Pro-seminar in International Relations PSCI Fall 2016 M, 6:30 9:20 p.m.

Transcription

1 Prof. Andrew J. Enterline via Blackboard Phone: Office (Wooten Hall 145) Hours: W 12 3 Pro-seminar in International Relations PSCI Fall 2016 M, 6:30 9:20 p.m. Course Description This course is designed to provide the student with a foundational understanding of scholarly inquiry in the sub-field of international relations, or IR. In so doing, the course facilitates an introduction to this material, as well as the development of each student s capacity to work with i.e., employ, critique, elaborate, reflect upon the ideas, concepts, conclusions, etc., central to the sub-field. These skills will be developed through discussion of scholarly materials during seminar, short papers on the weekly readings, student papers identifying an outstanding puzzle in IR, and a take-home final exam. Reading Materials The following book is required for the course: The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past. John Lewis Gaddis. Oxford University Press; 1 edition (April 8, 2004). ISBN-13: Although I did not order these books for the course, I recommend that you pick up copies on your own (used online or from another student in the department), or avail yourself of the copies that UNT libraries own (I recommend against locating typescript versions of the texts online, because they have different page numbers, sometimes are sans figures, etc.): 1. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph Siverson, and James Morrow (2004). The Logic of Political Survival. MIT Press. ISBN-13: Available at Eagle Commons Library Reserve or as UNT library ebook. 2. Detlef Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds. (2004). Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. University of Michigan Press. ISBN-13: Available at Eagle Commons Library Reserve. The following books were recommended (via when you inquired about a course permission code) for summer reading: 1. Kissinger, Henry. World Order. Penguin Books. (September 1, 2015). ISBN-13: ; and 2. Morris, Ian. War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots. Picador. (April 7, 2015). ISBN-13:

2 The Kissinger and Morris readings figure into the first short paper written by students, the instructions for which are elaborated below in the discussion of short papers. The remaining readings are available online via the UNT library s electronic holdings (e.g., JSTOR, Ebscohost). In a few cases (noted), I provide a PDF of a document that is difficult to acquire (via Blackboard Course Content.) Student Responsibilities Weekly Meetings The bedrock of the seminar is participation and discussion of the assigned weekly readings. Students should strive to make regular and quality contributions to the group discussion, spark exchanges with questions that you advance unprompted, and so forth. To this end, each week each student is required to arrive in seminar armed with at least one general question pertaining to the week s readings, a query that is intended to instigate some verbal contemplation by the seminar participants. To be precise, participation and discussion in the weekly meetings means actively engaging the course material during seminars, not merely showing up and sitting quietly. If you pursue the latter strategy, you will not receive credit for participation. Participation will account for 30% of a student s final grade. Midterm evaluation of student participation will be reported on Blackboard the week of Oct. 12, so that students can make appropriate adjustments in their approach to participation. Short Papers Students will be expected to write five (5) short papers (5-6 double-spaced pages, excluding title page or references, with 12 pt. type and one inch margins.) The first short paper is unique in that it focuses on the aforementioned summer readings, is mandatory, and is to be uploaded to Blackboard by Wednesday, September 7 by 11:59 pm. For this summer readings short paper, you are to identify three items (i.e., ideas, issues, arguments, information, claims, conclusions) that piques your interest and discuss why you find them interesting in the context of IR. Said items need not necessarily concern the arguments advanced by the authors, but may be something revealed during the course of the author s discussion. The remaining four short papers will focus on a given week s readings (Weeks 4-13 in the course calendar are fair game for writing/submitting these short papers.) Students choose the weeks on which to write papers, and bear the responsibility of submitting these four short papers (I won t be reminding you.) The papers and should be posted to the appropriate UNT Blackboard dropbox no later than 11:59 pm on the Sunday preceding that week s class. No late papers will be accepted. The papers should serve as critical and comparative assessments of key elements contained in a given week s readings, rather than a paragraphby-paragraph summary of each reading. Students might entertain the following questions when writing their papers: Which ideas contained in the readings are most important for thinking about international politics and why? What are the strengths/weaknesses of these important ideas? 2

