To reflect critically on your own learning over the course of this module Task: Review your forum participation during this module. Write a 1000-word reflective statement in response to this question: ‘How has your understanding of the concept of ‘security’ changed over the course of this module?’
Given the word limit, you may want to develop your statement by focusing upon a limited number of key themes. You could reflect on whether your prior knowledge or assumptions have been challenged or reinforced by this module. Please see below for how the criteria by which this assessment will be marked. Respond: You should then submit your E-tivity 5 to Turnitin on the date of submission, by the deadline of 11.59pm (London time).
E-tivity submission dates are detailed in the Study Calendar. Outcome: By analysing your own learning experience during this module, you will develop your critical thinking skills, improve your future practice and critically reflect on your knowledge and assumptions.
Realism: Realism is one of the oldest and most influential traditions in international relations, and claims an ancient philosophical heritage dating back to Thucydides. It aims to define itself, in contrast to ‘idealistic’ approaches, through its efforts to explain and deal with the world as it is rather than how one might wish it to be. Realists argue that the world is inherently insecure place defined by states’ pursuit of national interests defined in terms of power. Violence and conflict, in the realist view, are endemic although regrettable. Seminal thinkers in the classical realist tradition include Hans J.
Morgenthau and , and in more recent years ‘neoclassical’ realist writers have sought to reprise these ideas. Later theories have sought to develop realism’s central ideas through a more ‘scientific’ approach. ‘Neorealism’ or ‘structural realism’, primarily associated with the work of Kenneth Waltz, seeks to study the international system in much the same way that economists study markets, developing a ‘scientific’ theory of international politics.
Whereas classical realism placed greater explanatory emphasis on domestic political structures and human nature, neo-realism emphasises the importance of the structure of the international system. More recently, John Mearsheimer has emerged as an influential proponent of neorealism. Liberalism: The oldest established alternative to realism is liberalism, which has several variants.
The common theme of liberal approaches is their emphasis on the potential for cooperation between states in the pursuit of common interests. Different strains of liberalism have focused on different bases for this cooperation. Some, such as the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, and later scholars such as Karl Deutsch, emphasise shared social and political values. More recently, ‘neoliberals’ such as Robert Keohane, emphasise the interdependence created by transnational commerce and institutions.
The ‘democratic peace’ theory, which originated with Kant but which has been developed by Michael Doyle and John Owen, is a well-known argument contributed by the liberal tradition: it states that liberal democracies do not fight one another.
The ‘English School’ of international relations, whose best-known theorist was Hedley Bull, positions itself somewhere between realism and liberalism, claiming that over time an ‘international society’ of states has emerged within the international system, characterised by a number of ‘institutions’ (meaning accepted norms of behaviour) diplomacy, war, the management role of the great powers, international law and the balance of power. Questions to consider …
What are the main principles of a realist approach to Security Studies? What are the main principles of liberal approaches to Security Studies? Do you believe the notion of ‘national security’ is still valid in the current era? Additional background reading Daniel H. Deudney, ‘Regrounding Realism: anarchy, security and changing material contexts’, Security Studies, 10:1, 2000, [locate the article via Leicester E-link] John J. Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, 15, John J. Mearsheimer, ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security 1994-1995 (Winter), (no. 3), p5 Stephen Walt, ‘Rigor or Rigor Mortis?
Rational choice and security studies’, International Security, 23:4, pp. 5-58. Stephen Walt, ‘Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power’, International Security 1985, (no. 4), p3 41 Kenneth Waltz, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security 1993 (Fall), (no. 2), p44 Kenneth Waltz, ‘Globalization and National Power’, National Interest 2000 (Spring), (no. 59) p46 Kenneth Waltz, ‘Evaluating Theories’, American Political Science Review 1997 (12), (no. 4), p913 Kenneth Waltz, ‘The Origin of War in Neorealist Theory’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 1988 (Spring), (no. 4), p615 Hans J. Morgenthau, ‘Common Sense and Theories of International Relations, Journal of International Affairs, 1967, p207 Henry Kissinger, ‘America at the Apex’, National Interest 2001 (Summer), no. 64, p9
‘Roots of Realism’ special issue of Security Studies, 5:2, 1995 [articles not available to download] ‘Realism: Restatements and Renewal’, special issue of Security Studies, 5:3, 1995 [articles not available to download] ‘Formal methods, formal complaints: debating the role of rational choice in security studies’ (several articles), special issue of International Security, 24:2. . 1999 Doyle, Michael, ‘Kant Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs’, part 1 and part 2, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1983 12/3: 205-35 and 12/4: 323-54 Michael W. Doyle, ‘A more perfect union?
