This course focuses on three different current international security issues to give students depth in global security problems, especially those related to inter-state conflict such as arms races, international law, nuclear weapons, crisis bargaining and cyber warfare. For each topic, the course addresses key controversies and issues, explores theoretical explanations, and evaluates possible policy solutions.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

1. apply general concepts and theories in international security to specific topics;
2. analyse the main controversies and debates within key issues in international security;
3. evaluate debates about the use of international institutions to solve serious issues in global security; and
4. make informed arguments about the best ways to use policy to reduce insecurity and improve security in the international arena.

Recommended Resources

What do we know about war (3rd Edition)? McLaughlin Mitchell, Sara and Vasquez, John. New York, Rowman and Littlefield. 2021

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

• written comments
• verbal comments
• feedback to whole class, groups, individuals, focus group etc

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	History of Warfare	ReadingsBraumoeller, Bear. 2021. Some Trends in Armed Conflict. In McLaughlin Mitchell and Vasquez (eds), What do we know about war? New York, Rowman and Littlefield. Chapter 16. McLaughlin Mitchell, Sara and John Vasquez. What do we know about war? In McLaughlin Mitchell and Vasquez (eds), What do we know about war? New York, Rowman and Littlefield. Chapter 19. Pinker, Stephen. 2011. The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Conflict has declined. London: Allen Lane. pp 189-294
2	War as bargaining	Readings Schelling, Thomas. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press. pp 3-81 Kertzer, Joshua D. 2016. Resolve in international politics. Princeton University Press. pp 1-4, 11-19, 22-23, 33-45 Lupton, Danielle. 2020. Reputation for Resolve. Cornell University Press. Chapters 1 and 5 Mercer, Jonathan. 2005. Reputation and international politics. Cornell University Press. pp 44-74
3	Negotiation (I)	Readings Raiffa, Howard. 1985. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapters 1, 4 and 9 Mnookin, Robert. 2010. Bargaining with the Devil. New York: Simon and Schuster. Chapters 1,2 and 3
4	Negotiation (II)	Readings Ross, Lee. 1995. Reactive devaluation in negotiation and conflict resolution. In Tversky et al (eds). 1995. Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York: WW Norton. Chapter 2 Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1995. Conflict Resolution: a cognitive perspective. In Tversky et al (eds). 1995. Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York: WW Norton. Chapter 3 Elster, Jon. 1995. Strategic Uses of Argument.  In Tversky et al (eds). 1995. Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York: WW Norton. Chapter 12 Voss, Christopher. 2016. Never split the difference. New York: Harper. Chapters 2, 3 and 6
5	Arms Races	Readings Kydd, Andrew. 1997. “Game theory and the sprial model”. World Politics. 49(3): 371-400 Sample, Susan. 2021. “Arms Races”, in ‘What do we know about war?’, McLaughlin Mitchell and Vazquez (eds). New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Chapter 4 Coe, Andrew and Vaynman, Jane. 2020. “Why Arms Control is so rare”. American Political Science Review. 114(2): 342-355 Glaser, Charles L. 2004. "When Are Arms Races Dangerous? Rational versus Suboptimal Arming." International Security 28 (4):44-84.
