Chapter 7 Course Week-By-Week Guide
Introduction
This is the week-by-week guide to the course. Each section gives you a short outline of the lecture topic, and the seminar topic, for you to consider before watching the lecture material and reading for the week. The discussion questions are what we will be discussing during teaching sessions, so please consider your answers to these questions, alongside preparing for the teaching sessions as per chapter 2.
7.1 Week 1 (w/c September 27th)
Course Notes
- Welcome to the course!
- There is no online lecture material to view ahead of schedule for this week - just do the single reading, and further additional reading if you have time.
Lecture: War and Dirty Wars
This week is a “gentle introduction” to the course. We’ll be covering course admin, as well as setting ground rules for learning/seminar discussions. This week’s lecture also serves as an introduction to the course itself, notably the idea that we’ll be using and examining over the first two thirds of the course. This, in a nutshell, is my own definition of “dirty wars” and what makes them interesting to study:
Dirty wars are conflicts where one or more parties to the conflict denies the political, legal, and/or moral status or standing of their opponents.
The importance of this definition is where the expectations of status and standing come from. In particular, this course will engage with the construction of necessity claims. That is, the reasons for which states (and their opponents) claim it is sometimes, or always, necessary to deny the status or standing of their opponents.
This lecture introduces a couple of important frames where necessity claims are an integral feature of the frame itself: war and national security. This isn’t to say that these are the only frames with which to examine the kind of conflicts the course covers, but they are important in that they often guide state responses to threats.
- Discussion Question:
- Is the “War on Terror” a war? When did it start? Has it ended?
- Core Reading:
- Smith, M. L. R., and Sophie Roberts. “War in the gray: exploring the concept of dirty war.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 31, no. 5 (2008): 377–398.
- Additional Reading:
Seminar: War as a Concept
This is the opening seminar on conceptualising and classifying conflicts. For the next 7 weeks we will be looking at how academics categorise and classify war and armed conflict across disciplines. In this seminar we’ll be discussing a very basic point: what is war, and why do academics arrive at different conceptualisations of the same subject matter. It’s good to also consider our own starting points, so the seminar will also enable us to discuss our own prior understandings of the concept of war.
- Discussion Questions
- What differences are there in how “war” is conceptualised between the readings? Why do you think these differences occur?
- How does your own understanding of what war is differ from the definitions of war provided in these readings?
- Core Reading:
- Wright, Quincy. A Study of War, The University of Chicago Press, (1942). Chapter 17.
- Sarkees, Meredith Reed, “The COW typology of war: Defining and categorizing wars.” The Correlates of War Project. (2010). URL
- Haines, Steven. “The Nature of War and the Character of Contemporary Armed Conflict,” in The Classification of Conflicts, edited by Elizabeth Wilmshurst. Oxford University Press, (2012).
7.2 Week 2 (w/c October 4th)
Course Notes
- There are two short videos for this week (roughly 20 minutes of material total) to view prior to the lecture.
Lecture: War and Political Order
In this lecture we will examine the relationship between political orders and rules that govern political violence. National security presumes the existence of a nation, and these days, a nation state. This session looks at the connection between political authority, community, and coercive means of defending the former (supposedly on behalf of the latter) against internal threats. The reason this matters for this course is that we now pre-suppose the nation state as the standard type of polity in international politics, when empires dominated until the early-mid 20th century. We’ll look at what an “internal threat” looks like in the context of Empire, and how might this give us a better understanding of the concept of national security that is so important to the present day.
The second half of this lecture covers a range of explanations for rule-breaking hostility in conflict, primarily focused upon internal conflicts. These explanations range from those rooted in ideas and ideology, to power relations, to strategic dilemmas facing insurgents and underdogs in asymmetric conflicts. Two key ideas that this lecture will cover are political enmity, and political ethics that lead to dehumanisation and/or escalation.
- Discussion Question:
- What kinds of dilemmas might be inherent to defending or challenging a political order?
- Core Reading:
- Tang, Shipin, “Order: A Conceptual Analysis.” Chinese Political Science Review 1, (2016): 30-46.
- Additional Reading:
Seminar: Conceptualising Civil War
In this seminar we will be discussing the book reading task. This seminar will therefore be a mix of reflection on our ability to understand authors’ arguments from reading books, as well as an evaluation of the argument in Stathis Kalyvas’s Logic of Violence in Civil War. Of particular importance to the course is how and why Kalyvas chooses to define civil war
- Discussion Questions:
- How did your understanding of the book’s argument evolve over the reading task? What was the most important turning point, and why?
- What problems might there be in applying Kalyvas’ definition of civil war to wars in the contemporary world?
- Core Reading:
- Kalyvas, Stathis N. The Logic of Violence in Civil War, Cambridge University Press, (2006).
7.3 Week 3 (w/c October 11th)
Course Notes
- There is 1 short video to watch for this week’s lecture (10-15 minutes)
Lecture: Restraint in War
This lecture examines theories of restraint in war in order to situate examinations of status in the following three weeks. The lecture will examine cover explanations of restraint in war and the core sets of rules that govern contemporary discussions of right and wrong conduct in war.
This lecture covers the evolution of ideas that are now taken as standard — even self-evident — explanations for why dirty wars are wrongful by definition. We will pick over the origins of and differences between concepts like “humanity”, “humanitarianism”, and “human rights”. We will also look at two different logics of restraint in conflict as found in the ideas of Francis Lieber and Henri Dunant, in order to compare them to ideas of restraint that originate in human rights, and human rights law.
An important theoretical point that complements this discussion is the emergence of the individual-as-centre in the normative evaluation of war. The “individualisation of war” is a horrible phrase, but an important emerging field of interdisciplinary study. The importance of these ideas for this course is that the intersection of individual rights and categories of permission for/protection from violence arising from war is quite unsettled, and the analysis of dirty wars provides a means of thinking through these questions from an unusual perspective.
- Discussion Question:
- Do you agree more with Francis Lieber, or Henri Dunant? Why?
- Core Reading:
- Lazar, Seth. “Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists.” Annual Review of Political Science 20, no. 1 (2017): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-112706.
- Additional Reading:
Seminar: Classifying Conflicts
Conflict classification is a key element of international law approaches to analysing the use of force in war/armed conflict (read the readings to understand why the different terms are important!). In order to analyse the lawfulness of force, one must first determine whether an armed conflict exists, and what type of armed conflict it is. In this seminar we’ll discuss how what problems dirty wars and irregular warfare poses for this core activity, and how difficult classification is in practice.
- Discussion Questions:
- Do you think that all wars can be classified as international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts? What are the implications of your answer?
- What relevance does the author’s classification of the conflicts in the DRC have relative to states’ classifications?
