Course Guide SF2221
Global Security and Democracy (Global säkerhet och demokrati)
15 Higher education credits (15 högskolepoäng)
January 2017
Course Coordinators
Adrian Hyde-Price, Professor, Department of Political Science, Phone: 031-786 6145
[email protected]
Jan Bachmann, Senior Lecturer, School of Global Studies, Phone: 031-786 6743
[email protected]
General Course Content
The relationship between security and democracy is one of the most interesting and important issues
on the contemporary political agenda. It is also one of the most contested and debated – both
theoretically and politically. For those in the liberal tradition, the spread and consolidation of stable
democracies is the key to a more peaceful and cooperative international society. Since the end of the
cold war, Western liberal-democracies have actively promoted the spread of democracy – at times
using military force to prevent gross violations of human rights or to overthrow dictatorships. For
realists, on the other hand, regime type makes very little difference to the competitive dynamics of a
pluralist and diverse international system, which generates specific logics of international security.
More critical perspectives question the assumptions of both liberalism and realism, and tend to be
sceptical of the universalist claims made on behalf of Western liberal-democracy, and critical of the
asymmetrical power relations that underpin traditional concepts of national security. At the same time,
theories of security have radically developed since the end of the cold war, as the concept has been
both deepened and widened.
This module will address the interrelationship between security and democracy in an ever-changing
global context. In particular, it will address the following questions which, provide guide posts for
creative reflection:
 What do we mean by security and democracy?
 What should be included as a referent of security (e.g. the state, societal groups the individual,
the international system; men, women, the environment)?
 How does contemporary political dynamics challenges claims about who is supposed to act as
the guarantor of security and what role has a global privatization of security?
 What are the relationship between democracies and war?
2





What should be included as threats (e.g. international terrorism, human rights abuses,
migration) and what are the pitfalls of including more and more societal phenomena into the
lens of security?
How can we organize and safeguard our political communities when the basic understandings
of who ‘we’ are challenge traditional understandings of both political subjectivity and
community?
What are the implications of a convergence of security and development in contemporary
peacebuilding interventions for both security and the democratization of societies?
How are notions of order both governed and challenged in contemporary in urbanized
contexts?
What other alternative models for peaceful governance can we see already being established?
The module explores theoretical and empirical encounters where the two concepts are both entangled
and contested. It examines four main sets of issues and themes:
1. Entanglements between democracy, war and peace (Democratic Peace Theory, democracies
and war);
2. Changing understandings of democracy, identity and political community (global democracy,
post-post-Cold War order);
3. Globalized aspects of security and democracy (peace- and statebuilding; securitydevelopment-resilience; the securitization of migration);
4. Aspects of security and democracy beyond the state (security and democracy in an urban
setting; democracy, private security and the state; and governmentality and surveillance).
General aims of the course
After completion of the course, the student shall be able to:
Knowledge and understanding


discuss how notions of security and democracy are deployed in current conceptual debates and
empirical practices in global politics;
account for different theoretical approaches in the study of the interrelationships between
global security and global democracy;
Skills and abilities



