Paul Roe
Security and Strategic Studies
Department of International Relations (Fall Semester, 2015)
Course Description
In its more ‘traditional’ (often Realist/neo-Realist) form, Security Studies has been primarily
concerned with the threats and uses of force in the international system; what is usually referred
to as ‘Strategic Studies’. This course is focused mainly on Strategic Studies; on the discipline’s
major assumptions about the military sector of international security. In doing so, the course will
engage both IR (war as a generic phenomenon) and Foreign Policy (war as a policy-specific
outcome) perspectives in analyzing the causes and nature of contemporary warfare and other
forms of political violence. The role of military strategy in the conduct of international relations
is considered in relation to political, legal, as well as moral imperatives. The course is thus
designed to provide students with an initial grounding in the military dimension of Security;
from more positivist, Realist/neo-Realist approaches, as well as introducing some more postpositivist ‘critical’ considerations of Strategic Studies.
Learning Outcomes
Identify IR/Security Studies’ main assumptions in thinking about the threats and uses of force in
the international system.
Recognize and formulate questions that contribute to existing disciplinary debates.
Reflect critically on the meaning of ‘security’ and its implications for the relationship between
theory and practice.
Recognize the nature of changes in the prosecution of warfare and their political and ethical
implications.
Teaching Method
For this course, there are no lectures. Instead, students will participate in seminars where they are
expected to form their own opinions through ‘critical’ evaluation of the readings. For each
seminar, there will be one or two key texts (which are in the course reader). Seminar discussion
will be structured around a short presentation of the text(s), in which students will summarise
and critically evaluate the readings. Seminar discussion therefore depends on serious preparation:
it is crucial that students do all of the reading required and come into the seminar fully prepared
to actively take part in the discussion. For the topics discussed, there is not necessarily a right
answer. What is important is to focus on the way that people think.
Method of Assessment
Each student will be assessed through a combination of seminar contribution, oral presentation,
and written work. There will be one oral presentation for each student, and which concentrates
mostly on the assigned ‘key text’. In terms of written work, three critiques are required. The
critiques should be 1,500 words long (plus/minus 10%), and should be written on topics different
to the student’s oral presentation.
For the final grade: 15% is given to the oral presentation, 25% to each critique (75%), with the
remaining 10% being allotted to seminar attendance and contribution. Deadlines for all assessed
work will be established in the introductory seminar.
Guidelines for ‘Critique’
The purpose of the ‘Critique’ is essentially two-fold: one, to situate the chosen key text within
the wider debate(s); and two, to make a critique of the key text informed by the existing
literature.
Any text can be situated in a wider debate: its theoretical/conceptual standpoint and the more
specific arguments that derive from that standpoint can only be properly understood when set
against other works. Together, these texts collectively constitute a written conversation. Some
texts may exemplify a particular debate; others might be read as belonging to several,
overlapping written conversations. The ‘Critique’ thus demands that students not only identify
the general context within which the key text can be situated, but are also explicit as to the
specific nature of the debate according to which they will structure their critique.
In terms of structure, one or two introductory paragraphs should be devoted to the above task
(context and debate). Following on from this, the main body should then put in place a coherent
and sustained, critical evaluation of the key text. Some concluding paragraph is also warranted,
although the exact content of that paragraph is dependent on the purpose of the critique. The
main points of the critical evaluation should derive explicitly from the wider literature. Given the
length of the ‘Critique’; just 1,500 words, it is reasonable to expect that no more than 4-5 other
works are utilized, likewise informing no more than 3-4 major critical points.
Please keep in mind that the key text remains the focus of the critique, and will thus serve to
structure both the general nature of the debate and the specifics of the critical evaluation.
Week 1/Seminar 1. Introduction
In this introductory class, discussion will centre on the nature of the course itself; what is
expected from the students in terms of seminar contribution, the oral presentation, and written
work. (Here, initial oral presentations will be assigned.)
Week 1/Seminar 2. No Class (Preparatory Reading)
As there are no classes scheduled for this following week, students will instead use this time to
engage in preparatory reading.
Week 2/Seminar 3. No Class (Preparatory Reading)
… to engage in preparatory reading.
Week 2/Seminar 4. Theorising the Security Dilemma: Classical (?) Realism
Key Text: Herbert Butterfield, History and Human Relations (London: Collins, 1951), Chapter
1: ‘The Tragic Element in Modern International Conflict’.