- Core Reading:
- Bartels, Rogier. “Timelines, borderlines and conflicts: the historical evolution of the legal divide between international and non-international armed conflicts.” International Review of the Red Cross 91, no. 873 (2009): 35-67.
- Akande, Dapo. “Classification of Armed Conflicts: Relevant Legal Concepts,” in The Classification of Conflicts edited by Elizabeth Wilmshurst. Oxford University Press, (2012).
- Arimatsu, Louise. “The Democratic Republic of the Congo 1993–2010,” in The Classification of Conflicts edited by Elizabeth Wilmshurst. Oxford University Press, (2012).
7.4 Week 4 (w/c October 18th)
Course Notes
- This week’s lecture session is a flipped classroom. Please view the lecture material online prior to the lecture.
Lecture: Strategy and Population Control
This lecture covers population control as a way of thinking about the logic of dirty wars. This session revisits the concept of strategy, with a particular focus upon the problems of applying strategic theory to wars and conflicts without battles. We’ll cover how strategic theorists and practitioners have tackled this problem in the past.
The lecture is organised around the perceived problem of controlling populations, in particular drawing upon the ideas of John C. Wylie.21 We will look at the tools of coercion that states use to control restive populations. This class primarily focuses upon physical control — notably driving people away, moving populations around, or corralling them into camps — whereas later weeks will cover forms of ideological control and political warfare. These obviously can’t be separated in theory or practice, but it’s necessary to focus like this for lectures to make the scope of topics manageable. In addition, we’ll look at the role that physical violence plays in producing conditions of fear and complicity in populations.
Case: Concentration Camps
In the physical lecture we will look at one of the key features of modern conflicts: concentration camps and large penal systems. The lecture will examine the colonial origins of these camps in detaining people for public health purposes, alongside the segmentation of civilian populations or detention of prisoners of war for military purposes. As a case study, the lecture will examine the evolution of the Nazi Konzentrationslager system in both peace and war.
- Discussion Questions:
- Is it possible to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of population control? How?
- Are there instances of individual extrajudicial detention, mass internment, or population control that you have encountered in your reading that you consider to be justifiable? Why?
- Core Reading:
- Ucko, David H. “‘The People are Revolting’: An Anatomy of Authoritarian Counterinsurgency.” Journal of Strategic Studies 39, no. 1 (2016): 29–61.
Seminar: Manipulating Conflict Thresholds
In the final seminar on the conflict categorisation seminar series, we’ll look at how conflict classification can impact the conduct of war itself. Contemporary uses of military force are often tailored with legal standards of conflict thresholds in mind. Here, we’ll look at the use of military force in ways that appear to intentionally fall short of war.
- Discussion Questions:
- Are the standards of conflict classification in international law politically neutral?
- How should states respond to opponents that attempt to utilise conflict thresholds to attain their strategic aims?
- Core Reading:
- Hughes, Geraint. “War in the Grey Zone: Historical Reflections and Contemporary Implications.” Survival 62, no. 3 (2020): 131-158.
- Sari, Aurel. “Hybrid Warfare, Law and the Fulda Gap.” in Complex Battlespaces: The Law of Armed Conflict and the Dynamics of Modern Warfare, edited by Winston S. Williams and Christopher M. Ford. Oxford University Press, (2019): 161-190.
7.5 Week 5 (w/c October 25th)
Course Notes
- There is 1 short video to watch for this week’s lecture (10-15 minutes)
- This week is the start of Dr Mark Condos’ seminar series on colonial violence
Lecture: Historicising Dirty Wars
In this week’s lecture we will look at how transformations in both the internal character of political units (the emergence of modern states) and the international system (the rise and decline of European empires) contributed to the generation of what we might now call dirty wars. The lecture will revisit the concept of political order so as to examine its relationship with international order. This is particularly relevant for considering the emergence of modern universal expectations of state conduct after World War 2. In so doing, the lecture will also examine the rise of centralised bureaucratic states, in order to understand the rise of what might be the epitomy of dirty wars themselves - bureaucratic forms of political violence and warfare.
- Discussion Question:
- To what extent are dirty wars little more than a reflection of the standards of international order?
- Core Reading:
- Osterhammel, Jürgen. The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century. Princeton University Press, (2015). Chapter 8.
Seminar: (In)Security and The Garrison State
In this seminar series, we will interrogate the relationship between (in)security, authoritarianism, law, state power, and violence, through an examination of British India. In particular, we will look at how British colonizers frequently resorted to claims about the threats they faced in India (both real and imagined) in order to justify the enaction of a deeply oppressive and authoritarian system of rule. In our first week, we examine the origins of British colonial insecurity through the ways India was represented as a place of perpetual turbulence, danger and emergency. This, in turn, justified the establishment and expansion of the coercive apparatuses of the state, particularly the military.
- Discussion Questions:
- How did the army come to occupy such a pre-eminent position within colonial India?
- Is there a difference between state power and state violence?
- Do you think the construction of India as a place of permanent danger and emergency a cynical power play, or was this a genuinely held belief?
- Was colonial India a ‘military despotism’?
- Core Reading:
- Condos, Mark. The Insecurity State: Punjab and the Making of Colonial Power in British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2017). Introduction and Chapter 1.
- Peers, Douglas M. Between Mars and Mammon: Colonial Armies and the Garrison State in India 1819-1835. London: I.B. Tauris, (1995). Chapter 1.
7.6 Week 6 (w/c November 1st)
Course Notes
- This week’s lecture session is a flipped classroom. Please view the lecture material online prior to the lecture.
Lecture: Political Warfare and Political Repression
A defining feature of many dirty wars is the way in which they blend into police action, or, more specifically, political repression under a “law enforcement” banner. Moreover, dirty wars are often characterised by the resort to emergency powers, and repressive legislation. This lecture examines the problem that subversion and insurgency poses to states, and explanations for the resort to emergency powers by government authorities. Specifically, we’ll focus on state security institutions that conduct counter-subversion and seek to identify/disrupt subversive political movements. We’ll look at common dilemmas present in democratic societies, notably relating to surveillance, and the political implications of this activity.
Case: Counter-Insurgency in Vietnam
In the lecture we’ll look at how the concepts of political warfare and political repression can be found in counter-insurgency. The lecture will look at the various forms of political repression that took place during the Vietnam war, how they related to counter-insurgency, and the manner in which the self-image of counter-insurgency re-framed these activities in a manner amenable to democratic states.
- Discussion Questions:
- What types of political actors can/can’t commit political repression?
- How open should democracies be about counter-subversion?
- Core Reading:
- Earl, Jennifer. “Political Repression: Iron Fists, Velvet Gloves, and Diffuse Control.” Annual Review of Sociology 37 (2011): 261–284.
