July, 1994
TO:
Students enrolling in Political Science 102, Introduction to International
Relations (formerly Global Peace and War)
FROM:
Faculty who teach the course in different semesters (Licklider, Rhodes,
Shafer)
We have several different goals for this course. (1) You should acquire the
knowledge and intellectual skills necessary for more specialized courses in international
relations at the 300 and 400 level within the political science department, as well as a sense
of the variety of topics and approaches in such courses. (2) You should understand the
distinctive social science approach to gaining knowledge. (3) You should be able to
understand and participate in the ongoing public debate about the major issues in the
international community. We all use different materials and techniques, but we agree on
what we want to accomplish.
These goals sound impressive but they are rather vague. To be more precise, by the
end of the term you should be able to reasonably discuss all of the following questions:
(a) What is distinctive about the social science method of gaining knowledge and making it
persuasive to others? What other methods of gaining knowledge are commonly used?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of each? What sorts of questions can each best
answer? How do you decide which is more appropriate in a particular situation?
(b) What are the differences among the major alternative theoretical approaches to the
study of international relations--realism and its alternatives? Why have such different
approaches developed? What are the strengths and weaknesses of theories at different
levels of analysis such as the international system, the state, and the individual?
(c) What is the international system, and what concepts have been useful in understanding
this environment within which all states function? How does the lack of central
government (anarchy) create the problem of the security dilemma? How are international
systems classified? What different types have existed throughout history? How is the
current system similar to and different from earlier ones? How has the current
international system evolved from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 through the 18th
Century balance of power, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, the Concert of
Europe, the unification of Germany and Italy, the new imperialism, World War I, the rise
of Hitler, World War II, and the Cold War system?
(d) What are states, and how were they created? Why did they become the major actors in
international systems, and is this likely to continue? What is the relationship between
nations and states? What do nationalism and self-determination mean? What is the role of
non-state actors in international systems historically, currently, and in the future?
(e) What are the causes of war? How useful is it as an instrument of policy? How has
military technology, including nuclear weapons, changed its role in the international
system? What is deterrence theory? Why did the United States and the Soviet Union not
fight a thermonuclear war during the Cold War?
(f) Why do states which have waged war among themselves establish peace? What is the
relationship between arms control, disarmament, and peace? Are democratic states more
peaceful than non-democratic states? What is collective security, and when is it more or
less likely to work?
(g) How does cooperation sometimes emerge from international anarchy and sometimes
not? How do international law and international organizations function? How and under
what circumstances are international regimes formed? What is interdependence, how has
it changed over time, and what difference does it make? How is this likely to change in the
future?
(h) What is power in international affairs, and why is it important? What is the national
interest? What is the relationship between military and economic power? Is power
increasingly defined in terms of economic rather than military means, and if so, why?
What is economic competitiveness, and why is it important?
(i) How do states make decisions about foreign policy issues when good people disagree?
What is the role of organizations and individuals in such choices? Why are some decisions
implemented differently than the political leaders expected? Do democracies have
different foreign policies than non-democracies? What does it mean to say a decision was
made politically?
(j) What are different ideas of the role of ethics and morality in foreign policy? How
should such decisions be made? How can we make arguments about values which will
persuade others to adopt our position? Are the standards for such decisions changing over
time? Is this a good thing? How can we tell?
(k) What global issues (problems on which reasonable people disagree, which influence the
entire international system, and which cannot be resolved by individual states) are likely to
be important in the next few decades? What should we do about some of these issues?
What are we likely to do about them? Can the current state system respond to them
appropriately? Will we be able to respond to them more appropriately than in the past?
We do not expect you to be able to answer any or all of these questions with great
confidence after a single semester introductory course; indeed we disagree among ourselves
about many of them. However, we do expect you to be able to understand some of the
issues involved and to know how to get more information about particular questions and
evaluate it appropriately.