Week 3/Seminar 5. Theorising the Security Dilemma: Neo-Realism
Key Text: Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1976), Chapter 3: ‘Deterrence, the Spiral Model, and Intentions of
the Adversary’.
Further Reading for 2/4 & 3/5:
John Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age (New York: Columbia University Press,
1959), Chapter 10: ‘The Security Dilemma in the Atomic Age’.
Charles Glaser, ‘Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and Refining the Spiral
and Deterrence Models’, World Politics, vol.44, no.4, 1992.
Glaser, ‘The Security Dilemma Revisited’, World Politics, vol.50, no.1, 1997.
Paul Roe, ‘Actors’ Responsibility in ‘Tight’, ‘Regular’, and ‘Loose’ Security Dilemmas’,
Security Dialogue, vol.32, no.1, 2001.
Collins, ‘State-Induced Security Dilemma: Maintaining the Tragedy’, Cooperation and Conflict,
vol.39, no.1, 2004.
Shiping Tang, ‘The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis’, Security Studies, vol.18, no.3,
2009.
Ken Booth & Nick Wheeler, The Security Dilemma: Fear Cooperation and Trust in World
Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2008).
Week 3/Seminar 6. Offence-Defence Theory (ODT)
Key Text: Keir A. Lieber, ‘Grasping the Technological Peace: The Offense-Defense Balance and
International Security’, International Security, vol.25, no.1, 2000.
Week 4/Seminar 7. Gendering ODT
Key Text: Lauren Wilcox, ‘Gendering the Cult of the Offensive’, Security Studies, vol.18, no.2,
2009.
Further Reading for 3/6 & 4/7:
Jervis, ‘Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma’, World Politics, vol.30, no.2, 1978.
Sean Lynne-Jones, ‘Offense-Defense Theory and Its Critics’, Security Studies, vol.4, no.4, 1995.
Stephen Van Evera, ‘Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War’, International Security, vol.22,
no.4, 1998.
Glaser & Chaim Kaufmann, ‘What is the Offense-Defense Balance and How Can We Measure
It?’, International Security, vol.22, no.4, 1998.
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, ‘Security Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited’,
International Security, vol.25, no.3, 2000-2001.
Evan Braden Montgomery, ‘Breaking out of the Security Dilemma: Realism: Reassurance, and
the Problem of Uncertainty’, International Security, vol.31, no.2, 2006.
Keir Lieber, ‘The New History of World War I and What it Means for International Relations
Theory’, International Security, vol.32, no.2, 2007.
Jack Snyder & Keir Lieber, ‘Defensive Realism and the “New” History of World War I’,
International Security, vol.33, no.1, 2008.
Week 4/Seminar 8. Deterrence Theory
Key Text: Andrew Brown & Laura Arnold, ‘The Quirks of Nuclear Deterrence’, International
Relations, vol.24, no.3, 2010.
Further Reading:
Snyder (ed.), Contemporary Strategy and Security, Chapter 6: Keith Krause, ‘Rationality and
Deterrence in Theory and Practice’.
Karen Ruth Adams, ‘Attack and Conquer? International Anarchy and the Offense-DefenseDeterrence Balance’, International Security, vol.28, no.3, 2003-2004.
Jervis, ‘The Confrontation between Iraq and the US: Implications for the Theory and Practice of
Deterrence’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.9, no.2, 2003.
Maria Sperandei, ‘Bridging Deterrence and Compellence…’, International Studies Review,
vol.8, no.2, 2006.
Keir Lieber & Daryl Press, ‘The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of US Primacy’,
International Security, vol.30, no.4, 2006.
Richard Ned Lebow, ‘Thucydides and Deterrence’, Security Studies, vol.16, no.2, 2007.
Ward Wilson, ‘The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima’,
International Security, vol.31, no.4, 2007.
Rajesh Basrar, Michael Cohen, Ward Wilson, ‘Do Small Arsenals Deter?’, International
Security, vol.32, no.3, 2007/08.
Michael MccGwire, ‘Deterrence’, International Affairs, vol.82, no.4, 2006.
Nuno Monteiro & Alexandre Debs, ‘The Strategic Logic of Nuclear Proliferation’, International
Security, vol.39, no.2, 2014.
Week 5/Seminar 9. Arms Control & Disarmament (and NOD)
Key Text: Neil Cooper, ‘Putting Disarmament Back in the Frame’, Review of International
Studies, vol.32, no.2, 2006.