- Additional Reading:
- Davenport, Christian. “State Repression and Political Order.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 (2007): 1–23.
7.7 Week 7 (w/c November 8th)
Course Notes
- There is 1 short video to watch for this week’s lecture (10-15 minutes)
Lecture: Half Light Wars and Clandestine Warfare
This lecture will draw together discussions of secrecy and warfare throughout the course to examine open-secret conflicts in the present day. We will be looking at the history of secrecy in war, and theories that explain the use of non-acknowledged military force by states. Building upon this we will consider how many of the issues covered in this course can enable us to analyse the epistemic dimensions of war itself. Lastly the lecture will look at some emerging bodies of work on proxy warfare and surrogates, as well as the key issue of regulating secret warfare in democracies.
- Discussion Questions:
- Who or what does determine the existence of or non-existence of a given war?
- Core Reading:
- Carson, Austin. Secret Wars: Covert Conflict in International Politics, Princeton University Press (2018). Chapters 1 & 2.
- Additional Reading:
- Van Veeren, Elspeth. “Secrecy’s subjects: Special operators in the US shadow war”. European Journal of International Security, 4, no. 3 (2019): 386-414.
Seminar: From ‘Fanatics’ to Terrorists
This week, we examine the history of one of the most brutal minded and draconian laws ever created in colonial India: the ‘Murderous Outrages Act’ of 1867 (MOA). This law gave colonial officials along the North-West Frontier of India wide powers to transgress judicial codes in order to summarily execute and dispose of individuals identified as ‘fanatics’ who assaulted or murdered British personnel. Sporadic attacks of this nature began shortly after the British assumed direct control of the frontier in 1849, and occurred right up until Indian Independence in 1947. These attacks terrified the colonial establishment, highlighting the vulnerability, weakness, and inability of the colonial regime to protect its own in what was seen to be one of the most dangerous and ‘turbulent’ regions within the whole of the British Empire. Although justifications for this law ultimately hinged on the purportedly ‘exceptional’ nature of the frontier, we will look at how its legacies extend well beyond the region, and provided a sort of model for similarly ‘repressive’ legislation enacted during the height of the revolutionary nationalist movement in the twentieth century, particularly through construction of the category of the ‘terrorist’.
- Discussion Questions:
- To what extent was anti-colonial resistance against the British Empire motivated by religion?
- How did the creation of new legal categories expand the coercive powers of the colonial state?
- Did the law ultimately enable or limit the use of British violence in India?
- Why did the British fixate on ghazism and ‘fanaticism’ as ‘culture-bound’ pathologies?
- Are there lessons we can learn from historic attempts to contain ‘fanatical’ violence when it comes to thinking about the contemporary ‘War on Terror’?
- Readings:
7.8 Week 8 (w/c November 15th)
Course Notes
- This week’s lecture session is a flipped classroom. Please view the lecture material online prior to the lecture.
Lecture: Human Dignity and Political Community in War and National Security
This lecture explores the concept of human worth in war and national security. Simply put, why does it matter if a state (or a non-state actor) kills someone? This week we will be covering the emergence of ideas of universal moral standing, notably the concept of human dignity as an explanation of inherent moral standing. We will also cover the development of the idea of citizenship and political status, notably the development of ideas of universal political rights within a given state or political system, and cosmopolitan ideas of universal rights.
The importance of the above for the course is twofold. First is to place the course into historic context - at what point was political, legal, and/or moral status the expectation?22 The second is to provide an understanding of the role that these expectations play (or do not play) in judgements of right and wrong in international politics. This also provides a good point to consider the implications of the course, which is the function that normative judgements play in the judgement of, explanation of, and justification for political violence.
Case: The Coalition Campaign Against ISIS
The physical lecture will examine the role of human dignity and political community in debates about military force, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
- Discussion Questions:
- Are members of ISIS who have committed genocide, slavery, rape, and/or war crimes still “owed unconditional respect”? What would you say to someone who would deny them such respect?
- Is it right or wrong for political leaders to value the lives of their own citizens above the lives of non-citizens?
- Core Reading:
- Schabas, William A. “Origins of the genocide convention: From Nuremberg to Paris.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 40 (2007): 35.
- Additional Reading:
- Van Schaack, Beth. “The Definition of Crimes Against Humanity: Resolving the Incoherence.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 37 (1999): 787.
Seminar: Policing Global Protest
For our final seminar, we look at how the recruitment and employment of Punjabi soldiers and policemen in Britain’s overseas colonies became a source of chronic insecurity and vulnerability for the Government of India. Although most historians have emphasized the numerous benefits that Punjabi police and military labour provided to the wider empire, this same recruitment and movement of Punjabis overseas also created new challenges and problems for the Government of India. Whether it was fears that the popularity of overseas service was sapping the strength of the Indian Army and weakening its ability to defend against a potential Russian invasion through Afghanistan; rumours that Punjabis were taking up military service with Britain’s European imperial rivals; or the panic caused by the return of radicalized ex-servicemen under the banner of the Ghadar Party during the First World War, the use of Punjabi military and police labour actually became a source of chronic colonial anxiety and insecurity. This acute sense of imperial vulnerability, in turn, prompted new forms of coercive political and legal intervention on the part of the colonial state, including the notorious 1915 Defence of India Act.
- Discussion Questions:
- Why did the Indian revolutionary nationalist movement assume such a transnational/global character?
- In what ways did the First World War open up new opportunities for the expansion of executive power and authority in India?
- Was the rule of law suspended during the First World War?
- Giorgio Agamben identifies the First World War as a crucial turning point in the emergence of a permanent state of exception as a tool of global statecraft. Do you agree this model fits with the example of India? Why, or why not?
- Why did the Ghadar ‘revolution’ fail to materialize in Punjab? Was it a real threat to British power, or merely a chimera?
- Readings:
- Condos, Mark. The Insecurity State: Punjab and the Making of Colonial Power in British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2017). Chapter 5 and Conclusion.
- Sohi, Seema. Echoes of Mutiny: Race, Surveillance and Indian Anticolonialism in North America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2014). Chapter 5
7.9 Week 9 (w/c November 22nd)
Course Notes
- There is 1 short video to watch for this week’s lecture (10-15 minutes)
- The intelligence ethics seminar series starts with Dr Jack McDonald starts this week
Lecture: Citizenship in War and National Security
One kind of protective status or identity that we will consider in this course is citizenship. How does political and legal membership of a polity give individuals rights, and how do states explain the voiding of the protections of citizenship in conflict?