If you wish to pursue these issues further, several advanced courses are routinely
taught at Rutgers. Some focus on the international system, such as 321 Theories of World
Politics and 322 Strategies of International Relations. Others are more concerned with the
particular role of the U.S. government in international affairs, such as 319 Issues of
American Foreign Policy and 323 Defense Policy. 366 Formulation of American Foreign
Policy deals with the process by which the U.S. government makes foreign policy decisions.
Other related courses include 324 Causes of War, 362 International Law, and 363 Conflict
Resolution. For advanced students, we also offer a few research seminars (395) every year
on varying topics.
Political Science 102, Sections 1-10
Introduction to International Relations
e-mail: licklide@rci.rutgers.edu
Roy Licklider
Fall 2011
(732) 932-9249
CAREERS: Students often want information about jobs related to international affairs.
We have prepared a variety of materials on the department website
(www.polisci.rutgers.edu/undergrad/careers), including an essay on careers in
international relations, material on the popular two-year policy programs leading to
Masters degree, biographies of Rutgers alums who have interesting jobs, and a list of
relevant websites. Material is being added routinely so keep an eye on the site.
OFFICE HOURS: I will be in Hickman 616 on Tuesday 1:00-2:00 and 4:00-5:00, Thursday
11:00-2:00, and Friday 1:00-3:00. No appointment necessary–just drop in.
TEACHING ASSISTANTS: Hilla Israeli, Alex Jakubow, and Sung Chul Jung.
COURSE GOALS: We hope that you will learn at least four things from this course: (1)
the technique of testing general statements against reality which we call the science
method; (2) some basic concepts used in studying international relations; (3) techniques for
analyzing moral issues in international affairs; and (4) basic information about a few global
issues which are likely to be important during your lifetime.
The syllabus lists readings for each class meeting. You must read this material before the
class meets; lectures will build on assigned reading rather than repeating it, and
simulations, discussion sections, groupworks, and reading quizzes will all require you to
use materials from the reading in class.
BOOKS REQUIRED FOR PURCHASE (paperback, abbreviated in the syllabus by titles,
will be available in the Rutgers Bookstore and New Jersey Books on Easton Avenue):
James Lee Ray, Global Politics (10th edition only)
Mark R. Amstutz, International Ethics (3rd edition only)
OTHER READINGS: Other materials are divided into two categories. Items which can
readily be obtained from the library on IRIS are simply listed in the syllabus. These are all
articles in professional magazines called journals which can be located from IRIS, the
Rutgers Library electronic catalog. To obtain the article, go to www.libraries.rutgers.edu,
sign in if necessary, go to Search IRIS, enter the periodical title, go to the version online,
then find the appropriate issue and the article which you can download or read on screen.
Items which cannot be obtained in this way are marked with an asterisk and are on the
course Sakai site; go to https://sakai.rutgers.edu and enter your Rutgers identification.
This will take you to your workspace, and the course site will be automatically available if
you are registered in the course. On the course site, go to Resources; items are listed
alphabetically by title (as they are listed on the syllabus). When you locate the item you
want, just click on it. If something is not available, please let me know immediately so I can
do something about it.
You should thus be able to read all these readings from any computer at Rutgers and, with
appropriate identification, any other computer connected to the internet as well. You are
responsible for having read all assigned materials before the class when they are assigned.
I have also listed optional reading for students who want to pursue some of these topics at
greater length; these materials are not on the Sakai site and will not be on the reading
quizzes or exams.
CLASS FORMATS: Because of the large size of this course, several different class formats
will be used, as indicated in the syllabus.
L = lecture in Hickman 101, usually every Tuesday and any Friday when no other session is
scheduled for that week
P = a paper is due that day; the class will meet in Hickman 101 to discuss the paper in
detail (students often find these sessions among the most valuable of the course, although
not always the most comfortable). If you have not completed your paper for any reason, do
not attend these sessions.
D = discussion sections on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, usually every alternate week,
each section in the room and time assigned to it; there are no Friday lectures on these
weeks.
