Course Guide SF2221
Global Security and Democracy (Global säkerhet och demokrati)
15 Higher education credits (15 högskolepoäng)
January 2015
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 pressing challenges posed by today’s global political landscape call for changing notions of both
security and democracy. How can we provide security for people, states, regions, the globe, and still
attend to the basic fundaments of democratic principles? And how can we ensure a democratization of
new as well as old international actors and arenas, without risking a security loss? These questions
evoke even more urgency as it becomes increasingly clear that danger, threat, and terror clearly
transgress those borders that have been erected to protect, and to distinguish friend from foe.
This module will address the interrelationship between security and democracy in an ever-changing
global context. In particular, it will attend to the following questions as guide posts for creative
reflection: What do we mean by security and democracy? What should be included as referent of
security (e.g. the state, the individual, the globe; men, women, the environment), what should be
included as threats (e.g. military attack, human rights abuses, environmental damage, economic
dependence, and global terrorism), and what should be considered proper strategies (military
deterrence/common security, intervention, economic sanctions, the enforcement of international law as
well as human—and women’s—rights or, anti-terrorist measures). 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? Is modern state sovereignty
still the governing logic by which to attain security and achieve democracy? Has it ever been? What
possibilities do we have to design international as well as national institutions in a way to promote
global democracy? What are the implications of the security-development nexus for strategies for both
security and the democratization of societies? What other alternative models for peaceful governance
can we see already being established: networks of civil society, a strengthening of the traditional
modern state, regional unions, increasing independence for global actors? The module presents and
discusses theoretical and empirical encounters where the two concepts are both entangled and
2
contested. The lectures cover issues regarding cosmopolitan democracy, democratic peace theory,
democracies and war, liberty and security, private security, reconstruction and peacebuilding, security
and identity, and the relationship between security and development.
General aims of the course
After completion of the course, the student shall be able to:
Knowledge and understanding

account for different theoretical approaches to the concept/practices of security and
democracy, as well as their interrelationships;
Skills and abilities

analyse how different understandings of security, democracy and their interrelationships
employ different logics, ontologies and methodologies;
Judgment and approach

critically assess the different theoretical approaches presented in the course and discuss their
strengths and weaknesses.
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
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 discussion seminars. Taking part in the
course presupposes an active and whole-hearted contribution throughout the duration of the whole
course, as it is designed as a graduate-level seminar.
The course is divided into 8 interrelated themes (see below). Each theme begins with a lecture which
will provide the students with an overview of the field, introducing key concepts, research questions,
as well as the empirical evidence that has been presented. The students are expected to read the
literature carefully and critically reflect upon the main points of the theme introduced.
Each lecture is followed by a student-led seminar in small groups. This seminar is designed to allow
time to discuss and reflect on the topic’s literature and also to give the students creative room to
connect the weekly theme to current events. 1-2 students are assigned to prepare and lead the
discussion based on the literature used for the lectures. You may relate the more theoretical
discussions to everyday real life events, culture, reporting, etc.
2
3
Additionally there will be 5 seminars in which we will discuss your writing exercises and your essays,
respectively. There will be two lectures each week with a break of one week after the first four
lectures.
Forms of examination
During the course, everyone is expected to complete 2 writing exercises, to write 2 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.
Writing exercises
In the first writing exercise, everyone is expected to write a comparative summary of two articles.
You can chose between the texts of Burnell & Richmond (core reading lecture 3) or the articles by
Held & Chandler (core reading lecture 4; max 1000 words, 12 font, 1½ line spacing). 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.
In the second you will write a book review (max 1500 words, 12 font, 1½ line spacing). You are
expected to find a book yourself on either private security (lecture 7) or democracies and peace/war
(lectures 1 or 2). It 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 article. Please motivate your choice of the book.
The two writing exercises are mandatory but will only be grades with fail or pass.
Two essays
For the first essay (max 2000 words, 12 font, 1½ line spacing), you choose a research problem related
to one of the lecture topics 1-4. For the second essay you may choose a research problem related to
one of the lecture topics 5-8. Everyone will present his/her draft in a structured way at a seminar.
During the seminar, you will receive feedback from a fellow student (peer review format) as well as
comments by the lecturer. The student then has the opportunity to revise his/her essay. The second
draft will be graded. The final submission 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!
NOTE: All papers should include proper references to the literature with which you are directly
engaging. Papers without proper referencing will NOT receive a ‘pass’.
Final paper
3
4
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
and democracy should then be used for the final paper (max 4000 words, 12 font, 1½ line spacing).
This should include a problem specification, 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 argument does not need to be supported by empirical evidence (the
final paper is not a master thesis but can be formulated as a possible research proposal) but can e.g. be
that some research question that you suggest is worth pursuing. The final paper can be about any of
the lecture topics. This paper will be discussed at a final seminar. At the final seminar you are
expected to present the final paper to your fellow students (5-7 minutes/person).
Grading
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). The two writing tasks will be marked either
with G (“godkänd”/pass) or U (“underkänd”/fail). In order to receive a pass for the whole course the
student has to complete all the tasks, that is, he/she needs to receive G (“godkänd”/pass) for the two
writing tasks, the two essays and the final paper. A VG (“väl godkänd”) for the whole course
additionally requires a VG in one of the first two essays AND a VG in the final paper. 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
4
5
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.
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, “Essay 1 draft” and “Essay 2 draft”
must be uploaded to the your project group’s documents (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.)
5
6
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
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.
Seminar Questions
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?
Core reading





