1

Prof. Jean Y. Haine

Office: 4. 03, College Green, 3

Office Hours: Wednesday 2-4 PM.

Email: hainej@tcd.ie

PO4700 : Contemporary International Relations

Tuesday 2-3pm, Room 4050B (Michaelmas)

Tuesday 12-1pm, Room 4050B (Hilary)

1) Description

This module offers an overview of the most important issues in International Relations and contemporary world politics. Part I will provide a survey of the main theoretical approaches in International Relations. It will review the most significant tools to develop a critical understanding of current events. Part 2 will focus on issues of wars and conflicts, starting with the concept of security, from the highest of geopolitics, -nuclear weapons-, to the most basic of individual needs for safety. Part 3 will consider issues of peace and justice, including human rights, humanitarian interventions and international tribunals. We will conclude with a debate about the future of the liberal agenda and the role of the European Union.

2) Organization

Each week there will be one lecture and one discussion group (Tutorials). The Michaelmas and Hilary schedule is: Tuesday 3-4pm, Room 4050B and Tuesday 4-5pm, Room 03 College Green. The weekly lectures are guides to the material and students are expected to attend them. However, deeper learning comes through your own reading. Lecture attendance is not sufficient to achieve mastery of the material. As for the discussion group, attendance is mandatory. Each tutorial will review the readings and will focus on a specific issue as stated in the syllabus (Discussion Point). A debate will be conducted around that theme. Discussion groups will start on Week 5.

3) Requirements

TWO essays account for 40% of the mark (20% per essay). The annual exam at the end of semester 2 accounts for 60% of the mark. Essay topics will be provided in due course. Essays must be submitted via the plagiarism detector www.turnitin.com. All essays must be submitted via www.turnitin.com to receive a grade, no exceptions. Furthermore, all essays should be accompanied by an assignment submission form. If you haven’t used www.turnitin.com before, select new users on the homepage, follow the instructions for setting up a student profile, login with your new personal password, and you will get to the

2

page for uploading a paper for the class. Make sure you figure out how to do this in good time for the deadline. Please note that plagiarism is unacceptable in any circumstances and both the Department and College takes all plagiarism cases very seriously. Offenders will be referred to tutors and plagiarized essays will be given a zero mark. To be sure that you are not inadvertently plagiarising, see the department’s undergraduate handbook at: http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/undergraduate/handbook.php

The essay guidelines are the following. Both essays should be around 2000 words and no more than 2500 words (including footnotes but excluding bibliography). Basic paper conventions apply: (1) it must formatted in Word, NOT PDF, as feedback will be provided in track changes, (2) single spaced, (3) complete footnotes, (4) pages numbered, (5) proofread, and (6) full bibliography. Essays must state the word count. Please make sure your name is on your paper!

A good paper will draw on course materials from the course to date, and consider alternative answers to the question as suggested by different topics in international politics and different approaches to IR theory. A satisfactory essay must demonstrate knowledge of the required course readings, rigor in arguments, clarity in writings. The essays are short, so do not attempt to cover everything which could possibly be relevant, you will need to prioritize, to select the most relevant argument, explain why you favour this approach and exclude other ones. But make sure you show knowledge of alternative theories and answers to the question. The essay must demonstrate knowledge and engagement with the course readings contained in the syllabus. The ability to be concise is an essential part of the job of writing a good essay. Correct citation is important. Please footnote all references at the bottom of each page (not at the end of the paper) and use the following formulations:

For books: Ken Booth and Nicholas J. Wheeler, The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation, and Trust in World Politics, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 1 (or pp. 1-3)

For journal articles/periodicals: Joseph Nye, “Neorealism and Neoliberalism”, World Politics, Vol. 40, No. 2, (January 1988), pp. 325-51.

For chapters in books: Andrew Linklater, “Neorealism in Theory and Practice”, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, (Eds.), International Relations Theory Today, (London: Polity Press), 1995, p. 241 (or pp. 241-262)

You will be notified well in advance on when the papers are due (One per term).

