Course Guide SF2221
Global Security and Democracy (Global säkerhet och demokrati)
15 Higher education credits (15 högskolepoäng)
January 2016
Course Coordinators
Adrian Hyde-Price, Professor, Department of Political Science, Phone: 031-786 6145
Adrian.hyde-price@gu.se
Jan Bachmann, Senior Lecturer, School of Global Studies, Phone: 031-786 6743
jan.bachmann@globalstudies.gu.se
General Course Content
The relationship between security and democracy is one of the most interesting and important issues
on the contemporary political agenda. It is also one of the most contested and debated – both
theoretically and politically. For those in the liberal tradition, the spread and consolidation of stable
democracies is the key to a more peaceful and cooperative international society. Since the end of the
cold war, Western liberal-democracies have actively promoted the spread of democracy – at times
using military force to prevent gross violations of human rights or to overthrow dictatorships. For
realists, on the other hand, regime type makes very little difference to the competitive dynamics of a
pluralist and diverse international system, which generates specific logics of international security.
More critical perspectives question the assumptions of both liberalism and realism, and tend to be
sceptical of the universalist claims made on behalf of Western liberal-democracy, and critical of the
asymmetrical power relations that underpin traditional concepts of national security. At the same time,
theories of security have radically developed since the end of the cold war, as the concept has been
both deepened and widened.
This module will address the interrelationship between security and democracy in an ever-changing
global context. In particular, it will address the following questions which provide guide posts for
creative reflection:
 What do we mean by security and democracy?
 What should be included as a referent of security (e.g. the state, societal groups the individual,
the international system; men, women, the environment)?
 How does contemporary political dynamics challenges claims about who is supposed to act as
the guarantor of security and what role has a global privatization of security?
 What are the relationship between democracies and war?
 What should be included as threats (e.g. international terrorism, human rights abuses,
migration) and what are the pitfalls of including more and more societal phenomena into the
lens of security?
2




How can we organize and safeguard our political communities when the basic understandings
of who ‘we’ are challenge traditional understandings of both political subjectivity and
community?
What are the implications of a convergence of security and development in contemporary
peacebuilding interventions for both security and the democratization of societies?
How are notions of order both governed and challenged in contemporary in urbanized
contexts?
What other alternative models for peaceful governance can we see already being established?
The module explores theoretical and empirical encounters where the two concepts are both entangled
and contested. It examines four main sets of issues and themes:
1. Entanglements between democracy, war and peace (Democratic Peace Theory, democracies
and war);
2. Changing understandings of democracy, identity and political community (global democracy,
ethics and global security);
3. Globalized aspects of security and democracy (post-conflict democratization and peacebuilding, the security-development nexus, migration and security);
4. Aspects of security and democracy beyond the state (security and democracy in an urban
setting; democracy, private security and the state; and governmentality and surveillance).
General aims of the course
After completion of the course, the student shall be able to:
Knowledge and understanding


discuss how notions of security and democracy are deployed in current conceptual debates and
empirical practices in global politics;
account for different theoretical approaches in the study of the interrelationships between
global security and global democracy;
Skills and abilities



apply the conceptual perspectives to the study of different phenomena in current global
politics (such as peacebuilding, the privatization of security, migration, etc.);
distinguish between different ontological and epistemological positions and perspectives
introduced in the course;
identify and formulate adequate research problems and research questions in relation to the
discussions and themes addressed in the course;
Judgement and approach
 critically assess strengths and weaknesses of different approaches in the study of global
security and democracy
In order to meet the outcomes specified above, full-time engagement is required. This means: full
attendance at lectures and seminars, an active and well-prepared participation in all seminars as well
2
3
as accurate writing of the course papers. The students are expected to carefully read the literature
connected to the course. Furthermore, for those students who plan to write a master thesis within the
field of international relations, the course is supposed to serve as a support in the writing process.
Organization of the course
The course requires active engagement in its three complementary pillars: self-governed reading of the
literature, group discussions and participation in lectures. Furthermore, the students are expected to
critically reflect on the literature and come prepared to the seminars.
The course is structured along 4 sets of themes, each of which includes 2-3 lectures. In the lectures,
key concepts and debates as well as empirical illustrations will be presented. The students are
expected to read the literature carefully prior to the lectures in order to help them critically reflect
upon the main points of the lecture introduced.
The course additionally consists of student-led seminars and feedback seminars.
Student-led seminars
The 6 student-led seminars are designed to discuss the concepts introduced more-in depth, reflect on
the literature, give the students creative room to connect the themes and lecture topics, as well as to
prepare some of the course’s assignments. Please note that attendance of the student-led seminars in
mandatory. If students miss any of the student-led seminars, an extra assignment is to be submitted.
These assignments will differ between the seminars, but will in general relate to the mandatory
readings and/or exercise of each seminar. They will in general consist of a one-page
written assignment that will be graded as pass or fail. Please email Helen (helen.arfvidsson@gu.se) for
assignment details.

