1

DepartmentofPoliticsandInternationalRelationsUniversityofWestminster

32-38WellsStreet,London,W1T3UW

BeyondIR:ThePoliticsoftheInternational,theGlobaland

thePlanetary

2017-2018

ModuleCode:7PIRS001WSpringsemester

Time:1.00–4.00pmTuesdaysRoom:RegentStreet152

Moduleleader:ProfessorDavidChandler

Room:WellsStreet504Email:D.Chandler@Westminster.ac.uk

2

FullModuleTitle:BeyondInternationalRelations:ThePoliticsofthe

International,theGlobalandthePlanetaryShortModuleTitle: BeyondInternationalRelationsModuleCode: 7PIRS001W ModuleLevel: 7Academiccreditweighting: 20 Length: 1semesterFaculty: FacultyofSocialSciencesandHumanitiesDepartment: PoliticsandInternationalRelationsModuleLeader(s): ProfessorDavidChandler Extension: 7605 Room: WS504Email: D.Chandler@Westminster.ac.ukHostcourse: MAInternationalRelationsStatus: CoreSubjectBoard: MAInternationalRelationsPre-requisites: None Co-requisites: NoneAssessment: 1essay5,000words(100%)

3

ModuleSummaryThismodulereconsidersthe‘beyond’ofinternationalrelations.Aftertheendofthecoldwar it seemed that international relations, as traditionally understoodby thediscipline in terms of power politics, Realpolitik, had come to an end. Theassumptions of state-based politics,which had informed classical IR, in turn cameintoquestion. IRwasunderstoodasadiscipline foundedupon ‘seeing likea state’(fromtheperspectiveofaverywhite,westernelite)whereasthereweremanyotherandmorepluralisedwaysofseeingandthinkingaboutpolitics.Morethantwenty-fiveyears into theopeningupof thedisciplineof IR (toaglobalera), thismoduleprovides a chance to reflectupon thebeyondof the international. In the1990s itseemed that this beyond offered a positive opportunity to think from non-state-based positions, from the universal view of global interests and concerns: toconstructaliberal/globalisedcommunity.Inthe2000sitappearedthatthebeyondoftheinternationalandthepowerrelationsitfocusedupon,wasnotnecessarilytheglobalisingofliberalformsofruleor,ifitwas,thiswasnolongertobeunderstoodpositively.Inthedeconstructionoftheglobal,universal,imaginaryinthe2000s,thecallhasnotbeenforareturntotheunderstandingsofthepast,butratherafurtherproblematisationoftheassumptionsofthediscipline.Inthismoduleweanalysethenewformsofthinkingthathavesoughttograsptheworld beyond the politics of the ‘international’: alternative ways of seeing andtheorising the problems and assumptions of the political sphere. Of mostimportance,forthismodule, isthatthebeyondofIRisasetofdiscussionsthatdonot see the world in terms of state-based theories of strategy and interests,thereforethereisnointer-nationaltheory.Thestartingassumptionisnotthestateactinginthecontextofanarchy.Ofcourse,westillhavestatesandstatesarecentralto policy-making discourses and international practices, but dominant discussionsanddebates in IRfocusmoreuponhowweunderstandandseetheworldbeyondthenarrowassumptionswhichinformedthedisciplineofinternationalrelations.Themodule is in three sections. Firstly, it considers how the global or liberal turnwas constructed in the 1990s (the deconstruction of the ‘methodologicalnationalism’ that necessarily informed classical IR). This first paradigm is aconstructive or positive one - the development of constructivist, critical andcosmopolitanapproaches,posedindirectoppositiontostate-basedunderstandings.Thesecondparadigmisadeconstructiveornegativeone;weanalysehowthelimitsto global and liberal aspirations enabled these framings to be deconstructed andcritiqued - especially in the historical, sociological, economic frameworks of newinstitutionalist, critical anddecolonial understandings. Third, themodule considerswhether thepresentmomentmarks theclosureof ‘theriseand fallof theglobal’,perhapsashiftawayfromthedeconstructionandcritiqueoftheglobalandtowardsanewpositiveandconstructiveparadigm,sometimesassociatedwiththeplanetarypoliticsoftheAnthropocene.

4

ModuleAims1. To introduce students to the theoretical frameworks and practices of theworldbeyondinternationalrelations,tothedebateswhichithastriggered,andthewaythatapproachestothestateandsocietyhavedeveloped in thepost-coldwarera.2. The module considers the implications of the shift from an elite world ofinter-state relations toamore socially complexworldandhow this shifthasbeentheorisedandunderstoodindifferentways(bothpositivelyandnegatively).3. Themoduleanalyseshowthecentralityofthestate(bothanalyticallyandasakeyinstitutionalactor)haschangedforinternationaltheorising.Inthiscontext, itparticularly focuses on what might be termed ‘neoliberal’ or new institutionalistapproaches,whichplacesocialprocessesatthecentreofinternationalframeworks.4. The module also introduces students to frameworks of complexity andposthumanismwhichgobeyondnewinstitutionalismandsuggestthatinternationalproblemscanneitherbegraspedinglobalnorinternationalterms.LearningOutcomesBytheendofthismodulestudentswillbeableto:1. Analyse a range of specialised theories that can be applied to the study ofinternationalrelations;bothintermsofunderstandingtheshifttotheglobalandthelimitsofthisshift.2. Criticallyevaluatehowstate-basedapproachestoIRhavebeendisplacedandtheimpactsthatthishashaduponwaysofthinkingaboutthediscipline.3. Analysetherelevanceofsociological,historicalandeconomic institutionalismtounderstandingthelimitsoftheshifttoamoreglobalworld.4. Critically analyse the limits to traditional understandings of structure andagency in the international sphere and how these apply to Realpolitik and powerrelations.5. Selectandapplyspecialised internationaltheoriesandapproachestospecificresearchproblemsandrecognisethebasiccostsandbenefitsofthoseselections.Teaching,LearningandAssessmentOne 3 hour seminar per week involving small group work and student led-discussions. Students are expected to prepare in advance as this involvesdiscussion/interpretation of key readings. The assessment for this module is oneessayof5,000words.Theessayquestionsareavailableonpage23ofthismoduleguide.Thedeadlinefortheessayis12.00pmThursday12April2018.