S = simulation on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday in the same times and rooms as
discussion sections–again no Friday lectures those weeks
G = groupwork on Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday in the same times and rooms as
discussion sections with no lecture on Friday those weeks
NOTE: This class only meets two times a week. Therefore there will be no Friday lecture
on weeks when you have discussion sections, simulation, or groupworks, and sections will
not meet on weeks when there is a Friday lecture.
GRADING POLICY:
Paper #1
Paper #2
Paper #3
Reading quizzes (top 6 grades)
Groupwork (top 3 grades)
Participation in discussion section
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
10%
Final exam at scheduled time
15%
NOTE: Students must complete at least one version of all three papers and the final exam
in order to pass the course.
PAPERS: The papers should be no more than five double-spaced pages or about
1500 words. The papers require thought rather than research and will be graded
accordingly. They may not be submitted by e-mail except by special permission. We
expect them to be written in standard English; students with writing problems will be
required to go to the Writing Centers and expected to improve. Late papers without a
reasonable excuse will be reduced a full letter grade for each class period that they are late.
Papers may be rewritten for credit if the original grade was C+ or below; the second
version will be graded independently and averaged with the first to calculate the grade for
that paper. Students must talk to the individual who graded their papers before rewriting
them. Rewritten papers will be accepted for approximately three weeks after they have
been returned.
Because of the size of this class, three political science graduate students have been
assigned as teaching assistants; they will also grade many of the papers. To ensure that our
grading standards are the same, we begin each assignment by grading and discussing
papers until we are giving the same grades to the same papers. When rewriting a paper or
discussing an exam graded by someone other than me, you should first talk to the original
grader. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of this discussion, you may appeal the
grade to me.
PLAGIARISM: Plagiarism is pretending that someone else’s words or ideas are
your own. It is an academic crime and is punished as such; all possible cases in this class
are reported directly to the appropriate judicial authorities for action. In order to prevent
it, all papers must be submitted in two different forms, on paper to us in class and
electronically to Sakai, which in turn will automatically submit it to turnitin.com. Turnitin
compares each paper to a database of several billion webpages looking for duplication.
The database includes over forty million student papers, among which are all papers for
this course for the past few years, as well as the text of thousands of articles and books.
READING QUIZZES: Nine reading quizzes will be given during the semester at
the beginning of class; they will not be announced in advance, and no makeups, excuses, or
rewrites will be accepted. Each quiz will require you to demonstrate that you have read a
specified part of the reading assignment for that day; outlining the major points and noting
a few things which are unique to the assignment are the obvious ways to do this. Written
notes (but no books or xeroxes) may be used. All computers must be closed during the
quizzes. Quizzes will be graded pass or fail. Students with six or more passing grades will
be given an A for the reading quiz portion of their final grade. Students with five passing
grades will get a B, those with four will get a C, those with three will get a D, and those with
fewer than three will get an F.
GROUPWORK: Five times during the semester the class will meet in groups of five
students at the times and places of the discussion sections. Each group will be given an
assignment which will normally involve analyzing a problem related to the reading and
writing a brief group paper during the class period. Groups of two or fewer people should
combine. Make a serious effort to reach agreement within the group. After the discussion,
students who wish to do so may leave the group before the paper is written and write their
own paper; however, any paper submitted by only one student will be reduced one full
letter grade. Students who do not participate in a useful way may be asked by the group to
leave. All those who participated in the process should put their names on the paper and
will all receive the same grade. The top four groupwork grades will be averaged and count
15% of your final grade. No makeups will be allowed.
SIMULATION: Two class periods will be devoted to a simulation, in the times and
places of discussion sections. The results will be used in paper #2. Teams will be
announced.
DISCUSSION SECTION PARTICIPATION: On weeks noted in the syllabus, the
class will meet in discussion sections led by the teaching assistants. You are responsible for
having read the assigned class material and for discussing it intelligently and seriously;
participation will count for 10% of your grade.