apply the conceptual perspectives to the study of different phenomena in current global
politics (such as peacebuilding, the privatization of security, migration, etc.);
distinguish between different ontological and epistemological positions and perspectives
introduced in the course;
identify and formulate adequate research problems and research questions in relation to the
discussions and themes addressed in the course;
Judgement and approach
 critically assess strengths and weaknesses of different approaches in the study of global
security and democracy
2
3
In order to meet the outcomes specified above, full-time engagement is required. This means: full
attendance at lectures and seminars, an active and well-prepared participation in all seminars as well
as accurate writing of the course papers. The students are expected to carefully read the literature
connected to the course. Furthermore, for those students who plan to write a master thesis within the
field of international relations, the course is supposed to serve as a support in the writing process.
Organization of the course
The course requires active engagement in its three complementary pillars: self-governed reading of the
literature, group discussions and participation in lectures. Furthermore, the students are expected to
critically reflect on the literature and come prepared to the seminars.
The course is structured along 4 sets of themes, each of which includes 2-3 lectures. In the lectures,
key concepts and debates as well as empirical illustrations will be presented. The students are
expected to read the literature carefully prior to the lectures in order to help them critically reflect
upon the main points of the lecture introduced.
The course additionally consists of student-led seminars and feedback seminars.
Student-led seminars
Each lecture is followed by a 1-hour student-led seminar. These aim at providing space to discuss
concepts and more-in depth, reflect on the literature, as well as to prepare some of the course’s
assignments. For each topic, we will assign one or two students per group to act as the student
facilitator. The facilitator is encouraged to prepare the session, by raising particular questions, by
opening the discussions through introducing a political event that relates to the lecture topic, or by
showing a brief video on the topic. We also ask the facilitator to register attendance. These seminars
are voluntary but we strongly encourage all students to attend all student-led seminars. Experience
shows that regular participation in discussions benefits students when working on their assignments.
Feedback seminars
Learning activities also include two feedback seminars (7 February and 7 March) on paper 1 and
paper 2. You have the possibility to upload a draft of paper 1 and 2 and everyone will get feedback on
his/her paper from your peers as well as the teacher (see the course schedule for submissions deadlines
for drafts and final versions). Attendance and participation in the feedback seminars is mandatory.
Submitting the draft means that you also commit to providing feedback on another student’s paper.
Hence, everyone is expected to come to the feedback seminars. If you miss any of the feedback
seminars you will be assigned an additional essay to comment on.
In preparation for the final paper, there will be an additional feedback seminar on your half-page
outline of the final paper on 15 March. You submit your outline by 14 March to the group folder and
we will collectively discuss the problem formulation, the research question, theoretical framework,
3
4
feasibility, etc. during the seminar. Each student will briefly present their problem formulation and
research question to the group and will receive feedback.
Forms of examination
During the course, everyone is expected to complete one writing exercise, to submit two essays (each
addressing one of the lecture topics) plus a final paper (see below). There will be a particular
emphasis on the writing process as part of the learning experience.
Writing exercise: comparative summary
The writing exercise is a practice that trains students to account for different theoretical approaches in
the study of the interlinkages between global security and global democracy. It is an opportunity to
immerse yourself more in-depth in some of the core readings and to critically discuss and assess the
main arguments made.
The genre of the writing exercise is a comparative summary of the articles by Thomas Risse and
Sebastian Rosato. The purpose of this writing exercise is to compare and contrast these two articles.
Both provide a critique of Democratic Peace Theory, but from different perspectives. You should
identify the different underlying assumptions and explore the varying implications of their analyses.
The summary should have a word length of 1000 words max, 12 font, 1 ½ line spacing). See the
course schedule on GUL for deadlines.
Two essays
The crux in academic essay writing is to translate a topic that you find exciting into a research problem
with a clear formulation of purpose and research question. For all the essays in this course, you choose
the topic and delimit it in a way that it becomes ‘researchable’.
For the first essay (max 2000 words, 12 font, 1½ line spacing), you choose a research problem related
to one of the lecture topics 1-5. For the second essay you may choose a research problem related to
one of the lecture topics 6-10. Everyone has the opportunity to submit a draft of both paper one and
paper two. The draft will then be discussed at the feedback seminars (see above). After having
received feedback from your fellow students and the teacher, you have the opportunity to revise your
paper. The revised version of your essay will then be graded. The final version should be
accompanied by a brief reflection on how the feedback has been addressed. This process will be
repeated for the second essay.
Your papers should summarize the main arguments of the literature in relation to your arguments. It is
not possible to discuss everything; you must be selective. Choose a ‘research’ question that you think
is worth discussing. Feel free to formulate your own question, or relate to a question discussed in the
literature. Your writing should be critical in the sense that you should question the theoretical and
methodological foundations of the research. Seek to present arguments why you think something is
worth pursuing and why it is not. In short: your paper should include a short summary of the main
points in the literature. The main focus should be on presenting an argument for your critical
4
5
standpoints. You might also want to indicate how we (as critical scholars) could further the debate,
both theoretically and empirically!
Final paper
The understanding and knowledge gathered through the engagement with the writing process and the
effort to understand and critically engage with different theories, approaches and methods on security
and democracy should then be used for the final paper (max 4000 words, 12 font, 1½ line spacing).
The final paper should include a problem formulation, a research question, a literature review and
theoretical framework, a brief discussion of methodological choices and an analytical part in which
the argument is supported by the literature. The final paper can be about any of the lecture topics.
Grading
The writing task will be marked either with G (“godkänd”/pass) or U (“underkänd”/fail). The two
essays, as well as the final paper, will be marked either with VG (“väl godkänd”/pass with
distinction), G (“godkänd”/pass) or U (“underkänd”/fail). In order to receive ‘pass’ for the whole
course, you need to receive G on all assignments, that is, on the writing tasks and all the essays. In
order to receive a ‘VG’ (väl godkänd/pass with distinction) for the whole course, you need to receive a
VG on one of the first two essays AND the final essay. If any of the papers are marked U, additional
work must be added to the paper to pass the course.
In assessing the essays we follow these criteria:







Clear formulation of research problem and research question
Logical and complete essay structure
Use and understanding of theory
Coherence between question, theory, analysis and results
Theoretical and/or empirical support for the main argument (discussion of method and/or
material)
Critical and reflexive use of course literature and other sources
Correct Formalities (language, consistent style of referencing)
Your essays are graded with either
U – fail
G – pass
VG – pass with distinction
5
6
U – Fail – is given if the student’s assignments show an insufficient understanding of the course
material; e.g. if the work is unfocused, lacks a clear structure or has severe weaknesses in presentation
and referencing.
G – Pass – is given if the student’s work shows a solid understanding of the course material; e.g. when
the work is well-developed, focused but to a certain extent descriptive and has minor weaknesses in
presentation and referencing.
VG – Pass with distinction – is given if the student’s work shows an excellent understanding of the
course material; e.g. when the student’s work is precise, original, well-articulated, and demonstrates
innovative thinking. Both presentation and referencing are strong.
Please be aware that the lecturers mark your paper on the basis of these criteria but will be guided by
an overall judgement of the paper.
All papers should be uploaded on the course’s GUL page. On the left-hand side of the course page
(under ‘content’) you find places where to upload papers (“Comparative Summary”, “Paper 1 final
version”, “Paper 2 final version”, “Final paper”). However, the draft versions of both essay 1 and
essay 2 need to be uploaded to your group folder (you will find the link to project groups also on the
left hand side at GUL but further down on the page) so that it can be retrieved by other students for
peer review. It is vital that you upload your paper in time as the papers are central to seminar
preparations. GUL will check the content of all the papers with the help of Urkund that is a program
for uncovering plagiarism. You upload your final paper on GUL where it says “final paper”.
See the schedule (Course Portal / GUL) for further details and information about the course. All venue
and date changes (should they be necessary) will be communicated via the message board in GUL.
Course literature
The course literature will mostly be made up of articles from academic journals (available through
UB). The suggested readings list after each lecture description includes recent, as well as established
articles that address the theme of the lecture. You are expected to read the core reading listed for each
lecture (if applicable) and to pick and choose from the additional readings. Making this choice is
PART OF the assignment (reading the abstracts of many articles, or swiftly glancing through them will
undoubtedly help you with this choice.)
Detailed Course description
Introduction: Security and Democracy
Adrian Hyde-Price/Jan Bachmann
This lecture will introduce the course. We will cover the organization of the course, requirements and
literature. Thereafter we will introduce the core concepts and how the content of the course has been
conceived.
6
7
Lecture 1
Democratic Peace Theory
Adrian Hyde-Price
The theory of the democratic peace (DP) suggests that democratic or liberal states never or very rarely
go to war with each other and that they are less likely to become involved in militarized disputes
among themselves. Its proponents claim that the DP thesis is the most robust, law like finding that the
discipline of international relations has generated, but institutionalism, realist and other critics suggest
that the DP thesis is both theoretically flawed and relies on dubious statistical evidence. In this
seminar, we’ll cover both the various theoretical explanations given in support of the DP thesis and the
critique launched from different IR positions.
Seminar questions
1. What causal mechanism(s) does Democratic Peace Theory identify that are responsible for
producing the ‘democratic peace’?
2. How strong is the empirical evidence for Democratic Peace Theory, and why is it contested
by critics of this theory?
3. What are the main theoretical criticisms of Democratic Peace Theory?
Mandatory Reading:


Risse, Thomas 1995:“Democratic Peace- Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist
Interpretation of the Liberal Argument”. European Journal of International Relations, 1 (4),
pp. 491-517.
Rosato, Sebastian, (2003) The flawed logic of democratic peace theory, American Political
Science Review, 97 (4), 585–602.
Additional reading





Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson& Alastair Smith, 1999:
“An institutional explanation of the democratic peace”, American Political Science Review
93:4, 791–807.
Caprioli, Mary (2004) Democracy and human rights versus women’s security: A
contradiction? Security Dialogue 35 (4): 411–28.
Dabros, Matthew S and Mark W Petersen. (2013). Not created equal: Institutional constraints
and the democratic peace. International Politics Review 1, 27–36.
Farber, Henry S. and Joanne Gowa (1995) Polities and Peace, International Security 20 (2),
123-146.
Fearon, James, 1994:“Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International
Disputes.”The American Political Science Review 88:3, 577-592.
7
8




Mansfield, Edward, and Jack Snyder, 1995: “Democratization and the Danger of War.”
International Security 20:1, 5-38.
Oren, I 1995: “The Subjectivity of the "Democratic" Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of
Imperial Germany. International Security, vol 20(2), pp 147-184.
Russett, Bruce & Zeev Maoz (1993) Normative and structural causes of the democratic peace,
1946–1986, American Political Science Review 87, 624–38.
Slantchev, Alexandrova, and Gartzke, 2005: "Probabilistic Causality, Selection Bias, and the
Logic of the Democratic Peace" American Political Science Review 99/3: 459-462.
Lecture 2
Democracies and War
Adrian Hyde-Price
In the previous lecture we considered democratic peace theory. This lecture we shall address the
question of how democracies use military force and fight their wars: in other words, does the existence
of liberal-democratic institutions and culture mean that democratic states utilise coercive military in
ways different from that of non-democracies. Liberal democracies, some have argued, wage ‘liberal
wars’ to promote liberal ends and – more importantly – fight their wars in ways that seek to accord
with liberal values of human rights and just war theory. Some have argued that democracies tend to
win the wars they fight; on the other hand, others argue that democracies are particularly inept when it
comes to waging war – particularly when faced by insurgencies and ‘small wars’. This lecture will
provide an overview of the main debates and controversies surrounding democracies and war, and
assess the significance of ‘second image’ domestic level factors for the exercise of coercive military
power.
Seminar questions
1. What are the main features of ‘liberal wars’?
2. Why do some scholars argue that democracies are not very effective at conducting ‘small wars’?
What is the evidence for and against this view?
3. How useful is Clausewitz in explaining the relationship between democracy and war?
Mandatory Reading:

Everts, Steven, Lawrence Freedman, Charles Grant, Francois Heisbourg, Daniel Keohane and
Michael O’Hanlon (2004). A European Way of War. Centre for European Reform. Available
at:
http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/p548_way_ofwar4464.pdf
Additional Reading

Bobbitt, Philip (2002). The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History. London:
Penguin Allen Lane.
8
9