Student-led seminar 1 (22 January) will be an in-depth literature discussion: the students are
to discuss the literature from the mandatory readings based on the “questions guiding the
reading” from the first two lectures. At the end of the seminar, the students will present the
key arguments to another group, which is to be followed by a discussion. It is crucial to come
prepared.

Student-led seminar 2 (1 February) is an exercise ahead of the first assignment to be handed
in: the comparative summary. Students upload an almost final draft of their summaries prior to
the seminar and give each other feedback on these. This is followed by an open discussion
(see section on examination for details on this assignment). The summaries are to be uploaded
on GUL (in the “comparative summary” folder for all students in each group to access them)
at the latest by 9.00 on 1 February to allow respective student to prepare feedback prior to
the seminar in the afternoon. The feedback should address strengths, weaknesses and possible
improvements.

Student-led seminar 3 (18 February) is the first part of an exercise of conflict analysis in
which students in their respective seminar group map a conflict by analyzing structures, actors
and conflict dynamics. As preparation you need to read SIDA’s Manual for Conflict Analysis
(to be found on GUL, pp. 5-15). The first part of the exercise is to agree on a conflict to
3
4
address and familiarize yourself with it (you will probably need the internet). The conflict can
relate to the examples introduced in the lectures, the literature or any other appropriate
conflict the students are familiar with. Second, map the conflict according to Element 1:
Conflict analysis (pp. 10-12) and go through the “questions to address”. Structure your
reflections clearly in order to present them towards the end of the seminar.

Student-led seminar 4: (19 February) is the second part of the conflict analysis in which
small groups of students do a scenario as well as a study of strategies and options. After
having mapped the conflict in the previous seminar, you will in this seminar first address
Element 2: Scenario Analysis to be found in SIDA’s Manual for Conflict Analysis (pp. 12-13)
and second reflect on the “questions to address” related to Element 3: Strategies and Options
(pp. 13-15). Again, you will need to briefly present your findings and reflections towards the
end of the seminar.

Student-led seminar 5 (26 February) is an exercise in preparation for the assignment of the
book review; students upload their draft book review prior to the seminar (at the latest 12.00,
25 February) in the “book review” GUL folder), present it briefly in the group and give and
receive peer review feedback; the students have then a few days to revise the book review
before the deadline.