5

KeyReadingsUlrich Beck, ‘Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent’,Constellations,10:4(2003).Daniel Chernilo, ‘The critique of methodological nationalism: Theory and history’,ThesisEleven,Vol106,Issue1,2011Johan Galtung, ‘Violence, Peace and Peace Research’, Journal of Peace Research,Vol.6,No.3(1969),pp.167–191.KenBooth,‘SecurityandEmancipation’,ReviewofInternationalStudies,Vol.17,No.4(1991),pp.313-327.Douglass North, ‘Dealing with a Non-Ergodic World: Institutional Economics,PropertyRights, and theGlobal Environment’,DukeEnvironmental LawandPolicyForum,Vol.10,No.1(1999),pp.1-12.MichaelDillonandLuisLobo-Guerrero,‘Biopoliticsofsecurityinthe21stcentury:anintroduction’,ReviewofInternationalStudies,(2008),34,265–292.ColemanM,Grove K, 2009, "Biopolitics, biopower, and the return of sovereignty"EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace27(3)489–507.DavidChandler,HollowHegemony(London,PlutoPress,2009)DavidChandler,‘TheGlobalIdeology:RethinkingthePoliticsofthe“GlobalTurn”inIR’,InternationalRelations,Vol.23,No.4(2009),pp.530-547DavidChandler,FreedomvsNecessityinInternationalRelations(London,ZedBooks,2013).Nik Hynek and David Chandler, ‘No emancipatory alternative, no critical securitystudies’,CriticalStudiesonSecurity,(2013)Vol.1,No.1,pp.46–63.DavidL.Blaney,ArleneB.Tickner,‘Worlding,OntologicalPoliticsandthePossibilityofaDecolonialIR’,Millennium45:3,293-311,2017.Anibal Quijano, ‘Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism and Latin America’, Nepantla:ViewsfromtheSouth1,no.3(2000):552.JohnLaw,‘What’sWrongwithaOneWorldWorld’,2011.BrunoLatour,‘WhoseCosmos,whosecosmopolitics?CommentsonthePeaceTermsofUlrichBeck’,CommonKnowledge10:3,2004Erika Cudworth and Stephen Hobden, Posthuman International Relations:Complexity,EcologismandGlobalPolitics(London:Zed,2011).RosaBraidotti,ThePosthuman(Cambridge:Polity,2013).Fagan, Madeleine. 2016. “Security in the Anthropocene: Environment, Ecology,Escape.”EuropeanJournalofInternationalRelations.Burke,Anthony,StefanieFishel,AudraMitchell, SimonDalby,andDaniel J. Levine.2016. “Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR.” Millennium Journal ofInternationalStudies44(3):499–523.Cameron Harrington, ‘The Ends of the World: International Relations and theAnthropocene’,Millennium,44(3)2016Audra Mitchell, ‘Is IR going extinct?’, European Journal of International Relations23(1)2017

6

SeminarProgrammeDatesIntroductionW123January-Seminar1-Introduction:TheInternational,theGlobalandthePlanetaryandseminarallocationW230January–Seminar2–Whatwasthe‘International’paradigmofIR?PartOne:TheRiseofGlobalPoliticsW3 6 February – Seminar 3 – Globalisation vs MethodologicalNationalismW413February–Seminar4–SocialConstructivismandCosmopoliticsW520February-Seminar5-CriticalTheory1-HumanSecurityW627February–StudentEngagementWeek-NoseminarPartTwo:TheCritiqueofGlobalPoliticsW76March-Seminar6–CriticalTheory2–EmpireandGlobalWarW813March-Seminar7–NewInstitutionalismandNeoliberalismW9 20March – Seminar 8 –Pluriversal Politics: Decoloniality and theOntologicalTurnPartThree:Conclusion:TheBirthofPlanetPoliticsW1027MarchSeminar9–TheAnthropoceneandessaypreparationW113April–noseminarW1210April–Seminar10Conclusion:TheRiseandFalloftheGlobalEssaySubmission–12.00pmThursday12April

7

SeminarProgramme/Readings

-----Introduction-----Seminar1(23January)Introduction:BeyondIR:TheInternational,theGlobalandthePlanetaryandallocationofseminarpresentationsThedisciplineofInternationalRelationswasshapedbydiscoursesofRealism–basedon a model of international anarchy in which states pursed the interests ofrealpolitik in the international sphere. This seminar introduces students to whathappenedaftertheweakeningofthisparadigmwiththeendofthecoldwar(pleasenotethatagroundinginIRtheoryisnotessentialforthismodule).Wewillintroducetwomajorparadigmsofthought,whichfocusontheriseandfalloftheglobalafterIR: these could be construed broadly as liberal/constructive andcritical/deconstructive.Thesetwoparadigms,centredupontheglobal,haveshapeddiscussionsbeyond the classical paradigmof international relations for the last 25years, but may be coming to a close with the contemporary emergence of thepoliticsoftheplanetary.We will also allocate seminar topics, so please consider which you would like tointroduce.Questions:WhatisthedifferencebetweenInternationalRelationsandGlobalPolitics?HowwastheGlobalconstructedagainsttheclassicalparadigm?HowwastheGlobaldeconstructed?BackgroundreadingPerhaps forabackground towaysof (re)thinking the shift to theglobal youcouldlookatapieceIwroteabout10yearsago(10yearsisalongtimeinIRsothisisjustbackgroundforyourinterest)‘TheGlobalIdeology:RethinkingthePoliticsofthe“GlobalTurn”inIR’,InternationalRelations,Vol.23,No.4(2009),pp.530-547http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Journal-of-Int-Rels-Global-Ideology-published.pdf---------------

8

Seminar2(30January)Whatwasthe‘international’paradigmofIR?Thesession(withtheassistanceofvisitingacademic,DrIgnasiTorrent)providesanintroductoryoverviewof thedisciplineof IR’sphilosophical and theoreticaloriginsand provides an insight into the evolution of IR up to the end the ColdWar. Asbackgroundforourdiscussionsofthechangesthatoccurfromtheearly1990s,thesession explores how philosophical traditions, paradigms and theories differentlyapproach international relations on the basis of objects of study, dynamics andinstruments,orunderstandingsofpoliticalspace.QuestionsWhatdidtheanarchy/sovereigntyproblematicdoforIR?Whatweretheassumptionsbehindthisframing?Wasittimeless?Howwasthisdisruptedbytheglobalinthe1990s?BackgroundreadingAlthough knowledge of the discipline of IR is not necessary for this module, thediscussions‘beyond’IRarebeyondstate-basedunderstandings,ofstatesasrationalautonomous actors operating in an empty and timeless sphere of anarchy.Backgroundreadingbelow(andothermaterial,suchasIRtextbooks)willgiveyouauseful set of insights into how IR was constructed through the anarchy/stateproblematic.MartinWight, “Why is there no International theory?” in Herbert Butterfield andMartinWight (eds.)Diplomatic Investigations:Essays in the theoryof InternationalRelations (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966), p. 35-50. Or the intro toInternational Theory: The Three Traditions ed. Gabriele Wight & Brian Porter(Leicester&London:LeicesterUniversityPress,1991).Hedley Bull, ‘MartinWight and the Theory of International Relations: The SecondMartinWightMemorialLecture’,BritishJournalofInternationalStudies,Vol.2,No.2(Jul.,1976),pp.101-116https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwilwKayuNzYAhXsLcAKHapCCdcQFghRMAc&url=https%3A%2F%2Fedisciplinas.usp.br%2Fpluginfile.php%2F202346%2Fmod_folder%2Fcontent%2F0%2F2%2520-%2520BULL%252C%2520H.%2520Martin%2520Wight%2520and%2520the%2520Theory%2520of%2520International%2520Relations.%25201976..pdf%3Fforcedownload%3D1&usg=AOvVaw3eyEPKAW3agqdRYBvGovbfHansMorgenthau,PoliticsAmongNations,chapter1.http://saldanha.pbworks.com/f/Morgenthau.Politics+Among+Nations.pdf*RichardK.Ashley,'UntyingtheSovereignState:ADoubleReadingoftheAnarchyProblematique',Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies(1988),Vol.17,No.2,pp.227-262.http://pos-graduacao.uepb.edu.br/ppgri/files/2016/02/Ashley-Richard-K.-Untying-the-sovereign-state-a-double-reading-of-the-anarchy-problematique.-Millennium-Journal-of-International-Studies-.pdf