Desch, Michael (2002). ‘Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters’, International
Security, 27 (2), 5-47
Echevarria, Antulio 2007. Clausewitz and Contemporary War. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Everts, Philip (2002). Democracy and Military Force. London: Palgrave
Herberg-Rothe, Andreas. (2007). Clausewitz’s Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holsti, Kalevi, (1996). The State, War, and the State of War (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Howard, Michael (1981). War and the Liberal Conscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McInnes, Colin (2002). Spectator-Sport War: The West and Contemporary Conflict. London:
Boulder.
Merom, Gil. (2003). How Democracies Lose Small Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Reiter, Dan and Allan Stam (1998), ‘Democracy and Battlefield Military Effectiveness’,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42 (3), 259-277
Reiter, Dan and Allan Stam (2002). Democracies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Russett, B. (1990). Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Shaw, Martin (2005). The New Western Way of War. Risk-Transfer War and its Crisis in Iraq.
Cambridge: Polity.
Sumida, Jon Tetsuro (2008). Decoding Clausewitz A New Approach to ON WAR Lawrence:
UP of Kansas.
Van Creveld, Martin (1991). The Transformation of War. New York: Free Press.
Lecture 3
Global Democracy
Jan Aart Scholte
This lecture explores questions of advancing democracy ('people's power') in the governance of
today's more global world. After first considering the general concept and practice of democracy, the
second part of the lecture reviews the challenges that contemporary globalization has posed to
democracy. A third part assesses an array of propositions for a more democratic global politics,
including communitarianism, multilateralism, cosmopolitan federalism, multistakeholderism, global
deliberation, and counterhegemonic resistance (including socialist, postcolonial and ecological
conceptions of deeper democratic transformation).
Seminar questions
1. What is the relationship between democracy and security in contemporary global politics?
2. How does current global governance exhibit a 'democratic deficit'?
9
10
3. How is democracy in global politics best advanced: through reinforcement of the nation-state;
through reform of global and regional institutions; or through transformation of deeper global
structures?
Mandatory readings
Bray, D. and S. Slaughter (2015) Global Democratic Theory: A Critical Introduction.
Cambridge: Polity, Introduction.
McGrew, T. 'Transnational Democracy: Theories and Perspectives', at
https://www.polity.co.uk/global/transnational-democracy-theories-and-prospects.asp
Scholte, J.A. (2014) ‘Reinventing Global Democracy’, European Journal of International
Relations, 20(1): 3-28.
Lecture 4
After the end of history: Theorizing the post-post-Cold War world order
Johann Karlsson Schaffer
The end of the Cold War unleashed a wave of democratization and a dramatic expansion of
international law and institutions, and left USA as the only remaining super-power. Today, that world
order is under stress – if it hasn’t already ended. Democracy is on demise, populist movements
challenge liberal constitutionalism, internationalist multilateralism and collective security, and rising
revisionist powers are increasingly discontent with the existing international order. In this lecture,
we’ll cover academic debates about how to theoretically make sense of this rapidly changing
international order.
Seminar questions
1. A complex international institutional structure was created after World War II and expanded after
the end of Cold War. To what extent is that structure endangered by the rise of populism and
revisionist states and the retreat of democracy? To what extent can it mitigate the effects of those
processes? To what extent could it worsen them?
2. How would different standard grand theories of IR (realism, liberalism, structuralism,
constructivism) describe the causes and effects of the retreat of democracy, the rise of revisionist
powers and the stagnation of international institutions? Can they adequately make sense of the
changing international landscape?
10
11
Mandatory readings:




Diamond, Larry. “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession.” Journal of Democracy 26,
no. 1 (January 7, 2015): 141–55. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0009.
Krastev, Ivan. “The Unraveling of the Post-1989 Order.” Journal of Democracy 27,
no. 4 (October 19, 2016): 88–98. doi:10.1353/jod.2016.0065.
Sakwa, Richard. “The Cold Peace: Russo-Western Relations as a Mimetic Cold
War.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 203–
24. doi:10.1080/09557571.2012.710584.
Ikenberry, G. John. “The Illusion of Geopolitics: The Enduring Power of the Liberal
Order.” Foreign Affairs 93 (2014): [i]-91.
Recommended Readings:



Prantl, Jochen. “Taming Hegemony: Informal Institutions and the Challenge to
Western Liberal Order.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 7, no. 4
(December 1, 2014): 449–82. doi:10.1093/cjip/pou036.
Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan Way. “The Myth of Democratic Recession.” Journal of
Democracy 26, no. 1 (January 7, 2015): 45–58. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0007.
Trautsch, Jasper M. “Who’s Afraid of China? Neo-Conservative, Realist and LiberalInternationalist Assessments of American Power, the Future of ‘the West’ and the
Coming New World Order.” Global Affairs 1, no. 3 (Maj 2015): 235–45.
doi:10.1080/23340460.2015.1077609.
Lecture 5
Engineering what exactly? The intricacies of state- and peacebuilding
Jan Bachmann
After the end of the Cold War the international system has seen a variety of international interventions
into conflicts or efforts to build peace shortly after conflict, including the simultaneity of humanitarian
operations, major military interventions as well as a change in the character of UN peace operations.
They all raise a number of questions related to security and democratic deliberations: What exactly is
is to be built: peace, the state or is it to enable communities to solve conflict without the recourse to
violence? And how to go about it: security first or inclusive and democratic institutions first? What
notion of a state does inform these interventions? In the aftermaths of the counterinsurgencies in
Afghanistan and Iraq, we seem to see a renewed appetite of the international community to engineer
statehood based on the assumption that sovereign state entities remain the warrant for both human
security and international order. But can the building of peace or states be steered externally?
In this lecture we trace the shifts in international post-cold War interventions and address some of the
dilemmas that have emerged in their course.
11
12
Seminar questions
1. What are the main controversies with regard to the concept of statebuilding?
2. In your view, does it make sense to differentiate between state- and peacebuilding?
3. Liberal peacebuilding has been heavily criticized in the last decade or so. According the critics,
what is wrong with liberal peacebuilding? Do also take the contrasting position: on what basis
could liberal peacebuilding be defended?
Mandatory Readings:




Bachmann, Jan 2014. Policing Africa. The US Military and Visions of Crafting ‘Good
Order’. Security Dialogue 45 (2), 119-136.
Bliesemann de Guevara, Berit (2008) The State in Times of Statebuilding, Civil Wars,
10 (4), 348-368.
Mac Ginty, Roger & Oliver Richmond. (2013). The local turn in peacebuilding. Third
World Quarterly 34 (5), 763-783.
Paris, Roland (2010). Saving liberal peacebuilding. Review of International Studies
36, 337-365
Recommended Readings








Burnell, Peter 2006, ‘The Coherence of Democratic Peace-Building’, Research Paper No.
2006/147, UNU-Wider.
http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/working-papers/research-papers/2006/en_GB/rp2006147/
Chandler, David 2016. New narratives of international security governance: the shift from
global interventionism to global self-policing, Global Crime, 17:3-4, 264-280
Mac Ginty, Roger & Gurchathen Sanghera (2012): Hybridity in Peacebuilding and
Development: an Introduction, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 7 (2) 3-8.
Marquette, Heather & Danielle Beswick, 2011 ‘State Building, Security and Development:
State building as a new development paradigm?’, Third World Quarterly, 32 (10); 1703-1714.
Öjendal J & S. Ou ( 2015), The ‘Local Turn’ Saving Liberal Peacebuilding? –
Unpacking
virtual peace in Cambodia, Third World Quarterly 36 (5), 929-949.
Paffenholz, Thania 2015, Unpacking the Local Turn in Peacebuilding: A Critical Assessment
towards an agenda for future research", Third World Quarterly 36 (5), 929-949.
Paris, Roland & Timothy D. Sisk, 2007, Managing Contradictions: The Inherent Dilemmas
of, Postwar Statebuilding. New York: International Peace
Academy.http://www.ipinst.org/media/pdf/publications/iparpps.pdf
Richmond, Oliver P. 2010, ‘Resistance and the Post-liberal Peace’, Millennium - Journal of
International Studies 38 (3), 665-692.
Lecture 6
Democracy, Private Security, and the State
Joakim Berndtsson
12
13
In recent decades, the use of private security companies (PSCs) to provide a wide range of securityand military-related services has increased. Importantly, many of the services and technologies
provided by private companies have conventionally been associated more or less exclusively with the
state and (ideally democratically controlled) institutions such as the police, the military or the
intelligence services. While PSCs operate in nearly all societies around the world, the most
conspicuous and in many ways the most problematic representations of this trend are found in armed
conflicts such as the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. Departing from a brief introduction to the global
privatisation of security, this lecture will introduce a series of different yet interconnected challenges
and questions associated with this development:
Seminar questions:
1. In what ways does security privatisation challenge conventional images of the sovereign state as a
monopolist of violence and provider of protection and how does this development fit (or not)
within conventional and contemporary thinking on security and war?
2. How can we understand the privatisation of security within a larger framework of global (and
security) governance, globalisation, and marketization of state activities and functions?
3. How does privatisation change the organisation and role of violence-using institutions and how
does it change the ability and willingness of states to secure democratic control over their
activities?
4. What roles do PSCs play in the formulation and mitigation of insecurity and risk and what are the
possible implications of privatisation in terms of growing commercial and transnational networks
of security professionals?
Mandatory Readings:


Abrahamsen, R., & Williams, M. C. (2009). 'Security Beyond the State: Global Security
Assemblages in International Politics'. International Political Sociology, 3(1), pp. 1-17.
Berndtsson, Joakim (2014). ‘Realizing the “market-state”? Military Transformation and
Security Outsourcing in Sweden.’ International Journal, Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 542-558.
Recommended readings



