University of Bremen / Jacobs University MA International Relations: Global Governance and Social Theory. Fall Term 2017.

Transcription

1 University of Bremen / Jacobs University MA International Relations: Global Governance and Social Theory Fall Term 2017 War & Peace VAK: MC2-1 Monday, 11 September to 11 December InIIS, seminar room a.m. to 1 p.m. Dr. Roy Karadag Institut für Interkulturelle und Internationale Studien (InIIS) Universität Bremen UNICOM (Haus Wien) Mary-Somerville-Straße 7, Raum Bremen karadag@uni-bremen.de Tel.: Office hours: Wednesday, 2 4 p.m.

2 Course description This class discusses the most salient issues in war and peace studies. We deal first with theories on the causes and conduct of war and peace, ranging from classics to recent contributions. We also look at war and peace from the perspective of the four large IR meta-theories: realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism. We then proceed to issues of research, and both quantitative and qualitative methods. Another major topic is what happens during contemporary wars and conflicts. We discuss military organization, political economies, identities, state formation and violence. The last few sessions are dedicated to peace-making in theory and practice. An emphasis in this seminar is put on the discussion of methods and theories. Students shall link their own thematic interest with common ideas and debates in IR and conflict studies. Generally, our sessions will consist of structured discussions of the mandatory readings. These debates will be supplemented by short inputs by the teacher, as well as students presentations. Requirements First and foremost you are expected to prepare the meetings of the class thoroughly and participate actively in classroom discussions. For this purpose you should - read all assigned texts before the class meets and make sure that you have identified the main arguments, - think about how the various texts/approaches relate to one another, - prepare a written list of questions and arguments on each assigned text in order to contribute to seminar discussions, - give one presentation (20 to 25 minutes) on assigned texts, summarizing the arguments that are presented in support of its conclusion, to introduce the discussion. Please prepare handouts (for all students) for main points, questions, etc. - write one comparative review (4 to 5 pages) of an assigned text in which you briefly reflect on the argument made in that contribution - write a term paper (around words) on a topic related to this class and to be 2

3 discussed with and approved by the instructor, due on 15 February, Please observe respective guidelines. Grading - term paper 40 % - presentation 40% - comparative review 20% Sessions and themes #01, 11 September: Introduction Discussion of the seminar topic, aims and requirements; literature overview; selection of presentations and other organizational requirements; basic academic techniques: literature research, reading and referencing. #02, 18 September: In the shadow of Clausewitz In this session we compare and combine main findings of contemporary war studies in IR with a classic text. Carl von Clausewitz has been general, strategist and scholar in Prussia in the nineteenth century. Clausewitz. Carl von (1832) On War (First book, ch. 1). New York: Modern Library. Levy, Jack »Interstate War and Peace«. Handbook of International Relations, ed. by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse-Kappen, & Beth A. Simmons, 2nd edition, Los Angeles: Sage. 3

4 Herberg-Rothe, Andreas »Clausewitz s Wondrous Trinity as a Coordinate System of War and Violent Conflict.«International Journal of Conflict and Violence 3 (2): #03, 25 September: IR theories and debates Realism is perhaps the most influential schools of thought on international relations. This theoretical position has elaborated important explanations about why states go to war. We will contrast this perspective with liberal and constructivist arguments and the most recent feminist challenges. Mearsheimer, John »The False Promise of International Institutions«. International Security 19 (3): Mueller, John »War Has Almost Ceased to Exist: An Assessment«. Political Science Quarterly 124 (2): ) Keohane, Robert O., & Lisa L. Martin »The Promise of Institutionalist Theory«. International Security 20 (1): ) Wendt, Alexander »Constructing International Politics«. International Security 20 (1): ) Mearsheimer, John »A Realist Reply«. International Security 20 (1): a) Elshtain, Jean Bethke »Women, the State, and War«. International Relations 23 (2): b) Sjoberg, Laura »Gender, the State, and War Redux: Feminist International Relations across the Levels of Analysis «. International Relations 25 (1):