3 What are the implications the various readings for how we think about international relations? How do the ideas that you identify bear on, or relate to, readings from previous weeks? To reiterate, mere summaries of the readings are unacceptable; rather, what is desired is inquiry, insight, and contemplation. Short paper grades will contribute 15% toward each student s final course grade. All five papers must be submitted in order to receive the 15% toward the final course grade. Puzzle in IR Each student will write a semester paper identifying and exploring an outstanding puzzle relevant to the study of international relations. This paper will serve two purposes: 1. Identify a puzzle i.e., political behavior relevant to IR that current research fails to solve or adequately address; 2. Discuss why the puzzle is important for the IR sub-field to think about; 3. Demonstrate that current research fails to solve the puzzle adequately; and 4. Propose a strategy for solving the puzzle. That is, which theoretical ideas would provide a foundation for arriving at a solution to the puzzle? The paper should be at minimum 15 total pages (about 3750 words, excluding title page and references) and should follow the standard format for scholarly articles (see Enterline s Paper Guide, posted on Blackboard for general tips about form, citations, etc.). Each student will present its paper to the seminar on Dec. 5. The final paper is to be submitted no later than 11:59 pm on Wednesday, December 7 and must be uploaded to Blackboard via Turnitin.com. Individual meetings between the student and the instructor are to take place during Weeks in the instructor s office hours under the individual student s initiative. It is the responsibility of the student to arrange the individual meeting to discuss the puzzle. The paper will contribute 30% toward each student s final grade. Identifying a puzzle in IR is difficult. To aid in the selection of a puzzle, I have queried the faculty in the IR subfield for some prospective puzzles. I have attributed the puzzles to the respective faculty, and encourage you to visit with them during their office hours to discuss said puzzle, extensions of it, etc., if you so desire. The example puzzles are as follows: 1. Do international criminal tribunals help advance the cause of peace, or do they cause suspects to double down on their violence? The evidence is limited and mixed. (James Meernik, meernik@unt.edu) 2. Sometimes, naming and shaming leads to improvement in state respect for human rights. Other times, the same shaming behavior leads to worsening human rights practices. And still other times, that same behavior has no observable effect on human rights. What explains these mixed results? (Jackie DeMeritt, jdemeritt@unt.edu) 3

4 3. International Organizations (IOs) are sometimes accused of bias in the mediation of inter- and intra-state disputes, which in turn is argued to affect conflict management. What is bias and how might its influence be observed and the aforementioned claim tested? (Michael Greig, 4. Recent scholarship suggests that the participation of women in militaries engaged in civil conflicts shapes the settlement of these conflicts. Does the enlistment of women in state militaries change a state s propensity to engage in interstate war? (Marijke Breuning, Marijke.Breuning@unt.edu) 5. Where women are a larger proportion of a state s parliament, a donor state provides more generous foreign aid. However, a female minister in relevant departments does not influence the aid policies of donor states. What explains this variation? (Marijke Breuning, Marijke.Breuning@unt.edu) Final Exam There will be one final exam in the course. This exam will be a take-home exam. Questions will resemble the questions appearing on preliminary, or field, exams in the IR subfield. The exam questions will be distributed on Dec. 8, and students will submit their answers via Blackboard dropbox by 11:59 pm on Thursday, Dec. 14. The final exam will contribute 25% toward each student s final grade. Winter Weather & Travel As winter weather approaches in late November and December, please monitor your Blackboard and MyUNT accounts for messages from me regarding seminar. Due to commuting hazards (me riding a motorcycle from my home in Fort Worth), I may cancel seminar given poor weather and prior to any declaration by the UNT Registrar. 4