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.
Rosato, Sebastian, (2003) The flawed logic of democratic peace theory, American Political
Science Review, 97 (4), 585–602.
Russett, Bruce & Zeev Maoz (1993) Normative and structural causes of the democratic peace,
1946–1986, American Political Science Review 87, 624–38.
6
7
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.
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.
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.
Seminar Questions
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?
Core Reading:
7
8



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
Reiter, Dan and Allan Stam (1998), ‘Democracy and Battlefield Military Effectiveness’,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42 (3), 259-277
Merom, Gil. (2003). How Democracies Lose Small Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
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
Reiter, Dan and Allan Stam (2002). Democracies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Herberg-Rothe, Andreas. (2007). Clausewitz’s Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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
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
8
9
democratization become evident. This lecture analyses critically this dilemma and other real-life
difficulties inherent in "peacebuilding". It presents a case and discusses ways to overcome these
difficulties.
Seminar questions
1.)
Peace and democracy are two processes that carry similar values and intuitively pursue similar
ideas. Yet they do not easily coincide. Why is that so, and which consequences does this carry?
2.)
Liberal peace is a system marked by freedoms and rights, yet it seems to be difficult to apply in
post-conflict situations. Why? Give examples of how and why?
3.)
Peacebuilding is sometime bordering on statebuilding. Why? Is that a desirable overlap? What
does that imply for peacebuilding operations?
Core reading:





Burnell, Peter 2006, ‘The Coherence of Democratic Peace-Building’, Research
Paper No. 2006/147, UNU-Wider.
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/researchpapers/2006/en_GB/rp2006-147/
Marquette, Heather & Danielle Beswick, 2011 ‘State Building, Security and
Development: State building as a new development paradigm?’, Third World
Quarterly, 32 (10); 1703-1714.
Öjendal, Joakim & Sivhuoch Ou, 2013 ‘From Friction to Hybridity in
Cambodia: 20 years of unfinished peacebuilding’, in Peacebuilding 1 (3), 365380.
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.
Lecture 4
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
9
10
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.
Seminar questions
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?
Core reading:


Chandler, David 2003: “New Rights for Old? Cosmopolitan Citizenship and the Critique of
State Sovereignty”, Political Studies 51 (2), 332–349.
Held, David 2002: “Law of states, law of peoples: Three models of sovereignty”, Legal Theory
8, 1–44.
Additional reading:






Abizadeh, Arash 2008. Democratic theory and border coercion: No right to unilaterally
control your own borders, Political Theory 36 (1), 37-65.
Archibugi, Daniele 2004. Cosmopolitan democracy and its critics: a review, European
Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 437-473.
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives,
Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (1), 40-68.
Miller, David 2010. Why Immigration Controls are not Coercive: a reply to Arash
Abizadeh, Political Theory, 38 (1), 111-20.
Owen, David 2012. Constituting the polity, constituting the demos, Ethics & Global
Politics, 5(3), 129-152.
Song, Sarah 2012. The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should
be bounded by the state, International Theory, 4(1), 39-68.
Lecture 5
Identity, Security and Democracy
Megan Daigle
In this lecture we discuss the relevance of identities to international politics. We will
cover the relationship between identity and other major concepts in international relations
theory, various frameworks for thinking about identity through a political lens, and a
10
11
number of contemporary case studies that highlight the complex relationship between
identities and global security today.
Seminar questions:
1. Does who we are matter in terms of how we identity threat and seek security?
2. Does how we identity threat and seek security inform how we identify ourselves?
3. How are notions of national interest, democratic representation, and citizenship tied to how
we think about identity?
Core reading