The liberal peace and the challenge of globalization’ Review of International Studies, 26/5 (Supp.) 2000 December, pp. 81-94 [click on the pdf for this article] Michael Doyle, ‘Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace’, American Political Science Review, 99:3, August 2005, pp. 463-466 John M. Owen, ‘Democratic Peace Research: Whence and Whither’, International Politics. 41:4, December 2004, pp. 605-617 John M. Owen, ‘How liberalism produces democratic peace’ International Security. 19:2, Fall 1994, pp. 87-125 David E. Spiro,
‘The insignificance of the liberal peace’, International Security, 19:2, Fall 1994, pp. 50-86 Michael Williams, ‘The Discipline of the Democratic Peace: Kant Liberalism and the Social Construction of Security Communities’, European Journal of International Relations, , (December 2001), Neoliberal institutionalism Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, ‘Globalization: What’s new? What’s Not (And so what?)’ , Foreign Policy 2000 (Spring), (no. 118) p104 [Leicester E-link] Peter J.
Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner, ‘International Organization and the Study of World Politics’, International Organization 1998 (Autumn), (no. 4), p645 [Leicester E-link] Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin, ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security 1995 (Summer), (no. 1), p39 [Leicester E-link] Robert O. Keohane, ‘The Demand for International Regimes’ , International Organization 1982, (no. 2), p325 [Leicester E-link] The English School and ‘international society’ Ian Hall, ‘Still the English Patient? Closures and Inventions in the English School’, International Affairs, 77: 4 (October 2001), Barry Buzan and Richard Little, ‘The “English Patient” Strikes Back: A
Response to Hall’s mis-diagnosis’, International Affairs, 77:4 (October 2001), Scott Thomas, ‘Faith, History and Martin Wight: the role of Religion in the Historical Sociology of the English School of International Relations’, International Affairs, 77:4 (October 2001), pp. 905-930 Chris Brown, ‘World Society and the English School: An “International Society” Perspective on World Society’, European Journal of International Relations, 7:4 (December 2001), [Leicester E-link] Dietrich
Jung, ‘The Political Sociology of World Society’, European Journal of International Relations, 7:4 (December 2001), pp. 443-74 [Leicester E-link] Alex J Bellamy and Matt McDonald, ‘Securing International Society: Towards an English School Discourse of Security’, Australian Journal of Political Science 2004 (7), (no. 2), p307 [Leicester E-link] Summary of topic: The Copenhagen School (so called because it emerged at Conflict and Peace Research Institute in Copenhagen) is represented in the writings of Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and others who responded to the Post-Cold War call to reconceptualise security.
So as to make security a coherent concept Buzan and others tied the notion of security to survival. The first thing we can say about the Copenhagen School then is that in answering the question – ‘what is security?’ – they do not deviate very far from the traditional understanding of security.
What the Copenhagen School does do however is suggest that there may be other referent objects for security other than the state. (They broaden rather than deepen the concept of security). In People, States and Fear Barry Buzan sets about broadening the subject of security to include not just the military sector but five categories: military, economic, environmental, societal, and political.
The category of societal security has become the flagship of the Copenhagen School. It provided a new level of analysis acknowledging the distinction between the security of the state as a territory and a population and the ruling regime. The regime itself has security concerns that may actually put the security of the people at risk. The concept also highlights that the coherence of a society need not just be threatened by violence or force.
Informed by constructivism Buzan and others do not see security as a objective state of affairs but rather as a particular kind of discourse. Security is a speech act. A speech act is an act that is carried out by speech alone. Something becomes a security issue then when a securitizing actor declares a referent object to be under threat. The securitisation model involves a spectrum.
On the one hand are those issues that are not considered political issues. They are not included in the public debate but are instead a private matter. Politicised issues in contrast are a matter of public policy and a part of the standard political system. At the other end of the spectrum is the act of securitizing.
Here an issue is not just considered a matter of public policy but is given special priority status. Securitizing an issue results in the radicalisation of the range of possible policies the securitizing actor can enact in the name of this political problem. Because the security discourse carries with it a sense of urgency, priority, alarm, and crisis actors can take extraordinary means in its name.
