Paul Roe
Department of International Relations
‘Strategy, Security, and Contemporary Warfare’
(MA: Fall Semester, 2022-23)
In its more ‘traditional’ (often Realist/neo-Realist) form, Security Studies has been primarily concerned with the threats and uses of force in the international system; what is usually referred to as ‘Strategic Studies’. This course is focused mainly on Strategic Studies; on the discipline’s major assumptions about the military sector of international security, from both traditional and more non-traditional (‘Critical’) perspectives. In doing so, the course will engage both IR (war as a generic phenomenon) and Foreign Policy (war as a policy-specific outcome) perspectives in analyzing the nature of contemporary warfare.
Set against the so-called 'Revolution in Military Affairs' (RMA); in particular, against the 'Contemporary RMA', changes in warfare, be they technological, organisational, or political, have raised fundamental questions about the strategy and ethics of the use of force in world politics, as well as challenge some of the core assumptions of the Security Studies discipline. In this course, the aim is to explore both the form of the Contemporary RMA as well as the attempts of Security Studies scholars to justify the continuing relevance of existing conceptual approaches. It does so by focusing on a number of prominent shifts: the first, in the increased technologicalisation of organized militaries; the second, in the appearance of new modes of warfare (cyber- and non- linear, to name but a few); and the third in the increasing plurality of actors (from organized non- state through to terrorism and other forms of political violence.
Teaching Method
For this course, there are no lectures. Instead, students will participate in seminars where they are expected to form their own opinions through ‘critical’ evaluation of the readings. For each seminar, there will be one or two key texts (which are in the course reader). Seminar discussion will be structured around a short presentation of the text(s), in which students will summarise and critically evaluate the readings. Seminar discussion therefore depends on serious preparation: it is crucial that students do all of the reading required and come into the seminar fully prepared to actively
take part in the discussion. For the topics discussed, there is not necessarily a right answer. What is important is to focus on the way that people think.
Method of Assessment
Each student will be assessed through a combination of seminar contribution, oral presentation, and written work. There will be one oral presentation for each student, and which concentrates mostly on the assigned ‘key text’. In terms of written work, two literature reviews are required.
The literature review is 1500 words long (plus/minus 10%).
For the final grade: 20% is given to the oral presentation; 35% to each literature review (70%);
with the remaining 10% being allotted to seminar attendance and contribution.
The first Literature Review is due at the end of week 6; the second due at the end of week 13.
Guidelines for the Literature Review
The purpose of the literature review is essentially two-fold: one, to situate the chosen key text within the wider debate(s); and two, to make a critique of the key text informed by the existing literature.
Any text can be situated in a wider debate: its theoretical/conceptual standpoint and the more specific arguments that derive from that standpoint can only be properly understood when set against other works. Together, these texts collectively constitute a written conversation. Some texts may exemplify a particular debate; others might be read as belonging to several, overlapping written conversations. The literature review thus demands that students not only identify the general context within which the key text can be situated, but are also explicit as to the specific nature of the debate according to which they will structure their critique.
In terms of structure, one or two introductory paragraphs should be devoted to the above task (context and debate). Following on from this, the main body should then put in place a coherent and sustained, critical evaluation of the key text. Some concluding paragraph is also warranted, although the exact content of that paragraph is dependent on the purpose of the critique. The main points of the critical evaluation should derive explicitly from the wider literature. Given the length of the literature review; just 1,500 words, it is reasonable to expect that no more than 4-5 other works are utilized, likewise informing no more than just a couple of critical points.
Please keep in mind that one of the key text remains the focus of the literature review, and will thus serve to structure both the general nature of the debate and the specifics of the critical evaluation.
Week 1/Seminar 1. Introduction
In this introductory class, discussion will centre on the nature of the course itself; what is expected from the students in terms of seminar contribution, the oral presentation, and written work. (Here, initial oral presentations will be assigned.)