In this lecture we will examine the relationship between citizens, states, and state security institutions charged with ensuring national security. In particular we’ll be looking at the problem of political enmity involving a state’s own citizens. As such the lecture will cover a variety of issues, such as the unilateral removal of citizenship by state authorities, as well as the rule of law in political emergencies.
- Discussion Question:
- Is revoking the citizenship of suspected terrorists an act of cowardice?
- Core Reading:
- Hack, Karl. “Everyone lived in fear: Malaya and the British way of counter-insurgency.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 23, no. 4–5 (2012): 671–699.
Seminar: Intelligence Ethics
The first seminar in this series examines the concept of intelligence ethics. Is it possible to be ethical in the intelligence space? Or does the duty to collect and provide intelligence to decisionmakers outweigh moral concerns about the means of doing so? Intelligence ethics has emerged as a distinct field since 9/11, often drawing upon concepts from just war theory to understand and examine the moral issues involved in espionage and intelligence collection. Here we will examine two early works in this movement to look at how the field has established itself.
- Discussion Questions:
- Is there a difference between the ethics of domestic intelligence and the ethics of foreign intelligence?
- Do organisation types (police, military, intelligence agencies) matter in intelligence ethics?
- Readings:
- Erskine, Toni. “‘As Rays of Light to the Human Soul’? Moral Agents and Intelligence Gathering.” Intelligence and National Security 19, no.2 (2004): 359-381.
- Gendron, Angela. “Just War, Just Intelligence: An Ethical Framework for Foreign Espionage.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 18, no.3 (2005): 398-434.
7.10 Week 10 (w/c November 29th)
Course Notes
Lecture: Status in War & Sexual Violence in Conflict
An important class of constraints that are meant to protect individuals from harm derive from the laws of war, or the law of armed conflict. This class of legal status, however, is tied to the existence of a war or armed conflict. In this lecture, we’ll be covering three modes by which the protective aspect of the law of armed conflict can be denied: by denying the existence of a war, by categorising individuals as permissible targets, and via the internal logic of the law of armed conflict itself.23 In addition we’ll be looking at the reverse: how the declaration of the existence of war, and reliance upon its permissive aspects, is used to override other statuses that protect against violence.
Building upon this, we’ll examine the recognition of sexual violence in conflict as a war crime to understand the role of power and politics in determining who gets to define wrongful action in conflict (or to ignore it), and the implications of this for the normative frameworks that legitimise violence in wars. Following from this, this lecture will examine the role gaps, lacunae, and silences play in the regulation of violence. In particular, we’ll be discussing the wider implications of this way of thinking, with reference to Miranda Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice.
- Discussion Question:
- Which of the descriptive, causal, and normative issues associated with sexual violence in conflict do you find most troubling? Why?
- Core Reading:
- Gottschall, Jonathan. “Explaining wartime rape.” The Journal of Sex Research 41, no. 2 (2004): 129–136.
- Additional Reading:
- Baaz, Maria Eriksson, and Maria Stern. “Why do soldiers rape? Masculinity, violence, and sexuality in the armed forces in the Congo (DRC).” International Studies Quarterly 53, no. 2 (2009): 495–518.
- Grossmann, Atina. “A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers.” October 72 (1995): 43–63.
Seminar: Just and Unjust Intelligence
In this seminar we will be looking at two works that compare the evolution of contemporary work on just war theory and intelligence ethics. Importantly, we’ll look at how intelligence ethics has drawn concepts from just war theory. In so doing, we’ll discuss the promise and pitfalls of interdisciplinary research, as well as the issues of drawing concepts into new fields of inquiry.
- Discussion Questions:
- Does just war theory make sense as a basis for intelligence ethics?
- How different are the depictions of what constitutes just war theory between the two readings?
- Readings:
- Lazar, Seth. “Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists.” Annual Review of Political Science 20, no. 1 (2017): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-112706.
- Ronn, Kira Vrist. “Intelligence Ethics: A Critical review and Future Perspectives.” International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 29, no.4 (2016): 81-102.
7.11 Week 11 (w/c December 6th)
Course Notes
- Literature review will be due January 10th
Lecture: The Shock of the Old
This lecture examines the continued use of raids, sieges, starvation, and slaughter in contemporary warfare. In this session we will examine attacks upon infrastructure as a means of warfare and its continuing relevance for contemporary conflict. The lecture will focus upon the conflicts in Iraq and Syria to examine the degree to which modern-day attacks upon civilian infrastructure differ from those of the past.
- Discussion Question:
- Is coercion possible without implicitly threatening civilians?
- Core Reading:
- Thomas, Claire. “Civilian Starvation: A Just Tactic of War?”, Journal of Military Ethics 4, no. 2 (2005): 108-118.
- Additional Reading:
- Howe, Cymene, Jessica Lockrem, Hannah Appel, Edward Hackett, Dominic Boyer, Randal Hall, Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, et al. “Paradoxical Infrastructures: Ruins, Retrofit, and Risk.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 41, no. 3 May (2016): 547–65.
- Power, Susan. “Siege Warfare in Syria: Prosecuting the Starvation of Civilians,” Amsterdam Law Forum 8, no. 2 (2016): 1-22.
Seminar: Intelligence Harms
In this seminar we will discuss the notion of harm, and the harms caused by intelligence collection and surveillance. Here we will examine the analysis of harm internal to the field of intelligence ethics, as well as what gets included in the scope of intelligence activity.
- Discussion Questions:
- What is the harm of intelligence collection?
- Is it possible to distinguish between different classes of harms caused by intelligence collection?
- Readings:
- Bellaby, Ross. The Ethics of Intelligence: A New Framework. Routledge, (2014). Chapter 1.
- Pfaff, Tony and Tiel, Jeffrey R. “The Ethics of Espionage.” Journal of Military Ethics 3, no. 1 (2004): 1-15.
- Diderichsen, Adam and Rønn, Kira Vrist. “Intelligence by consent: on the inadequacy of Just War Theory as a framework for intelligence ethics.” Intelligence and National Security 32, no. 4 (2017): 479-493.
7.12 Week 12 (w/c January 17th)
Course Notes
Lecture: Identity, Identification, and Intelligence Organisations
This week focuses on a key element of dirty wars — bureaucratic security institutions. These institutions, developed to monitor and combat internal threats, are key to understanding the types of violence that occur in dirty wars, so we’ll be looking at the connection between different types of polity, and the institutions that they developed to combat perceived threats. In particular, we will focus on the development of formal intelligence institutions, both domestic and foreign, as a response to perceived threats. This is important for a couple of reasons. One is that institutional perspectives shape state responses to threats, the second is that many dynamics of the conflicts covered in this course can’t be understood without reference to conflicts and competition between state security institutions.
- Discussion Question:
- To what extent do intelligence institutions shape government perceptions of conflict?