6	Nuclear Weapons	Readings Fuhrmann, Matthew. 2021. “Nuclear Weapons”, in ‘What do we know about war?’, McLaughlin Mitchell and Vazquez (eds). New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Chapter 6 Mueller, John. 1988. "The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World." International Security 13 (2):55-79. Caitlin Talmadge. 2017. “Would China Go Nuclear? Assessing the Risk of Chinese Nuclear Escalation in a Conventional War with the United States.” International Security. 41 (4): 50–92 Trachtenberg, Marc. 1985. "The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis." International Security 10 (1):137-163.
7	Territorial Peace	Readings Hensel, Paul R and Goemans, Hein. 2021. Territory and Contentious Issues. In McLaughlin Mitchell and Vasquez (eds), What do we know about war? New York, Rowman and Littlefield. Chapter 1 Gibler, Douglas M and Miller, Steven V. 2021. The Territorial Peace: Current and Future Research. In McLaughlin Mitchell and Vasquez (eds), What do we know about war? New York, Rowman and Littlefield. Chapter 9 Powell, Justyna and Wiegand, Krista E. 2021. Conflict Management of Territorial and Maritime Disputes. In McLaughlin Mitchell and Vasquez (eds), What do we know about war? New York, Rowman and Littlefield. Chapter 11
8	Alliances	Readings Kenwick, Michael R and McManus, Roseanne W. 2021. Deterrence Theory and Alliance Politics, In McLaughlin Mitchell and Vazquez (eds) “What do we know about war?”, Chapter 3 Morrow, James D. 2000. Alliances: why write them down? Annual Review of Political Science 3:63-83 Wolford, Scott. 2015. The Politics of Military Coalitions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 2 & 3
9	Cyber Warfare	Readings Gartzke, Erik. 2013. “The Myth of Cyber Warfare: Bringing Cyberwarfare down to earth”. International Security 38(2):41-73 Kello, Lucas. 2013. “The Meaning of the Cyber Revolution: Perils to Theory and Statecraft”. International Security 38(2):7-40 McLaughlin Mitchell and Vasquez – Chapter 12 – Cyber War – Brandon Valeriano, Ryan C Maness and Benjamin Jensen Schneider, Jaqueline G. 2019. “Deterrence in and through Cyberspace”, in Cross-Domain Deterrence, Strategy in an Era of Complexity, Lindsay, Jon R and Gartzke, Erik (eds), New York, Oxford University Press, Chapter 6
10	Hybrid War	Readings Biddle, Stephen. 2021. Nonstate warfare. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 2,3 & 4 Jankowicz, Nina. 2020. How to lose the information war. New York: Tauris. Chapters 1,2 & 7 Bail, Christopher A, Guay, Brian, Maloney, Emily, Combs, Aidan, Hillygus, D Sunshine, Merhout, Friedohlin, Freelon, Deen, and Alexander Volfovsky. 2017. “Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (1) 243-250
11	The Russia/Ukraine War	Readings Loftus, Suzanne and Kanet, Roger. 2017. “Growing confrontation between Russia and the West: Russia’s Challenge to the post Cold War Order, in Kanet, Roger (ed): The Russian Challenge to the European Security Environment, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 13-37 Berryman, John. 2017. “Russia and the European Security Order: impact and implications of the Ukraine Crisis”, in Kanet, Roger (ed): The Russian Challenge to the European Security Environment, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p 167-189 Freedman, Lawrence. 2019. Ukraine and the Art of Strategy. New York: Oxford University Press: Chapters 2, 3 and 4. Plokhy, Serhii. 2023. The Russo-Ukrainian War. London: Allen Lane Press, p135-154