Week 1/Seminar 2. No Class
In absence of seminar attendance, students will instead use this time to prepare for next week’s oral presentations and readings
Week 2/Seminar 3. Theorising the Security Dilemma: Classical (?) Realism Key Text:
Herbert Butterfield, History and Human Relations (London: Collins, 1951), Chapter 1: ‘The Tragic Element in Modern International Conflict’.
Week 2/Seminar 4. Theorising the Security Dilemma: Neo-Realism Key Text:
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1976), Chapter 3: ‘Deterrence, the Spiral Model, and Intentions of the Adversary’.
Further Reading for 2/3 & 2/4:
John Herz, International Politics in the Atomic Age (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), Chapter 10: ‘The Security Dilemma in the Atomic Age’.
Charles Glaser, ‘Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and Refining the Spiral and Deterrence Models’, World Politics, vol.44, no.4, 1992.
Glaser, ‘The Security Dilemma Revisited’, World Politics, vol.50, no.1, 1997.
Paul Roe, ‘Actors’ Responsibility in ‘Tight’, ‘Regular’, and ‘Loose’ Security Dilemmas’, Security Dialogue, vol.32, no.1, 2001.
Collins, ‘State-Induced Security Dilemma: Maintaining the Tragedy’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.39, no.1, 2004.
Shiping Tang, ‘The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis’, Security Studies, vol.18, no.3, 2009.
Ken Booth & Nick Wheeler, The Security Dilemma: Fear Cooperation and Trust in World Politics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2008).
Week 3/Seminar 5. Offence-Defence Theory (ODT) Key Text:
Keir A. Lieber, ‘Grasping the Technological Peace: The Offense-Defense Balance and International Security’, International Security, vol.25, no.1, 2000.
Week 3/Seminar 6. Gendering ODT Key Text:
Lauren Wilcox, ‘Gendering the Cult of the Offensive’, Security Studies, vol.18, no.2, 2009.
Further Reading for 3/6 & 4/7:
Jervis, ‘Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma’, World Politics, vol.30, no.2, 1978.
Sean Lynne-Jones, ‘Offense-Defense Theory and Its Critics’, Security Studies, vol.4, no.4, 1995.
Stephen Van Evera, ‘Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War’, International Security, vol.22, no.4, 1998.
Glaser & Chaim Kaufmann, ‘What is the Offense-Defense Balance and How Can We Measure It?’, International Security, vol.22, no.4, 1998.
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, ‘Security Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited’, International Security, vol.25, no.3, 2000-2001.
Evan Braden Montgomery, ‘Breaking out of the Security Dilemma: Realism: Reassurance, and the Problem of Uncertainty’, International Security, vol.31, no.2, 2006.
Keir Lieber, ‘The New History of World War I and What it Means for International Relations Theory’, International Security, vol.32, no.2, 2007.
Jack Snyder & Keir Lieber, ‘Defensive Realism and the “New” History of World War I’, International Security, vol.33, no.1, 2008.
Week 4/Seminar 7. The Security Dilemma in Practice
Key Text: Adam Liff & John Ikenberry, ‘Racing Toward Tragedy? China’s Rise, Military Competition in the Asia Pacific, and the Security Dilemma’, International Security, vol.39, no.2, 2014.
Further Reading:
Jervis, ‘Was the Cold War a Security Dilemma?’, Journal of Cold War Studies, vol.3, no.1, 2003.
Jervis, ‘Dilemmas About Security Dilemmas’, Security Studies, vol.20, no.3, 2011.
Randall Schweller, ‘Rational Theory for a Bygon Era’, Security Studies, vol.20, no.3, 2011.
Week 4/Seminar 8. Deterrence Theory Key Text:
Andrew Brown & Laura Arnold, ‘The Quirks of Nuclear Deterrence’, International Relations, vol.24, no.3, 2010.
Further Reading:
Matthew Rendall, ‘Nuclear Weapons and Intergenerational Exploitation’, Security Studies, vol.16, no.4, 2007.