- Core Reading:
- Higgs, Edward. “The Rise of the Information State: the Development of Central State Surveillance of the Citizen in England, 1500-2000.” Journal of Historical Sociology 14, no. 2 (2001): 175–197.
- Additional Reading:
- Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press, (1998). Chapter 3.
- Clutterbuck, Lindsay. “Countering Irish Republican Terrorism in Britain: Its Origin as a Police function.” Terrorism and Political Violence 18, no. 1 (2006): 95–118.
Seminar: Privacy and Intelligence
Privacy harms are a key issue in intelligence ethics. At the same time, the very definition of privacy is often hard to agree upon. In this seminar we will look at the work of two key authors to examine different conceptualisations of privacy, and what these differences might mean for how we think of both privacy harm, and for the use of privacy within the field of intelligence ethics.
- Discussion Questions:
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of Solove’s approach to the concept of privacy?
- How well is privacy theorised in intelligence ethics?
- Readings:
7.13 Week 13 (w/c January 24th)
Course Notes
- Dr David Bicknell’s seminar series on self defence starts this week
Lecture: Targeted Killings
This lecture examines the concept of one-sided violence and asymmetry in conflict. Here I’ll locate what is called targeted killing - the use of violence against specific individuals — in the wider context of asymmetric violence in war, and similar asymmetries found in terrorism and political repression. We will discuss how and why are some people singled out for violent death in warfare, and how that relates to the normative frameworks we’ve encountered over the course. In particular, we will be drawing heavily from the seminar series of the course, and the relationship between individuals, social groups, and war/warfare. Targeted killings are important not because they kill many people (at least in comparison to what this course has covered), but because they draw attention to the processes of identification and categorisation that can be viewed as standard targeting practices, or extrajudicial death sentences. Furthermore, the justifications for targeted killings outside of armed conflict have highlighted the importance of state justifications for lethal force in self defence.
- Discussion Question:
- Is it more disturbing to intentionally kill people whose identities you know, or people you only know via their status?
- Core Reading:
- McDonald, Jack. Enemies Known and Unknown: Targeted Killings in America’s Transnational Wars. Oxford University Press, (2017). Chapter 7
- Additional Reading:
- Carvin, Stephanie. “The Trouble with Targeted Killing” Security Studies 21, no. 3 -carvin2012: 529–555.
- McDonald, Jack. “Decapitation, Repression, or Cauterisation? The problem of categorising targeted strikes” in Handbook of Terrorism and Counter Terrorism Post 9/11 edited by David Jones, Paul Schulte, Carl Ungerer, and M.L.R. Smith. Edward Elgar Publishing, (2019).
Seminar: Self Defence: Theory in armed conflicts
One of the core objectives of international relations theory is to explain and account for the causes of war or armed conflict and the use of armed force by states in the international system. International law may then determine the legality of the armed conflict and the use of force whilst moral philosophy may offer normative insights into what was done, or not done. Together, these quite different fields of study contribute to an assessment of the legitimacy of a particular act. In this seminar, we will discuss the main theoretical bases for analysing the political, legal and moral approaches to a particular and controversial example of use of force: the air strikes in Syria carried out in 2018 by the United States, the United Kingdom and France in response to reported use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. Before the seminar, please do some research on the factual background of the air strikes, e.g. these news sources:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN1HJ0ZS
Discussion Questions:
- Which international relations theory do you think provides the most persuasive explanation of US and UK air strikes in Syria in 2018 in response the reported use of chemical weapons by Syrian government forces, and why? What is the implication of your choice for your analysis of the legality or illegality of the air strikes?
- On what basis would you argue that the air strikes were legal or illegal under international law?
Readings:
- David Armstrong, Theo Farrell and Hélène Lambert, ‘Three lenses: realism, liberalism, constructivism’ in David Armstrong, Theo Farrell and Hélène Lambert, International Law and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2012), Ch. 3 pp. 69 - 114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808753.004
Additional Reading:
- David Rodin, War and Self-Defense (Oxford: Clarendon Press, (2002) link
- (Refresher - Reading from Week 3) Lazar, Seth. “Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists.” Annual Review of Political Science 20, no. 1 (2017): 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-112706.
7.14 Week 14 (w/c January 31st)
Course Notes
- Please ensure that your group’s research prototype is submitted by February 4th. This is in order for me to prepare them for the research projects workshop.
Lecture: Detention
Detention is a key feature of both war and national security. The laws of war provide for good treatment of detainees, but this is the end result of a complicated history that has also generated the requirement to detain, rather than execute, captured opponents. This lecture will examine this evolution, alongside the history of detention in law enforcement situations and for the purposes of political repression and mass murder. As we will see, one of the key features of dirty wars are where norms of detention are violated, or where legal requirements are altered in the face of national security threats. Lastly, the lecture will cover the issue of overlapping detention regimes, notably the debates regarding the military detention of terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay.
- Discussion Question:
- What threshold conditions could justify the use of military detention in the context of insurgency and revolution?
- Core Reading:
- MacKenzie, S. P. “The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II.” The Journal of Modern History 66, no. 3 (1994): 487–520. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2124482.
- Additional Reading:
- Smith, Iain R., and Andreas Stucki. “The Colonial Development of Concentration Camps (1868-1902).” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 39, no. 3 (2011): 417–437.
Seminar: Self Defence: The use of force by States
Under jus ad bellum there are two generally accepted exceptions to the prohibition on the use or the threat of use of force in international relations set out in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. The use of force must either be authorised by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter or constitute an act of self-defence falling within Article 51 of the Charter. Traditionally, the lawfulness of a State’s use of force under jus ad bellum has been separated from the lawfulness of the use of force by combatants under jus in bello/international humanitarian law. Under jus in bello, the rules on the conduct of hostilities apply mutually and so it is lawful for a combatant to kill an enemy combatant irrespective of whether the combatant’s State is engaged in a lawful use of force under jus ad bellum. Periodically, this traditional separation has been questioned and it has recently been raised again by the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee. In this seminar we will discuss how the limitations on the agency of States to use force at their own volition operates to justify or deny the legality of the use of force in State practice.
- Discussion Questions:
- How would you assess the Kosovo Commission’s conclusion that ‘the NATO military intervention was illegal but legitimate’? What would you (a) like, and (b) expect to be done if a similar humanitarian crisis were to occur in Europe and what would be the potential political, legal and/or moral consequences of your chosen response?
- Do you think that the traditional separation of jus ad bellum and jus in bello which provides the basis for the mutual application of combatant privilege in respect of killing the enemy should be maintained? If not, what are the implications of your answer for the conduct of hostilities, humanitarian intervention or peacekeeping?
