1
Prof. Jean-Yves Haine
Email: jy.haine@utoronto.ca
Department of Political Science, Sidney Smith 3101
Office Hours: Tuesday, 14h00 to 16h00.
Pol. 380:
Theoretical Approaches To
International Security
University College 179, Thursdays 6-8 PM.
TA: Craig Damian Smith: craigdamian.smith@utoronto.ca
1) Description
This course is about international security, as a contested concept and as diverse
practices. Since the end of the Cold war, the scope of security studies has been widely
broadened to cover issues such as terrorism, environment, culture and identity. This
extended agenda does not mean however the obsolescence of classic state (in)securities
linked to power, status and competition but it calls for a redefinition of I.R. traditional
concepts. The course will review these issues, in their theoretical aspects but also in their
practical manifestations. It will start with classic approaches to international security, realism,
institutionalism and constructivism. Then it will revisit and extend them through more
specific issues, from nuclear proliferation to human security. The key objective of the course
is to understand theoretical analyses of security and link them with actual contemporary
practices.
To be eligible for this class, you must have successfully completed POL 208 or
equivalent. There will be no exception. The final list will be available on blackboard for
during the second week.
2) Assignments
a)
The Research paper: 50 % of the grade
You will be asked to write an essay on a topic of your choice, discussed in advance
with me. You can contact me either via mail or pass by my office during office hours. The
paper should combine a review of the current academic debate about the issue of your
choice and empirical research. The first part of your paper is thus about locating your
research in an academic context, i.e. to review the relevant existing literature. This should
help you to better define your topic and formulate pertinent questions. The second part of
the essay is about empirical findings organized in a concise and clear manner. A crucial
component of your paper is about organizing evidence in a meaningful way. An outline of
2
your paper will be due on March 01st. You will submit your final paper by Turnitin.com (See
below) and deliver a hard copy at my office at the Pol. Sci. Department. (April 9th 2012,
2PM). Extensions can be provided but they remain exceptional. Multiple assignments
coming due at the same time, or midterms in other courses, do not constitute “good”
reasons. If you have several assignments due at the same time, you should plan ahead so that
you finish some of them early. Needless to say, words or ideas from published works of
another individual must properly acknowledged. If you do not, you are committing
plagiarism, which is a serious academic offense. If you are uncertain about what constitutes
plagiarism, or what are acceptable forms of citation and referencing, please consult me.
Footnotes must be located on the bottom of the page, not endnotes at the end of the
document.
Turnitin.com compares your paper to a massive database of other papers and various
online sources, flagging overlaps, generating an “originality report”, specific to your paper.
The originality reports indicates forgotten, imprecise and inadequate quotation marks. As a
condition of use, U. of T. requires that the following statement be put on the course
syllabus:
“Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject to submission
for textual similarity review to Turnitin.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted
papers will be included as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database solely
for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. The terms that apply to the
University's use of the Turnitin.com service are described on the Turnitin.com web site”.
b)
Final Exam 50 %of the grade
The final exam will take place on the day of the last class. It will be in an open
question format and you will be asked to write an essay during the 2 hours of the class. I will
provide guidance well before the exam.
Requirement
Outline of Final Paper
Value
10%
Due
March 01st, 2012.
Research paper, ±20 pages
40%
April 09th 2012, 14h00.
Final Exam
50%
To be decided
3) Classes: Schedule and readings.
1) Introduction (January 12th )
The class will define the general orientation of the seminar, review the syllabus, clarify
assignments, and offer a broad overview of the course.
3
2) The Concept of Security (January 19th )
The classic notion of security has been enlarged in scope and redefined as a concept. The
class will review these changes and introduce the Copenhagen school on the social
construction of security.
Readings:
Jessica Tuchman Mathews, “Redefining Security”, Foreign Affairs, (Spring 1989), Vol. 68, n°2,
pp. 162-177.
David A. Baldwin, “The Concept of Security”, Review of International Studies, (January 1997),
Vol. 23, n°1, pp. 5-26.
Ken Booth, “Security and Emancipation,” Review of International Studies, (October 1991), Vol.
17, No. 4, pp. 313-326.
Jef Huysmans, “Revisiting Copenhagen: Or On the Creative Development of a Security
Studies Agenda in Europe”, European Journal of International Relations, (December 1998), Vol.
4, n°4, pp. 479-505.