5 #04, 2 October: Democratic Peace Theory The debate about the»democratic peace«is a central contribution of liberal theorists to IR and conflict studies. In this session we discuss critically the original liberal arguments. According to Immanuel Kant, lasting peace can be achieved through institutionalized democracy, cross-border trade, and international institutions. Michael Doyle undigged these arguments as one of the first contributors to the more recent democratic peace debate. We contrast their ideas with the empirical record, as well as theoretical objections. What are arguments for a democratic foundation of a lasting peace? Are building international institutions and fostering global democratization ways of preserving peace? Do peace-loving citizens prevent wars between democracies? Or is the democratic peace really a capitalist peace (for rich societies only)? Doyle, Michael W »Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.«Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (3): Geis, Anna, & Wolfgang Wagner »How Far Is It from Königsberg to Kandahar? Democratic Peace and Democratic Violence in International Relations.«Review of International Studies 37 (4): Kant, Immanuel (1796). To Perpetual Peace. A Philosophical Sketch. Indianapolis: Hackett. Oneal, John R., Bruce Russett, & Michael L. Berbaum »Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, «. International Studies Quarterly 47 (3): Rosato, Sebastian »The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory«. American Political Science Review 97 (4): See also:»forum«, American Political Science Review 99 (3). #05, 9 October, Defining and Counting Wars Defining and counting war is a thorny issue. What constitutes a war? Who is an important actor? Which variables may account for causes, dynamics, and outcomes? What impact have definitions on our findings? We discuss different approaches, focussing on the most influential projects. The Correlates of War project pioneered the field, while today the Uppsala Conflict Data Program provides the most comprehensive data. The Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kriegsursachenforschung seeks to bridge quantitative and qualitative approaches. 5

6 Uppsala University, Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), (last accessed 22 Aug 2017). (See for a beginning: Wallensteen, Peter The Uppsala Conflict Data Program : The Story, the Rationale, and the Programme. In Peace Research: Theory and Practice, London: Routledge.) Correlates of War, (last accessed 21 Aug 2017). University of Hamburg, Arbeitgemeinschaft Kriegsursachenforschung (AKUF)»Kriege-Archiv«, (last accessed 17 Aug 2017). Gantzel, Klaus Jürgen, & Torsten Schwinghammer Warfare since the Second World War. New Brunswick: Transaction, Geller, Daniel S., & Paul F. Diehl The Forum: Reflections and Reassessments on the Early Work and Ideas of J. David Singer. International Studies Review 15 (2): (especially ). Sarkees, Meredith Reid 2010: The COW Typology of War: Defining and Categorizing Wars (Version 4 of the Data). (last accessed 28 Aug 2017). #06, 16 October, Warriors In recent years, the study of mass-conflict has shifted away from inter-state politics towards the study of actors and practices in the field. This change of perspective had to do with the decreasing number of interstate wars, and the growing political importance of non-state armed groups and civil wars. We discuss a number of approaches, their merits and limitations. Kalyvas, Stathis The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-31, Schlichte, Klaus In the Shadow of Violence. The Politics of Armed Groups. Frankfurt: Campus, Weinstein, Jeremy Inside Rebellion. The Politics of Insurgent Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press, in particular 1-24, Wood, Elisabeth Jean Insurgent collective action and civil war in El Salvador. New York: Cambridge University Press,

7 #07, 23 October, War, (Dis)Order, and State Formation After more general perspectives on the causes of warfare, and methodological discussions of how to study war, the following sessions are dedicated to some specific causes and/or outcomes of warfare. We begin with the question of the state and order: Does warfare destroy states, or is it a crucial step to their formation? Is it senselessly destructive, or is it a central stage of capitalist modernisation? Cramer, Christopher Civil War Is Not a Stupid Thing: Accounting for Violence in Developing Countries. London: Hurst, , Duffield, Mark »Social Reconstruction and the Radicalization of Development. Aid as a Relation of Global Liberal Governance«. Development and Change 33 (5): Stinchcombe, Arthur »Ending Revolutions and Building New Governments«. Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1): Tilly, Charles »War Making and State Making as Organized Crime«. In Bringing the State Back In, ed. by Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, & Theda Skocpol, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. #08, 30 October, Economies of War A popular perception in Western media as well as mostly liberal scholarship has been that civil war has become a form of enrichment by violent means. The debate about the economic dimensions of warfare has been intense. We discuss the merits and the limitations of particular approaches, and the explanatory power of economic perspectives in general. Is an economic outlook useful, or does it blind for the politics of war? Which politics follow from which economic perspective? Collier, Paul, & Anke Hoeffler »Greed and Grievance in Civil War«. Oxford Economic Papers 56 (4): Collier, Paul, Anke Hoeffler & Dominic Rohner »Beyond Greed and Grievance: Feasibility and Civil War«. Oxford Economic Papers 61 (1): Schlichte, Klaus In the Shadow of Violence. The Politics of Armed Groups. Frankfurt: Campus,