- Readings:
- Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2017) Ch. 6 (or the 2012 edition)
- Independent International Commission on Kosovo. 2000. The Kosovo report: conflict, international response, lessons learned (Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2000) https://www.law.umich.edu/facultyhome/drwcasebook/Documents/Documents/The%20Kosovo%20Report%20and%20Update.pdf
- UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), ‘General comment no. 36, Article 6 (Right to Life)’, 3 September (2019), CCPR/C/GC/35 https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CCPR_C_GC_36_8785_E.pdf
- Additional reading:
7.15 Week 15 (w/c February 7th)
Course Notes
Lecture: Torture
You may be forgiven for wondering why torture features toward the end of the lecture series, not the start. My reason for placing it here is twofold. First, from experience, if torture features early in the course, then everyone focuses upon the topic of torture for essays, discussions, etc. As a topic, it tends to crowd everything out for the simple reason that it covers some of the most reprehensible things that humans do to each other. However, and secondly, you’ll have better discussions about the topic having spent the previous weeks discussing the wider aspects of the course. This class examines rationales for the use of torture, and the emergence of “torture for information” as a key debate in contemporary politics. The lecture will cover issues of definition, and “torture lite.” We will also look at the institutional context of torture, particularly in light of the idea of denial of standing — who decides whether a person should be tortured, how, and why? Such questions are key to understanding contemporary debates.
- Discussion Questions:
- Can you define a particular element of torture that you find more disturbing than others?
- Can you know if torture “works” or not? How would such knowledge alter your opinion of the use of torture?
- Core Reading:
Seminar: Self Defence: The use of force by individuals
Justifications for the use of force by individuals in the conduct of hostilities and law enforcement. The use of force in military operations is bifurcated by the distinction between its use in armed conflict and law enforcement. In armed conflict, the laws of war/international humanitarian law regulates the use of force and its restrictions are generally explained as an to attempt to strike a balance between military necessary and humanity. However, if there is no armed conflict, the paradigm of law-enforcement is said to apply which is generally understood to limit the use of force to self-defence. It is sometimes said that the use of lethal force in self-defence should only be used as a last resort although what this means is not entirely clear. In this seminar, we will consider the parameters within which State forces should be held accountable for killing in the course of internal security operations.
- Discussion Questions:
- Is there a rule of ‘capture not kill’ in armed conflict and, if so, what kind of obligation does it create? If there is not, should there be?
- How should we understand the political, legal and ethical distinctions between the use of force by State forces in armed conflict and in law-enforcement?
- Readings:
- Nils Melzer, ‘Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law’, ICRC, May (2009). https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf. In particular, Sections V, VI, VII and IX.
- W. Hays Parks, ‘Part IX of the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” Study: No Mandate, No Expertise, and Legally Incorrect’, NYUJIntlL&Poll, 42 (2010), 769-830. https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/42.3-Parks.pdf
- United Nations, ‘Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials’ (New York, (1990). https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/useofforceandfirearms.aspx
- Additional Reading:
- Michael N. Schmitt, ‘Deconstructing Direct Participation in Hostilities: The Constitutive Elements’, NYUJIntlL&Poll, 42 (2010), 697-739. https://nyujilp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/42.3-Schmitt.pdf
- King’s College London, Centre for Military Ethics, ‘Playing Cards’, sub-set ‘Laws of War’. https://militaryethics.uk/en/playing-cards/military
- Refresher reading:
7.16 Week 16 (w/c February 7th)
Course Notes
- The lecture session this week will involve discussion of, and feedback on, the research prototype projects
- Please take time to consider what you would like to do for your final assessment prior to attending this class
Lecture: Research Projects Workshop
In this session we will be discussing the case study projects and research essay assessment. This lecture focuses upon the development of research projects from the identification of interesting research problems and puzzles. The session will start by going over the recorded material about research skills, and then there will be some feedback about the case study projects. We will use these projects to protoype a research design that would make for a good research essay, and discuss any questions about the essay assessment.
- Discussion Questions:
- What makes an academic research project worth doing?
- To what extent is a “research puzzle” necessary for the research essay that you wish to do?
- Core Reading:
- Gustafsson, Karl, and Linus Hagström. "What Is the Point? Teaching Graduate Students How to Construct Political Science Research Puzzles." European Political Science 17, no. 4 (2018): 634–48.
- Additional Reading:
- Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. “Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield.” Comparative Political Studies 40, no. 2, February (2007): 170–95.
Seminar: Self Defence: Case Study - Iraq
Justifications for the use of collective or individual force. The Iraq War led to a series of official inquiries in the UK culminating in the Chilcot Report and it has also been said to have led to a storm of litigation with much of it questioning the lawfulness of the conduct of British military operations. One of the main themes of the various official reports into Iraq has been to ask what lessons can be learned from the experience. In this seminar, we will discuss what lessons you think can be learned and what they mean for the conduct of future military operations in Dirty Wars.
- Discussion Questions:
- What are the mechanisms by which the State and its forces (on the one hand) and non-State actors and members of their armed groups (on the other) have been held to account for their actions in Iraq? Who do you think should be held to account, for what and how?
- Taking the various investigations and reports as a whole, what lessons do you think they suggest for the conduct of military operations in Dirty Wars?
- Readings:
- International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Situation in Iraq/UK: Final Report’, 9 December 2020 https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/201209-otp-final-report-iraq-uk-eng.pdf
- Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom, Application No. 55721/07, ECtHR, 7 July 2011https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4e2545502.pdf
- Iraqi Fatalities Investigations:
- ‘Investigation into the death of Ali Naser’ dated 8 February 2017 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/595986/1080_WL_Iraq_FAT_Cm9410_Rpt_Death_of_Ali_Naser_Web_2.pdf
- Consolidated Report into the death of Nadheem Abdullah and Hassan Abbas Said dated March 2015 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/414766/47516_Iraq_Text_Accessible_COMPLETE.pdf
- Additional Reading:
- Iraqi Fatalities Investigations, Report into the death of Muhammad Abdul Ridha Salim dated March 2016 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/510216/Report_into_the_death_of_Muhammad_Salim_ACCESSIBLE.pdf
- Claire Mills and Joanna Dawson, ’Briefing Paper: Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21, House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper No. 8983, 22 September (2020) https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8983/CBP-8983.pdf
- Brereton Report – Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, ‘Report of Inquiry into Questions of Unlawful Conduct concerning the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan’, published on 10 November 2020, Section 1.01 ‘Introduction and Executive Summary’, pp68-127 – It is about the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan but useful for comparison. https://afghanistaninquiry.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/IGADF-Afghanistan-Inquiry-Public-Release-Version.pdf
7.17 Week 17 (w/c February 21st)
Course Notes
- Dr Anna Plunkett will be giving the lecture this week
- Dr Anna Plunkett’s seminars start this week
Lecture: Sovereign Violence and Legitimacy in Myanmar: Is Myanmar at War?