9

*HedleyBull,‘HobbesandtheInternationalAnarchy’,SocialResearch,Winter1981,48,4.https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/363413/mod_resource/content/1/bull_1981.pdfHedleyBull, ‘SocietyandAnarchy in InternationalRelations’, inHerbertButterfieldand Martin Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory ofInternational Relations (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966), pp.35-50. ALSOAVAILABLE IN James Der Derian (ed.) International Theory: Critical Investigations(London:Macmillan,1995).Collectionof short readings inonepdf,HansMorgenthau,AnnTickner,AlexanderWendtandMiljaKurkion classical IR and itsothers (feminism, constructivismandMarxism)https://www.lahc.edu/library/documents/vega/Political%20Science%202%20Readings%201.pdf

-------PartOne:TheRiseofGlobalPolitics-----Seminar3(6February)GlobalisationvsMethodologicalNationalismGlobalisation and its meaning are important for this module, not so much inempiricaltermsasinwhatglobalisationsaysaboutthemethodologicaltoolsneededto grasp the ‘international’ sphere. It is very important to read the Rosenbergcritique of globalisation theory (the International Politics article is provided onBlackboard,butthebookwouldbebetter).Thisisbecausethekeypointwewishtodiscuss ishowstate-basedunderstandingsof the internationalcollapsedsorapidlyaftertheendofthecoldwar.PleasealsoensurethatyoureadtheUlrichBeckarticleinConstellationsandtheChernilo,toconsiderwhatthecritiqueof‘methodologicalnationalism’means.ItcouldbeunderstoodthatglobalizationachievedwhatcriticalIR approaches did not (during the cold war), that is to successfully challenge thedominantstate-basedparadigmbothinempiricaltermsbutalso(moreimportantly)in methodological and analytical terms. How did globalization achieve this seachange–forempiricalreasons,foranalyticalreasons?Questions:Whatisglobalisation?Whatistheproblemwith‘methodologicalnationalism’?Whyistheglobalthe‘second(ageof)modernity’?EssentialreadingUlrich Beck, ‘Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent’,Constellations,10:4(2003).http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1351-0487.2003.00347.x/abstractDaniel Chernilo, ‘The critique of methodological nationalism: Theory and history’,ThesisEleven,Vol106,Issue1,2011

10

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0725513611415789* Justin Rosenberg, ‘Globalisation Theory a Post Mortem’, International Politics,2005,42,(2–74).https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800098AdditionalreadingUlrich Beck, ‘The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age ofmodernity’,BritishJournalofSociology,Volume51,Issue1200079–105http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00079.x/abstract* JustinRosenberg, ‘InternationalRelations—The ‘HigherBullshit’:AReply to theGlobalizationTheoryDebate’,InternationalPolitics,2007,44,(450–482).* Jan Aart Scholte ‘Premature Obituaries: A Response to Justin Rosenberg’,InternationalPolitics,42(3),(2005):390–399.DavidHeldandAnthonyMcGrew, ‘Introduction:GlobalizationatRisk’, inHeldandMcGrew (eds) Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies (Cambridge:Polity,2007).JustinRosenberg,TheFolliesofGlobalisationTheory(London:Verso,2000).RobertCooper,Thepost-modernstateandtheworldorder(Demos,2002).http://www.demos.co.uk/files/postmodernstate.pdfTheEconomist,‘ForeignPolicy:Athree-wayworld’,18December1997.http://www.economist.com/node/455907David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State toCosmopolitanGovernance(Cambridge:Polity,1995).Baylis,J.andSmith,S.(eds.)(1997)TheGlobalizationofWorldPolitics,Oxford:OUP.Albrow,M.(1996)TheGlobalAge,Cambridge:Polity.Archibugi, Daniele, Held, David and Kohler, Martin (eds) Re-imagining PoliticalCommunity:StudiesinCosmopolitanDemocracy(London:PolityPress,1998)Bauman,Z.(1998)Globalization:TheHumanConsequences,Cambridge:Polity.Martin Shaw, Theory of the Global State: Globality as an Unfinished Revolution(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000)Clark,I.(1999)GlobalizationandInternationalRelationsTheory,Oxford:OUP.Featherstone, M., Lash, S. and Robertson, R. (eds.) (1995) Global Modernities,London:SagePublications.Giddens,A.(1990)TheConsequencesofModernity,Cambridge:Polity.Giddens,A.(1999)RunawayWorld,ProfileBooks,London:ProfileBooks.Scholte,J.(2000)Globalization:aCriticalIntroduction,Basingstoke:Macmillan.---------------