SAKAI DISCUSSIONS: Since the discussion sections only meet five times during
the semester, the Sakai discussion system will be used to encourage interaction at other
times among members of each section. In the latter part of the semester, a question related
to the course will be posted on each system every week or so; students are encouraged to
respond to them and to one another on their section list serve. Participation will count as
verbal discussion in section meetings. It is perfectly appropriate to disagree strongly with
views expressed on the list, but attacks on individual participants (flaming, etc.) will not be
tolerated.
Students are expected to attend all classes; if you expect to miss one or two classes,
please use the University absence reporting website https://sims.rutgers.edu/ssra/ to
indicate the date and reason for your absence. An e-mail is automatically sent to me.
I. SCIENCE AND WISDOM
9/2:
(L)
Course introduction and initial discussion of science and wisdom
9/6:
(L)
*“America’s Knowledge Deficit” by Benjamin Barber, The Nation,
November 10, 2010), pp. 21-22 (on Sakai site)
*”How Do We Know What We Know?” by Roy Licklider
*”International Relations: Wisdom or Science?” by Charles McClelland, in
James Rosenau, International Politics and Foreign Policy (1969),
pp. 3-5
On Thursday, September 8, Rutgers has scheduled Monday classes; as a result our
Thursday sections cannot meet on that day. Instead the Thursday sections will meet on
FRIDAY, September 9, at the regular time (10:55-12:15) in 101 Hickman. Wednesday and
Friday sections will meet at their normal times and places. The reading assignment for all
sections for this class is below.
9/7-9/9:
(D)
*"The Behavioral Science Approach to International Relations: Payoff and
Prospects" by J. David Singer, SAIS Review, X (Summer, 1966),
pp. 12-20
*"National Alliance Commitments and War Involvement, 1818-1945" by J.
David Singer and Melvin Small, Papers of the Peace Research Society
(International), V (1966), pp. 109-140.
9/13:
(L)
*"Japan's Fatal Blunder" by Sir George Sansom, International Affairs
(October 1948), pp. 543-549 (rest of the article is interesting but
optional)
"The Calculus of Deterrence" by Bruce M. Russett, Journal of Conflict
Resolution, VII (1963), pp. 97-109
9/14-16:
(D)
*"The Flow of Policy-Making in the Department of State" by Charleton
Ogburn, Appendix C, in H. Haviland Field, The Formulation and
Administration of United States Foreign Policy, pp. 172-177.
*“The State System Exercise” by William Coplin, all [print and bring to class
for discussion]
9/20:
(P)
PAPER #1:
(1) DOES THE STATE DEPARTMENT USE "SCIENCE" OR
"WISDOM" TO GAIN EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE, ACCORDING TO
OGBURN?
AND
(2) WHICH APPROACH DID OGBURN HIMSELF USE IN WRITING
THE ARTICLE?
Hints: Identify several different components of science and wisdom; then
cite specific examples
from the Ogburn article and relate them to particular parts of your
definitions. The object is to demonstrate that you understand these terms
well enough to be able to use them.
II. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
A. NATIONS, STATES AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS
9/21-23:
(S)
SIMULATION IN ROOMS AND TIMES SCHEDULED FOR
DISCUSSION SECTIONS
Global Politics, pp. 182-195
*International Politics by K. J. Holsti, chapter 2
*“The State System Exercise” by William Coplin, all [bring to class]
9/27:
(L)
Global Politics, chapter 2
9/28-9/30:
(S)
SIMULATION IN ROOMS AND TIMES SCHEDULED FOR
DISCUSSION SECTIONS
Global Politics, chapter 3
“American Primacy in Perspective” by Stephen G. Brooks and William C.
Wohlforth, Foreign Affairs (July 2002)
*“The State System Exercise” by William Coplin, all [bring to class]
B. COOPERATION IN ANARCHY: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
10/4:
(L)
Global Politics, pp. 302-323
“The Rise of China and the Future of the West,” by G. John Ikenberry,
Foreign Affairs, 87, 1 (January/February 2008), 23-37
“The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector” by Lester M. Salamon, Foreign Affairs,
73 (July/August 1994), pp. 109-122.