In the final lectures on the course, we’ll be looking at how the study of dirty wars can help to improve our analysis of key issues in contemporary warfare. This lecture
Myanmar has the longest ongoing civil war in the world. Beginning prior to Myanmar’s independence and still ongoing the conflict has continued for over sixty years. But how does Myanmar’s conflict measure up? By many international measures it does not. This lecture will discuss the challenges of analysing and interpreting protracted conflicts. It will outline the implications this has had on the legitimacy and protections offered to both conflict parties and conflict-affected communities.
- Discussion Question:
- How should we understand the terminology of war and conflict within protracted conflict settings?
- Core Reading:
- Thawnghmung and Htoo (2021) The Fractured Centre: ‘Two-headed government’ and threats to the peace process in Myanmar, Modern Asian Studies, pp.1-29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X20000372
- Additional Reading:
- South, A. “Burma’s Longest War: Anatomy of the Karen Conflict.” Special Reports. Transnational Institute, (2011). https://www.tni.org/en/briefing/burmas-longest-war-anatomy-karen-conflict
- Alam, J. ‘The Rohingya of Myanmar: theoretical significance of the minority status.’ Asian Ethnicity 19, no.2 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2017.1407236
Seminar: Minority Rights
Myanmar is an ethnically diverse country. Whilst the centre of the state is majority ethnically Barmar the borderlands remain ‘homelands’ to Myanmar’s ethnic minorities. The division of these two regions has colonial origins that have continued to dominate the political landscape within Myanmar. Today, there are 8 national races and 135 officially recognised ethnic groups within Myanmar. In this seminar we will discuss the use and relevance of divide and rule strategies as a form of control and security within contemporary Myanmar. We will question the ethical and strategic implications of minority rights and minority rights policies. We will debate their use as a protective and progressive measure within ethnically diverse states. Finally we will look at the treatment of recognised versus unrecognised populations within the state of Myanmar to outline the challenges in achieving equality within diversity.
- Discussion Questions:
- Do minority rights and recognition offer protections to populations?
- How has the use of divide and rule changed overtime? Is it still a relevant way to analyse security policy in Myanmar?
- Core Reading:
- Taylor, R.H. ‘Do States Make Nations?: The Politics of Identity in Myanmar Revisited’, South East Asia Research 13, no.3 (2005). https://doi.org/10.5367/000000005775179676
- Additional Reading:
- Cheesman, N. ‘How in Myanmar “National Races” Came to Surpass Citizenship and Exclude Rohingya’, Journal of Contemporary Asia 47, no.3 (2017) pp. 461-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2017.1297476
- Ho, E. L. and Chua L. J. ‘Law and ‘race’ in the citizenship spaces of Myanmar: spatial strategies and the political subjectivity of the Burmese Chinese.’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no.5 (2016) pp. 896-916. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2015.1081963
7.18 Week 18 (w/c February 28th)
Course Notes
- Dr Mark Condos will be giving the lecture this week
Lecture: Revenge, Retribution, and Reciprocity in War
Political hatred is part and parcel of war. A key problem in internal conflicts are the cycles of revenge and political repression that follow from victory on the battlefield. This lecture examines the role that retribution and payback plays in war and warfare more generally. Many forms of retribution, for example reprisals, have historically played a significant role in promoting adherence to shared rules of conduct. At the same time, retribution can also lead to the escalation of conflicts both in scale and intensity. The lecture will therefore look at the role that retribution and revenge can play in containing and escalating conflict.
- Discussion Question:
- Can revenge in war be a good thing?
- Core Reading:
- Miller, William Ian. Eye for an Eye. Cambridge University Press, (2005). Chapter 2.
- Additional Reading:
- Walen, Alec. “Retributive Justice.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, (2016). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/justice-retributive/
- McDermott, Rose, Anthony C. Lopez, and Peter K. Hatemi. “’Blunt Not the Heart, Enrage It’: The Psychology of Revenge and Deterrence.” Texas National Security Review 1, no. 1 (2017).
Seminar: Split Sovereignty
The majority of Myanmar’s conflict affected communities have inter-generational experiences of war with limited to no state led engagement. Overtime insurgent groups have developed their own systems of governance developing and providing not only protection but healthcare and social services to the communities within their regions. This has created a marketplace for authority and undermines the sovereignty of the central state. In this seminar we will discuss the roles played by insurgent groups and question the role and impact such authorities have on the communities they claim to represent. We will look at how such authorities disrupt traditional relationships between the state and society and the implications of such disruptions. We will further analyse the impact this split in sovereignty has on communities, outlining how communities adapt within insecure environments.
- Discussion Questions:
- What does Mampilly’s interpretation of insurgent governance tell us about the role and actions of rebel groups?
- Should insurgents be seen as alternatives to state authorities within civil war contexts?
- Core Reading:
- Mampilly Z. (2015) Rebel Rulers: Insurgent Governance and Civilian Life During War, Cornell University Press. Chapter Two: The Unweildly taxonomy of rebel governed areas pp.25-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt7zfvj.7
- Additional Reading:
- Oh S. et al ‘Karen Education and Boundary Making at the Thai-Burmese Borderland’ Journal of Borderland Studies 36, no.4 (2021), pp. 637-652. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2019.1685401
- KHRG ‘State Repression and the creation of poverty in southern Karen State’ Field Report #2007-F2 (2007) https://khrg.org/2007/02/khrg07f2/state-repression-and-creation-poverty-southern-karen-state
- Mikael Gravers, “A Saint in Command? Spiritual Protection, Justice, and Religious Tensions in the Karen State.,” Independent Journal of Burmese Scholarship 1, no. 2 (2018): 33. https://journalofburmesescholarship.org/issues/v1n2/04Gravers.pdf (https://journalofburmesescholarship.org)
7.19 Week 19 (w/c March 7th)
Course Notes
- Dr David Bicknell will give the lecture this week
Lecture: Martial Law and Occupation
This lecture will explore the nature of martial law. Martial law became a subject of renewed academic interest during the War on Terror as a result of controversies over its conduct and the use of exceptional powers by the United States. The scholarly debate that followed included a revival of interest in the modern roots of martial law in the nineteenth century in two very different conflicts: the 1861-65 American Civil War and the 1865 Jamaica Rebellion. The American Civil War led to the first modern code of the laws of war issued to the Union forces in 1863 and commonly known as the Lieber Code after its main author, Dr Francis Lieber. It was in part intended to deal with issues created by what the Unionists regarded as both a rebellion and a war and the occupation of parts of the Confederacy by Union forces whereas the Jamaica Rebellion was a more limited and localized rebellion that lasted only days before being put down by British and local forces in Jamaica. Nonetheless, the severity of the methods used by them and the widespread loss of life in that short period led to a controversial and extended methodological debate on the nature and conduct of martial law in Britain in the late 1860s. The lecture will explore how these different roots led to the development of the law of occupation in the modern laws of war and what we would now recognize as human rights law and how their development did not end the controversy as to the nature and use of martial law in conflicts such as those in the Philippines in 1899, Ireland 1916-22 and Palestine 1927-39. It will then reflect on how modern researchers and critics of the War on Terror trying to understand martial law have struggled with the different circumstances and the conflicting nature of these sources and their development and how the history of martial law can provide insight into its nature and its continuing relevance to the study of modern conflicts.