Matt McDonald, “Securitization and the Construction of Security”, European Journal of
International Relations, (December 2008), Vol. 14, n°4, pp. 563–587.
3) Realisms and Security (January 26th)
Anarchy, the core characteristic of the international system, does not seem to be a sufficient
assumption to explain or predict security policies of states. Other additional variables have to
be introduced to better understand state trajectories.
Readings:
Davide Fiammenghi, “The Security Curve and the Structure of International Politics: A
Neorealist Synthesis”, International Security, (Spring 2011), Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 126–154.
Inis L. Claude, “The Balance of Power Revisited”, Review of International Studies, (April 1989),
Vol. 15, n°2, pp. 77-85.
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, “Security Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited,”
International Security, (Winter 2000/01), Vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 128–61.
Jack S. Levy and William R. Thompson, “Hegemonic Threats and Great Power Balancing in
Europe, 1495-1999”, Security Studies, (October 2005), Vol. 14, n°1, pp. 1-33.
4) Security Institutions and Regimes (February 02nd)
Cooperation for liberals analysts remain possible even in anarchy. Formal or informal
institutions and regimes thus can increase security for their members and participants. Yet,
they remain fragile and often collapse.
Readings:
Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, (January 1978),
Vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 167-214.
Robert Jervis, “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate”,
International Security, (Summer 1999), Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 42-63.
Charles L. Glaser, “Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help”, International Security,
(Winter 1994/95), Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 50-90.
John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions”, International Security,
(Winter 1994/95), Vol. 19, No. 3 pp. 5-49.
Zelikow Philip, “The Masque of Institutions”, Survival, (Spring 1996), Vol. 38, n°1, pp. 6-18.
4
5) Constructivism and Security (February 9th )
Security is in many ways a constructed phenomena. Yet, in I.R. ideas and material forces
have not been easily combined. The class will assess the impact of ideas, norms and identity
on security, including the concept of security culture.
Readings:
Michael C. Desch, “Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Studies”,
International Security, (July 1998), Vol. 23, No 1, pp. 141-170.
Jonathan Mercer, “Anarchy and Identity”, International Organization, (Spring 1995), Vol. 49,
No. 2, pp. 229-252.
Peter J. Katzenstein, “Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security”, in Peter
J. Katzenstein, The culture of national security: norms and identity in world politics, New York :
Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 1-32.
Michael C. Williams, “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics”,
International Studies Quarterly, (Dec. 2003), Vol. 47, n°4, pp. 511-531.
6) Nuclear Weapons (February 16th )
State survival is the most basic security needs. Since Hiroshima, -and the Cuban missile
crises-, nuclear proliferation has dominated international strategy. We will review the debates
on nuclear deterrence.
Readings:
Shiping Tang, “Fear in International Politics: Two Positions”, International Studies Review,
(Sept. 2008), Vol. 10, n°3, pp. 451-471.
Robert Jervis, “Deterrence Theory Revisited”, World Politics, (January 1979), Vol. 31, No. 2,
pp. 289-324.
James G. Blight and David A. Welch, “Risking the Destruction of Nations: Lessons of the
Cuban Missile Crisis for New and Aspiring Nuclear States”, Security Studies, (Summer 1995),
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 811-850.
Vipin Narang, “Posturing for Peace? Pakistan’s Nuclear Postures and South Asian Stability”,
International Security, (Winter 2009/2010), Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 38-78.
Jeffrey W. Knopf, “The Fourth Wave in Deterrence Research”, Contemporary Security Policy,
(April 2010), Vol. 31, No.1, pp.1–33.
7) Security Dilemma (March 01st)
Achieving one’s security may lead to others’ insecurity. This dilemma is as old as world
politics. The class will revisit its logic, its different manifestations and possible ways to
overcome it.
Readings:
Shiping Tang, “The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis”, Security Studies, (September
2009), Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 587-623.
Charles Glaser, “The Security Dilemma Revisited,” World Politics, (October 1997), Vol. 50,
No.1, pp. 171–201;
Evan Braden Montgomery, “Breaking Out of the Security Dilemma: Realism, Reassurance,
and the Problem of Uncertainty,” International Security, (Fall 2006), Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 151–
185.
5
8) Civil Wars (March 08th)
At a different level of analysis, the security dilemma may also be linked to state failure.
Between 1945 and 1999, civil wars have caused an estimated 16 million casualties. The class
will investigate sources and possible solutions to civil conflicts.