Questions to consider: What might constitute a threat to society? What problems or critiques might be associated with the notion of societal security? What do you understand by the term ‘Securitisation’? Why would an actor choose to securitise an issue? What are the implications of securitizing an issue? (Consider political, ethical, and theoretical implications). What have been the implications of broadening Security Studies Recommended Reading: To access your electronic reading list click on ‘Reading List’ on the course menu and click again on the module’s reading list link. Log-in to the reading list, and scroll to Week 2. Reading list Securitization theory: how security problems emerge and dissolve Book by Balzacq, Thierry 2011
Essential Note for students This is an E-book. Security studies: an introduction Book by Williams, Paul 2013 Essential Note for students See Chapter 5 ‘Constructivism’ by Matt McDonald. Securitization and the Construction of Security in European Journal of International Relations Article by M. McDonald 01/12/2008 Essential Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics in International Organization Article by Alexander Wendt 1992 The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory in International Security Article by Ted Hopf 1998 Security, Identity, and Interests: a Sociology of International Relations Book by Bill McSweeney 1999 Durkheim and the Copenhagen School:
A Response to Buzan and Wæver in Review of International Studies Article by Bill McSweeney 1998 Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: The Normative Dilemma of Writing Security in Alternatives: Global, Local, Political Article 01/02/2002 Essential Performing identity: The Danish cartoon crisis and discourses of identity and security in Security Dialogue Audio Document by C. Agius 01/06/2013 Note for students This is a podcast conversation with Dr.
Agius produced by the journal Security Dialogue. Week 3: ‘Critical’ ApproachesWeek 3: ‘Critical’ Approaches Summary of topic Critical Security Studies, a related set of ideas, emerged as an offshoot of critical theory, which developed from Marxism. Rejecting the ‘positivism’ that underpins traditional theories of security, critical theorists deny that there can be a value-free social science. They argue that the international order and the discourse of International Security as a discipline reinforce unjust conservative power structures, and see it as the duty of a ‘critical’ agenda to question and even aid the
overthrow of those power structures. Robert Cox has argued that ‘theory is always for someone and for some purpose’, and distinguishes between ‘problem-solving knowledge’ (which serves the interest of the status quo) and ‘emancipatory’ knowledge, which is explicitly revolutionary and designed to overthrow vested interests of the ruling class. Arguing along
similar lines, Ken Booth has written that ‘Security and emancipation are the two sides of the same coin. Emancipation, not power or order, produces security. Emancipation, theoretically, is security’. Feminist theories of International Security often embrace aspects of constructivism and/or critical theory in their analysis, arguing for more appreciation of the ‘gendered’ nature of the International Security discourse, and highlighting the unequal distribution of power between the sexes.
Meanwhile, ‘postmodern’ or ‘poststructuralist’ approaches pursue similar lines of enquiry to constructivism and critical theory, while attacking even more vigorously the idea of objective knowledge. Guiding question What are the main principles of a ‘critical’ approach to Security Studies? Should Security Studies concern itself with what security is, or what security does?
Did traditional Security Studies perpetuate the status quo? If we treat war as inevitable does it become a self fulfilling prophecy? Recommended Reading: To access your electronic reading list click on the ‘Reading List’ link on the course menu and scroll to Week 3. You should aim to read at least two pieces of recommended reading each week. The best way to make sense of what you have read is to dicsuss it with others. Learning is an active and collaborative process so please do share your thoughts about what you have read on this week’s discussion forum.
The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security in European Journal of International Relations Article by C. S. Browning; M. McDonald 01/06/2013 Essential The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security in European Journal of International Relations Article by C. S. Browning; M. McDonald 01/06/2013 Essential Security studies: an introduction Book by Williams, Paul 2008 Essential Note for students See chapter 7 ‘Critical Theory’ by Pinar Bilgin What Makes Security Possible: Some Thoughts on Critical Security Studies [Working Paper] Webpage by Anthony Burke 2007 Essential Note for students On this webpage you will find a link to a PDF of the full paper. You may find other entries on Anthony Burke’s blog interesting too. Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto in Security Dialogue Article by . Collective 01/12/2006 Essential Security and Emancipation in Review of International Studies Article by Ken Booth 1991 Human Wrongs and International Relations in International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) Article by Ken Booth 1995 Summary of topic The concept of Human Security developed in the aftermath of the Cold War.