5 Calendar 5

6 Date Readings WEEK 1 29 Aug. Course Introduction WEEK 2 5 Sept. NO SEMINAR (Labor Day)/Finish Summer Readings 7 Sept. Upload first short paper on summer readings (Kissinger & Morris) to Blackboard by 11:59 pm WEEK 3 12 Sept. Thinking About IR 6 Hedley Bull (1966). International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach. World Politics 18: J. David Singer (1961). The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations. World Politics 14, 1 (October): Stanley Hoffmann (1977). An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus 106(3): Barry Buzan and Richard Little (2001). Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to do About it. Millennium Journal of International Studies 30(1): John Lewis Gaddis (1992-3). International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War. International Security 17(3):5-58. Jack Levy (1997). Too Important to Leave to the Other: History and Political Science in the Study of International Relations. International Security 22(1): WEEK 4 19 Sept. Realism(s) Thucydides. The Melian Dialogue. The History of the Peloponnesian War. (1954). M. I. Finley (Editor, Introduction), Rex Warner (Translator). Penguin, pp Thomas Hobbes (1996). Chapter XXII: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity and Misery. Continued on next page

7 7 Date Readings Kenneth N. Waltz (1993). The Emerging Structure of International Politics International Security 18(2): Hans J. Morgenthau (1967). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, chs., 1 ( A Realist Theory of International Politics ), 11 ( The Balance of Power ), and 12 ( Different Methods of the Balance of Power ) (Available at Eagle Commons Library Reserves). Helen Milner (1991). The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory. Review of International Relations Theory 17: (posted on Blackboard) John J. Mearsheimer (2009). Reckless States and Realism International Relations 23(2): Paul Schroeder (1994). Historical Reality vs. Neo-Realist Theory. International Security 19:2 (Summer): Gideon Rose. Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics (1998). Volume 51, Issue 1, pp Steven Forde. International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism International Studies Quarterly Vol. 39, No. 2 (June 1995) pp Christopher Layne. (2012). This Time It?s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 56, pp William C. Wohlforth. (2012). How Not to Evaluate Theories. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 56, pp WEEK 5 26 Sept. Liberalism Robert Axelrod (1981). The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists. American Political Science Review 75(2): Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin (1995). The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security 19: Robert Jervis, Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate. International Security 24:1 (Summer 1999), pp Keohane, Robert O. (2012). Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism. International Relations. 26(2): Bruce Russett and Zeev Maoz (1993). Normative and Structural Causes of the Democratic Peace, American Political Science Review 87: Continued on next page

8 8 Date Readings Nils Petter Gleditsch (2008). The Liberal Moment Fifteen Years on. International Studies Quarterly 52(4): Beth A. Simmons, et al. Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism. International Organization Vol. 60, No. 4 (Autumn 2006) pp Paul Huth, et al. (2011). Does International Law Promote the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes? Evidence from the Study of Territorial Conflicts since American Political Science Review Vol. 105, pp Brian Greenhill. (2010). The Company You Keep: International Socialization and the Diffusion of Human Rights Norms. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 54, pp. 127?145. Ronald R. Krebs & Aaron Rapport. (2012). International Relations and the Psychology of Time Horizons. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 56, pp. 530?543. Amanda Murdie & Dursun Peksen. (2014). The Impact of Human Rights INGO Shaming on Humanitarian Interventions. Journal of Politics Vol. 76, pp WEEK 6 3 Oct. Constructivism & Alternatives Ted Hopf (1998). The Promise of Constructivism in IR Theory. International Security 23 (Summer): Alexander Wendt (1992). Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46: Nina Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non- Use. International Organization 53(3) (Summer 1999), pp Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 54:4 (Autumn 1998), pp Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (2005). Power in International Relations. International Organization 59(1): Michael C. Williams. Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morganthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics. International Organization (2004) Vol. 58, Fall, pp Michael Goodhart. (2011). Democratic Accountability in Global Politics: Norms, not Agents. The Journal of Politics Vol. 73, pp Continued on next page