Readings:
Edward Newman, “Failed States and International Order: Constructing a Post-Westphalian
World”, Contemporary Security Policy, (December 2009), Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 421-443.
Stathis N Kalyvas, “’New’ And ‘Old’ Civil Wars: A Valid Distinction?”, World Politics
(October 2001), Vol. 54, n°1, pp. 99-118.
Paul Collier and Nicholas Sambanis, “Understanding Civil War: A New Agenda”, Journal of
Conflict Resolution, (February 2002), Vol. 46, n°1, pp. 3-12.
Caroline Hartzell, Matthew Hoddie & Donald Rothchild, “Stabilizing the Peace After Civil
War: An Investigation of Some Key Variables”, International Organization, (Winter, 2001), Vol.
55, n°1, pp. 183-208.
Chaim Kaufmann, “Possible and impossible solutions to ethnic civil wars”, International
Security (Spring 1996), Vol. 20, n°4, pp. 136-175.
9) Human Security (March 15th)
Beyond geopolitics, some states, among them Canada, have promoted a new security agenda
based on individual needs. Its theoretical foundations remain controversial and its practical
impact debatable.
Readings:
Roland Paris, “Human Security. Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?”, International Security, (Fall 2001),
Vol. 26, n°2, pp. 87-102.
Astri Suhrke, “Human Security and the Interests of States,” Security Dialogue, (September
1999), Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 265–276.
Mary Martin and Taylor Owen, “The second generation of human security: lessons from the
UN and EU experience”, International Affairs, (January 2010), Vol. 86, n°1, pp. 211–224.
Amitav Acharya, “Human Security: East versus West,” International Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3,
(July 2001), pp. 442-460.
10) Environmental Security (March 22nd)
Some experts have argued that environmental concerns may represent crucial security
challenges and new sources of conflicts in and among states. The class will review and
discuss some of them.
Readings:
Daniel Deudney, “The Case against Linking Environmental Degradation and National
Security”, Millennium, (December 1990), Vol. 19, n°3, pp. 461-476.
Thomas Homer-Dixon, “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from
Cases,” International Security, (Summer 1994), Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 5-40.
Steve Bernstein, “Ideas, Social Structure and the Compromise of Liberal
Environmentalism”, European Journal of International Relations, (December 2000), Vol. 6, n°4,
pp. 464-512.
Charles K. Ebinger and Evie Zambetakis, “The geopolitics of Arctic melt”, International
Affairs, (November 2009), Vol. 85, No. 6, pp. 1215–1232.
6
11) Terrorism (March 29th)
Terrorism has undoubtedly shaped the last decade of international security. As a diversified
phenomenon, terrorism remains poorly understood and controversial. The class will review
some of its interpretations.
Readings:
Robert Pape, Dying to Win, The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, 2005, New York, Random
House, Chap. 2, pp. 8-24.
Mark Sedgwick, “Al Qaeda and the Nature of Religious Terrorism”, Terrorism and Political
Violence, (Winter 2004), Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 795-814.
Assaf Moghadam, “Motives for Martyrdom: Al-Qaida, Salafi Jihad, and the Spread of Suicide
Attacks”, International Security, (Winter 2008/09), Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 46–78.
Audrey Kurth Cronin, “How al-Qaida Ends: The Decline and Demise of Terrorist Groups”,
International Security, (Summer 2006), Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 7-48.
Peter R. Neumann, “Europe’s Jihadist Dilemma”, Survival, (Summer 2006), Vol. 48, No. 2,
pp. 71–84.
12) Security in a multipolar World (April 5th)
Some analysts point to an emerging multipolarity, others doubt US decline. Does the notion
of pole still have meaning? What are the implications of multipolarity for global security?
Readings:
William Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar World”, International Security, (Summer 1999),
Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5–41.
David M. Edelstein, “Managing uncertainty: Beliefs about intentions and the rise of great
powers”, Security Studies, Vol. 12, n°1, (Autumn 2002), pp. 1-40.
Christopher Layne, “The Waning of U.S. Hegemony: Myth or Reality? A Review Essay”,
International Security, (Summer 2009), Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 147–172.
Randall L. Schweller and Xiaoyu Pu, “After Unipolarity: China’s Visions of International
Order in an Era of U.S. Decline”, International Security, (Summer 2011), Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.
41–72.
----------------------------------