Avant, Deborah D., (2006). ‘The Implications of Marketized Security for IR Theory: The
Democratic Peace, Late State Building, and the Nature and Frequency of Conflict.’
Perspectives on Politics, 4 (3), pp. 507-528.
Eichler, Maya, (2014). ‘Citizenship and the contracting out of military work: from national
conscription to globalized recruitment.’ Citizenship Studies, Vol. 18, No. 6-7, pp. 600-614.
Heinecken, Lindy (2014). Outsourcing Public Security: The Unforeseen Consequences for the
Military Profession." Armed Forces & Society 40 (4), 625-646.
Lecture 7
The Securitization of Migration
Anja Franck
13
14
In this lecture we will approach the securitization of migration, discuss some of its key discursive and
institutional features, the key techniques of power it entails as well as how it plays out in particular
border sites. Empirically we will use the case of external border control in the Greek Island of Lesvos
and internal border controls through immigration policing in the city George Town in Malaysia.
Seminar questions
1. Which are the key features of the ‘securitization of migration’ described in the literature? How
do the authors describe the shift in the relationship between migration and/as security in
EUrope over the past decades? Which interests and actors are described as central to/in these
processes?
2. Do you find the securitization framework useful for capturing EUrope’s response to
immigration and its attempts to secure the EU’s external border? Why/why not?
Mandatory Readings:



Andersson, R. (2016) Europe’s failed ‘fight’ against irregular migration: ethnographic notes
on a counterproductive industry, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(7): 1055-1075.
Huysmans, J. (2000) The European Union and the Securitization of Migration, Journal of
Common Market Studies, 38 (5): 751-777.
Karyotis, G. (2012) Securitization of Migration in Greece: Process, Motives, and Implications,
International Political Sociology, 6(4): 390-408.
Recommended Readings:



Arifianto, A. R. 2009. The securitization of transnational labor migration: The case of
Malaysia and Indonesia, Asian Politics and Policy, 1(4): 613-630.
Bosswell, C. 2007. Migration control in Europe after 9/11: Explaining the absence of
securitization, Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS), 45(3): 589-610.
Ibrahim, M. (2005) The securitization of Migration: A racial discourse, International
Migration, 43(5): 163-186.
Lecture 8
Security and Democracy in an Urban Setting
Helen Arfvidsson
This lecture will focus on security and democracy in the urban setting by first introducing the theme of
riots, urban disorder and policing and connect this to a neoliberal reading of cities as increasingly
repressive, revanchist and racialized. Second, this understanding of cities will be opened up and
challenged by active engagements and democratic reappropriations of cities through examples such as
graffiti and urban exploration with the aim of introducing the notion of “little security nothings”
(Huysmans 2011).
Seminar Questions:
14
15
1. What are potential tradeoffs or conflicts between security and democracy in the so called
neoliberal city? Exemplify and discuss.
2. How can securitization of the urban setting be understood through the notion of “little security
nothings”?
Mandatory readings:


Huysmans, Jef (2011) What’s in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings.
Security Dialogue, 42(4-5) pp. 371–383.
Raco, M (2003) Remaking Place and Securitising Space: Urban Regeneration and the
Strategies, Tactics and Practices of Policing in the UK, Urban Studies, (40), (9), 1869-1887.
Additional readings











Amin, A. and N. Thrift (2002) Cities Reimaging the Urban. Oxford: Polity Press.
Borden, I. (2001) Skateboarding, Space and the City: Architecture and the Body. Oxford:
Berg.
Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2005) “Neoliberalism and the urban condition”. City 9: 101–
107.
Dikeç, M. (2007) Badlands of the Republic. Oxford, Blackwell.
Farías, I. (2011) “The politics of urban assemblages”. City: analysis of urban trends, culture,
theory, policy, action 15 (3/4): 365-374.
Garrett, B. (2014) Undertaking recreational trespass urban exploration and infiltration,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39 (1), 1-13
Harvey, D. (2008) “The Right to the City”. New Left Review 53: 23-40.
MacLeod, G. (2002) “From urban entrepreneurialism to a revanchist city? On the spatial
injustices of Glasgow‟s renaissance”. Antipode 34(3): 602-624.
Smith, N. (2002) “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy”.
Antipode 34(3): 427-450.
Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert, F. and Rodriquez, A. (2002) “Neoliberal Urbanization in
Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy”. Antipode
34(3): 542-577.
Wacquant, L. (2009) Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity.
Durham, N.C: Duke University Press.
Lecture 9
Security, Development, Resilience
Jan Bachmann
‘No security without development and no development without security’ has become the mantra in
Western foreign policy towards countries of the global South. Debates on ‘fragile’ and ‘failed’ states
15
16
further created a sense of urgency amongst Western governments to harmonize their diplomacy,
development and defense efforts into an integrated ‘whole-of-government’ approach towards so-called
‘difficult environments’. What is now called the ‘security-development’ nexus has arguably deepened
with the recent emphasis on creating ‘resilient communities’ as a key objective of Western aid
programmes.
In this lecture we trace of the figure of the ‘security-development nexus’ and explore the multiplicity
of rationales behind the ‘nexus’ as well as the changing forms of intervention that such policies
generate.
Seminar questions
1. Discuss the normative positions expressed in the debate about the ‘security-development nexus’!
What are the main assumptions in the foreign policy debate as well as in the critical academic debate?
2. Does (and if so how) the entry of the concept of ‘resilience’ as an objective in foreign aid challenge
previous objectives and promised of ‘development’?
3. Does (and if so how) the entry of resilience within international relations challenge the concept of
‘security’?
Mandatory readings:



Duffield, Mark (2010). The liberal way of development and the development-security
impasse: Exploring the global life-chance divide. Security Dialogue 41 (1), 53-76.
Reid, Julian (2012). The disastrous and politically debased subject of resilience, Development
Dialogue 58, 67-79.
Stern, Maria and Joakim Öjendal (2010). Mapping the security-development nexus: Conflict,
Complexity, Cacophony, Convergence, Security Dialogue 41 (1), 5-29.
Recommended Readings:








Chandler, David (2014). Resilience. The Governance of Complexity. London: Routledge.
Cooper, Melinda & Jeremy Walker 2013. Genealogies of Resilience. Security Dialogue 42
(2), 143-160.
Duffield, M. (2007) Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of
Peoples, Cambridge: Polity.
Evans, Brad & Julian Reid (2014). Resilient Life. The Art of Living Dangerously. Cambridge:
Polity.
Evans, Brad & Julian Reid. (2014). Resilient Life: The Art of Living Dangerously.
Cambridge: Polity.
Kaufmann, Mareile (2013). Emergent self-organisation in emergencies :resilience rationales
in interconnected societies. Resilience 1 (1), 53-68.
Williams, Paul and Joanna Spear (2012). Conceptualising the security-development
relationship. An overview of the debate. In: Paul Williams & Joanna Spear (Eds). Security and
development in global politics. A critical comparison. Washington/DC: Georgetown
University Press, 7-33.
Zebroswki, Chris (2013). The Nature of Resilience. Resilience 1 (3), 159-173.
Lecture 10
16
17
Governmentality and Surveillance
Helen Arfvidsson
Drawing on Foucault and by introducing the notions of biopolitics and governmentality, this lecture
will focus on technologies of security that regulate and govern life through examples of surveillance
related to CCTV, Big Data and terrorism.
Seminar questions:
1. How can surveillance practices be understood with the help of the Foucauldian notion of
biopolitics? Exemplify and discuss.
2. What are potential security concerns related to big data and “dataveillance”? Exemplify and
discuss.
Mandatory Readings


Andrejevic, M. and Gates, K. (2014) Big Data Surveillance: Introduction. Surveillance &
Society 12 (2), 185-196.
Bell, C. (2006) Surveillance Strategies and Populations at Risk: Biopolitical Governance in
Canada’s National Security Policy, Security Dialogue,37 (2), 147-165.
Recommended Readings:






Bigo, Didier (2002). Security and Immigration. Toward a Critique of the
Governmentality of the ‘Unease’, Alternatives, 27 (special issue), 63-92.
Bröckling, Ulrich; Susanne Krasmann; Thomas Lemke (2012). From Foucault’s
Lectures at the Collège de France to Studies of Governmentality. In: Ulrich Bröckling,
Susanne Krasmann, Thomas Lemke (Eds). Governmentality. Current issues and
future challenges London: Routledge: 1-33 (E-book via UB)
Dean, Mitchell (1999) Governmentality, Power and Rule in Modern Society. London:
Sage Publications. (especially chapter 1).
Kitchin, R. (2014) Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts, Big Data and
Society, April-June 2014, pp. 1-12.
Rose, Nikolas and Peter Miller (1992). Political Power Beyond the State. Problematics
of Government. British Journal of Sociology 43 (2), 173-205.
Walters, Walter (2012) Governmentality. Critical encounters, London: Routledge.
Introduction.
17
18
18