Global Governance

POSC 843 Spring 2012

1 note

Week 13: Assessing GG

Recommended:

Dingwerth, Klaus, and Philipp Pattberg. “Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics.” Global Governance 12, no. 2 (2006): 185-203.

Rosenau, James N. “Governance in the Twenty-First Century.” Global Governance 1 (1995): 13.

Stoker, G. “Governance as Theory: Five Propositions.” International Social Science Journal 50, no. 155 (1998): 17-28.

0 notes

Oliver North threat-inflates for the next ‘Modern Warfare’: a new Low for the Military-Industrial-Entertainment Complex

“I don’t want to sound like some boring old dude who doesn’t get this stuff. I like gaming. I waste too much time on it also. I enjoy action movies and FPS’s like Halo; I’ve played Modern Warfare and even Homefront. What unnerves isn’t the thrill of the violence. (That is also morally dubious, of course, but given that it underlines the viewing rush of every action movie ever made, hold that for a moment.) What I find really noticeable and increasingly disturbing is the post-9/11 gleeful depiction of pro-American carnage. 9/11 ‘took the gloves off’ and allowed so many directors - Bay, Milius, Sutherland, the Activision guys -  to unleash their chauvinistic, reptilian id, all their inner xenophobia, cruelty, militarism, war-glorifying machismo, and sheer bloody-mindedness. And the Tea-Party loves them for it.”

Duck of Minerva

Filed under Security

0 notes

‘Every state is founded on force,’ said Trotsky at Brest-Litovsk. That is indeed right. If no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of ‘state’ would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as ‘anarchy,’ in the specific sense of this word. Of course, force is certainly not the normal or the only means of the state—nobody says that—but force is a means specific to the state. Today the relation between the state and violence is an especially intimate one. In the past, the most varied institutions—beginning with the sib—have known the use of physical force as quite normal. Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the ‘right’ to use violence. Hence, ‘politics’ for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation”

0 notes

Week 12: Global Security Assemblages

Wednesday, May 2

  • Abrahamsen, Rita, and Michael C. Williams. 2009. “Security Beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics.” International Political Sociology 3(1): 1-17.
  • Leander, Anna. 2005. “The Power to Construct International Security: On the Significance of Private Military Companies.” Millennium 33(3):803-825.

Recommended

  • Aradau, Claudia and Rens Van Munster. 2007. “Governing Terrorism through Risk: Taking Precautions, (Un)Knowing the Future.” European Journal of International Relations 13(1): 89-115.
  • Avant, Deborah. 2005.The Market for Force. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Avant, Deborah. 2004. “The Privatization of Security and Change in the Control of Force.” International Studies Perspectives 5(2): 153-157.
  • Hall, Rodney Bruce and Thomas J. Bierstecker, eds. 2002.The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sending, Ole Jacob, and Iver B. Neumann. 2006. “Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power.” International Studies Quarterly 50: 651-672.

Filed under constructivism poststructuralism security risk PMCs

0 notes

Week 11: Global Governmentality

Wednesday, April 25

  • Larner, Wendy and William Walters, eds. 2004. Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces. Routledge, pp 1-20.
  • Lipschutz, Ronnie. 2005. “Power, Politics and Global Civil Society.” Millennium 35(3):747-769.
  • Kinsella, Helen. 2005. “Securing the Civilian: Sex and Gender in the Laws of War.” In Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, eds. Power in Global Governance. Cambridge University Press: 249-272.
  • Neumann, Iver B. and Ole Jacob Sending. 2007. “’The International’ as Governmentality” Millennium 35(3):677-701.

Recommended:

  • Foucault, Michel. 2003. “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the College De France, 1975-1976. Translated by David Macey.  New York: Picador.
  • Li, Tania 2007. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham: Duke University Press.
  • Lipschutz, Ronnie with James K Rowe. 2005. Globalization, Governmentality
    and Global Politics. Routledge.

Filed under governmentality foucault poststructuralism

0 notes

Week 9: World Systems Theory

Wednesday, April 11

  • Giovanni Arrighi and Beverly Silver. 1999. Chaos and Governance in the World System. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Arrighi, Giovanni. 2005. “Global Governance and Hegemony in the Modern World System.” Ba and Hoffmann, pp 57-71.

Recommended

  • Sassen, Saska. 1991. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Filed under world systems dialectical materialism