Snyder (ed.), Contemporary Strategy and Security, Chapter 6: Keith Krause, ‘Rationality and Deterrence in Theory and Practice’.
Karen Ruth Adams, ‘Attack and Conquer? International Anarchy and the Offense-Defense- Deterrence Balance’, International Security, vol.28, no.3, 2003-2004.
Jervis, ‘The Confrontation between Iraq and the US: Implications for the Theory and Practice of Deterrence’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.9, no.2, 2003.
Maria Sperandei, ‘Bridging Deterrence and Compellence…’, International Studies Review, vol.8, no.2, 2006.
Keir Lieber & Daryl Press, ‘The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of US Primacy’, International Security, vol.30, no.4, 2006.
Richard Ned Lebow, ‘Thucydides and Deterrence’, Security Studies, vol.16, no.2, 2007.
Ward Wilson, ‘The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima’, International Security, vol.31, no.4, 2007.
Rajesh Basrar, Michael Cohen, Ward Wilson, ‘Do Small Arsenals Deter?’, International Security, vol.32, no.3, 2007/08.
Nuno Monteiro & Alexandre Debs, ‘The Strategic Logic of Nuclear Proliferation’, International Security, vol.39, no.2, 2014.
Brendan R, Green & Austin Long, ‘The MAD Who Wasn’t There: Soviet Reactions to the Late Cold War Nuclear Balance’, Security Studies, vol.26, no.4, 2017.
Week 5/Seminar 9. No Class (Literature Review Consultations) Week 5/Seminar 10. No Class (Literature Review Consultations)
In absence of seminar attendance, students will instead use this time for drafting and consulting on their first Literature Review.
Week 6/Seminar 11. Arms Control & Disarmament (and NOD) Key Text:
Neil Cooper, ‘Putting Disarmament Back in the Frame’, Review of International Studies, vol.32, no.2, 2006.
Further Reading:
John Baylis & Robert O’Neill (eds.), Alternative Nuclear Futures (Oxford: OUP, 2000), Chapter 5: Baylis, ‘Nuclear Weapons, Prudence, and Morality: The Search for a Third ‘Way’’; Chapter 9, Michael MccGwire, ‘The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons’.
Bjorn Moller & Haakan Wiberg (eds.), Non-Offensive Defence for the 21st Century (Boulder:
Westview Press, 1994), Chapter 1: Buzan, ‘Does NOD Have a Future in the Post-Cold War World?’; Chapter 2: Reiner Huber & Hilmar Linnenkamp, ‘Disarmament, Arms Control and NOD’.
Barry Buzan & Eric Herring, The Arms Dynamic in World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998), Chapter 13, ‘Arms Control’; Chapter 14: ‘Non-Offensive Defence’; Chapter 15:
‘Disarmament’.
Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies, Chapter 3: Paul Rogers, ‘Peace Studies’.
Michael Mazarr, ‘Virtual Nuclear Arsenals’, Survival, vol.37, no.3, 1995.
Mazarr (ed.), Nuclear Weapons in a Transformed World: The Challenge of Virtual Nuclear Arsenals (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997).
Avner Cohen & Joseph F. Pilat, ‘Assessing Virtual Nuclear Arsenals’, Survival, vol.40, no.1, 1998.
Week 6/Seminar 12. Gendering Strategic Discourse Key Text:
Carol Cohn, ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’, Signs, vol.12, no.4, 1987.
Further Reading (& also for 3/6):
Christina Masters, ‘Gendered Defences: Gendered Offences: What is at Stake in the Politics of Missile Defence?’, Canadian Journal of Foreign Policy, vol.12, no.1, 2005.
J. Anne Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), Chapter 2: ‘Man, the State, and War: Gendered Perspectives on National Security’.
Cynthia Enloe, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkely: University of California Press, 1993).
Enloe, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives (Berkely: University of Califronia Press, 2000).
V. Spike Peterson (ed.), Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1992), Chapter 1: Peterson, ‘Security and Sovereign States’.