Further Reading:
John Baylis & Robert O’Neill (eds.), Alternative Nuclear Futures (Oxford: OUP, 2000), Chapter
5: Baylis, ‘Nuclear Weapons, Prudence, and Morality: The Search for a Third ‘Way’’.
Bjorn Moller & Haakan Wiberg (eds.), Non-Offensive Defence for the 21st Century (Boulder:
Westview Press, 1994), Chapter 1: Buzan, ‘Does NOD Have a Future in the Post-Cold War
World?’; Chapter 2: Reiner Huber & Hilmar Linnenkamp, ‘Disarmament, Arms Control and
NOD’.
Barry Buzan & Eric Herring, The Arms Dynamic in World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner,
1998), Chapter 13, ‘Arms Control’; Chapter 14: ‘Non-Offensive Defence’; Chapter 15:
‘Disarmament’.
Baylis & Robert O’Neill (eds.), Alternative Nuclear Futures, Chapter 1: Colin Gray, ‘To Confuse
Ourselves: Nuclear Fallacies’; Chapter 9: Michael MccGwire, ‘The Elimination of Nuclear
Weapons’.
Bjorn Moller & Hakan Wiberg (eds.), Non-Offensive Defence for the Twenty-First Century,
Chapter 2: Reiner Huber, ‘Disarmament, Arms Control and NOD’; Chapter 3: Jonathan Dean,
‘Using Arms Control to Promote NOD in Europe’.
Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, Chapter 3: Paul Rogers, ‘Peace Studies’.
Michael Mazarr, ‘Virtual Nuclear Arsenals’, Survival, vol.37, no.3, 1995.
Mazarr (ed.), Nuclear Weapons in a Transformed World: The Challenge of Virtual Nuclear
Arsenals (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997).
Avner Cohen & Joseph F. Pilat, ‘Assessing Virtual Nuclear Arsenals’, Survival, vol.40, no.1,
1998.
Week 5/Seminar 10. Gendering Strategic Discourse
Key Text: Carol Cohn, ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’, Signs,
vol.12, no.4, 1987.
Further Reading:
Christina Masters, ‘Gendered Defences: Gendered Offences: What is at Stake in the Politics of
Missile Defence?’, Canadian Journal of Foreign Policy, vol.12, no.1, 2005.
J. Anne Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Perspectives on Achieving Global Security
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), Chapter 2: ‘Man, the State, and War: Gendered
Perspectives on National Security’.
Cynthia Enloe, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkely:
University of California Press, 1993).
Enloe, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives (Berkely:
University of Califronia Press, 2000).
V. Spike Peterson (ed.), Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory (Boulder: Lynne
Rienner, 1992), Chapter 1: Peterson, ‘Security and Sovereign States’.
Rebecca Grant & Kathleen Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations (Milton Keynes:
OUP, 1991), Chapter 2: Grant, ‘The Sources of Gender Bias in IR Theory’.
Terriff, et al., Security Studies Today, Chapter 4: ‘The Impact of Gender on Security’.
Vivienne Jabri & Eleanor O’Gorman (eds.), Women, Culture, and International Relations
(Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999), Chapter 1: O’Gorman & Jabri, ‘Locating Difference in
Feminist’.
Week 6/Seminar 11. Strategy and Morality: Realism and ‘Military Necessity’
Key Text: Robert Holmes, On War and Morality (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989), Chapter 3:
‘Reason of the State, Military Necessity, and Domestic Security’.
Week 6/Seminar 12. Strategy and Morality: Dresden, Hiroshima, and ‘Supreme
Emergency’
Key Text: Michael Waltzer, Just and Unjust Wars (London: Harper Collins, 1992), Chapter 16:
‘Supreme Emergency’.
Further Reading for 6/11 & 6/12:
Waltzer, Just and Unjust Wars.
Nick Wheeler, ‘Dying for Enduring Freedom: Accepting Responsibility for Civilian Casualties
in the War Against Terrorism’, International Relations, vol.16, no.2, 2002.