C. COOPERATION IN ANARCHY: INTERNATIONAL LAW
10/5-7:
(D)
Global Politics, pp. 324-337
International Ethics, chapter 10 and pp. 229-239
*“Committing War Crimes for the ‘Right Reasons’,” by Glenn Greenwald,
Salon, December 17, 2008, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
2008/12/17/douthat/index.htm
*“Policy Analysis and Argument” by Roy Licklider
OPTIONAL READING:
“Self-Defense and the Use of Force: Breaking the Rules, Making the Rules,
or Both?” by Mark Drumbl, International Studies Perspectives, 4
(2003), pp. 409-432
Bartram S. Brown, “Barely Borders: Issues of International Law,” Harvard
International Review (Spring 2004), pp. 52-57 (legality of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq)
Adam Branch, “Uganda’s Civil War and the Politics of ICC Intervention,”
Ethics and International Affairs, 21 (Summer 2007), pp. 19-198
Jim Wurst, “The Mine Ban Treaty: Ten Years On,” The Interdependent, 5, 2
(Summer 2007), pp. 21-25
10/11:
(P)
Review especially J. David Singer, "The Behavioral Science Approach to
International Relations: Payoff and Prospects" and other materials
in the first reading assignment of the course
PAPER #2: CONVERT THE "FACTS" FROM THE HISTORICAL
MATERIALS IN THE HOLSTI INTERNATIONAL POLITICS READING,
AND THE EXPERIENCE OF THE STATE SYSTEM EXERCISE INTO
"DATA" AND TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS:
"MULTIPOLAR INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS ARE MORE STABLE
THAN BIPOLAR INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS."
Hints: Classify each system as (1) bipolar, multipolar, or other and (2)
stable, unstable, or other. For purposes of this paper, treat the simulation
results as "real." Use Holsti’s facts, not his definitions. Assume that your
reader does not have a copy of the simulation results. Combine the historical
and simulated systems in your analysis.
OPTIONAL READING: William Wohlforth et. al., “Testing Balance-ofPower Theory in World History,” European Journal of International
Relations, 13, 2 (2007), pp. 155-185
D. FUTURE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: COMPETITION, HEGEMONY,
INTEGRATION, OR ANARCHY?
10/12-14:
(G)
“A Global Power Shift in the Making: Is the United States Ready?” by
James F. Hoge, Jr., Foreign Affairs, 83, 4 (July/August 2004), pp. 2-7
“History and the Hyperpower” by Eliot Cohen, Foreign Affairs, 83, 4
(July/August 2004), pp. 49-63
Global Politics, chapter 13
“The Day After” by Stephen Krasner, Foreign Policy, 146
(January/February 2005), pp. 68-70
“A World Without Power” by Niall Ferguson, Foreign Policy (July/August
2004), pp. 32-39
III. FOREIGN POLICY: CHOOSING ENDS AND MEANS
A. POWER AND FOREIGN POLICY
10/18:
(L)
Global Politics, Chapter 4 and pp. 195-205
"Where Are the Great Powers? At Home with the Kids," by Edward
Luttwak, Foreign Affairs, 73 (July/August, 1994), pp. 23-29.
OPTIONAL READING:
Stephen Biddle, “Strategy and War,” P.S.: Political Science and Politics, 40, 3
(July 2007), pp. 416-467
B. MORALITY AND CHOICE IN FOREIGN POLICY
10/19-21:
(D)
Global Politics, pp. 328-352
International Ethics, Introduction and chapters 1-2
10/25:
(L)
International Ethics, chapters 3 and 6
10/26-28:
(G)
International Ethics, chapter 7
*“Responding to Terrorism: Challenges for Democracy,” Choices for the 21st
Century Education Program, Thomas J. Watson Institute for
International Studies, Brown University, pp. 1-45
*“Is There a Good Terrorist” by Timothy Garten Ash, New York Review of
Books, 48, 19 (November 29, 2001), pp. 30-33
OPTIONAL READINGS:
Michael Ignatieff, “Lesser Evils,” New York Times Magazine, May 2, 2004.