Gartzke, Erik and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch (2006). Identity and Conflict: Ties that Bind and
Differences that Divide. European Journal of International Relations, 12 (1), 53-86.
Jackson, Richard, (2005). Security, Democracy, and the Rhetoric of CounterTerrorism, Democracy and Security, 1 (2), 147-171.
Mitzen, Jennifer (2006). Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the
Security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations 12 (3), 341-370.
Roe, Paul, (2004). Securitization and Minority Rights, Security Dialogue 35 (3), 279–294.
Stern, Maria, (2006). ‘We’ the Subject’: The Power and Failure of (In)Security, Security
Dialogue, 37 (2), 187-205.
Additional readings:








Aradau, Claudia (2004). Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and
Emancipation, Journal of International Relations and Development 7 (4), 388–413.
Bially Mattern, Janice (2001). The Power Politics of Identity. European Journal of
International Relations, 7 (3), 349-397.
Burke, Anthony (2002). Aporias of Security, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27(1), 1–
27.
Campbell, David, (1992). Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Doty, R. L. (2007), States of Exception on the Mexico–U.S. Border: Security, “Decisions,”
and Civilian Border Patrols. International Political Sociology, 1 (2), 113–137.
Greenhill, Brian (2008). Recognition and Collective Identity Formation in International
Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 14 (2), 343-368.
Gutman, A. (2004). Identity in Democracy,Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jacobsen, Elida, (2012). Unique Identification: Inclusion and surveillance in the Indian
11
12







biometric assemblage, Security Dialogue, 43(5), 457-474.
Luke, T. W. (2010. From “Am I an American?” to “I Am an American!” Cynthia Weber on
Citizenship, Identity, and Security. International Political Sociology, 4 (1), 85–89.
Pin-Fat, Véronique, (2000). (Im)possible Universalism: Reading Human Rights in World
Politics, Review of International Studies 26(4), 663–674.
Pin-Fat,Véronique& Maria Stern (2005). The Scripting of Private Jessica Lynch: Biopolitics,
Gender and the “Feminisation” of the U.S. Military, Alternatives: Global,Local,
Political 30(1): 25–53.
Rowley, C. And J. Weldes, (2012). The evolution of international security studies and the
everyday: Suggestions from the Buffyverse, Security Dialogue, 43 (6),513-530.
Weldes, Jutta; Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson& Raymond Duvall, eds, (1999). Cultures of
Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger. Minneapolis, MN:University
of Minnesota Press.
Wendt, Alexander (1994). Collective Identity Formation and the International State. American
Political Science Review, 88 (2), pp.384-396.
Wæver, Ole, (1995) Securitization and Desecuritization, In: Ronny Lipschutz, ed., On
Security. New York: Columbia University Press (46–86).
Lecture 6
The Security-Development Nexus
Jan Bachmann
It has become increasingly evident that the complex pressing problems that societies face in today’s
globalized political, economic and cultural landscape demand serious reflection. Simply put, it matters
that—for instance—people continue to die globally in almost unimaginable numbers from povertyrelated illnesses; violent conflict, ecological disasters or terrorist attacks. Additionally, safety in the
daily lives of people’s in recently ‘liberated’ societies remains at best a pipe dream, and at worse, an
impossibility. The interwoven intricacies of problems like these belie the limits of both academic
discourses and policy programs. Specifically, their persistence loudly attests that any
conceptualization or enactment of development necessarily implies attention to that which has been
understood to belong to the realm of ‘security’ and vice versa. Indeed the hope of effective attention
to how the threads which weave these problems are entwined therefore poses critical challenges to
those working in the distinct (and until recently delineated) fields of security and development. In this
lecture we will introduce the ways these interconnections have been conceived and practiced in the socalled ‘security development nexus’.
Seminar questions:
1.)
2.)
3.)
Discuss the normative positions expressed in the debate about the ‘securitydevelopment 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’?
12
13
Core reading:
 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.
 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.
Additional reading:
 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.
You may also browse through the articles in the recently launched journal ‘Resilience – International
Policies, Practices and Discourses’ (particularly vol. 1)
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/resi20#.VKpUf2Mkoik (accessible through the university library)
Lecture 7
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:
Seminar Questions
13
14
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?
Core 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.
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.
Berndtsson, Joakim 2012: "Security Professionals for Hire: Exploring the Many
Faces of Private Security Expertise." Millennium-Journal of International Studies
40 (2), 303-20.
Heinecken, Lindy: 2013 "Outsourcing Public Security: The Unforeseen
Consequences for the Military Profession." Armed Forces & Society; online; doi:
10.1177/0095327X13489974 (http://afs.sagepub.com/content/early/recent)
Singer, P. W. 2007: "Can't Win with 'Em, Can't Go to War without 'Em Private
Military Contractors and Counterinsurgency." At:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2007/9/27militarycontra
ctors/0927militarycontractors.pdf
Lecture 8
Governmentality and Technologies of Security:
Revisiting the liberty-security trade-off
Helen Arfvidsson
Learning from Foucault and other political philosophers, many critical security scholars have
refocused their analysis on the questions of sovereignty and the governing of life. Even though
practices of power have evolved from their brute force to operate in more indirect and empowering
modes, mechanisms of security remain a central element in liberal ‘arts of governing’. In the literature
on biopolitics, practices of security are understood as ways of ordering and sorting forms of life, as
creating citizens (or subjects) or as separating friend from foe. This lecture provides an introduction to
14
15
the question of how populations are regulated and governed through liberal rationalities by addressing
the biopolitics of migration and the threat posed by the immigrant perceived as the dangerous 'other'.
Both the value added as well as potential limits of a governmentality perspective will be discussed.
Seminar Questions
1.) In the theoretical debate about the “state of exception”, the problem of exceptionalism is often
located in the exceptional event and the sovereign’s decision to act. Foucault’s concept
of biopolitics is a radically different way of understanding the relation between life, politics
and security. From a Foucauldian perspective there is no object called exception that
determines political behaviour, but rather a multiplicity of practices of government. How does
this open up for a different discussion on exceptionalism and sovereign power?
2.) Jabri (2006:51) suggests that when “security becomes the overwhelming imperative of the
democratic state, its legitimization is achieved both through a discourse of 'balance' between
security and liberty and in terms of the 'protection' of liberty”. What does she mean by this?
3.) In relation to the biopolitics of security and the securitization of migration, Bigo (2002:68)
argues that framing the state as a 'body' endangered by migrants is a political narrative and a
social construction used to politicize migration. By increased regulation it is symbolically
possible to contain the threat of the 'other', hence justifying and legitimizing the discourse and
practice of 'securitizing' migration and introducing ever stricter control practices. Discuss!
Core reading