Just and Unjust Wars: 30 Years On, Journal Of Military Ethics (Special Issue), vol.6, no.2,
2007: Jeff McMahan, ‘The Sources and Status of Just War’; Cian O’Driscoll, ‘Learning the
Language of Just War: The Value of Engagement’; Barrie Paskins, ‘Realism and the Just War’;
Jean Bethke Elshtain, ‘Regime Change and Just War: Reflections on Michael Waltzer’; Martin
Cook, ‘Michael Waltzer’s Concept of Supreme Emergency’; Asa Kashar, ‘The Principle of
Distinction’.
Cheryl Abatte, ‘Assuming Risk: A Critical Analysis of a Soldier’s Duty to Prevent Collateral
Casualties’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.13, no.1, 2014.
Anne Schwenkenbechen, ‘Collateral Damage and the Principle of Due Care’, Journal of Military
Ethics, vol.13, no.1, 2014.
Week 7/Seminar 13. Theorising Civil War & Ethnic Conflict
Key Text: Stuart Kaufman, ‘An ‘International’ Theory of Inter-Ethnic War’, Review of
International Studies, vol.22, no.2, 1996.
Further Reading:
Roe, Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma (London, Routledge, 2005).
Brian L. Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma, National Security of Third World States (Boulder:
Lynne Rienner, 1992), Chapter 2: Job, ‘The Insecurity Dilemma: National, Regime, and State
Securities in the Third World’.
Kaufman, ‘Spiraling to Ethnic War: Elites, Masses, and Moscow in Moldova’s Civil War’,
International Security, vol.21, no.2, 1996.
Chaim Kaufman, ‘Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil War, International Security,
vol.20, no.4, 1996.
Erik Melander, Anarchy Within: The Security Dilemma Between Ethnic Groups in Emerging
Anarchy (Uppsala University: Department of Peace and Conflict Research).
Barry Posen, ‘The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict’, Survival, vol.35, no.1, 1993.
Roe, ‘The Intrastate Security Dilemma: Ethnic Conflict as a Tragedy?’, Journal of Peace
Research, vol.36, no.2, 1999.
Week 7/Seminar 14. Terrorism and Political Violence
Key Text: Timothy Shanahan, ‘Betraying a Certain Corruption of Mind: How (and How Not) to
Define ‘Terrorism’’, Critical Studies in Terrorism, vol.3, no.2, 2010.
Week 8/Seminar 15. Deterring Terrorism
Key Text: Robert Trager & Dessislava Zagorcheva, ‘Deterring Terrorism: It Can be Done’,
International Security, vol.30, no.3, 2006.
Further Reading for 8/16 & 9/17:
Alex Wilner, ‘Fencing in Warfare: Threats, Punishment, and Intra-War Deterrence in
Counterterrorism’, Security Studies, vol.22, no.4, 2013.
Jacqueline Gray & Margaret Wilson, ‘Understanding the War on Terrorism: Responses to 11
September 2001’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.43, no.1, 2006.
Vasna Danilovic, ‘Deterring International Terrorism and Rogue States: U.S. National Security
Policy after 9/11’, Perspectives on Politics, vol.2, no.4, 2007.
Jeremy Ginges, ‘Deterring the Terrorist: A Psychological Evaluation of Different Strategies for
Deterring Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, vol.9, no.1, 1997.
Todd Sandler & Kevin Squiera, ‘Global Terrorism: Deterrence versus Preemption’, Canadian
Journal of Economics, vol.39, no.4, 2006.
Keir Lieber & Daryl Press, ‘Why States Won’t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists’,
International Security, vol.38, no.1, 2013.
Week 8/Seminar 16. The ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ (RMA)
Key Text: Andrew Latham, ‘Warfare Transformed: A Braudelian Perspective on the ‘Revolution
in Military Affairs’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.8, no.2, 2002.
Week 9/Seminar 17. Strategy and Technology: Gendering the ‘Contemporary’ RMA
Key Text: Christina Masters, ‘Bodies of Technology’, International Feminist Journal of Politics,
vol.7. no.1, 2005.
Week 9/Seminar 18. Cybersecurity
Key Text: Erik Gartzke & Jon R. Lindsay, ‘Weaving Tangled Webs: Offense, Defense, and
Deception in Cyberspace’, Security Studies, vol.24, no.3, 2015.
Further Reading for 8/16 & 9/17:
James Der Derian, ‘Virtuous War’, International Affairs, vol.76, no.4, 2002.
Michael J. Shapiro, Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1997), Chapter 2: ‘Warring Bodies and Bodies Politic’; Chapter 3: ‘That
Obscure Object of Violence’.