Rebecca Grant & Kathleen Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations (Milton Keynes:
OUP, 1991), Chapter 2: Grant, ‘The Sources of Gender Bias in IR Theory’.
Terriff, et al., Security Studies Today, Chapter 4: ‘The Impact of Gender on Security’.
Vivienne Jabri & Eleanor O’Gorman (eds.), Women, Culture, and International Relations (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999), Chapter 1: O’Gorman & Jabri, ‘Locating Difference in Feminist’.
Week 7/Seminar 13. Strategy and Morality: Realism and ‘Military Necessity’
Key Text:
Robert Holmes, On War and Morality (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989), Chapter 3: ‘Reason of the State, Military Necessity, and Domestic Security’.
Week 7/Seminar 14. Strategy and Morality: Dresden, Hiroshima, and ‘Supreme Emergency’
Key Texts:
Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (London: Harper Collins, 1992): Chapter 16, ‘Supreme Emergency’.
A.C. Grayling, Among the Dead Cities (London: Bloomsbury, 2006): Chapter 7, ‘The Defence of Area Bombing’.
Further Reading for 7/13 & 7/14:
Nick Wheeler, ‘Dying for Enduring Freedom: Accepting Responsibility for Civilian Casualties in the War Against Terrorism’, International Relations, vol.16, no.2, 2002.
Just and Unjust Wars: 30 Years On, Journal Of Military Ethics (Special Issue), vol.6, no.2, 2007:
Jeff McMahan, ‘The Sources and Status of Just War’; Cian O’Driscoll, ‘Learning the Language of Just War: The Value of Engagement’; Barrie Paskins, ‘Realism and the Just War’; Jean Bethke Elshtain, ‘Regime Change and Just War: Reflections on Michael Waltzer’; Martin Cook, ‘Michael Waltzer’s Concept of Supreme Emergency’; Asa Kashar, ‘The Principle of Distinction’.
Cheryl Abatte, ‘Assuming Risk: A Critical Analysis of a Soldier’s Duty to Prevent Collateral Casualties’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.13, no.1, 2014.
Anne Schwenkenbechen, ‘Collateral Damage and the Principle of Due Care’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.13, no.1, 2014.
Scott Sagan & Benjamin Valentino, ‘Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran: What Americans Really Think about Using Nuclear Weapons and Killing Noncombatants’, International Security, vol.42, no.1, 2017.
Week 8/Seminar 15. The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict Key Text:
Esser Visser & Isabelle Duyvesteyn, ‘The Irrelevance of the Security Dilemma for Civil Wars’, Civil Wars, vol.16, no.1, 2014.
Further Reading:
Tang, ‘The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict: Toward a Dynamic and Integrative Theory of Ethnic Conflict’, Review of International Studies, vol.37, no.2, 2011.
Ali Bilgic, ‘Towards a New Societal Security Dilemma: Comprehensive Analysis of Actor Responsibility in Intersocietal Conflicts’, Review of International Studies, vol.39, no.1, 2013.
Stuart Kaufman, ‘An ‘International’ Theory of Inter-Ethnic War’, Review of International Studies, vol.22, no.2, 1996.
Roe, Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma (London, Routledge, 2005).
Brian L. Job (ed.), The Insecurity Dilemma, National Security of Third World States (Boulder:
Lynne Rienner, 1992), Chapter 2: Job, ‘The Insecurity Dilemma: National, Regime, and State Securities in the Third World’.
Kaufman, ‘Spiraling to Ethnic War: Elites, Masses, and Moscow in Moldova’s Civil War’, International Security, vol.21, no.2, 1996.
Chaim Kaufman, ‘Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil War, International Security, vol.20, no.4, 1996.
Erik Melander, Anarchy Within: The Security Dilemma Between Ethnic Groups in Emerging Anarchy (Uppsala University: Department of Peace and Conflict Research).