9 Date Readings Ann E. Towns. (2012). Norms and Social Hierarchies: Understanding International Policy Diffusion From Below. International Organization Vol. 66, pp Alexander Wendt & Raymond Duvall. (2008). Sovereignty and the UFO. Political Theory Vol. 36, pp David A. Lake. (2010). Rightful Rules: Authority, Order, and the Foundations of Global Governance. International Organization Vol. 54, pp WEEK 7 10 Oct. How Should We Study International Relations? 9 David A. Lake (2011) Why isms Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress. International Studies Quarterly 55(2): Henry R. Nau (2011) No Alternative to Isms. International Studies Quarterly 55(2): Kenneth Waltz (1997). Evaluating Theories. American Political Science Review 91(4): Andrew Bennett, Case Study Methods: Design, Use, and Comparative Advantages in Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, Detlef Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds. Bear Braumoeller and Anne Sartori, The Promise and Perils of Statistics in International Relations in Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, Detlef Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds. Duncan Snidal, Formal Models of International Politics in Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, Detlef Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, eds. Beth Simmons. (2011). International Studies in the Global Information Age. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 55, pp WEEK 8 17 Oct. Rationalism & Strategic Behavior Dan Reiter. Exploring the Bargaining Model of War. Perspectives on Politics Vol. 1, No. 1 (Mar., 2003) pp Suzanne Werner (1998). Negotiating the Terms of Settlement: War Aims and Bargaining Leverage. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 42(3): Continued on next page

10 Date Readings James Fearon (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organizations 49(3): James D. Fearon. Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 41, No. 1 (Feb., 1997) pp Robert Powell (2006). War as a Commitment Problem. International Organization 60 (Winter): Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2006). Game Theory, Political Economy, and the Evolving Study of War and Peace. American Political Science Review Vol. 60: Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2003). Ruminations on Challenges to Prediction with Rational Choice Models. Rationality and Society Vol. 15(1), Todd Hall & Keren Yarhi-Milo. The Personal Touch: Leaders Impressions, Costly Signaling, and Assessments of Sincerity in International Affairs. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 56, pp WEEK 9 24 Oct. Challenges to Rationalism 10 WEEK 10 Stephen M. Walt (1999). Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies. International Security 23: James Fearon & Alexander Wendt (2002) Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View in Handbook of International Relations, Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp (posted on Blackboard) George Quattrone and Amos Tversky. (1988). Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice. American Political Science Review 82: Jeffrey W. Legro. Culture and Preferences in the International Cooperation Two-Step. American Political Science Review Vol. 90, No. 1 (Mar., 1996) pp David Lake. Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War. International Security 12/2010, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp Jonathan Mercer (2005). Rationality and Psychology in International Politics. International Organization 59(1): Jack L. Snyder and Erica D. Borghard. (2011). The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound. American Political Science Review 105(3): Continued on next page

11 Date Readings 31 Oct. Domestic Politics 11 Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph Siverson, and James Morrow (2003). The Logic of Political Survival. MIT, Chs. 1-3, 6. ebook. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (2007). Leopold II and the Selectorate: An Account in Contrast to a Racial Explanation. Historical Social Research. 32, pp Robert Putnam (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization. 42: Kenneth A. Schultz. Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises. American Political Science Review Vol. 92, No. 4 (Dec., 1998) pp Jessica L. Weeks (2008). Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve. International Organization 62(1): Sarah E. Croco. The Decider s Dilemma: Leader Culpability, War Outcomes, and Domestic Punishment. American Political Science Review Vol. 105, pp Michaela Mattes, et al. Leadership Turnover and Foreign Policy Change: Societal Interests, Domestic Institutions, and Voting in the United Nations. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 59, pp. 280?-290. Horowitz, et al. Domestic Institutions and Wartime Casualties. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 55, pp Jeffrey Pickering & Emizet F. Kisangani. (2010). Diversionary Despots? Comparing Autocracies? Propensities to Use and to Benefit from Military Force. American Journal of Political Science Vol. 54, pp Rachel M. Stein. War and Revenge: Explaining Conflict Initiation by Democracies. American Political Science Review Vol. 109, pp Valentino, et al. (2010). Bear Any Burden? How Democracies Minimize the Costs of War. The Journal of Politics Vol. 72, pp Individual Puzzle Paper Meeting s During Enterline s Office Hours. WEEK 11 7 Nov. Experiments in IR Rose McDermott. (2011). New Directions for Experimental Work in International Relations. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 55, pp Continued on next page