Simon Dalby, ‘Geopolitics, the Revolution in Military Affairs and the Bush Doctrine’,
International Politics, vol.46, no.2, 2008.
Edward Bennet, Warfare in a New Domain: The Ethics of Military-Cyber Operations’, Journal
of Military Ethics, vol.12, no.1, 2013.
Christopher Eberle, ‘Just War and Cyber War’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.12, no.1, 2013.
Chris Hables Gray, Postmodern War: The New Politics of Conflict (London, Routledge, 1997).
Valerie Morkevicius, ‘Tin Men: Ethics, Cybernetics, and the Importance of the Soul’, Journal of
Military Ethics, vol.13, no.1, 2014.
Michael Ignatieff, Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond (London: Chatto & Windus, 2000).
Erik Gartzke, ‘The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth’,
International Security, vol.38, no.2, 2013.
Lucas Kello, ‘The Meaning of the Cyber Revolution: Perils to Theory and Statecraft’,
International Security, vol.38, no.2, 2013.
Week 10/Seminar 19. Private Military Companies (PMCs)
Key Text:
Further Reading: Anna Leander, ‘The Power to Construct International Security: On the
Significance of Private Military Companies’, Millennium, vol.33, no.3, 2005
P.W. Singer, ‘Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and its
Ramifications for International Security’, International Security, vol.26, no.3, 2001/02.
Dimitrios Machairas, ‘The Ethical Implications of the Use of Private Military Force: Regulatable
or Irreconcilable?’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.13, no.1, 2014.
Leander, ‘The Paradoxical Impunity of Private Military Companies: Authority and the Limits to
Legal Accountability’, Security Dialogue, vol.45, no.5, 2010.
Rita Abrahamsen, ‘Selling Security: Assessing the Impact of Military Privatization’, Review of
International Political Economy, vol.15, no.1, 2008.
Leander, ‘The Market for Force and Public Security: The Destabilizing Consequences of Private
Military Companies’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.42, no.5, 2005.
Elke Krahman, ‘Security: Collective Good or Commodity?’, European Journal of International
Relations, vol.14, no.3, 2008.
Week 10/Seminar 20. Strategic Culture
Key Text: Alistair Ian Johnson, ‘Thinking About Strategic Culture’, International Security,
vo.19, no.4, 1995.
Further Reading:
Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1996), Chapter 1: Katzenstein, ‘Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National
Security’; Chapter 2: Ronald L. Jepperson, Alexander Wendt, & Katzenstein, ‘Norms, Identity,
and Culture in National Security’.
Michael Desch, ‘Culture Clash’, International Security, vol.23, no.1, 1998.
Theo Farrell, ‘Culture and Military Power’, Review of International Studies, vol.24, no.3, 1998.
David Dessler, ‘Constructivism Within a Positivist Social Science’, Review of International
Studies, vol.25, no.1, 1999.
Farrell, ‘Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Programme’, International
Studies Review, vol.4, no.1, 2002.
Week 11/Seminar 21: Threats as a Social Construction
Key Text:
Buzan, Waever, & Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne
Rienner, 1998), Chapter 2: ‘Security Analysis: Conceptual Apparatus’.
Further Reading:
Ronny D. Lipschutz (ed.), On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), Chapter
3: Waever, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’.
Jef Huysmans, ‘Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative Development of a Security Studies
Agenda’, European journal of International Relations, vol.4, no.4, 1998.
Olav F. Knudsen, ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization’, Security
Dialogue, vol.32, no.3, 2001.
Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, Chapter 9: Ralf Emmers, ‘Securitization’.
Week 11/Seminar 22. Identity and Strategic Discourse
Key Text: David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992), Introduction: ‘On Dangers and
Their Interpretation’; Chapter 6: ‘Writing Security’.
Further Reading:
Bradley Klein, Strategic Studies and World Order (Cambridge: CUP, 1994).
Lene Hansen, ‘A Case for Seduction? Evaluating the Poststructuralist Conceptualization of
Security’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.32, no.4, 1997.
Krause & Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies, Chapter 3: R.B.J Walker, ‘The Subject of
Security’.
Jutta Weldes, Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson, & Raymond Duvall (eds.), Cultures of Insecurity
(Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1999), Weldes, et al., ‘Introduction: Constructing
Insecurity’.
Week 12/Seminar 23. Conclusions
Week 12/Seminar 24. No Class