Barry Posen, ‘The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict’, Survival, vol.35, no.1, 1993.
Roe, ‘The Intrastate Security Dilemma: Ethnic Conflict as a Tragedy?’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.36, no.2, 1999.
Week 8/Seminar 16. Deterring Terrorism Key Text:
Robert Trager & Dessislava Zagorcheva, ‘Deterring Terrorism: It Can be Done’, International Security, vol.30, no.3, 2006.
Further Reading:
Alex Wilner, ‘Fencing in Warfare: Threats, Punishment, and Intra-War Deterrence in Counterterrorism’, Security Studies, vol.22, no.4, 2013.
Jacqueline Gray & Margaret Wilson, ‘Understanding the War on Terrorism: Responses to 11 September 2001’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.43, no.1, 2006.
Vasna Danilovic, ‘Deterring International Terrorism and Rogue States: U.S. National Security Policy after 9/11’, Perspectives on Politics, vol.2, no.4, 2007.
Jeremy Ginges, ‘Deterring the Terrorist: A Psychological Evaluation of Different Strategies for Deterring Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, vol.9, no.1, 1997.
Todd Sandler & Kevin Squiera, ‘Global Terrorism: Deterrence versus Preemption’, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol.39, no.4, 2006.
Keir Lieber & Daryl Press, ‘Why States Won’t Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists’, International Security, vol.38, no.1, 2013.
Week 9/Seminar 17. Private Military Companies (PMCs) Key Text:
Anna Leander, ‘The Power to Construct International Security: On the Significance of Private Military Companies’, Millennium, vol.33, no.3, 2005
Further Reading:
Singer, ‘Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and its Ramifications for International Security’, International Security, vol.26, no.3, 2001/02.
Dimitrios Machairas, ‘The Ethical Implications of the Use of Private Military Force: Regulatable or Irreconcilable?’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.13, no.1, 2014.
Leander, ‘The Paradoxical Impunity of Private Military Companies: Authority and the Limits to Legal Accountability’, Security Dialogue, vol.45, no.5, 2010.
Rita Abrahamsen, ‘Selling Security: Assessing the Impact of Military Privatization’, Review of International Political Economy, vol.15, no.1, 2008.
Leander, ‘The Market for Force and Public Security: The Destabilizing Consequences of Private Military Companies’, Journal of Peace Research, vol.42, no.5, 2005.
Elke Krahman, ‘Security: Collective Good or Commodity?’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.14, no.3, 2008.
Week 9/Seminar 18. The Contemporary Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA):
Autonomous Weapon Systems, Arms Races, and Deterrence Key Text:
Michael Horowitz, ‘When Speed Kills: Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Deterrence and Stability’, Journal of Strategic Studies, vol.42, no.6, 2019.
Week 10/Seminar 19. The Contemporary RMA: The Ethics of Autonomous Weapon Systems Key Text:
Ingvild Bode & Hendrik Huelss, ‘Autonomous Weapon Systems and Changing Norms in International Relations’, Review of International Relations, vol.44, no.3, 2018.
Further Reading for 9/18 & 10/19:
Christina Masters, ‘Bodies of Technology’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.7.
no.1, 2005.
Andrew Latham, ‘Warfare Transformed: A Braudelian Perspective on the Revolution in Military Affairs’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.8, no.2, 2002.
Jurgen Altmann & Frank Sauer, ‘Autonomous Weapon Systems and Strategic Stability’, Survival, vol.59, no.5, 2017.
Denise Garcia, ‘Future Arms, Technologies and International Law: Preventive Security Governance’, European Journal of International Security, vol.1, no.1, 2016.
Ian Shaw, ‘Robot Wars: US Empire and Geopolitics in the Robotic Age’, Security Dialogue, vol.48, no.5, 2017.
Maria Stern, Mark Salter, & Katharine Hall Kindervater, ‘The Emergence of Lethal Surveillance:
Watching and Killing in the History of Drone Technology’, Security Dialogue, vol.47, no.3, 2016.