Student-led seminar 6 (16 March) is a seminar on essay-writing and students engage in a
discussion on problem formulation and finding a clear and coherent research question. The
students are to upload a proposed problem formulation and research question for their final
paper at the latest 17.00, 15 March in the seminar folder “essay-writing/research question”.
The proposal should be no longer than half a page. Each student will briefly present their
problem formulation and research question to the group and receive feedback. With the help
of the feedback and a couple of writing exercises, the aim of the seminar is to develop and
rewrite your proposed problem formulation and research question.
Feedback seminars
In addition, there will be two feedback seminars (12 February and 9 March) on paper 1 and paper 2.
You have the possibility to upload a draft of paper 1 and 2 and everyone will get feedback on his/her
paper from your peers as well as the teacher. The feedback seminars are mandatory. Submitting the
draft means that you also commit to providing feedback on another student’s paper. Hence, everyone
is expected to come to the feedback seminars. If you miss any of the feedback seminars you will be
assigned an additional essay to comment on.
Forms of examination
During the course, everyone is expected to complete 2 writing exercises, to submit two essays (each
addressing one of the lecture topics) plus a final paper (see below). There will be a particular
emphasis on the writing process as part of the learning experience.
4
5
Writing exercises: comparative summary and a book review
The writing exercises aim at train you in writing different academic genres. They are an opportunity to
immerse yourself in more depth in some of the core readings and to critically discuss and assess the
main arguments made.
In the first writing exercise, you will write a comparative summary of two articles. You can chose to
compare either the texts by Held & Chandler (core reading lecture ‘Global Democracy’) or the articles
by Burnell & Richmond (core reading lecture ‘Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and Demcratization). The
purpose of the exercise is to critically discuss the arguments, guiding concepts and assumptions made
in the 2 articles and discuss points of overlapping as well as diverging claims. The summary should
have a word length of 1000 words max, 12 font, 1 ½ line spacing).
In the second you will write a short book review. You are expected to find a book yourself either on
the lecture topic ‘Democracies and War’ or on the ‘Democracy, Private Security and the State’. The
book you pick can be a monograph or an edited volume. In this exercise you will develop your
capacity to assess the claims made and to position the arguments and the book itself in a larger debate.
Try to address strengths and weaknesses of the book. Please motivate your choice of the book. The
book review should have a word length of 1500 words maximum (12 font, 1½ line spacing).
The two writing exercises are mandatory but will only be grades with fail or pass.
Two essays
The crux in academic essay writing is to translate a topic that you find exciting into a research problem
with a clear formulation of purpose and research question. For all the essays in this course, you choose
the topic and delimit it in a way that it becomes ‘researchable’.
For the first essay (max 2000 words, 12 font, 1½ line spacing), you choose a research problem related
to one of the lecture topics 1-5. For the second essay you may choose a research problem related to
one of the lecture topics 6-10. Everyone has the opportunity to submit a draft of both paper one and
paper two. The draft will then be discussed at the feedback seminars (see above). After having
received feedback from your fellow students and the teacher, you have the opportunity to revise your
paper. The revised version of your essay will then be graded. The final version should be
accompanied by a brief reflection on how the feedback has been addressed. This process will be
repeated for the second essay.
Your papers should summarize the main arguments of the literature in relation to your arguments. It is
not possible to discuss everything; you must be selective. Choose a ‘research’ question that you think
is worth discussing. Feel free to formulate your own question, or relate to a question discussed in the
literature. Your writing should be critical in the sense that you should question the theoretical and
methodological foundations of the research. Seek to present arguments why you think something is
worth pursuing and why it is not. In short: your paper should include a short summary of the main
points in the literature. The main focus should be on presenting an argument for your critical
standpoints. You might also want to indicate how we (as critical scholars) could further the debate,
both theoretically and empirically!
Final paper
The understanding and knowledge gathered through the engagement with the writing process and the
effort to understand and critically engage with different theories, approaches and methods on security
5
6
and democracy should then be used for the final paper (max 4000 words, 12 font, 1½ line spacing).
The final paper should include a problem formulation, a research question, a literature review and
theoretical framework, a brief discussion of methodological choices and an analytical part in which
the argument is supported by the literature. The final paper can be about any of the lecture topics.
Grading
The two writing tasks will be marked either with G (“godkänd”/pass) or U (“underkänd”/fail). The
two essays, as well as the final paper, will be marked either with VG (“väl godkänd”/pass with
distinction), G (“godkänd”/pass) or U (“underkänd”/fail). In order to receive ‘pass’ for the whole
course, you need to receive G on all assignments, that is on the writing tasks and all the essays. In
order to receive a ‘VG’ (väl godkänd/pass with distinction) for the whole course, you need to receive a
VG on one of the first two essays AND the final essay. If any of the papers are marked U, additional
work must be added to the paper to pass the course.
In assessing the essays we follow these criteria:







Clear formulation of research problem and research question
Logical and complete essay structure
Use and understanding of theory
Coherence between question, theory, analysis and results
Theoretical and/or empirical support for the main argument (discussion of method and/or
material)
Critical and reflexive use of course literature and other sources
Correct Formalities (language, consistent style of referencing)
Your essays are graded with either
U – fail
G – pass
VG – pass with distinction
U – Fail – is given if the student’s assignments show an insufficient understanding of the course
material; e.g. if the work is unfocused, lacks a clear structure or has severe weaknesses in presentation
and referencing.
G – Pass – is given if the student’s work shows a solid understanding of the course material; e.g. when
the work is well-developed, focused but to a certain extent descriptive and has minor weaknesses in
presentation and referencing.
6
7
VG – Pass with distinction – is given if the student’s work shows an excellent understanding of the
course material; e.g. when the student’s work is precise, original, well-articulated, and demonstrates
innovative thinking. Both presentation and referencing are strong.
Please be aware that the lecturers mark your paper on the basis of these criteria but will be guided by
an overall judgement of the paper.
All papers should be uploaded on the course’s GUL page. On the left-hand side of the course page
(under ‘content’) you find places where to upload papers (“Writing task 1”, “Writing task 2”, “Essay 1
final version”, “Essay 2 final version”, “Final paper”). However, the draft versions of both essay 1 and
essay 2 need to be uploaded to your group folder (you will find the link to project groups also on the
left hand side at GUL but further down on the page) so that it can be retrieved by other students for
peer review. It is vital that you upload your paper in time as the papers are central to seminar
preparations. GUL will check the content of all the papers with the help of Urkund that is a program
for uncovering plagiarism. You upload your final paper on GUL where it says “final paper”. The final
paper will be automatically anonymized by GUL, i.e. your identity is not visible for the lecturer
grading the final paper.
See the schedule (Course Portal / GUL) for further details and information about the course. All venue
and date changes (should they be necessary) will be communicated via the message board in GUL.
Course literature
The course literature will mostly be made up of articles from academic journals (available through
UB). The suggested reading list after each lecture description includes recent, as well as established
articles which address the theme of the lecture. You are expected to read the core reading listed for
each lecture (if applicable) and to pick and choose from the additional readings. Making this choice is
PART OF the assignment (reading the abstracts of many articles, or swiftly glancing through them will
undoubtedly help you with this choice.)
Detailed Course description
Introduction: Security and Democracy
Adrian Hyde-Price/Jan Bachmann
This lecture will introduce the course. We will cover the organization of the course, requirements and
literature. Thereafter we will introduce the core concepts and how the content of the course has been
conceived.
Lecture 1
Democratic Peace Theory
Adrian Hyde-Price
7
8
The theory of the democratic peace (DP) suggests that democratic or liberal states never or very rarely
go to war with each other and that they are less likely to become involved in militarized disputes
among themselves. Its proponents claim that the DP thesis is the most robust, law like finding that the
discipline of international relations has generated, but institutionalism, realist and other critics suggest
that the DP thesis is both theoretically flawed and relies on dubious statistical evidence. In this
seminar, we’ll cover both the various theoretical explanations given in support of the DP thesis and the
critique launched from different IR positions.
Questions guiding the reading
1. What causal mechanism(s) does Democratic Peace Theory identify that are responsible for
producing the ‘democratic peace’?
2. How strong is the empirical evidence for Democratic Peace Theory, and why is it contested
by critics of this theory?
3. What are the main theoretical criticisms of Democratic Peace Theory?
Mandatory Reading:

Rosato, Sebastian, (2003) The flawed logic of democratic peace theory, American Political
Science Review, 97 (4), 585–602.
Additional reading









Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson& Alastair Smith, 1999:
“An institutional explanation of the democratic peace”, American Political Science Review
93:4, 791–807.
Caprioli, Mary (2004) Democracy and human rights versus women’s security: A
contradiction? Security Dialogue 35 (4): 411–28.
Dabros, Matthew S and Mark W Petersen. (2013). Not created equal: Institutional constraints
and the democratic peace. International Politics Review 1, 27–36.
Farber, Henry S. and Joanne Gowa (1995) Polities and Peace, International Security 20 (2),
123-146.
Fearon, James, 1994:“Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International
Disputes.”The American Political Science Review 88:3, 577-592.
Mansfield, Edward, and Jack Snyder, 1995: “Democratization and the Danger of War.”
International Security 20:1, 5-38.
Oren, I 1995: “The Subjectivity of the "Democratic" Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of
Imperial Germany. International Security, vol 20(2), pp 147-184.
Risse, T 1995:“Democratic Peace- Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist
Interpretation of the Liberal Argument”. European Journal of International Relations, vol 1
(4), pp. 491-517.
Russett, Bruce & Zeev Maoz (1993) Normative and structural causes of the democratic peace,
1946–1986, American Political Science Review 87, 624–38.
8
9