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 (NB: concentrate on pages 1-20 as an overview). E-book via UB
Neal, Andrew (2010). Exceptionalism and the Politics of Counter-Terrorism. London:
Routledge, chapter 1: The Liberty/Security Discourse and the Problem of Exception.
Rose, Nikolas and Peter Miller (1992). Political Power Beyond the State. Problematics of
Government. British Journal of Sociology 43 (2), 173-205.
Additional reading:



Agamben, G. (1998 ), Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford University
Press.
Butler, Judith (2004). Precarious life. The powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso.
Dean, Mitchell (1999) Governmentality, Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage
Publications. (especially chapter 1).
15
16










Evans, Brad 2010. Foucault’s Legacy: Security, war, violence in the 21st century. Security
Dialogue, 41 (4), 413-433.
Foucault, Michel (2003) Society Must Be Defended’ Lectures at the Collège de France 19751976. Picador, New York, 2003 - pp243-245 (especially chapter 11).
Foucault, Michel (1976) The Will to Knowledge: History of Sexuality I, Penguin Books.
(especially part 5).
Foucault, Michel, 1991 ‘Governmentality’ in (eds) Graham, Burchell, Gordon, Colin and
Miller, Peter The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. The University of Chicago
Press.
Hindess, Barry (2001). The Liberal Government of Unfreedom, Alternatives 26 (2), 93-111.
Joseph, Jonathan (2010). The Limits of Governmentality. Social Theory and the International.
European Journal of International Relations, 16 (2), 223-246.
Lemke, Thomas (2001) ‘The Birth of Biopolitics”: Michel Foucault’s Lecture at theCollège
de France’, Economy and Society 30 (2), 190–209.
O’Malley Pat (2010). Resilient subjects: Uncertainty, warfare and liberalism. Economy and
Society 39(4): 488–509.
Opitz, Sven 2012. Government Unlimited. The Security Dispositif of Illiberal
Governmentality. In: Ulrich Bröckling, Susanne Krasmann, Thomas Lemke (Eds).
Governmentality. Current issues and future challenges. London: Routledge: 93-114. E-book
via UB.
Walters, Walter. 2012. Governmentality. Critical encounters, London: Routledge.
Introduction.
16