James Der Derian, ‘Virtuous War’, International Affairs, vol.76, no.4, 2002.
Michael J. Shapiro, Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), Chapter 2:’Warring Bodies and Bodies Politic’; Chapter 3: ‘That Obscure Object of Violent’.
Simon Dalby, ‘Geopolitics, the Revolution in Military Affairs and the Bush Doctrine’, International Politics, vol.46, no.2, 2008.
Chris Hables Gray, Postmodern War: The New Politics of Conflict (London: Routledge, 1997).
Michael Ignatieff, Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond (London: Chatto & Windus, 2000).
Week 10/Seminar 20. Cybersecurity Key Text:
Joseph S. Nye, ‘Deterrence and Disuasion in Cyberspace’, International Security, vol.41, no.3, 2016/17.
Further Reading:
Rebecca Slayton, ‘What is the Cyber Offense-Defense Balance? Conceptions, Causes, and Assessment’, International Security, vol.41, no.3, 2016/17.
Erik Gartzke & Jon R. Lindsay, ‘Weaving Tangled Webs: Offense, Defense, and Deception in Cyberspace’, Security Studies, vol.24, no.3, 2015.
Edward Bennet, Warfare in a New Domain: The Ethics of Military-Cyber Operations’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.12, no.1, 2013.
Christopher Eberle, ‘Just War and Cyber War’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.12, no.1, 2013.
Erik Gartzke, ‘The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth’, International Security, vol.38, no.2, 2013.
Lucas Kello, ‘The Meaning of the Cyber Revolution: Perils to Theory and Statecraft’, International Security, vol.38, no.2, 2013.
Andrew Futter, ‘War Games Redux? Cyberthreats, US-Russian Strategic Stability, and New Challenges for Nuclear Security and Arms Control’, European Security, vol.25, no.2, 2016.
Valerie Morkevicius, ‘Tin Men: Ethics, Cybernetics, and the Importance of the Soul’, Journal of Military Ethics, vol.13, no.1, 2013.
Week 11/Seminar 21. Strategic Culture Key Text:
Alistair Iain Johnston, ‘Thinking About Strategic Culture’, International Security, vo.19, no.4, 1995.
Further Reading:
Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), Chapter 1: Katzenstein, ‘Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security’; Chapter 2: Ronald L. Jepperson, Alexander Wendt, & Katzenstein, ‘Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’.
Michael Desch, ‘Culture Clash’, International Security, vol.23, no.1, 1998.
Theo Farrell, ‘Culture and Military Power’, Review of International Studies, vol.24, no.3, 1998.
David Dessler, ‘Constructivism Within a Positivist Social Science’, Review of International Studies, vol.25, no.1, 1999.
Farrell, ‘Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Programme’, International Studies Review, vol.4, no.1, 2002.
Week 11/Seminar 22. Security Communities Key Text:
Laurie Nathan, ‘Domestic Instability and Security Communities’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.12, no.2, 2006.
Further Reading:
Emmanuel Adler & Michael Barnett (eds.), Security Communities (Cambridge: CUP, 1999).
Adler, ‘The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO’s Post Cold War Transformation’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.14, no.2, 2008.
Michael J. Williams & Iver Neuman, ‘From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity’, Millennium, vol.29, no.2, 1999.
Morten Boas, ‘Security Communities: Whose Security?’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.35, no.3, 2000.
Frank Moller, ‘Capitalizing on Difference: A Security Community or/as a Western Project’, Security Dialogue, vol.34, no.3, 2003.
Veronica Kitchen, ‘Argument and Identity Change in the Atlantic Security Community’, Security Dialogue, vol.40, no.1, 2009.
Week 12/Seminar 23. Conclusion: Strategy and Security in the Age of Hybrid (non-Linear), Asymmetric Warfare.
Week 12/Seminar 24. No Class
In absence of seminar attendance, students will instead use this time for drafting and consulting on their first Literature Review.