Human Security removes the state as the reference object of security and instead argues that the human being should the central concern of security. The concept of Human Security was perhaps most notable set out in the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report. The Report states that: ‘Human security can be said to have two main aspects. It means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger, disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the pattern of daily life – whether in homes, in jobs or in communities’ ().
The report sets out seven threats to human security: personal security, economic security, health security, political security, community security, food security and environmental security. The concept of Human Security is well established – it has been adopted by the United Nations and the Human Security Network of states and is the conception of security behind the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and The Responsibility to Protect.
It remains however very much a contested subject. Numerous definitions exist; some taking a broad approach human security such as the UNDP and some taking a narrow approach such as Canada. Within the disciple of Security Studies as you wull see from the Recommended Reading some scholars argue that Human Security represents a new paradigm in security whilst others argue that Human Security in fact reinforces a state centric understanding of security. Guiding question Should human security have a broad or narrow definition?
How useful is the concept of human security for policy makers? Why would a state choose to adopt the human security framework? Why would some states be wary of the human security concept? Does Human Security represent a paradigm shift in Security Studies or does it simply transform realist security concerns for a globalised era? Week 4: Human Security Useful websites for Human Security:
(1) Institute for Environmental Security:
(2) Sustainable Security:
(3) Oxford Research Group:
(4) Human Security Network: . Stepping Up Campaign Against Joseph Kony, Highlighting Complex Relationship With Uganda | ThinkProgress Webpage Note for students An interesting article that highlights the complexities of the United States attempts at supporting traditional and human security concerns in Uganda. Security studies: an introduction Book by Williams, Paul 2008 Essential Note for students See chapter 16 ‘Human Security’ by Fen Osler Hampson Human Development Report (HDR) –
Chapter 2: New Dimensions of Human Security Document 1994 Security Dialogue Special Edition: What is ‘Human Security’? Journal by J. Peter Burgess September 2004 Review Essay: Human Security: The Dog That Didn’t Bark in Security Dialogue Article by David Chandler 01/08/2008 Essential Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? in International Security Article by Roland Paris 2001 Essential Human security and the separation of security and development in Conflict, Security & Development Article by Tara McCormack 05/2011 Essential Critical Voices and Human Security:
To Endure, To Engage or To Critique? in Security Dialogue Article by Christie Ryerson 01/04/2010 Critical Human Security Studies in Review of International Studies Article by Edward Newman 2010-1-22 Essential Rethinking Human Security in Political Science Quarterly Article by Christopher J. L. Murray; Gary King 2001 Week 5: The State, Sovereignty and Intervention(ism)
Week 5: The State, Sovereignty and Intervention(ism) Summary of topic At the heart of traditional theories of International Security is the concept of ‘the state’. The state is defined in large part by its sovereignty, which has an internal and external dimension, . the extent to which its government actually controls the territory within its borders, and the extent to which other governments recognise that state or government and its borders as legitimate.
Scholars, however, have raised questions regarding the nature of sovereignty, some expressing doubts as to whether it ever has existed or can ever exist in the absolute form sometimes proposed. Sovereignty, they suggest, is a ‘useful fiction’, rarely honoured in practice though still helpful as a guiding concept. Especially in recent decades, the idea has gained ground that outside powers have a responsibility to ‘intervene’, in breach of a state’s sovereignty, if a government’s behaviour violates certain standards.
This may be because of humanitarian concern about a state’s treatment of its own people, because of concern about a government’s competence to govern its territory, or because it is feared that a government is pursuing policies threatening to international peace and security. The degree to which the world accepts such proposed limitations on sovereignty and buys into the ideology of ‘interventionism’ will have profound consequences in the future. Guiding questions:
What is ‘sovereignty’? In the 2000 edition of Just and Unjust War Michael Walzer added to the introduction of this seminal work on the legitimacy of war ‘[T]he chief dilemma of international politics is whether people in danger should be rescued by military forces from outside.’ Do you agree? Is there a ‘growing consciousness of humanity’ sufficient to keep Humanitarian Intervention on the global agenda? Do states have a responsibility to protect? What is the future of R2P?