11

Seminar4(13February)SocialConstructivismandCosmopoliticsTheshifttowardsaglobalworldwithoutashifttoaglobalformofsovereignty,andthemaintenanceoftheinter-statesystem,necessitatedadifferentunderstandingofthemechanisms of the international arena. Constructivism provided a sociologicalunderstandingofinteraction,whichchallengedtherationalistapproachofpreviousIR thinking. This was based upon an endogenous understanding of theintersubjective constructionof identities and interests as opposed to rationalist IRapproaches, which argued that states came to the international sphere alreadyequipped with identities and interests, derived exogenously from internationalinteraction. A new, post-foundational, agency of international dynamics emergedthrough interaction, stateswere no longer the central constitutive subjects of theinternational realm but were the products of this realm. The inversion of therelationsbetweentheinternationalandthesovereignstatearereflectedwellintheworksofJacksonandKrasner(inadditionalreadingsbelow,wewilldiscusstheseinSeminar7)aswellas intheriseofglobalcivilsociety,especially internationalNGO‘norm-entrepreneurs’.QuestionsWhywererationalistapproachescentraltothedisciplineofIR?What is an endogenous understanding and how does this inverse traditionalapproachestoIR?Whathappenstopoliticsandpowerinconstructivistapproaches?Whyistheendoftheinternationalassociatedwiththeriseofconstructivism?Essentialreading*AlexanderWendt‘Anarchy iswhatStatesMakeof It’, InternationalOrganization,Vol.46,No.2(1992),pp.394-419.*MarthaFinnemoreandKathrynSikkink,‘InternationalNormDynamicsandPoliticalChange’,InternationalOrganization,Vol.52,No.4,(1998),pp.887-917*MaryKaldor,‘TheIdeaofGlobalCivilSociety?’,InternationalAffairs,Vol.79(2003),No.3,pp.583-593.AdditionalreadingRobinCook's speechon thegovernment'sethical foreignpolicy,Guardian,12May1997.http://www.theguardian.com/world/1997/may/12/indonesia.ethicalforeignpolicyRobert H Jackson,Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the ThirdWorld(CambridgeUniversityPress,1990).Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,1999).Kathryn Sikkink, The Justice Cascade: Human Rights Prosecutions and Change inWorldPolitics,Chapter1:Introductionhttps://bc.sas.upenn.edu/system/files/Sikkink_04.08.10.pdfMargaretKeckandKathrynSikkink,ActivistsBeyondBorders:AdvocacyNetworksinInternationalPolitics(NewYork:CornellUniversityPress,1998).

12

Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, The Power of Human Rights(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999/2001).JohnKeane,GlobalCivilSociety?(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003)Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler (eds) Human Rights in Global Politics(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999).Geoffrey Robertson QC, Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice(London:Penguin,1999/2000).MaryKaldor,GlobalCivilSociety:AnAnswertoWar(London:Polity,2003)DavidChandler,‘BuildingGlobalCivilSociety“FromBelow”?’,Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies,Vol.33,No.2,2004,pp.313-339.http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Millennium-Building-GCS-published.pdfDavidChandler,‘DerivingNormsfrom“GlobalSpace”:TheLimitsofCommunicativeApproaches toGlobal Civil Society Theorising’,Globalizations, Vol. 4,No.2, (2007),pp.283-298.http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Gobalizations-Global-Space.pdfDavid Chandler, ‘Global Space: Positivism, Progress and the Political - Reply toKaldor, Dallmayer, Lipshutz, Beregsen and Patomäki’,Globalizations, Vol. 4, No.2,(2007), pp.318-320. (For a draft of the responses replied to click the second linkbelow)http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Gobalizations-Reply-Global-Space.pdfhttp://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Globalizations-Global-Space-Responses.pdf---------------Seminar5(20February)CriticalTheory1-HumanSecurityCritical theorists welcomed the shift to the global in the 1990s, seeing this anopportunity for a radical decentring of state-based approaches to security. Ofparticularinterest,intermsofthismodule,ishowtheagencyofhumansecurityandthebarrierstohumansecurityareconstructed.Theseframeworks,whicharguethatthe particular interests of states are a barrier to a universalist liberal approach toglobalrightsandjustice,willbecontrasted(inseminar6)withtheFoucauldiancritics(criticaltheory2)whoarguethattheproblemsliepreciselyinthepursuitofgloballiberalends.ThisweekwewillalsoconsidertheworkofJohanGaltung–especiallyhisviewsof‘structuralviolence’and‘positivepeace’asprecursorsofcriticalsecurityapproaches. For a background, to those unfamiliar with the discipline ofInternational Relations, the Cox and Linklater readings (in the additional readingsection)areclassicstatements.QuestionsWhatistheproblemwithstate-basedapproachestosecurity?

13

Whatisthebarriertoglobalemancipation?Whatistheagentofglobalemancipation?Whatarethepoliticsofhumanrightsandhumansecurity?Essentialreading* JohanGaltung, ‘Violence,PeaceandPeaceResearch’, JournalofPeaceResearch,Vol.6,No.3(1969),pp.167–191.*KathleenHo,‘StructuralViolenceasaHumanRightsViolation’,EssexHumanRightsReviewVol.4No.2September2007.* Ken Booth, ‘Security and Emancipation’,Review of International Studies, Vol.17,No.4(1991),pp.313-327.*TimDunneandNicholasJ.Wheeler, ‘WethePeoples’:ContendingDiscoursesofSecurityinHumanRightsTheoryandPractice’,InternationalRelations,18:1,(2004),pp.9-23.Additionalreading*RobertCox,'Socialforces,statesandworldorders:beyondinternationalrelationstheory',Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies,10(1981),128.* Andrew Linklater, ‘The Question of the Next Stage in International RelationsTheory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View’,Millennium - Journal of InternationalStudies,21(1992),77-98.Nicholas J Wheeler, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in InternationalSociety(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000).Keith Krause andMichael C.Williams (eds) Critical Security Studies: Concepts andCases(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997).J. Ann Tickner, ‘Re-visioning Security’, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds)InternationalRelationsTheoryToday(Cambridge:Polity,1995/2002),pp.175-197.Ken Booth, ‘Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice’,InternationalAffairs,Vol.67,No.3(1991),pp.527-545.Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community (Cambridge: Polity,1998).*NikHynekandDavidChandler, ‘Noemancipatoryalternative,no critical securitystudies’,CriticalStudiesonSecurity,(2013)Vol.1,No.1,pp.46–63.DavidChandler, ‘UniversalEthicsandElitePolitics: theLimitsofNormativeHumanRightsTheory’,InternationalJournalofHumanRights,Vol.5,No.4,2001,pp.72-89.http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/IJHR%20-%20Universal%20Ethics.pdfSimon Dalby, ‘Geopolitical Change and Contemporary Security Studies:Contextualizing the Human Security Agenda’, Working Paper No.30, Institute ofInternational Relations, University of British Columbia, April 2000.http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/sites/liu/files/Publications/webwp30.pdfMarliesGlasiusandMaryKaldor,‘IndividualsFirst:AHumanSecurityStrategyfortheEuropean Union’, Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, No.1, 2005, pp.62-82.http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipg/02693.pdf