Assessment Summary

Assessment task	Value	Due Date
Research Essay	40 %	18/09/2023
Policy Memo	25 %	30/10/2023
Negotiation Exercise	25 %	*
Participation	10 %	*

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details

Policies

ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines , which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Integrity Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

• Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Extenuating Circumstances Application
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure
• Code of practice for teaching and learning

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Wattle’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.

Assessment Task 1

Research Essay

You must write an essay of 1500 words on ONE of the following questions.

1.     "For the last two or three centuries, major war has gradually moved towards terminal disrepute because of its perceived repulsiveness and futility" - John Mueller. To what extent do you agree with this statement. Justify your answer.

2.     Do nuclear weapons make the risk of a conflict on the scale of the two World Wars negligible? If so, why? If not, why not?

3.     Are arms races irrational behaviour? Justify your answer.

4.     Does a state or state leader’s reputation matter in international politics? Justify your answer.

The usual +/-10% leeway on the word count applies

Rubric

Criterion	HD	D	C	P	F
Addresses the entirety or a specific aspect of the question	Addresses the entirety of a question	Addresses most important aspects of a question	Addresses some parts of a question	Addresses tangential or unimportant aspect of a question	Does not clearly answer the question asked
Demonstrates a clear understanding of the theoretical framework(s) used for answering the question and makes effective use of the framework(s) to guide the analysis	Understands in full the theoretical framework which underpins the proposition advanced	Understands well if not fully the theoretical framework underpinning the proposition advanced	Understands somewhat the theoretical framework	Demonstrates poor understanding of the theoretical framework used to answer the question	Demonstrates little to no theoretical framework
Displays clear evidence of research on the question beyond the set readings for class.	Uses at least two original and trustworthy sources of evidence	Uses at least two trustworthy sources of evidence	Uses at least two sources of evidence	Uses less than two sources of evidence or evidence from untrustworthy sources	Uses no evidence
Clearly structured and has a clear argument	Structure is clearly signposted and followed throughout	Structure is followed throughout	Structure is mostly adhered to	Structure is evident but mostly not adhered to	Little sign of structure
Addresses counterarguments to the proposition being advanced in the paper	Outlines fairly the counterarguments to the proposition being advanced, then shows why they do not invalidate the proposition being advanced	Outlines the counterarguments to the proposition being advanced and shows why they do not invalidate the proposition being advanced	Outlines counterarguments to the proposition and outlines why the writer does not believe they invalidate the proposition being advanced	Outlines counterarguments to the proposition being advanced	Does not mention counterarguments
Proofread and contains no/few grammatical and spelling errors	No spelling or grammatical errors	A few small spelling or grammatical errors	Numerous grammatical and spelling errors	Frequent grammatical and spelling errors	Grammatical and spelling errors abound and seriously hamper comprehensibility
Referencing is neat and consistent. NB - you have a free choice of which referencing style to use	Referencing follows the same style throughout and is consistent in terms of font style, size and capitalization	Referencing mostly follows same style	Referencing sometimes follows the same style	Referencing is largely inconsistent	Referencing is non-existent

Assessment Task 2

Policy Memo

You should choose one of the situations or crises from your weekly tutorials. You must write a policy memo of 800 words recommending a course of action to the appropriate policy maker.

The usual +/-10% leeway on the word count applies

Rubric

Criterion	HD	D	C	P	F
Clear statement of the purpose of the memo	Reader can see what issue the memo addresses and how it is structured	Reader can see what issue the memo addresses	Reader can see the general issue the memo addresses	Reader can see the general topic of the memo	Reader is unclear as to the purpose of the memo
Clear summary of relevant background/issue	Reader is led to understand the background to the issue in a clear and concise way	Reader understands the background to the issue	Reader understands some of the background	Reader understands little of the background	Reader understands none of the background
Clear outline of the current position/situation	Reader can judge clearly and concisely the current situation	Reader can judge the current situation	Reader can understand some of the current situation	Reader understands a little of the current situation	Reader cannot understand the current situation
Identifies and analyses key considerations	Reader can identify clearly and concisely the key interests involved in the situation	Reader can identify the key interests involved in the situation	Reader can understand some of the key interests	Reader can understand a little of the key interests	Reader cannot understand the key interests
Quality and extent of evidence to support key considerations	Evidence used is relevant and clearly connected to the argument	Evidence used is relevant	Evidence used is somewhat relevant	Evidence used but the relevance is not always clear	Evidence is not used or is used unclearly.
Identifies and analyses options	Identifies and outlines 2-3 distinct and mutually exclusive options	Identifies 2-3 options	Identifies more than one option	Identifies an option	Does not clearly identify any options
Evidence of deep research from a range of sources	Uses at least two original and trustworthy sources of evidence	Uses at least two trustworthy sources of evidence	Uses at least two sources of evidence	Uses less than two sources of evidence or evidence from untrustworthy sources	Uses no evidence
Spelling and grammar	No spelling or grammatical errors	A few small spelling or grammatical errors	Numerous grammatical and spelling errors	Frequent grammatical and spelling errors	Grammatical and spelling errors abound and seriously hamper comprehensibility
Structure and organisation	Structure is clearly signposted and followed throughout	Structure is followed throughout	Structure is mostly adhered to	Structure is evident but mostly not adhered to	Little sign of structure
Clarity of writing	Writing is clear throughout. Minimal jargon, few overly long sentences or paragraphs	Writing mostly clear	Writing often clear	Writing rarely clear	Writing almost never clear
Factual claims are referenced	All claims relating to numbers, events, dates and individuals are cited via an appropriate source (including reputable news agencies and government bodies in addition to academic sources)	Most claims are appropriately referenced	Some claims are referenced	A few claims are referenced	No claims are referenced
Reference style is neat and consistent. NB - you have a free choice of which referencing style to use	Referencing follows the same style throughout and is consistent in terms of font style, size and capitalization	Referencing mostly follows same style	Referencing sometimes follows the same style	Referencing is largely inconsistent	Referencing is non-existent