4) Readings

Each week, there is a list of required readings. These readings are available electronically, through the TCD database/journal arrangements or otherwise on the web. If you have any problem to retrieve them, please contact me. Additional material may be posted on Blackboard. Please make sure you are registered for the course and to consult Blackboard regularly. It is highly recommended to read at least one daily newspaper and one weekly magazine. Here are some sources that you may find useful: BBC News, Al Jazeera: (http://www.aljazeera.com),

3

RadioFree Europe/liberty (http://www.rferl.org), The Economist (http://www.economist.com).

There is one basic textbook for this course:

John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,) 2011, 5th Edition.

5) Lectures

Week 1: Introduction: I.R. and World Politics

Readings:

John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of World Politics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,) 2011, 5th Edition, pp. 1-12.

Stephen M. Walt, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, No. 110, (Spring, 1998), pp. 29-46.

Part 1: Theoretical Approaches

Week 2: Realism(s)

Realism as an old political tradition has been transformed in IR into many different branches often fiercely competing among themselves. Yet, anarchy, the core characteristic of the international system, does not seem to be a sufficient assumption to explain or predict foreign and security policies of states.

Readings:

Robert Jervis, “Realism in the Study of World Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, (Autumn 1998), pp. 971-991.

Inis L. Claude, “The Balance of Power Revisited”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 15, n°2, (April 1989), pp. 77-85.

Kenneth Waltz, “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory”, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 44, No. 1, (Summer 1990), pp. 21-37.

Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, “Security Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited,” International Security, (Winter 2000/01), Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 128–61.

Steven Forde, “International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2, (June 1995), pp. 141-160.

Week 3: Liberalism(s)

Liberalism has been the main competitor to realism. Through institutions and regimes, liberals claim to moderate, if not overcome, the impact of anarchy. The class will review the strengths and weaknesses of the liberal argument.

4

Readings:

Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, (Autumn 1997), pp. 513-553.

Robert Jervis, “Realism, Neoliberalism and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate”, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1, (Summer 1999), pp. 24-64.

Joseph Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism”, International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3, (Summer 1988), pp. 485-507.

Patrick J. McDonald and Kevin Sweeney, “The Achilles’ Heel of Liberal IR Theory? Globalization and Conflict in the Pre–World War I Era”, World Politics, Vol. 59, No. 3, (April 2007), pp. 370-403.

Week 4: Constructivism(s)

The constructivist approach in IR theory is one of the most important contributions of these past years. Yet, it is not clear if constructivism has fulfilled its promises.

Readings:

Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2, (Spring 1992), pp. 391-425.

Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory”, International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1, (Summer, 1998), pp. 171-200.

Alexander Wendt, “Why a World State is Inevitable”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 9, No. 4, (December 2003), pp. 491–542.

Felix Berenskoetter, “Friends, There Are No Friends? An Intimate Reframing of the International”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.35, No.3, (September 2007), pp. 647-676.

Week 5: Transformations and Changes

Political Science appears to have difficulties to explain, let alone predict, changes and transformations. This seems to be especially true for IR. The end of the Cold War offers a dramatic example.

Readings:

Robert Jervis, “Variation, change and transitions in International Politics”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 27, No. 5, (December 2001), pp. 281-295.

Friedrich Kratochwil, “The embarrassment of changes: neo-realism as the science of Realpolitik without politics”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1, (January 1993), pp. 63-80.

5

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change”, International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, (Autumn, 1998), pp. 887-917.

Robert D. English, “The Sociology of New Thinking: Elites, Identity Change, and the End of the Cold War”, Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, (Spring 2005), pp. 43-80.

° Discussion point: What factors did contribute to the end of the Cold War?

Week 6: Decision-Makers, Decision Making

World politics is made of interests and passions, of material constraints and leaders. Yet human agency has been often neglected in IR. The class will review some developments about the role decision makers and the nature of decision-making.