Week 5: State Sovereignty and the Politics of Humanitarian Intervention A Solution From Hell: The US and the Rise of Humanitarian Intervention 1991 -2003 Document Essential The Responsibility to Protect: Israel & Gaza Webpage Essential Perfidious Putin and the R2P Straw Man Webpage Essential Africa in Transition » Uganda and the African Standby Force Webpage Will Crimea Usher in a New Interventionist Order?
| Political Violence @ a Glance Webpage Essential What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria – Webpage Essential Note for students Putin writes directly to the American people The Politics @ Birmingham Podcast: Episode 01 Webpage Essential Note for students Really interesting podcast produced by the University of Birmingham discussing Syria, Obama in crisis and Britain looking for a role in the world.
Well worth a listen. Beyond crime and punishment: UK non-military options in Syria | Sustainable Security Home Courses Content Collection Library Help Global Menu Week 6: ‘New Threats’: Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation M21 PL7505 International Security Home Start Here – Module Overview Module Materials Weekly Topics Module Activities and Assessments Reading List Assessment Study Calendar Research Ethics Interactive Elements Weekly Topic Discussion Forums Activity and Assessment Discussion Forums Support Help & Contacts Resources to support assessment tasks Social Links What’s Outside Your Window?
A Day in the Life of a DL Student Research Podcasts Week 6: ‘New Threats’: Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation Item Week 6: ‘New Threats’: Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) ProliferationWeek 6: ‘New Threats’: Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation Summary of topic Traditional approaches to the study of International Security have focused primarily on states and their relations with other states.
The pervasive, and not unreasonable, assumption of most scholarship was that the main threats posed to the security of major powers came from the military, economic and political actions of other major powers. In recent decades, however, and especially since the events of September 11 th, 2001 (‘9/11’, in the American shorthand), additional attention has been given to different kinds of threat.
The terrorist attacks that day in the United States, as well as a growth in the number of serious acts of terrorism before and since, have boosted the importance of so-called ‘non-state actors’ in many assessments of the leading threats to global security.
The increased fear of international (especially Islamist) terrorism around the world, and the consequences of certain states’ reaction to that terrorism – the Bush administration’s declaration of a ‘War on Terror’, for example – have led some to rank terrorism now among the most significant threats to the peace and security of the world. At the same time, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), especially nuclear weapons, as well as the spread of ballistic missile technology, has allowed states that would not normally be considered rich or powerful enough to threaten the world’s main powers to become central to the international security agenda.
Efforts on the part of the ‘international community’ to dissuade countries such as Iran and North Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons have been a prominent item of the international security agenda throughout the last decade. These two threats are not unrelated: for some international security thinkers, the ‘nightmare scenario’ is that the proliferation of WMD might allow a terrorist group to acquire the means to carry out an attack on an unprecedented scale. What is ‘terrorism’?
Nuclear Weapons: What kind of security does a nuclear weapon provide? Why might a state/regime want to acquire a nuclear weapon? In what way might human security intersect with nuclear proliferation? Why can some states have nuclear weapons whilst others cannot? Can we separate questions on global security from questions of global justice?
Use the recent Iran nuclear deal to think through the connections between different understandings of ‘security’ and nuclear weapons. Siadat (2015 online) wrote: ‘But a final accord would have two ramifications of even greater potential significance. Inside Iran, the most far-reaching consequence of such an agreement is the increased possibility of positive change in the public sphere. The spectre of threats by the conspiratorial ‘Big Satan’ against the Islamic Republic has been the Iranian regime’s most important tool in repressing its own people’s rights.
The deal under negotiation would weaken this instrument, giving the struggle for increased freedom greater opportunity. Those who have thrived on the fear of war will have the cutting edge of their arguments blunted by the prospects of peace’ ( Who/what is made security and who/what is made insecure through the Iranian nuclear deal? Week 6: Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism. Old myths, new fantasies and the enduring realities of terrorism in Critical Studies on Terrorism Article by Stohl, Michael Note for students Highly recommended How New Is the New Terrorism? in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism Article by ISABELLE DUYVESTEYN 09/2004 Essential Note for students This article is highly recommended.