Assessment Task 3

Negotiation Exercise

Week beginning 18th September – US-Iran Nuclear Deal 2015

 

Recommended Reading: Parsi, Trita. 2017. Losing an enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy. New Haven: Yale University Press

 

Week beginning 25th September – Israel-Egypt Camp David Peace Accord 1978

 

Recommended Reading: Quandt, William B. 1986. Camp David: Peacemaking and politics. Washington DC: Brookings Institute Press

 

Week beginning 2nd October (except Monday) – Russia-Ukraine Minsk Protocol 2014

 

Recommended Reading: Allen, Duncan. 2020. The Minsk Conundrum: Western Policy and Russia’s War in Eastern Ukraine. London: Chatham House. Available at https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-05-22-minsk-conundrum-allan.pdf

 

Week beginning 9th October – US-USSR INF Treaty 1987

 

Recommended Reading: Service, Robert. 2015. The End of the Cold War: 1985-1991. London: Public Affairs

Week beginning 16th October - US-Taliban Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan 2020.

 

Recommended Readings: Malkasian, Carter. 2021. The American War in Afghanistan: A History. New York: Oxford University Press

 

You will be split into workshops . The negotiation exercises are run over five weeks. Each exercise focuses on a separate case study (see above). You will be assigned at random to a weekly case study then to an actor within the case study (e.g. the US-Iran week, then one side is the US, the other is Iran).

 

Prior to the start of the exercise, the non-participating students (ie students in the tutorial group who are not negotiating that week) are asked to rate two things on a scale of 1-10

 

1) Which side does better out of the current status quo and

 

2) Which side does better out of a war

 

The results are not made known to either of the participating sides, to reflect the real world uncertainty.

 

The two teams then toss a coin to see who makes the first offer. Each team has at most fifteen minutes to make an offer on each round. Once the first offer is made the second team can either accept the offer in its entirety or make a counteroffer of their own. This continues for fifty minutes. When we reach fifty minutes, the team which were given the latest offer can choose to either accept, revert to the status quo or go/return to war. 25% of the marks for this assignment are based on the outcome of the negotiation. More specifically, this means that

 

If

 

a) the final offer is accepted then the other students vote again on a scale of 1-10 who got the best deal. Extra marks are then awarded proportional to who did best (relative to the status quo). So if one team is awarded 6/10 when the status quo would have given them 5/10, then they get 6 points and the other side get 4, to reflect a 20% improvement relative to the status quo

 

b) if the other side choose war then the teams get whatever the other students think they would get if there is a war. But both teams lose two points to represent the destruction caused by the war.

 

c) if there is no change then both sides get whatever the other students thought they would get in the status quo.

 

The remaining 75% of the mark for the assignment is split evenly between three things

 

i)                  Quality of research and preparation (as judged by the tutor)

ii)                Ability of the students to judge accurately their own and their counterparts’ bargaining power and breakdown points

iii)              Ability of the students to deal effectively with the other team (build empathy where necessary, avoid creating unnecessary future problems, ensure compliance with the terms if terms are reached). 

Assessment Task 4

Participation

You must show up to the tutorials and be prepared to participate actively

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.

The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.

The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.

 

The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.

Online Submission

You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.

Hardcopy Submission

For some forms of assessment (hand written assignments, art works, laboratory notes, etc.) hard copy submission is appropriate when approved by the Associate Dean (Education). Hard copy submissions must utilise the Assignment Cover Sheet. Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.

Late Submission

Individual assessment tasks may or may not allow for late submission. Policy regarding late submission is detailed below:

• Late submission not permitted. If submission of assessment tasks without an extension after the due date is not permitted, a mark of 0 will be awarded.
• Late submission permitted. Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks is not accepted after 10 working days after the due date, or on or after the date specified in the course outline for the return of the assessment item. Late submission is not accepted for take-home examinations.

Referencing Requirements

The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.
In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.

Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Access and inclusion for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills and Learning Centre supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling Centre promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents all ANU students