John Mueller, “Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?” Foreign Affairs, 85, 5
(September/October 2006)
Daniel Byman, “Do Targeted Killings Work?” Foreign Affairs, 85, 2
(March/April 2006), pp. 95-111
Peter R. Neumann, “Negotiating With Terrorists,” Foreign Affairs, 86, 1
(January/February 2007), pp. 128-138
Max Abraham, “What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and
Counterterrorism Strategy,” International Security, 32, 4 (Spring
2008), pp. 78-105
C. HOW ARE FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS ACTUALLY MADE?
11/1:
(L)
Global Politics, chapter 5 and pp. 205-210
11/2-4:
(D)
International Ethics, chapter 8 and pp. 20-26
*“Iraq: The War of the Imagination” by Mark Danner, New York Review of
Books, 53, 20 (December 21, 2006)
11/8:
(P)
PAPER #3: “If there is an Al Qaeda cell in a New Jersey city committing
terrorist activities, it should be combated with every available weapon
regardless of the harm to non-combatants, even if this results in more noncombatant casualties than continued terrorism would produce.” (Terrorism
is defined here as violence deliberately aimed at non-combatants by nongovernmental organizations for political goals.)
(1) MAKE THE STRONGEST MORAL ARGUMENT that this statement is
true. You may wish to specify a particular set of conditions under which it is
true. MAKE THE STRONGEST MORAL ARGUMENT that this statement
is not true. For each argument, specify the general moral value which
underlies it and why this value should be given priority over the
corresponding value in the opposing argument, using the concepts of
impartiality and universality. You must have different values for each
argument. Concepts and issues associated with just war theory may be
useful. (Approximately one page)
(2) ISOLATE ONE EMPIRICAL QUESTION and CONSTRUCT ONE
HYPOTHESIS (a general, empirical, testable, comparative statement) which,
if tested, would help reduce the differences among people advocating
these two positions. This is likely to involve the consequences of such a
policy, perhaps drawn from empirical assumptions of the moral arguments.
Do this by converting the empirical question into a causal statement--A is
more likely to occur when B is true than when B is not true. Make your
hypothesis as precise as possible. Remember that hypotheses about the
future cannot be tested, since we have no data about the future, so they
cannot be used. Therefore hypotheses should be written using the past or
present tense. Be sure to specify the alternatives that you are comparing.
(3) EXPLAIN briefly how testing the hypothesis would help reduce the
differences on whether this policy would be morally correct. One way to do
this is to specify (a) how the arguments would change if you persuaded
everyone that the hypothesis was true and (b) how the arguments would
change if you persuaded everyone that the hypothesis was false.
(4) EXPLAIN briefly (a few sentences) what sort of data you would need to
test the hypothesis. Note that you are not asked to either gather the data or
test the hypothesis; simply tell how you would do so given enough time and
resources. (This should also allow you to judge how well someone else with
such time and resources has done the job when you read about research
in the area.) Note that, unlike your groupworks, we are not interested in
your opinion on this issue.
IV. GLOBAL ISSUES
A. WAR AND PEACE
1. NUCLEAR AND THERMONUCLEAR WAR
11/11:
(L)
Global Politics, chapter 8
“The Nukes We Need” by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press. Foreign
Affairs, 88, 6 (Nov/Dec 2009), pp. 39-51
2. PEACE FOR THE RICH, WAR FOR THE POOR?
11/15:
(L)
*World Politics: The Menu for Choice, by Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr,
chapter 14
Global Politics, chapter 7
“Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon” by Stephen Biddle, Foreign Affairs, 85, 2
(March/April 2006), pp. 2-14
OPTIONAL READING:
Charles Duelfer, “Canaries in the Cooling Tower,” National Interest, 102
(July/August 2009), pp. 52-62
Charles A. Kupchan, How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable
Peace
3. DEMOCRACY AND WAR
11/16-18:
(G)
Global Politics, pp. 195-205 (review)
“Democratization and the Danger of War” by Edward Mansfield and Jack
Snyder, International Security, 20 (Summer 1995), pp. 5-39.