12 Date Readings Mcentire, et al. (2015). Human Rights Organizations as Agents of Change: An Experimental Examination of Framing and Micromobilization. American Political Science Review Vol. 109, pp Michael R. Tomz and Jessica P. Weeks. Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review Vol. 107, No. 4 (2013) pp Scott Sigmund Gartner. The Multiple Effects of Casualties on Public Support for War: An Experimental Approach American Political Science Review Vol. 102, No. 1 (Feb., 2008) pp Joshua D. Kertzer & Kathleen M. McGraw. (2012). Folk Realism: Testing the Microfoundations of Realism in Ordinary Citizens. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 56, pp Press, et al. (2013). Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons. American Political Science Review Vol. 107, pp Individual Puzzle Paper Meeting s During Enterline s Office Hours. WEEK Nov. Networks & Systems 12 Zeev Maoz. How Network Analysis Can Inform the Study of International Relations. Conflict Management and Peace Science Vol. 29, No. 3 (2012) pp Brandon J. Kinne. Network Dynamics and the Evolution of International Cooperation American Political Science Review Vol. 107, No. 4 (Nov., 2013) pp Krzysztof J. Pelc. (2014). The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application. American Political Science Review Vol. 108, pp Renatto Corbetta. (2013). Cooperative and Antogonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, International Studies Quarterly Vol. 57, pp Carles Boix. (2011). Democracy, Development, and the International System. American Political Science Review Vol. 105, pp Barry Buzan and George Lawson. (2013). The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 57, pp. 620?634. Kelly M. Kadera, Mark J. C. Crescenzi and Megan L. Shannon. (2003). Democratic Survival, Peace, and War in the International System. American Journal of Political Science 47(2): Jack Donnelly. (2012). The Elements of the Structures of International Systems. International Organization 66: 609?43. Continued on next page

13 Date Readings Thomas G. Weiss& Rorden Wilkinson. (2014). Rethinking Global Governance? Complexity, Authority, Power, Change. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 58, pp. 207?215. David B. Carter and H. E. Goemans. (2010). The Making of the Territorial Order: New Borders and the Emergence of Interstate Conflict. International Organization Vol. 65, pp. 275?309. Etel Solingen. (2012). Of Dominoes and Firewalls: The Domestic, Regional, and Global Politics of Diffusion. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 56, pp Cameron G. Thies & David Sobek. War, Economic Development, and Political Development in the Contemporary International System. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 54, pp. 267?287. WEEK Nov. IR at UNT 13 Brochmann, Marit and Hensel, Paul R. (2011). The Effectiveness of Negotiations over International River Claims. International Studies Quarterly 55(3): James Meernik (2011). Sentencing Rationales and Judicial Decision Making at the International Criminal Tribunals. Social Science Quarterly Volume 92, Issue 3, pp Marijke Breuning (2013). Roles and Realities: When and Why Gatekeepers Fail to Change Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 9(3): David Lektzian and Glen Biglaiser (2013). Investment, Opportunity, and Risk: Do US Sanctions Deter or Encourage Global Investment? International Studies Quarterly 57(1): J. Michael Greig. Nipping Them in the Bud: The Onset of Mediation in Low-intensity Civil Conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 59, No. 2 (2015) pp Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt. Delegating Death: Military Intervention and Government Killing. Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 59, No. 3 (2015) pp WEEK Nov. What Can IR Scholars Do? Gaddis, The Landscape of History, all Paul C. Avey & Michael C. Desch. (2014). What Do Policymakers Want From Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision Makers. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 58, pp Continued on next page