- Discussion Question:
- What is martial law?
- Core Reading:
- Charles Townshend, ‘Martial Law: Legal and Administrative Problems of Civil Emergency in Britain and the Empire, 1800-1940’, The Historical Journal, 25, no. 1 (1982), 167-195
- David Dyzenhaus, ‘The Puzzle of Martial Law’ University of Toronto Law Journal, 59, no. 1 (2009), 1-64 https://www.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/documents/Dyzenhaus/Dyzenhaus-Puzzle-UTLJ.pdf
- Additional Reading:
- David French, ‘Nasty Not Nice: British counter-insurgency doctrine and practice, 1945-1967’, Small Wars & Insurgencies, 23, no. 4-5 (2012), 744-761.
- A.V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 8th edn. London: MacMillan, (1915) republished by LibertyClassics (1982) (http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1714/0125_Bk.pdf)
- A.W.B. Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2001).
Seminar: Politics of Migration (Workshop)
Note: This class will be held in a workshop format. Materials will be provided closer to the class in preparation of the mapping exercise we will conduct.
In protracted conflicts there is a clear cost to communities. Whilst war may not be directly experienced, the limitations and challenges of living through insecurity remain. Political repression both creates and incentivises migration. As communities attempt to flee or avoid experiences of political repression they may be displaced, be forced to migrate, or proactively seek to leave vulnerable areas. Yet we can also see migration as a form of political repression, where demographics are proactively altered to achieve political aims.
This seminar will map the complex migratory patterns within Myanmar outlining the vulnerabilities and challenges this presents to the various migratory groups. By detailing the various patterns of migration and analysing the causes, consequences and implications of these patterns we will build a deeper insight into the politics of migration and displacement.
- Discussion Questions:
- What types of migration should or should not be viewed as political repression?
- Does resettlement offer a solution, escape or continuation of political repression?
- Core Reading:
- South, A. and Jolliff,e K. ‘Forced Migration: Typology and Local Agency in Southeast Myanmar,’ Contemporary Southeast Asia 37, no.2 (2015), pp.211-41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24916580
- Additional Reading:
- Kramer, T. ‘Ethnic Conflicts and Land Rights in Myanmar’, Social Research 82, no.2 (2015), pp. 355-374. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44282108
- Pedersen M. B. ‘The Myanmar Crisis, Myanmar, and R2P ‘Black Holes’’ Global Responsibility to Protect 13, no.1 (2021), pp. 349-378. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984X-13020009
7.20 Week 20 (w/c March 14th)
Course Notes
Lecture: War Powers and Contemporary Warfare
In the final lectures on the course, we’ll be looking at how the study of dirty wars can help to improve our analysis of key issues in contemporary warfare. This lecture looks at the concept of contemporary warfare itself, and how the category of contemporary warfare might be defined. It then examines how the changing character of warfare relates to the concept of war powers - constitutional arrangements that constrain the use of military force - in light of the course as a whole. The lecture will examine contemporary war powers debates in a comparative perspective (primarily addressing Anglo-American debates) and their relation to technology, warfare, and contemporary wars.
- Discussion Question:
- How do contemporary means and methods of warfare alter the war powers of governments?
- Core Reading:
- McCormack, Tara. Britain’s War Powers: The Fall and Rise of Executive Authority?. Springer, (2019). Chapter 1.
- Additional Reading:
Seminar: War and Peace in Myanmar
For as long as Myanmar has experienced war, actors within the state and government have tried to secure peace within the state. After multiple failed attempts at both bilateral and multilateral ceasefires a deal was agreed in principle in 2015. The National Ceasefire Agreement was signed by eight of Myanmar’s main ethnic insurgents and was meant to pave the way to the end of hostilities within the state. However, there were notable exceptions from the agreement and violence across the state has escalated since 2017.
In this final seminar we will discuss the role and uses of peace agreements by state governments and critically analyse their role in ending wars. We will question the quality and utility of peace agreements in ending conflict. We will question how and why actors engage in peace negotiations and whether peace negotiations should always be perceived as a suitable resolution to conflict. Finally, we will look at whether peace agreements can and should offer protections to populations.
- Discussion Questions:
- When does war end?
- What security and protections can peace agreements assure?
- Core Reading:
- Tonnesson, Zaw Oo and Aung ‘Non-inclusive ceasefires do not bring peace: findings from Myanmar,’ Small Wars and Insurgencies, latest articles, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2021.1991141
- Additional Reading:
- Dulkalskis, A. ‘Why do some insurgent groups agree to cease-fires while others do not? A within-case analysis of Burma/Myanmar 1948-2011,’ Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 38, no.10 (2015), pp. 841-863. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2015.1056631
- Plunkett, A. B. ‘Democratization as a Protective Layering for Crimes Against Humanity: The Case of Myanmar,’ Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal 14, no.3 (2020), pp.69–89. https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.14.3.1718
7.21 Week 21 (w/c March 21st)
Course Notes
- Today is the last seminar of the course.
Applied Lecture: Dirty War and National Security
Lecture topic TBC.
- Discussion Question:
- TBC
- Core Reading:
- TBC
Seminar: Course Wrap Up and Reflections
In this last seminar of the course, we’ll discuss and reflect on the material we’ve covered over the last two terms. There is no reading required to prepare for this seminar, but please come along having reflected on what you’ve learned and found interesting over the course itself.
- Discussion Questions:
- How has your thinking about the course topics developed over the year?
- What would you add to the module? What would you cut out?
- Core Reading:
- None!
7.22 Week 22 (w/c March 28th)
Course Notes
- You made it, well done!
- Don’t forget your research essay is due on April 14th.
- There is no seminar this week.
Lecture: Applied Lecture: War and Dirty War
Lecture topic TBC.
- Discussion Question:
- TBC
- Core Reading:
- TBC
Seminar: No Seminar This Week
That’s all, folks!