14

Clare ShortMP, "Security, development and conflict prevention", Department forInternational Development, 13 May 1998.http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/speeches/files/sp13may.htmlMary KaldorNew and OldWars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (Cambridge:PolityPress,1999).Especially,Chapter6:TowardsaCosmopolitanApproachStudyGroup on Europe's Security Capabilities, A Human Security Doctrine for Europe,Barcelona:15September2004.http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/Human%20Security%20Report%20Full.pdf.* Johan Galtung, ‘Twenty-Five Theses on Development Theory and Practice’,Kasarinlan:PhilippineJournalofThirdWorldStudies,Vol11,No1(1995).KenBooth(ed.)CriticalSecurityStudiesandWorldPolitics(NewYork:LynneRiennerPublishers,2005).J.L.HolzgrefeandRobertO.Keohane(Eds)HumanitarianIntervention:Ethical,LegalandPoliticalDilemmas(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003).FinalReportoftheCommissiononHumanSecurityhttp://www.humansecurity-chs.org/finalreport/index.htmlespeciallyChapter1:HumanSecurityNowhttp://www.humansecurity-chs.org/finalreport/chapter1.pdfUnited Nations Development Project, Human Development Report 1994: NewDimensionsofHumanSecurity.http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1994/en/especially Chapter 2, ‘New Dimensions of Human Security’http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1994/en/pdf/hdr_1994_ch2.pdfDavidChandler, 'HumanSecurity:TheDogthatDidn'tBark',SecurityDialogue,Vol.39,No.4(2008),pp.427-438.http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/Security%20Dialogue%20-%20Human%20Security%20I.pdfDavidChandler,'HumanSecurityII:WaitingfortheTailtoWagtheDog:RejoindertoAmbrosetti,OwenandWibben',SecurityDialogue,Vol.39,No.4(2008),pp.463-469.http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/Security%20Dialogue%20-%20Human%20Security%20II.pdf

15

------PartTwo:TheCritiqueofGlobalPolitics--------Seminar6(6March)CriticalTheory2–EmpireandGlobalWarThe(broadly)Foucauldiancritiquetakesonboardtheglobalisingoftheinternationalliberalorderandopensupnewapproachestocritique inthe internationalsphere:thoseofliberal‘governmentality’andofliberal‘biopolitics’.Thebiopoliticalcritiqueispursuedparticularly in termsof security regimes,withgoodexamplesbeing theworkofGiorgioAgamben,MichaelHardtandAntonioNegri,MickDillon,JulianReidandMark Duffield. The governmentality approach, focusesmore on global liberalapproachestostatebuildingandintervention,lessdeterminedbyeconomicinterestsbutbyepistemicand ideational frameworks legitimising the internationalisationofthe liberalorder, Jahn’swork isparticularlyuseful inthisrespect, indescribingthetelosofinterventionasa‘liberalideology’.QuestionsWhydidFoucauldianapproachesincreasinglybecomepopularinIRinthe2000s?WhatistheFoucauldiancritiqueoftheemancipatoryaspirationsofcriticaltheory?What is the difference between a governmentality critique and a biopoliticalcritique?Are Foucauldians more political/critical than the critical theorists considered inseminar4?Essentialreading* Thomas Lemke, ‘"The Birth of Bio-Politics" – Michel Foucault's Lecture at theCollège de France onNeo-LiberalGovernmentality’,Economyand Society, Volume30,Issue2,2001,pages190-207.*MichaelDillonandLuisLobo-Guerrero,‘Biopoliticsofsecurityinthe21stcentury:anintroduction’,ReviewofInternationalStudies,(2008),34,265–292.*ColemanM,GroveK,2009,"Biopolitics,biopower,andthereturnofsovereignty"EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace27(3)489–507.AdditionalreadingHardt,M.andNegri,A.(2006)Multitude:WarandDemocracyintheAgeofEmpire(London:Penguin).Duffield,M.(2007)Development,SecurityandUnendingWar:GoverningtheWorldofPeoples(London:Polity).* Jahn,B. (2007) ‘TheTragedyofLiberalDiplomacy:Part I’, Journalof InterventionandStatebuilding,1:1,pp.87-106*Jahn,B.(2007)‘TheTragedyofLiberalDiplomacy:Part II’,Journalof InterventionandStatebuilding,1:2,pp.211-229.* Julian Reid, ‘The Biopoliticization of Humanitarianism: From Saving Bare Life toSecuringtheBiohumaninPost-InterventionarySocieties’,JournalofInterventionandStatebuilding,4:4,(2010),pp.391-411.

16

*ColleenBell&BradEvans,‘TerrorismtoInsurgency:MappingthePost-InterventionSecurityTerrain’,JournalofInterventionandStatebuilding,4:4,(2010),pp.371-390.* John Heathershaw, ‘Unpacking the Liberal Peace: The Dividing and Merging ofPeacebuildingDiscourses’,Millennium-Journalof InternationalStudies, (2008),36,597.*NikHynekandDavidChandler, ‘Noemancipatoryalternative,no critical securitystudies’,CriticalStudiesonSecurity,(2013)Vol.1,No.1,pp.46–63.Dillon, M. and Reid, J. (2009) The Liberal Way of War: Killing to Make Life Live(London:Routledge).Jabri, V. (2007) War and the Transformation of Global Politics (Basingstoke:MacMillan).MichaelHardt,MandAntonioNegri,A.(2001)Empire(NewYork:HarvardUniversityPress,2001).ScottHamilton, ‘AddFoucaultandStir:ThePerilsandPromiseofGovernmentalityandtheGlobal’,EuropeanReviewofInternationalStudies,Vol.1(2)(2014).http://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/eris/article/view/16508/14414.MarkDuffield,GlobalGovernanceandtheNewWars:TheMergingofDevelopmentandSecurity(London:ZedBooks,2001).* Thomas Lenke, ‘Foucault,Governmentality, andCritique’,RethinkingMarxism:AJournalofEconomics,Culture&Society,Volume14,Issue3,2002,pages49-64.DavidChandler,‘'FromSecuritytoInsecurity:Kaldor,DuffieldandFuredi’,JournalofConflict,SecurityandDevelopment,Vol.8,No.2(2008),pp.265-276.http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/CSD%20-%20Security%20review%20article.pdfChandler,D.'WarwithoutEnd(s):GroundingGlobalWar’,SecurityDialogue,Vol.40,No.3(2009),pp.243-262.http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/Security%20Dialogue%20-%20War%20without%20End(s).pdfDavidChandler, 'Critiquing LiberalCosmopolitanism?:TheLimitsof theBiopoliticalApproach',InternationalPoliticalSociology,Vol.3,No.1(2009),pp.53-70.http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/IPS%20-%20Global%20Cosmopolitanism.pdfDavidChandler, 'GlobalizingFoucault: FromCritique toApologia -Reply toKierseyandRosenow',GlobalSociety,Vol.24,No.2(2010),pp.135-142.http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/Global%20Society%20-%20Chandler%20response.pdf---------------