14 Date Readings Hegre, Halvard, et al. (2013). Predicting Armed Conflict, International Studies Quarterly Vol. 57, pp Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. (2009). Recipe for Failure. Foreign Policy Vol. 175, pp WEEK 15 5 Dec. Presentations of Puzzles 7 Dec. Paper Uploaded to Blackboard by 11:59 pm 8 Dec. Final Exam Questions Distributed WEEK Dec. Pizza & Movie During Seminar Time 14 Dec. Final Exam Due by 11:59 pm 14

15 ===================== Course drop information: see schedule at Policies on academic dishonesty: Department Statement of ADA compliance The$University$of$North$Texas$makes$reasonable$academic$accommodation$for$students$ with$disabilities.$students$seeking$accommodation$must$first$register$with$the$office$of$disability$ Accommodation$(ODA)$to$verify$their$eligibility.$If$a$disability$is$verified,$the$ODA$will$provide$you$ with$an$accommodation$letter$to$be$delivered$to$faculty$to$begin$a$private$discussion$regarding$ your$specific$needs$in$a$course.$you$may$request$accommodations$at$any$time,$however,$oda$ notices$of$accommodation$should$be$provided$as$early$as$possible$in$the$semester$to$avoid$any$ delay$in$implementation.$$ Note$that$students$must$obtain$a$new$letter$of$accommodation$for$every$semester$and$must$ meet$with$each$faculty$member$prior$to$implementation$in$each$class.$for$additional$information$ see$the$office$of$disability$accommodation$website$at$ contact$them$by$phone$at$ $ University of North Texas -- Department of Political Science POLICY ON CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM The UNT Code of Student Conduct and Discipline defines cheating and plagiarism as the use of unauthorized books, notes, or otherwise securing help in a test; copying others' tests, assignments, reports, or term papers; representing the work of another as one's own; collaborating without authority with another student during an examination or in preparing academic work; or otherwise practicing scholastic dishonesty. Normally, the minimum penalty for cheating or plagiarism is a grade of "F" in the course. In the case of graduate departmental exams, the minimum penalty shall be failure of all fields of the exam. Determination of cheating or plagiarism shall be made by the instructor in the course, or by the field faculty in the case of departmental exams. Cases of cheating or plagiarism on graduate departmental exams, theses, or dissertations shall automatically be referred to the departmental Graduate Studies Committee. Cases of cheating or plagiarism in ordinary coursework may, at the discretion of the instructor, be referred to the Undergraduate Studies Committee in the case of undergraduate students, or the Graduate Studies Committee in the case of graduate students. These committees, acting as agents of the department Chair, shall impose further penalties, or recommend further penalties to the Dean of Students, if they determine that the case warrants it. In all cases, the Dean of Students shall be informed in writing of the case. Students may appeal any decision under this policy by following the procedures laid down in the UNT Code of Student Conduct and Discipline.

16 2 University of North Texas -- Department of Political Science POLICY ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY The Political Science Department adheres to and enforces UNT s policy on academic integrity (cheating, plagiarism, forgery, fabrication, facilitating academic dishonesty and sabotage). Students in this class should review the policy (UNT Policy Manual Section ), which may be located at Academic_Integrity.pdf. Violations of academic integrity in this course will addressed in compliance with the penalties and procedures laid out in this policy. Students may appeal any decision under this policy by following the procedures laid down in the UNT The UNT Policy Manual Section Student Standards of Academic Integrity Acceptable Student Behavior: Student behavior that interferes with an instructor s ability to conduct a class or other students' opportunity to learn is unacceptable and disruptive and will not be tolerated in any instructional forum at UNT. Students engaging in unacceptable behavior will be directed to leave the classroom and the instructor may refer the student to the Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities to consider whether the student's conduct violated the Code of Student Conduct. The university's expectations for student conduct apply to all instructional forums, including university and electronic classroom, labs, discussion groups, field trips, etc. The Code of Student Conduct can be found at