What’s so ‘religious’ about ‘religious terrorism’? in Critical Studies on Terrorism Article by Gunning, Jeroen Note for students Recommended Embedded Expertise and the New Terrorism Article by Dave Whyte Jonny Burnett Essential Questioning the Concept of ‘New Terrorism’ Document by Alexander Spencer Essential The Self-Fulfilling Prophecies of Counterterrorism in Radical History Review Article by Joseba Zulaika 01/07/2003 Essential President Obama’s disastrous counterterrorism legacy | Michael Boyle | Comment is free | Webpage Terror, insecurity and liberty: illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11 Book by Bigo, Didier; Tsoukala, Anastassia 2008 Language, Policy and the Construction of a Torture Culture in the War on Terrorism in Review of International Studies Article by Richard Jackson 2007 Terrorism and World Politics: Beyond Armed Response in The World Today Article by Fred Halliday 2005 Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?:
The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy in Foreign Affairs Article by John Mueller 2006 Can the War on Terror Be Won? How to Fight the Right War in Foreign Affairs Article by Philip H. Gordon 2007 Foreign Affairs Journal 2002 Note for students Special Edition: The War on Terrorism How Al-Qaida Ends: The Decline and Demise of Terrorist Groups in International Security Article by Audrey Kurth Cronin 2006 Week 7: State Failure, Disorder and Violence in ‘the South’Week 7: State Failure, Disorder and Violence in ‘the South’ Summary of topic
Whereas some regions, especially Europe, have emerged as oases of relative stability over the last twenty years, violence and disorder have been frequent in many parts of what used to be known as the ‘Third World’ (now often termed ‘the South’). There have been numerous wars and civil wars, as well as lower-level conflicts between rival factions and ethnic groups. In extreme cases, the entire system of order may break down resulting in a ‘failed state’, as in Somalia.
Even in less extreme cases, states have experienced great difficulty in sustaining a stable political and economic order in the face of widespread poverty, corruption and political dysfunction. Some writers have argued that the particular dynamics of conflict in the South merit the label ‘new wars’, and must be understood as a phenomenon quite different from conflict between relatively wealthy great powers.
What do you understand by the term ‘failed state’? For whom does the state fail? What role has the notion of the failed state played in Western security discourse, particularly since 9/11? To what extent is Security Studies western centric? Recommended Reading: To access your electronic reading list click on the ‘Reading List’ link on the course menu, then click again on the link to the reading list, log-in and scroll to
Week 7. You should aim to read at least two pieces of recommended reading each week. The best way to make sense of what you have read is to dicsuss it with others. Learning is an active and collaborative process so please do share your thoughts about what you have read on this week’s discussion forum. Guiding question What is the ‘Third World’ or ‘the South’? Pop quiz What are the biggest problems affecting the South? In what ways are its problems different from those of the wealthier nations?
Week 7: ‘New Wars’, Failed States and the Security-Development Nexus European Journal of Development Research Journal Beyond the Other? A postcolonial critique of the failed state thesis in African Identities Article by Jonathan Hill 10/2005 The global political economy of social crisis: Towards a critique of the ‘failed state’ ideology in Review of International Political Economy Article by Branwen Gruffydd Jones 16/04/2008 The Fallacy of the ‘Failed State’ Article by Charles T Call The misleading problem of failed states: a ‘socio-geography’ of terrorism in the post-9/11 era Article by Anna; David Essential Potential government shutdown:
How would the . media report on it if it were happening to another country? Webpage Note for students This is a great piece for thinking about the language of the ‘failed state’ and which countries it is applied to. ‘Failed States’ and ‘State Failure’: Threats or Opportunities?
Webpage Essential Beyond the Other? A postcolonial critique of the failed state thesis Webpage Essential Insecurity and Development: The Rhetoric of the ‘Failed State’ in The European Journal of Development Research Article by MORTEN BØ?S; KATHLEEN M. JENNINGS 2005-9-1 Essential Addressing State Failure in Foreign Affairs Article by Stephen D. Krasner and Carlos Pascual 2005 What is Third World Security? in Annual Review of Political Science Article by Raju GC Thomas 2003 Development, Territories, and People: Consolidating the External Sovereign Frontier in Alternatives: Global, Local, Political Article by Mark Duffield 2007
Development and Change Journal 2002 Note for students Special Edition: State Failure, Collapse and Reconstruction Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States in International Security Article by Stephen D. Krasner 2004 Journal of Peace Research Special Edition: Conflict, Civil War and Underdevelopment Journal July 2002 The Imperative of State-Building in Journal of Democracy Article by Francis Fukuyama 04/08/2004 Africa’s Great War in Survival: Global Politics and Strategy Article by David Shearer 1999 Please provide drafts in 2 days.