17

Seminar7(13March)NewInstitutionalismandNeoliberalismNeoliberal frameworks of understanding, informed by new institutionalistapproaches,conceptualisetheproblemsofdemocracyandmarketsasendogenoussocialandhistoricalproducts.Inthis‘bottom-up’understanding,internationalpolicyinterventionsshiftedfromexporting‘one-size-fits-all’liberaluniversalistapproachesof the global, to a much richer and more sociologically informed view of thecontextual,cultural,socialandhistoricalpreconditionsforprogressandtothesocialprocessesthroughwhich‘path-dependencies’andproblematicformsofgovernancewere reproduced. Particularly those of New Institutionalist Economics, of whichWorld Bank adviser and Nobel Prize winner, Douglass North provides the keyexample. These new institutionalist approaches sought to explain howdifferencesbetweenstatescouldincreasedespiteaglobalisedcontext,whichallegedlyremovedbarriers between states and created an equal and universal playing field. Newinstitutionalistapproachesbringthestatebackintointernationaltheorisingbutnotas the rational actor of traditional IR theory but vital institutional frameworks,shapedbysociologicalandhistoricalinteractions.It istheseframeworks,whichareanalysed as the socially constructed explanations for global differentiation. Theemergenceandtheconsequencesofthisapproachwillbeexaminedinthisseminar.For new institutionalist approaches, theworld becomes increasingly differentiatedand policy interventions, intended to universalise in a global world canunintentionallyincreasedifferentiations.QuestionsHow do new institutionalist approaches explain the relationship betweenuniversalisingorglobalisingforcesandincreaseddifferentialsintheworld?Whatisthesolutiontothebarrierstodevelopmentintheseapproaches?Caninternationalaidorexternalassistanceenableprogressivechange?Howdoesnewinstitutionalismchallengerationalistassumptions?Essentialreading*DouglassC.North,‘Institutions’,TheJournalofEconomicPerspectives,Vol.5,No.1,(Winter,1991),pp.97-112.* Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis and Barry R. Weingast, ‘A ConceptualFrameworkFor InterpretingRecordedHumanHistory’,NBERWorkingPaperSeries,WorkingPaper12795,2006.*DaronAcemoglu and JamesA. Robinson, ‘A Theoryof Political Transitions’, TheAmericanEconomicReview,Vol.91,No.4(Sep.,2001),pp.938-963.* Douglass North, ‘Dealing with a Non-Ergodic World: Institutional Economics,PropertyRights, and theGlobal Environment’,DukeEnvironmental LawandPolicyForum,Vol.10,No.1(1999),pp.1-12.AdditionalreadingB Guy Peters, Institutional Theory in Political Science: The 'New Institutionalism'(Continnuum,2005).

18

DouglassNorth,(1990)Institutions,InstitutionalChangeandEconomicPerformance(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).Foucault,M.(2008)TheBirthofBiopolitics:LecturesattheCollègedeFrance1978-1979(Basingstoke:Palgrave).CommissionforAfrica,OurCommonInterest,11March2005. http://www.commissionforafrica.info/2005-report* Geoffrey M. Hodgson, ‘Institutional Economics into the Twenty-First Century’,StudieNotediEconomia,14:1(2009),pp.3-26.*DouglassNorth,‘Institutions,OrganizationsandMarketCompetition’paper.* Douglass North, ‘Institutions and Economic Growth: An Historical Introduction’,WorldDevelopment,Vol.17,No.9,pp.1319-1332,(1989).* Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, James Robinson, Yunyong Thaicharoend,‘Institutional causes, macroeconomic symptoms: volatility, crises and growth’,JournalofMonetaryEconomics,50(2003)49–123* Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, ‘Unbundling Institutions’, NBER WorkingPaperSeries,WorkingPaper9934,2003.* Mushtaq H. Khan, ‘State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies ofInstitutionalReform’,paper.Douglass North, Understanding the Process of Economic Change (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2005).MancurOlson,TheRiseandDeclineofNations: EconomicGrowth, StagflationandSocialRigidities(YaleUniversityPress,1982).DouglassNorth,Wallis,J.J.andWeingast,B.R.(2009),ViolenceandSocialOrders:AConceptual Framework for Interpreting Human History (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress).Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson,WhyNations Fail: TheOrigins of Power,ProsperityandPoverty(ProfileBooks,2012).FrancisFukuyama,TheOriginsofPoliticalOrder:FromPrehumanTimestotheFrenchRevolution(ProfileBooks,2012).Peter J. Katzenstein (ed) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity inWorldPolitics(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress).PeterBergerandThomasLuckmann,TheSocialConstructionofReality:ATreatiseintheSociologyofKnowledge(PenguinBooks,1979).AnthonyGiddens,TheConstitutionofSociety:OutlineoftheTheoryofStructuration(PolityPress,1984).Wlater Powell and Paul DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism in OrganizationalAnalysis(UniversityofChicagoPress,1991).WRichardScott,InstitutionsandOrganizations:IdeasandInterests(Sage,2007).Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth (eds) Structuring Politics:Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (Cambridge University Press,1992).James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen (eds) Explaining Institutional Change:Ambiguity,Agency,andPower(CambridgeUniversityPress,2009).---------------

19

Seminar 8 (20 March) Pluriversal Politics: Decoloniality and theOntologicalTurnDecolonialscholarsandadvocatesofpluriversalpoliticsarguethatthedisciplineofIRdoesviolencethroughitsassumptionthatthereisoneworld‘reality’andmerelydifferentwaysofseeingthisoneworld.Itisarguedthatthisapproachtothe‘global’supports Western hegemonic assumptions of superiority, through the demeaningand exclusion of otherways of knowing and of doing politics internationally. Thispositionquestionstheontologicalassumptionofoneworld-ismandthereforealignsitselfwithwhatisoftencalled‘theontologicalturn’inIR.Theuniversalconstructionoftheglobalistherebyunderstoodasacolonizingmove,thecriticalresponsebeingthatof‘provincializing’or‘pluriversalizing’–reducingthisperspectivetooneamongmanypossiblewaysofengagingwiththeworld.QuestionsHowwastheuniversalgazehistoricallyconstructed?What’swrongwithaoneworldworld?What’sthedifferencebetweenpluralistandpluriversalist?EssentialreadingDavidL.Blaney,ArleneB.Tickner,‘Worlding,OntologicalPoliticsandthePossibilityofaDecolonialIR’,Millennium45:3,293-311,2017.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305829817702446Anibal Quijano, ‘Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism and Latin America’, Nepantla:ViewsfromtheSouth1,no.3(2000):552.https://www.unc.edu/~aescobar/wan/wanquijano.pdfJohnLaw,‘What’sWrongwithaOneWorldWorld’,2011.http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2011WhatsWrongWithAOneWorldWorld.pdfBrunoLatour,‘WhoseCosmos,whosecosmopolitics?CommentsonthePeaceTermsofUlrichBeck’,CommonKnowledge10:3,2004http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/92-BECK_GB.pdfAdditionalreadingDavidL.Blaney,ArleneB.Tickner,‘Introduction:ThinkingDifference’,inBlaneyandTickner (eds) Thinking Internatonal Relations Differently (Abingdon: Routledge,2012).http://www2.hhh.umn.edu/uthinkcache/gpa/globalnotes/Blaney%20and%20Tickner,%20Introductions%20to%20Worldingvolumes.pdfRojas,Cristina(2016) ‘ContestingtheColonialLogicsoftheInternational:TowardaRelationalPoliticsforthePluriverse’,InternationalPoliticalSociology10(4):369–382.Martin Holbraad, Morten Axel Pedersen and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, ‘ThePoliticsofOntology:AnthropologicalPositions’,CulturalAnthropologyOnline(2014):2.