Slantchev, Alexandrova, and Gartzke, 2005: "Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the
Logic of the Democratic Peace" American Political Science Review 99/3: 459-462.
Lecture 2
Democracies and War
Adrian Hyde-Price
In the previous lecture we considered democratic peace theory. This lecture we shall address the
question of how democracies use military force and fight their wars: in other words, does the existence
of liberal-democratic institutions and culture mean that democratic states utilise coercive military in
ways different from that of non-democracies. Liberal democracies, some have argued, wage ‘liberal
wars’ to promote liberal ends and – more importantly – fight their wars in ways that seek to accord
with liberal values of human rights and just war theory. Some have argued that democracies tend to
win the wars they fight; on the other hand, others argue that democracies are particularly inept when it
comes to waging war – particularly when faced by insurgencies and ‘small wars’. This lecture will
provide an overview of the main debates and controversies surrounding democracies and war, and
assess the significance of ‘second image’ domestic level factors for the exercise of coercive military
power.
Questions guiding the reading
1. What are the main features of ‘liberal wars’?
2. Why do some scholars argue that democracies are not very effective at conducting ‘small wars’?
What is the evidence for and against this view?
3. How useful is Clausewitz in explaining the relationship between democracy and war?
Mandatory Reading:

Everts, Steven, Lawrence Freedman, Charles Grant, Francois Heisbourg, Daniel Keohane and
Michael O’Hanlon (2004). A European Way of War. Centre for European Reform. Available
at:
http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/p548_way_ofwar4464.pdf
Additional Reading





Bobbitt, Philip (2002). The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History. London:
Penguin Allen Lane.
Desch, Michael (2002). ‘Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters’, International
Security, 27 (2), 5-47
Echevarria, Antulio 2007. Clausewitz and Contemporary War. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Everts, Philip (2002). Democracy and Military Force. London: Palgrave
Herberg-Rothe, Andreas. (2007). Clausewitz’s Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9
10










Holsti, Kalevi, (1996). The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Howard, Michael (1981). War and the Liberal Conscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McInnes, Colin (2002). Spectator-Sport War: The West and Contemporary Conflict. London:
Boulder.
Merom, Gil. (2003). How Democracies Lose Small Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Reiter, Dan and Allan Stam (1998), ‘Democracy and Battlefield Military Effectiveness’,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42 (3), 259-277
Reiter, Dan and Allan Stam (2002). Democracies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Russett, B. (1990). Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Shaw, Martin (2005). The New Western Way of War. Risk-Transfer War and its Crisis in Iraq.
Cambridge: Polity.
Sumida, Jon Tetsuro (2008). Decoding Clausewitz A New Approach to ON WAR Lawrence:
UP of Kansas.
Van Creveld, Martin (1991). The Transformation of War. New York: Free Press.
Lecture 3
Global Democracy?
Göran Duus-Otterström
Over the last decade and half, scholars have argued that globalisation undermines the sovereign
nation-state – and with it, democracy. In addition, some theorists argue that the proper response to
globalisation and the erosion of state sovereignty is transnational democracy in some form. In this
seminar, we approach a particular problem in transnational democratic theory: Who ought to be
included in the demos of transnational democracy? A common, intuitively appealing answer is that
everyone who is affected has a legitimate claim to inclusion in transnational decision-making. We’ll
consider the merits of this answer as well as some suggested alternative solutions for determining the
boundaries of democratic entities. We shall also consider the relevance of these theoretical issues for
current discussions about globalisation and security, for example in terms of border control and
migration, or of secession.
Questions guiding the reading
1. David Held argues that cosmopolitanism is already embedded in international rules and
institutions. Is this a plausible claim?
2. What is the appropriate principle for democratic inclusion? In particular, if I am significantly
affected by the US presidential election, do I have a democratic right to have a say in that
election?
10
11
Mandatory readings
 Held, David 2002: Law of states, law of peoples: Three models of sovereignty, Legal Theory