8 #09, 6 November, The Power of Identity There has been quite some debate about the role of ethnicity in the causation of intra-state war. The concept of ethnicity itself is contested, but many scholars and media argue that we observe cultural differentiation as causal factor of large-scale violence. Others argue that ethnic boundaries may be an outcome, rather than the cause, of civil war. Fearon, James & David Laitin »Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War«. American Political Science Review 97 (01): Wimmer, Andreas »The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries. A Multi-level Process Theory«. American Journal of Sociology 113 (4): ) Gilley, Bruce »Against the Concept of Ethnic Conflict«. Third World Quarterly 25 (6): ) Kalyvas, Stathis »Ethnic Defection in Civil War«. Comparative Political Studies 41 (8): ) Cederman, Lars-Erik, Andreas Wimmer, & Brian Min »Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis«. World Politics 62 (1): #10, 13 November, From War to Peace? Negotiation, Bargaining, Mediation Fortunately, wars usually end. In the past, wars ended usually when one side just militarily defeated the other. International conferences and collective diplomacy to end or contain military aggression emerged in nineteenth-century Europe and, with the imperialist extension of Europe itself, were further internationalized and globalized until the end of World War II. However, since then, the capacity to negotiate, bargain and mediate seems to vary considerably, depending on geostrategic contexts and on the nature of the respective conflicts. In particular, we will discuss where these mechanisms unfold in the peace negotiations between the UK and the Irish Republican Army, on the one hand, and between Israel and Syria, on the other hand. While the former resulted in the Good Friday Agreement that ended a century-long violent conflict, the latter, unfortunately, failed in generating peace between Israelis and Syrians. Mandell, Brian »Getting to Peacekeeping in Principal Rivalries: Anticipating an Israel-Syria Peace Treaty«. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (2): McSweeney, Bill »Security, Identity, and the Peace Process in Northern Ireland«. Security Dialogue 27 (2):

9 Powell, Robert »Bargaining Theory and International Conflict«. Annual Review of Political Science 5:1-30. Slater, Jerome »Lost Opportunities for Peace in the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Israel and Syria, «. International Security 27 (1): Tannam, Etain »Explaining the Good Friday Agreement: A Learning Process«. Government & Opposition 36 (4): Wallensteen, Peter and Isak Svensson »Talking Peace: International Mediation in Armed Conflicts«. Journal of Peace Research 51 (2): Zartman, William »Negotiation as a Joint Decision-Making Process«. Journal of Conflict Resolution 21 (4): #11, 20 November, Arguing Intervention Peace may be an elusive concept, but under the heading of»liberal peace«, a fairly hegemonic model of non-war has evolved. In this session, we consider aspects of the core practice of peacebuilding: humanitarian military intervention. We discuss how this concept is legitimized and criticized. Finnemore, Martha The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1-23, Walzer, Michael Arguing About War. New Haven: Yale University Press, IX- XV, ) Paris, Roland »Saving Liberal Peacebuilding«. Review of International Studies 36 (2): ) Cooper, Neil, Mandy Turner, und Michael Pugh »The End of History and the Last Liberal Peacebuilder: A Reply to Roland Paris«. Review of International Studies 37 (4): ) Selby, Jan »The Myth of Liberal Peace-building«. Conflict, Security & Development 13 (1):

10 #12, 27 November, Doing Intervention Just as in the study of war, the study of humanitarian military intervention moved partly away from diplomatic circles, and reconsidered actors and practices»on the ground«. We consider the insights of various approaches, and what they tell us about the legitimacy, the politics and the efficiency of peacebuilding projects. Autesserre, Se verine Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention. New York: Cambridge University Press, Fortna, Page & Lise Morjé Howard 2008.»Pitfalls and Prospects in the Peacekeeping Literature«. Annual Review of Political Science 11, Suhrke, Astri »Statebuilding in Afghanistan: A Contradictory Engagement«. Central Asian Survey 32 (3): Veit, Alex »International Intervention and the Congolese Army. A Paradox of Intermediary Rule«. Statebuilding and State-Formation. The Political Sociology of Intervention, ed. by Berit Bliesemann de Guevara, London: Routledge. #13, 4 December, The Syrian War The Syrian War may be one of the most complex conflicts in the contemporary world. What began as mass protests against an authoritarian regime soon developed into a civil war and into a wider regional war in which no ordering seems possible to accomplish. In this session, the whole class will conduct a simulation-like analysis of the dynamics of this ongoing war and debate attempts of negotiation and mediation that may, eventually, lead to an end of military escalation. Dal, Emel Parlar »Impact of the Transnationalization of the Syrian Civil War on Turkey: Conflict Spillover of ISIS and PYD-YPG/PKK«. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (4): Hinnebusch, Raymond »State De-Construction in Iraq and Syria«. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 57 (4): Lundgren, Magnus »Mediation in Syria: Initiatives, Strategies, and Obstacles, «. Contemporary Security Policy 37 (2): Unruh, Jon »Weaponization of the Land and Property Rights System in the Syrian Civil War: Facilitating Restitution?«Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 10 (4):

11 Walter, Barbara »The New New Civil Wars«. Annual Review of Political Science 20: #14, 11 December, Concluding Debate Joas, Hans »The Modernity of War. Modernization Theory and the Problem of Violence«. International Sociology 14 (4):