20

https://culanth.org/fieldsights/462-the-politics-of-ontology-anthropological-positionsCuiscanqui, Silvia Rivera (2012) ‘Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: A Reflection on the PracticesandDiscoursesofDecolonization’,TheSouthAtlanticQuarterly111(1):95-109.de la Cadena M (2010) ‘Indigenous Cosmopolitics In The Andes: ConceptualReflectionsbeyond“Politics”’,CulturalAnthropology25(2):334–370.SankaranKrishna‘DecolonizingInternationalRelations’E-IR,8October2012http://www.e-ir.info/2012/10/08/decolonizing-international-relations/* Mario Blaser, ‘Ontology and indigeneity: on the political ontology ofheterogeneousassemblages’,CulturalGeographiespublishedonline4October2012.*Mark Jackson, ‘Composing postcolonial geographies: Postconstructivism, ecologyandovercomingontologiesofcritique’,SingaporeJournalofTropicalGeography35(2014)72–87.Mignolo, Walter (2011) The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures,DecolonialOptions,Durham:DukeUniversityPress.WalterD.Mignolo,‘TheNorthoftheSouthandtheWestoftheEast:AProvocationtotheQuestion’,Ibraaz,October2014.http://www.ibraaz.org/usr/library/documents/main/the-north-of-the-south.pdfWynter, Syliva (2003) ‘Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom:towardsthehuman,afterman,itsoverrepresentation–anargument’,CR:TheNewCentennialReview3(3):257-337.Shilliam, Robbie (2015) The Black Pacific: Anti-Colonial Struggles and OceanicConnections,London:Bloomsbury.Persaud,RandolphB. andR.B. J.Walker (2015) ‘Introduction:Race,De-colonialityandInternationalRelations’,Alternatives:Global,Local,Political40(2):83-84.HamidDabashi,CanNon-EuropeansThink,London:ZedBooks,2015.Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought andHistoricalDifference,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Chen,Kuan-Hsing(2010)AsiaasMethod:TowardDeimperialization,Durham:DukeUniversityPress.Ling, L. H. M. (2002) Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and DesirebetweenAsiaandtheWest,London:Palgrave.Inayatullah, Naeem and David L. Blaney (2004) International Relations and theProblemofDifference,NewYork:Routledge.

21

--------PartThree:TheBirthofPlanetPolitics----------Seminar9(27March)TheAnthropoceneTheshiftto‘aftertheglobal’wasalreadyperhapspre-emptedinthelastseminarontheriseofpluriversalthinkingandthediscussionaround‘theontologicalturn’.Here,thinking that remains stuck in the universal knowledge assumptions of both theconstructionanddeconstructionof ‘theglobal’ is inevitablyproblematic.However,whilethechallengeposedtotheglobalisclear,discussionabouttheAnthropoceneremainsveryopenatpresent.AsDelfRotheexamines,twopopularapproachesinIRdiscoursesareOOO(object-oriented)approacheswhichquestiontheimportanceofthe level of appearances anddrawout future-orientedpotentials and thatofANT(actornetworks)whichstressthecontingencyofthepresentoractualthroughtheimportanceof networksof relations.Madeleine FaganandAudraMitchell in theirEuropean Journal of International Relations pieces from 2016 and 2017 posefundamental questions to thediscipline in termsof its securitising and knowledgeassumptions.QuestionsHowdoestheAnthropocenegobeyondthedeconstruction/critiqueoftheglobal?HowdoestheAnthropocenechallengethedisciplinaryassumptionsofIR?HowcanconcernsaboutsecuritybeunderstoodintheAnthropocene?EssentialreadingDelf Rothe, ‘Global Security in a Posthuman Age? IR and the AnthropoceneChallenge,E-IR,13October2017.http://www.e-ir.info/2017/10/13/global-security-in-a-posthuman-age-ir-and-the-anthropocene-challenge/Fagan, Madeleine. 2016. “Security in the Anthropocene: Environment, Ecology,Escape.”EuropeanJournalofInternationalRelations.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066116639738Burke,Anthony,StefanieFishel,AudraMitchell, SimonDalby,andDaniel J. Levine.2016. “Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR.” Millennium Journal ofInternationalStudies44(3):499–523.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305829816636674AdditionalreadingStefanie Fishel, Anthony Burke, Audra Mitchell, Simon Dalby, Daniel Levine,‘DefendingPlanetPolitics’MillenniumJournalofInternationalStudiesFirstPublishedDecember21,2017http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0305829817742669DavidChandler,ErikaCudworth,StephenHobden,‘Anthropocene,CapitaloceneandLiberal Cosmopolitan IR: A Response to Burke et al.’s ‘Planet Politics’,MillenniumJournalofInternationalStudiesFirstPublishedAugust22,2017http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0305829817715247

22

SimonDalby,‘InternationalSecurityintheAnthropocene’,E-IR,23February2015.http://www.e-ir.info/2015/02/23/international-security-in-the-anthropocene/CameronHarrington, ‘PosthumanSecurityandCare in theAnthropocene’,E-IR,10October2017.http://www.e-ir.info/2017/10/10/posthuman-security-and-care-in-the-anthropocene/Cameron Harrington, ‘The Ends of the World: International Relations and theAnthropocene’,Millennium,44(3)2016http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305829816638745Audra Mitchell, ‘Is IR going extinct?’, European Journal of International Relations23(1)2017http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066116632853JohnLaw,‘ActorNetworkTheoryandMaterialSemiotics’,2007http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf* Bruno Latour, ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact toMattersofConcern’,CriticalInquiry30(Winter2004).Erika Cudworth and Stephen Hobden, Posthuman International Relations:Complexity,EcologismandGlobalPolitics(London:Zed,2011).RosaBraidotti,ThePosthuman(Cambridge:Polity,2013).---------------Seminar10(10April)Conclusion:TheRiseandFalloftheGlobalIntheconcludingsessionwewilladdressanyfinalconcernswithregardtotheessayassignment and also revisit the (slightly adapted) questions that we asked in theintroductoryseminar.QuestionsWhatisthedifferencebetweenInternationalRelationsandGlobalPolitics?HowwastheGlobalconstructedagainsttheclassicalparadigm?HowwastheGlobaldeconstructed?