8, 1–44.
Chandler, David 2003. New Rights for Old? Cosmopolitan Citizenship and the Critique of
State Sovereignty, Political Studies 51 (2), 332–349.
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives, Philosophy &
Public Affairs 35 (1), 40-68.
Additional reading:
 Abizadeh, Arash, 2008: »Democratic theory and border coercion: No right to unilaterally
control your own borders«, Political Theory 36 (1), 37-65.
 Miller, David, 2010, Why Immigration Controls are not Coercive: a reply to Arash Abizadeh',
Political Theory, 38 (1), 111-20.
 Näsström, Sofia, 2011. The challenge of the all-affected principle, Political Studies, 59, 116134
Lecture 4
Ethics and Global Security
Jan Bachmann
In this lecture we inquire how questions on ethics, i.e. in relation to a greater good, have been
discussed in the field of security studies. It has been argued that much of what is called critical
security studies has remained cautious or implicit when it comes to debating the ‘good’ of security. Yet
ideas and practices of security carry ethical commitments, imperatives and limits. When it comes to
the question of the rightfulness of the use of force in international politics, thinking on Just War
Theory has a long history and has recently once more gained prominence in relation to post-Cold War
interventions.
In the lecture we will, first, discuss the topicality of Just War Theory in light of recent interventions
and will then explore the place of ethics in contemporary theoretical perspectives on security. Lastly, a
cosmopolitan conception of security is introduced and discussed in relation to contemporary topics
such as humanitarianism and environmental change.
Mandatory Readings:



Burke, Anthony 2013. Security Cosmopolitanism. Critical Studies on Security 1 (1), 13-28.
Jabri, Vivienne 2012. Cosmopolitan Politics, Security and Political Subjectivity. European
Journal of International Relations 18 (4), 625-644.
Sjöberg, Laura 2013. The paradox of Security Cosmopolitanism. Critical Studies on Security
1 (1), 29-34.
11
12
Recommended readings:






Aradau, Claudia 2004. Security and the Democratic Scene. Desecuritization an Emancipation.
Journal of International Relations and Development 7, (4), 388-413.
Bellamy, Alex 2006. Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq. Cambridge: Polity.
Browning, Christopher & Matt McDonald 2013. The future of critical security studies. Ethics
and politics of security. European Journal of International Relations 19(2), 235-255.
Burke, Anthony, Lee-Koo, Katrina & Matt McDonald 2014. Ethics and Global Security.
London: Routledge.
Walzer, Michael 2002. The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the dangers of its success).
Social Research 69 (4), 925-944.
Weizman, Eyal 2012. The Least of All Possible Evils. Humanitarian Violence from Arendt to
Gaza. London: Verso Books.
Lecture 5
Post-Conflict Democratization and Peace-Building: A Contradiction?
Joakim Öjendal
In the beginning of the 1990s, international interventions became increasingly common. These were
often led by the UN and almost always contained a dimension of democratization. Typically elections
were rapidly held followed by a package of "peacebuilding" measures which would consolidate peace
and deepen democracy. However, these interventions are beset by complications where the
contradictions of, for instance, short-term needs for conflict resolution and long-term need for in-depth
democratization become evident. In particular a "local turn" has been pursued in order to legitimize
intervention-based democratization. This lecture analyses critically these dilemmas and other real-life
difficulties inherent in "peacebuilding". It presents a case and discusses ways to overcome these
difficulties.
Mandatory Readings:




Burnell, Peter 2006, ‘The Coherence of Democratic Peace-Building’, Research Paper No.
2006/147, UNU-Wider.
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/research-papers/2006/en_GB/rp2006147/
Öjendal J & S. Ou ( 2015), The ‘Local Turn’ Saving Liberal Peacebuilding? –
Unpacking
virtual peace in Cambodia, Third World Quarterly 36 (5), 929-949.
Paris, Roland & Timothy D. Sisk, 2007, Managing Contradictions: The Inherent Dilemmas
of, Postwar Statebuilding. New York: International Peace
Academy.http://www.ipinst.org/media/pdf/publications/iparpps.pdf
Richmond, Oliver P. 2010, ‘Resistance and the Post-liberal Peace’, Millennium - Journal of
International Studies 38 (3), 665-692.
12
13
Recommended Readings



Marquette, Heather & Danielle Beswick, 2011 ‘State Building, Security and Development:
State building as a new development paradigm?’, Third World Quarterly, 32 (10); 1703-1714.
Paffenholz, Thania 2015, Unpacking the Local Turn in Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment
towards an agenda for future research", Third World Quarterly 36 (5), 929-949.
Mac Ginty, Roger & Gurchathen Sanghera (2012): Hybridity in Peacebuilding and
Development: an Introduction, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 7 (2) 3-8.
Lecture 6
The Securitization of Migration
Anja Franck
In this lecture we will approach the securitization of migration through a focus upon the ongoing socalled 'refugee crisis' in the Greek Island of Lesvos. We will discuss some of the visible trends in the
securitization of migration, the techniques of power this entails as well as how it plays out in a
particular border site.
Mandatory Reading:



Huysmans, J. (2000) The European Union and the Securitization of Migration, Journal of
Common Market Studies, 38 (5): 751-777.
Karyotis, G. (2012) Securitization of Migration in Greece: Process, Motives, and Implications,
International Political Sociology, 6(4): 390-408.
Trubeta, S. (2015) ’Rights’ in the grey area: undocumented border crossers on Lesvos, Race &
Class, Vol. 56(4): 56-72.
Lecture 7
The Security-Development Nexus
Jan Bachmann
‘No security without development and no development without security’ has become the mantra in
Western foreign policy towards countries of the global South. Debates on ‘fragile’ and ‘failed’ states
further created a sense of urgency amongst Western governments to harmonize their diplomacy,
development and defense efforts into an integrated ‘whole-of-government’ approach towards so-called
‘difficult environments’. What is now called the ‘security-development’ nexus has arguably deepened
with the recent emphasis on creating ‘resilient communities’ as a key objective of Western aid
programmes.
In this lecture we trace the history of the figure of the ‘security-development nexus’ and explore the
multiplicity of rationales behind the ‘nexus’ as well as the changing forms of intervention that such
policies generate.
13
14
Questions guiding the reading:
1.)
2.)
3.)
Discuss the normative positions expressed in the debate about the ‘security-development
nexus’! What are the main assumptions in the foreign policy debate as well as in the critical
academic debate?
Does (and if so how) the entry of the concept of ‘resilience’ as an objective of foreign aid
challenge previous objectives and promised of ‘development’?
Does (and if so how) the entry of resilience within international relations challenge the concept
of ‘security’?
Mandatory readings:
 Bachmann, Jan 2014. Policing Africa. The US Military and Visions of Crafting ‘Good Order’.
Security Dialogue 45 (2), 119-136.
 Duffield, Mark 2010. The liberal way of development and the development-security impasse:
Exploring the global life-chance divide. Security Dialogue 41 (1), 53-76.
 Stern, Maria and Joakim Öjendal 2010. Mapping the security-development nexus: Conflict,
Complexity, Cacophony, Convergence, Security Dialogue 41 (1), 5-29.
Additional readings:
 Chandler, David (2014). Resilience. The Governance of Complexity. London: Routledge.
 Duffield, M. (2007) Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of
Peoples, Cambridge: Polity.
 Evans, Brad & Julian Reid (2014). Resilient Life. The Art of Living Dangerously. Cambridge:
Polity.
 Reid, Julian (2012). The disastrous and politically debased subject of resilience, Development
Dialogue 58, 67-79.
 Williams, Paul and Joanna Spear (2012). Conceptualising the security-development
relationship. An overview of the debate. In: Paul Williams & Joanna Spear (Eds). Security and
development in global politics. A critical comparison. Washington/DC: Georgetown
University Press, 7-33.
Lecture 8
Security and Democracy in an Urban Setting
Helen Arfvidsson
This lecture will focus on security and democracy in the urban setting by first introducing the theme of
riots, urban disorder and policing and connect this to a neoliberal reading of cities as increasingly
repressive, revanchist and racialized. Second, this understanding of cities will be opened up and
challenged by active engagements and democratic reappropriations of cities through examples such as
parkour, graffiti and urban exploration with the aim of introducing the notion of urban assemblage.
Mandatory readings:
14
15


Garrett, B. (2014) Undertaking recreational trespass urban exploration and infiltration,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39 (1), 1-13.
Raco, M (2003) Remaking Place and Securitising Space: Urban Regeneration and the
Strategies, Tactics and Practices of Policing in the UK, Urban Studies, (40), (9), 1869-1887.
Additional readings