“Democracy and the National Interest: Idealpolitik as Realpolitik” by Strobe
Talbott, Foreign Affairs, 75 (November/December 1996), pp. 5-22
11/21-25:
THERE WILL BE NO MEETINGS OF THIS CLASS, EITHER
LECTURES OR SECTIONS, THIS WEEK.
B. GLOBAL ECONOMY AND THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
11/29:
(L)
Global Politics, chapter 10
*Fixing Global Finance by Martin Wolf, pp. 58-81
OPTIONAL READING:
“Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession” by Paul Krugman, Foreign
Affairs, 73 (March, 1994), pp. 28-44 and discussion, Foreign Affairs,
73 (July, 1994), pp. 186-203.
C. DEVELOPMENT AND THE NORTH-SOUTH DIVISION
11/30-12/2:
(G)
Global Politics, chapter 11
*“The Mystery of Growth” by Robert Sidelsky, New York Review of Books,
50, (March 13, 2003), pp. 28-31
*“Why People Still Starve” by Barry Bearak, New York Times Magazine
(July 13, 2003)
“More than 1 Billion People Are Hungry in the World—But What if the
Experts Are Wrong?” by Abhuit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Foreign
Policy, 186 (May/June 2011), 66-72
*“The Good News” by Paul Krugman, The New York Times (November 28,
2003), p. A43
*“The Mystery of Capital” by Hernando de Soto, Carnegie Council on Ethics
and International Affairs
OPTIONAL READING:
John Gerring, “Global Justice as an Empirical Question,” PS (American
Political Science Association), January 2007, pp. 67-76
20:21 Vision: Twentieth-Century Lessons for the Twenty-first Century by Bill
Emmott, chapter 10 (pp. 257-280)
“Why Democracies Excel” by Joseph T. Siegle, Michael M. Weinstein, and
Morton H. Halperin, Foreign Affairs, 83, 5 (September/October
2004), pp. 57-71
D. HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE, AND PEACE
12/6:
(G)
International Ethics, chapters 4-5
*“Ethical Considerations: Law, Foreign Policy, and the War on Terror” by
Albert Mora, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs,
OPTIONAL:
“Ethical Advice: Conflict Management vs. Human Rights in Ending Civil
Wars” by Roy Licklider, Journal of Human Rights, 7 (2008), pp. 376387
E. ECOLOGY
12/7-9:
(L)
*“Ozone Diplomacy" by Richard Benedick, "Issues in Science and
Technology, VI (Fall, 1989), pp. 43-50
International Ethics, pp. 217-228
*“The Question of Global Warming” by Freeman Dyson, New York Review of
Books, 55, 10 (June 12, 2008),
OPTIONAL:
Thomas C. Schelling, "Climate Change: The Uncertainties, the Certainties
and What They Imply About Action," The Economists' Voice, 4,3
(2007); http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol4/iss3/art3
Michael A. Levi, “Copenhagen’s Inconvenient Truth,” Foreign Affairs, 88, 5
(September/October 2009), pp. 92-104
F. ALTERNATE THEORIES AND GLOBAL FUTURES
12/13:
(L)
Global Politics, chapter 1 and pp. 525-536
“Best.Decade.Ever” by Charles Keeny, Foreign Policy 181
(September/October 2010), 27-29
“One World, Rival Theories” by Jack Snyder, Foreign Policy, 145
(November/December, 2004), pp. 52-62
International Ethics, Conclusion
OPTIONAL READING: Jeffrey Sachs, “A Simple Plan to Save the World,”
Esquire, May 2004.
FINAL EXAM SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 23, 8-11 AM