23

Essay Assessment (please pay attention to the assessmentcriteriabelow–especiallythefirstpoint)5,000wordEssayDeadline12.00pmThursday12April2018Chooseoneofthefollowingsixessaytitles:1. What are the key differences between the ‘international’,the‘global’andthe‘planetary’?Whyaretheseimportant?2. Has IR theory succeeded in overcoming ‘methodologicalnationalism’?Ifso,how?3.How ispowerunderstooddifferently innew institutionalistapproaches?4. How have critical approaches operated in relation to theglobal?5.Howdopluriversalapproachesproblematisethe‘oneworldworld’?6.DoestheAnthropoceneimplytheendofIRasadiscipline?

24

AssessmentRationaleTheassessment regime isdesigned toencourage researchexpertise in theareaofpost-ColdWarinternationalrelations.Itaimstodevelopadvancedunderstandingofthe concepts, frameworks and approaches of international relations frameworksparticularly with regard to the shift to and retreat from liberal universalistunderstandings.Theresearchessayallowsstudentstodevelopanextendedanalysisofkeyconcepts,theories and/or policies, to engage in an in-depth evaluation of competinginterpretations and theoretical approaches, and to explore their application ininternationalrelations.Theessaychallengesstudentstocriticallyengagewiththeirchosentopicanddemonstratetheircriticalandanalyticalability.

AssessmentCriteria

Inmarkingessays,Iwillconsiderthefollowing:

1. extent to which the essay question has been addressed in the context of themodule as a whole, using relevant material from the module reading list. Theseneedtobecombinedwithmaterialacquiredthroughindependentresearch;2.structure,coherenceandjustificationoftheargumentputforward;3.clarityandaccuracywithwhichideasareexpressed;4. degree to which different concepts and theoretical approaches are sufficientlydescribed,discussedandintegrated;5.rangeofresearchandcollationofinformationandmaterial;6. selectionandcorrectattributionofsourcesinsupportofanargument.

Morespecifically:StructureandQualityofArgumentIsthethesisoftheessaystatedintheintroduction?Istheoverallstructureoftheargumentclearandcoherent?Arethepointsmadeinalogicalsequence?Istheargumentsufficientlyanalytical?Isthereaconclusion?Doestheconclusionaddresstheessayquestiondirectly?Istheconclusionadequatelysupportedbytheprecedingargument?ContentsIsthewriter’sargumentadequatelybackedupratherthanjustasserted?Arethesourcesusedsubjectedtoanalysisandcriticalreflection?Hasthestudentresearchedthetopicsufficiently?Arethereanyimportantomissions?Has the student thought aboutwhat s/hehas reador simply reproducedmaterialfromsources?Isthereevidenceofcriticalthinkingoranoriginalsynthesis?Hasthestudentgonebeyondtheessentialreading?

25

UseofEvidenceArethepointsmadesupportedbyevidencefromcitedsources?Arethesourcesdrawnonsufficientandappropriate?Ifempiricalevidenceisused,isitdescribedclearlyandinappropriatedetail?Doestheevidencepresentedsupporttheconclusionsreached?Is the interpretation of the evidence presented appropriately qualified (i.e. haveovergeneralisationsandsweepingstatementsbeenavoided)?WritingStyleandPresentationoftheEssayIstheessayreferencedcorrectly?Arequotationsidentifiedandfullyreferenced?Aretheideaspresentedfullycredited?Istheessayfluentandreadable?Isthegrammarandspellingadequate?Hasthestudentmadeanefforttousetheirownwords?

AssessmentGradingScheme

Essayassessmentisacomplexprocessthatcannotbereducedtoasimpleformula.However, it is possible to articulate some of the features that your lecturers willexpecttofindineachofthemarkingcategories.

First class essays (70-100%) will: address the question or title; develop a well-informedargument;demonstratefamiliaritywiththemodulecontentandrelevantliterature; present an analysis and evaluation of the ideas and theories discussed;reveal internal integrationandcoherence;usereferencesandexamplestosupportthe claims and arguments made; provide detailed references and sources in thebibliography or reference section; be written in good and grammatically correctEnglish. Differenceswithin the range are usually attributable to differences in thequalityofanalysisandevaluationandinternalintegrationandcoherence.

Uppersecondclassessays(60-69%)will:addressthetitle;developaclearargument;demonstrate familiaritywith relevant literature;use referencesandexamples.Thedifferencebetweenessays inthisclassanda firstclasspiecedofwork isoftenthequality of the analysis and evaluation presented and the degree to which it isintegratedarounditscentraltheme.

Lowersecondclasswork(50-59%)mayshowweaknesseswithregardtoanumberof the features mentioned above. Generally, the analysis and evaluation may bepoor, so that thework fails to convey anunified considerationof the topic underdiscussion.Often,forexample,ideasandtheorieswillbepresentedbutnotrelatedtoeachother,sothatthereader is lefttodrawhis/herownconclusions.Thismayalsomean that thematerial presented is not used to address the question but issimplyincludedasvaguelyrelevant.Finallythesequentialstructureofessaysinthiscategorycouldusuallybeimproved.

Failedessays(40-49%)are,atbest,manifestlyfailingwithregardtoanumberofthefeaturesmentionedabove.Inparticular,theirdemonstrationoffamiliaritywiththeliteratureisusuallypoorandtheirstructuredifficulttodiscern.

26

Essayswhichareofextremelypoorqualitywill receivemarks thatareunder40%.Weusethefullspectrumofmarks.FurtherInformationRegardingCourseworkInaddition to the informationcontained in thisHandbook,which is specific to theassessment for thismodule,youneedtobeawareofDPIR’sgeneralguidanceandpoliciesforcourseworksubmission.Themostup-to-dateinformationiscontainedinthecurrentversionoftheDPIRCourseHandbook,andincludesguidanceon:• Submittingyourwork• Latesubmission• Plagiarismandreferencing• Mitigatingcircumstances• WordlimitsThecurrentversionoftheDPIRCourseHandbookcanbefoundonthePoliticsandInternationalRelationsBlackboardsite.Other important sources of information. For information about AcademicProgression;CondonedCredits;andReferralOpportunities: see theHandbookofAcademicRegulations(section17).