Amin, A. and N. Thrift (2002) Cities Reimaging the Urban. Oxford: Polity Press.
Borden, I. (2001) Skateboarding, Space and the City: Architecture and the Body. Oxford:
Berg.
Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2005) “Neoliberalism and the urban condition”. City 9: 101–
107.
Dikeç, M. (2007) Badlands of the Republic. Oxford, Blackwell.
Farías, I. (2011) “The politics of urban assemblages”. City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action 15 (3/4): 365-374.
Harvey, D. (2008) “The Right to the City”. New Left Review 53: 23-40.
MacLeod, G. (2002) “From urban entrepreneurialism to a revanchist city? On the spatial
injustices of Glasgow‟s renaissance”. Antipode 34(3): 602-624.
Smith, N. (2002) “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy”.
Antipode 34(3): 427-450.
Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert, F. and Rodriquez, A. (2002) “Neoliberal Urbanization in
Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy”. Antipode
34(3): 542-577.
Wacquant, L. (2009) Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity.
Durham, N.C: Duke University Press.
Lecture 9
Democracy, Private Security, and the State
Joakim Berndtsson
In recent decades, the use of private security companies (PSCs) to provide a wide range of securityand military-related services has increased. Importantly, many of the services and technologies
provided by private companies have conventionally been associated more or less exclusively with the
state and (ideally democratically controlled) institutions such as the police, the military or the
intelligence services. While PSCs operate in nearly all societies around the world, the most
conspicuous and in many ways the most problematic representations of this trend are found in armed
conflicts such as the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. Departing from a brief introduction to the global
privatisation of security, this lecture will introduce a series of different yet interconnected challenges
and questions associated with this development:
Questions guiding the reading
15
16
1. In what ways does security privatisation challenge conventional images of the sovereign state as a
monopolist of violence and provider of protection and how does this development fit (or not)
within conventional and contemporary thinking on security and war?
2. How can we understand the privatisation of security within a larger framework of global (and
security) governance, globalisation, and marketization of state activities and functions?
3. How does privatisation change the organisation and role of violence-using institutions and how
does it change the ability and willingness of states to secure democratic control over their
activities?
4. What roles do PSCs play in the formulation and mitigation of insecurity and risk and what are the
possible implications of privatisation in terms of growing commercial and transnational networks
of security professionals?
Mandatory Readings:


Abrahamsen, R., & Williams, M. C. (2009). 'Security Beyond the State: Global Security
Assemblages in International Politics'. International Political Sociology, 3(1), pp. 1-17.
Berndtsson, Joakim (2014). ‘Realizing the “market-state”? Military Transformation and
Security Outsourcing in Sweden.’ International Journal, Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 542-558.
Recommended readings



Avant, Deborah D., (2006). ‘The Implications of Marketized Security for IR Theory: The
Democratic Peace, Late State Building, and the Nature and Frequency of Conflict.’
Perspectives on Politics, 4 (3), pp. 507-528.
Eichler, Maya, (2014). ‘Citizenship and the contracting out of military work: from national
conscription to globalized recruitment.’ Citizenship Studies, Vol. 18, No. 6-7, pp. 600-614.
Heinecken, Lindy (2014). Outsourcing Public Security: The Unforeseen Consequences for the
Military Profession." Armed Forces & Society 40 (4), 625-646.
Lecture 10
Governmentality and Surveillance
Helen Arfvidsson
Drawing on Foucault and by introducing the notions of biopolitics and governmentality, this lecture
will focus on technologies of security that regulate and govern life through examples of surveillance
related to CCTV, big data and terrorism.
Mandatory Readings


Andrejevic, M. and Gates, K. (2014) Big Data Surveillance: Introduction. Surveillance &
Society 12 (2), 185-196.
Bell, C. (2006) Surveillance Strategies and Populations at Risk: Biopolitical Governance in
Canada’s National Security Policy, Security Dialogue,37 (2), 147-165.
16
17
Recommended Readings:





Bigo, Didier (2002). Security and Immigration. Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of
the ‘Unease’, Alternatives, 27 (special issue), 63-92.
Bröckling, Ulrich; Susanne Krasmann; Thomas Lemke (2012). From Foucault’s Lectures at
the Collège de France to Studies of Governmentality. In: Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne
Krasmann, Thomas Lemke (Eds). Governmentality. Current issues and future challenges
London: Routledge: 1-33 (E-book via UB)
Dean, Mitchell (1999) Governmentality, Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage
Publications. (especially chapter 1).
Rose, Nikolas and Peter Miller (1992). Political Power Beyond the State. Problematics of
Government. British Journal of Sociology 43 (2), 173-205.
Walters, Walter. 2012. Governmentality. Critical encounters, London: Routledge.
Introduction.
17