Readings:

Donald P. Green and Ian Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, a critique of applications in political science, Yale University Press, 1994, Chap. 2., pp. 13-32.

Jonathan Mercer, “Rationality and Psychology in International Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 59, No. 1, (January 2005), pp. 77–106.

Robert Jervis, “Understanding Beliefs”, Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 5, (October 2006), pp. 641-663.

Neta C. Crawford, “The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships”, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 4, (Spring 2000), pp. 116-156.

° Discussion point: Was President Bush irrational in deciding the Iraq War ?

Week 7: Reading Week

Part 2: Issues of Security and Conflicts

Week 8: What is Security?

Security is a contested concept. Each period seems to revisit the debate about its meaning. Scholars and experts disagree on its current significance, its actual content and its potential role.

Readings:

Emma Rothschild, “What Is Security?”, Daedalus, Vol. 124, No. 3, (Summer, 1995), pp. 53-98.

Jessica Tuchman Mathews, “Redefining Security”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 68, n°2, (Spring 1989), pp. 162-177.

6

David A. Baldwin, “The Concept of Security”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, n°1, (January 1997), pp. 5-26.

Ken Booth, “Security and Emancipation,” Review of International Studies, (October 1991), Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 313-326.

Matt McDonald, “Securitization and the Construction of Security”, European Journal of International Relations, (December 2008), Vol. 14, n°4, pp. 563–587.

° Discussion point: what does it mean to securitize a threat?

Week 9: The Security Dilemma

Achieving one’s security may lead to others’ insecurity. This dilemma is as old as world politics. The class will revisit its logic, its different manifestations and possible ways to overcome it.

Readings:

Shiping Tang, “The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis”, Security Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3, (September 2009), pp. 587-623.

Charles Glaser, “The Security Dilemma Revisited,” World Politics, Vol. 50, No.1, (October 1997), pp. 171–201;

Evan Braden Montgomery, “Breaking Out of the Security Dilemma: Realism, Reassurance, and the Problem of Uncertainty,” International Security, Vol. 31, No. 2, (Fall 2006), pp. 151–185.

Barry R. Posen, “The security dilemma and ethnic conflict”, Survival, Vol. 35, No. 1, (Spring 1993), pp. 27-47.

Paul Roe, “The Intrastate Security Dilemma: Ethnic Conflict as a ‘Tragedy’?”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, (1999), pp. 183-202.

° Discussion Point: The wars in Bosnia

Week 10: Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence

State survival is the most basic of security needs. Since Hiroshima, -and the Cuban missile crises-, conditions of deterrence have dominated issues of international strategy. We will review some of these debates.

Readings:

Shiping Tang, “Fear in International Politics: Two Positions”, International Studies Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, (Sept. 2008), pp. 451-471.

Scott D. Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb”, International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3, (Winter 1996-1997), pp. 54-86.

James G. Blight and David A. Welch, “Risking the Destruction of Nations: Lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis for New and Aspiring Nuclear States”, Security Studies, Vol. 4, No.4, (Summer 1995), pp. 811-850.

7

Robert Jervis, “Deterrence Theory Revisited”, World Politics, (January 1979), Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 289-324.

Jeffrey W. Knopf, “The Fourth Wave in Deterrence Research”, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 31, No.1, (April 2010), pp.1-33.

° Discussion Point: The Cuban missile crisis and nuclear weapons.

Week 11: Human Security

At the other hand of the security spectrum, and largely as a reaction to the nuclear debates, some states have promoted a new security agenda based on individual needs. Its theoretical foundations remain controversial and its practical impact debatable.

Readings:

Collective comments, “What is Human Security”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3, (Sept. 2004), pp. 347-387.

Roland Paris, “Human Security. Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?”, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 2, (Fall 2001), pp. 87-102.

Amitav Acharya, “Human Security: East versus West,” International Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3, (July 2001), pp. 442-460.

Mary Martin and Taylor Owen, “The second generation of human security: lessons from the UN and EU experience”, International Affairs, Vol. 86, No.1, (January 2010), pp. 211–224.

°Discussion point: The weaknesses of the human security concept.

Week 12: Understanding Civil Wars

Between 1945 and 2010, a conservative estimate of the total dead as a direct result of civil wars amounts to more than 20 millions. These civil wars occurred in 73 states, more than a third of the United Nations system. Scholars remain divided about the source of and possible solutions to civil wars, notably on the ethnic factor.

Readings:

Chaim Kaufmann, “Possible and impossible solutions to ethnic civil wars”, International Security, Vol. 20, No. 4, (Spring 1996), pp. 136-175.

Paul Collier and Nicholas Sambanis, “Understanding Civil War: A New Agenda”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 46, No. 1, (February 2002), pp. 3-12.

Stathis N Kalyvas, “’New’ And ‘Old’ Civil Wars: A Valid Distinction?”, World Politics, Vol. 54, No. 1, (October 2001), pp. 99-118.

Barbara F. Walter, “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement”, International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 3, (Summer, 1997), pp. 335-364.

8

Charles T. Call and Elizabeth M. Cousens, “Ending Wars and Building Peace: International Responses to War-Torn Societies”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 1, (February 2008), pp. 1-21.

° Discussion Point: Is partition a “solution” to civil war?

Hilary Term

Week 1: The Utility of Force

The nature, the conduct and the environment of warfare seemed to have been fundamentally transformed in the last decades. We will assess these changes but also stress some continuities of contemporary conflicts.

Readings:

Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force, The Art of War in the Modern World, (London: Penguin Books), 2005, pp. 6-29 and pp. 267-305.

Deborah Avant and Lee Sigelman, “Private Security and Democracy: Lessons from the US in Iraq”, Security Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, (May 2010), pp. 230–265.

Michael C. Williams, “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 4, (Dec. 2003), pp. 511-531.

Martin Bell, “The death of News”, Media, War & Conflict, Vol. 1, No. 2, (August 2008), pp. 221–231.

Adam Roberts, “Doctrine and Reality in Afghanistan”, Survival, Vol. 51, No.1, (Feb-March 2009), pp. 29-60.

Discussion point: Was the war Afghanistan a fiasco?

Week 2: The War on Terror

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. Traditionally, terrorists wanted few casualties but a lot of people watching. Since 9/11, mass murder seems to be an objective in itself. What are the roots of terrorism, what are terrorists’ strategies? How can we explain suicide terrorism?

Readings:

Assaf Moghadam, “Motives for Martyrdom: Al-Qaida, Salafi Jihad, and the Spread of Suicide Attacks”, International Security, Vol. 33, No. 3, (Winter 2008/09), pp. 46–78.

Robert Pape, Dying to Win, The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, (New York, Random House), 2005, Chap. 2, pp. 8-24.

Mark Sedgwick, “Al Qaeda and the Nature of Religious Terrorism”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 16, No.4, (Winter 2004), pp. 795-814.

Audrey Kurth Cronin, “How al-Qaida Ends: The Decline and Demise of Terrorist Groups”, International Security, Vol. 31, No. 1, (Summer 2006), pp. 7-48.

9

David Oman, “Countering International Terrorism: The Use of Strategy”, Survival, Vol. 47, No. 4, (Winter 2005-2006), pp. 107-116.

Discussion Point: How can we explain the attack in London on July 2005?

Part 3: Issues of Peace and Justice

Week 3: Democratic Peace, security community and regional governance

The democratic peace has been one of the most important findings of IR. Yet, as always, it is heavily contested. The concept of security community will also be reviewed and applied to the European Union.

Readings:

Michael W. Doyle, “Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 3, (August 2005), pp. 463-466.

John M. Owen, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace”, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 87-125.

John R. Oneal and Bruce M. Russett, “The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950-1985”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 267-293.

Ole Wæver, “Insecurity, Security, and Asecurity in the West European Non-war Community”, in Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett (Eds.), Security Communities, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1998, pp. 69-118.

° Discussion point: Is peace a strong enough glue to keep the EU united?

Week 4: Human Rights and the normative turn in IR and Foreign Policy.

Since the end of the Cold War, and even more so in the last decade, human rights considerations have multiplied, in ethical debates and in foreign policy initiatives. We will review some aspects of this change, focusing on the global polity of human rights.

Readings:

Charles Beitz, “What Human Rights Mean”, Daedalus, Vol. 132, No. 1, (Winter, 2003), pp. 36-46.

Steve Smith, “The Forty Years’ Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations”, Millennium, Journal of International Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, (December 1992), pp. 489-506.

Christian Reus-Smit, “Human Rights in a global ecumene”, International Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 5, (September 2011), pp. 1205-1218.

Michael Ignatieff, “Reimagining a Global Ethic”, Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 1, (Spring 2012), pp. 7-19.

10

Andrew Linklater, “Prudence and principle in international society: reflections on Vincent’s approach to human rights”, International Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 5 (September 2011), pp. 1179–1191.

Mary Kaldor, ‘The Idea of Global Civil Society’, International Affairs, Vol. 79, No.3, (May 2003), pp. 583-593.

Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal, “The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 3, (May/June 2003), pp. 2-7.

° Discussion Point: Is the UN up to the task?

Week 5: Human Rights: diffusion and enforcement

Human Rights groups play a crucial role in the diffusion of new standards of human rights. Yet, the problem of enforcement remains acute.

Readings:

Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy networks in International Politics, (Cornell University Press), 1998, Chap. 1, pp. 1-38.

Thomas Risse, “’Let's Argue!' Communicative Action in World Politics," International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 1, (Winter 2000), p. 31. 50.

Price, Richard, “Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics”, World Politics, Vol. 55, No. 4, (July 2003), pp. 579-606.

Hafner-Burton, Emily, ‘Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming and the Human Right Enforcement Problem’, International Organization, Vol. 62, No. 4, (October 2008), pp. 689-716.

° Discussion Point: Is normative/soft power successful?

Week 6: Climate Change and the environment: Cooperation or Conflict ?

Climate change and environmental issues have increasingly become part of the global political agenda. Is there a real consensus on climate change and if so, does it lead to international cooperation ?

Steve Bernstein, “Ideas, Social Structure and the Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, n°4, (Dec. 2000), pp. 464-512.

Steven Bernstein, Michele Betsill, Matthew Hoffmann and Matthew Paterson, “A Tale of Two Copenhagens: Carbon Markets and Climate Governance”, Millennium, Vol. 39, n°1, (August 2010), pp. 161–173.

Andrew Hurrell And Sandeep Sengupta, “Emerging powers, North—South relations and global climate politics”, International Affairs, Vol. 88, No. 3, (May 2012), pp. 463-484.

11

Robert Falkner, “Global environmentalism and the greening of international society”, International Affairs, Vol. 88, No. 3, (May 2012), pp. 503-522.

° Discussion Point: Is the UN a relevant forum to address climate change issues?

Week 7: Reading Week

Week 8: Global Justice and International Criminal Courts

If the sources of IR have always been linked to International Public Law, the expansion of legal and judicial issues into the realm of foreign affairs has been significant in the last two decades. In particular, the expansion of tribunals to account for past crimes, including the ICC, has been remarkable.

Readings:

Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘The Real New World Order’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, No. 5, (Sept-Oct 1997), pp. 183-97.

Jack L. Snyder and Vinjamuri, Leslie, “Trials and Errors Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice”, International Security, Vol. 28, n°3, (Winter 2003/04), pp. 5-44.

Payam Akhavan, “Are International Criminal Tribunals a Disincentive to Peace? Reconciling Judicial Romanticism with Political Realism”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 3, (August 2009), pp. 624-654.

Tricia D. Olsen, Leigh A. Payne and Andrew G. Reiter, “The Justice Balance: When Transitional Justice Improves Human Rights and Democracy”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, (November 2010), pp. 980-1007.

° Discussion Point: ° Was the indictment of President Omar al-Bashir by the ICC a failed gamble?

Week 9: Peace keeping and state building strategies

The number of UN Peacekeeping operations has never been so high. Yet successes are rare, especially in Africa. Spoilers, bad governance, misperceptions, poor capabilities, all these factors contribute to failures. Yet, the learning curve has been real, including at the UN level.

Readings:

Virginia Page Fortna, “Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace? International Intervention and the Duration of Peace After Civil War”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 2, (June 2004), pp. 269-292.

J. Michael Greig and Paul F. Diehl, “The Peacekeeping–Peacemaking Dilemma”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4, (December 2005), pp. 621–645.

Krasner Stephen D., “Sharing sovereignty: New institutions for collapsed and failing states”, International Security, Vol. 29, No. 2, (Fall 2004), pp. 85–120.

12

Paris Roland, At War’s End, Building Peace after Civil Conflict, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 2004, Chap. 10, pp. 179-211.

° Discussion Point: The UN in Congo: making peace by waging war?

Week 10: R2P and humanitarian Intervention

The emergence of an international norm about a “Responsibility to protect” has triggered enthusiasm and scepticism. The precise meaning of the norm remains in doubt and its enforcement controversial.

Readings:

Noha Shawki, “Responsibility to Protect: The Evolution of an International Norm”, Global Responsibility to Protect, Vol. 3, No. 2, (June 2011), pp. 172–196.

Susan C. Breau, “The Impact of the Responsibility to Protect on Peacekeeping”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 11, No. 3, (January 2006), pp. 429-464.

Alex J. Bellamy, “The Responsibility to Protect and the Problem of Military Intervention,” International Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 4, (Fall 2008), pp. 615-639.

Thierry Tardy, “The UN and the Use of Force: A Marriage Against Nature”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 38, n° 1, (March 2007), pp. 49-70.

Robert Egnell, “Between reluctance and necessity: the utility of military force in humanitarian and development operations”, Small Wars & Insurgencies, Vol. 19, No. 3, (September 2008), pp. 397-422.

° Discussion point: Intervention in Libya: a R2P case or a regime change operation?

Week 11: Liberal Internationalism in Crisis?

After the failures of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the emergence of rising but non democratic powers, is the progressive international agenda doomed to fail? Is this more a domestic crisis inside “the West” or the effect of multipolarity?

Readings:

Charles A. Kupchan and Peter L. Trubowitz, “Dead Center : The Demise of Liberal Internationalism in the United States”, International Security, Vol. 32, No. 2, (Fall 2007), pp. 7-44.

John M. Owen, “Transnational Liberalism and U.S. Primacy”, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Winter 2001/02), pp. 117–152.

Marjo Koivisto and Tim Dunne, “Crisis, What Crisis? Liberal Order Building and World Order Conventions”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.38 No. 3, (May 2010), pp. 615–640.

Miles Kahler, “Rising powers and global governance: negotiating change in a resilient status quo”, International Affairs, Vol. 89, No. 3, (May 2013), pp. 711–729.

13

°Discussion point: Is the G20 useful?

Week 12: World order, European Disorder?

The class will review the problems facing by the European Union in an increasingly multipolar world. The focus will be put on the management of the financial crisis and the foreign and security policy architecture.

Martin Feldstein, “EMU and International Conflict”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 6, (1997), pp. 60–73.

Erik Jones, “The Economic Mythology of European Integration”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 48, No. 1, (January 2010), pp. 89–109.

Jean Y. Haine, “The European Crisis of Liberal Internationalism”, International Journal, Vol. LXIV, No. 2, (June 2009), pp. 453-479.

Chris J. Bickerton, Bastien Irondelle and Anand Menon, “Security Co-operation beyond the Nation-State: The EU's Common Security and Defence Policy”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1, (January 2011), pp. 1–21.

_________________________________