to university regulations. Students are strongly advised not to miss lectures since success is closely related with attendance. Absences of less than 70% will normally be penalised with a ‘DZ’ grade. For more information, see Articles 20, 31, 32 and 33 of IZU Regulations for Undergraduate Education.

•    Late/ Make-up Work Policy

Post graduate courses do not have make ups.

•    Re-grading

Students can object their grades and ask for regrading within one week of the announcements of grades.

•    Use of Mobile Devices

The students can use their personal computers for course-related activities during the classes. Mobile phones should be switched off and should not be used in any circumstances. Instructor reserves his right to ban the use of personal computers if students use them for non-academic purposes during the lectures.

•    Student Recording of Class

The students cannot have audio and visual recording of the class without the explicit consent of the instructor and all other students.

•    Academic integrity including collaboration and plagiarism

The student will receive a failing grade on the assignment in question.  Depending on the nature and severity of the offense, the student may also receive an automatic failing grade for the course or be referred to appropriate university bodies for further disciplinary action. If you think you do not know plagiarism, please familiarize yourself with reference to online resources. Please check the website http://plagiarism.org and make sure what is counted as plagiarism. Make sure that response papers will be individual projects. I will collect electronic copies of your paper in addition to the printed copies.

•    Special Treatment

The students who need special treatments, due to disabilities, are advised to contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester.