Course Detail
Course Description
| Course | Code | Semester | T+P (Hour) | Credit | ECTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT and COOPERATION | INT4111128 | Fall Semester | 3+0 | 3 | 6 |
| Course Program | Salı 14:30-15:15 Perşembe 13:30-14:15 Perşembe 14:30-15:15 |
| Prerequisites Courses | |
| Recommended Elective Courses |
| Language of Course | English |
| Course Level | First Cycle (Bachelor's Degree) |
| Course Type | Elective |
| Course Coordinator | Assist.Prof. Osman Zeki GÖKÇE |
| Name of Lecturer(s) | Assist.Prof. Osman Zeki GÖKÇE |
| Assistant(s) | |
| Aim | This course will survey theories of international conflict. Assigned readings will cover major theoretical perspectives, debates, and recent empirical research on the causes of international conflict and war. The seminar will also touch upon factors that influence the duration, severity and termination of international conflict. Special emphasis will be given to ”unified theories”, i.e. theories that concomitantly account for multiple stages of a conflict process. This seminar is intended to develop students’ skills in building coherent arguments on complex international phenomena that lend themselves to empirical testing. Upon completion of this course, students will (i)have read some of the most influential formal and empirical studies that have set the research agenda on international conflict during the last two decades, (ii) be able to identify some of the major debates re, (iii) develop logically coherent arguments on interstate dynamics (or any political event for that matter) that take the strategic linkages among that event’s constituent stages into account. |
| Course Content | This course contains; Introduction & Overview of the Course,Theories on International Relations,Studying Conflict and War,System-Level Theories I : Balance of Power,System-Level Theories II : Power Transition & Uncertainty,State- and Individual-Level Theories I: Democratic Peace & Audience Cost,State- and Individual-Level Theories II,Midterm Exam,Economic Interdependence,Sanctions,Bargaining & War,Alliances & Deterrence,Escalation in International Conflict,Mediation & Intervention,Termination of Conflict,Cyber Conflict. |
| Dersin Öğrenme Kazanımları | Teaching Methods | Assessment Methods |
| Students will read the most influential formal and empirical studies that have set the research agenda on international conflict over the last two decades and become familiar with the findings that have shaped the literature. | 10, 13, 16, 19, 23, 4, 9 | A |
| Students will be able to understand and explain major debates in the literature of international conflict. | 10, 16, 19, 9 | A |
| Students will be informed about the factors that trigger interstate war in the light of the findings obtained using quantitative methodology and will develop logically coherent arguments based on these findings that take into account the links in the causal mechanisms proposed in the literature. | 10, 16, 19, 23, 9 | A |
| Teaching Methods: | 10: Discussion Method, 13: Case Study Method, 16: Question - Answer Technique, 19: Brainstorming Technique, 23: Concept Map Technique, 4: Inquiry-Based Learning, 9: Lecture Method |
| Assessment Methods: | A: Traditional Written Exam |
Course Outline
| Order | Subjects | Preliminary Work |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction & Overview of the Course | |
| 2 | Theories on International Relations | Walt, Stephen. 1998. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy (Spring): 29–46. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2014. Principles of International Politics, London, UK: Sage Publications. Introduction, pp. 1–34. |
| 3 | Studying Conflict and War | Diehl, Paul. “Just a Phase? Integrating Conflict Dynamics Overtime.” 2006. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 23(3):199–210. Levy, Jack S. and William R. Thompson. 2011. Causes of War. Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 1, pp. 1–27. Bremer, Stuart. 1992. “Dangerous Dyads: Interstate War, 1816–1965.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2):309–341. |
| 4 | System-Level Theories I : Balance of Power | Walt, Stephen M. 2016. “Alliances: Balancing and Bandwagoning.” in R. Art and R. Jervis (Eds.), International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (pp. 153-161). New York, NY: Pearson. Wayman, Frank. 1984. “Bipolarity and War.” Journal of Peace Research, 21(1):653–685. Moul, William. 2003. “Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816–1989.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(4):468–489. Sweeney, Kevin J. 2003. “The Severity of Interstate Disputes: Are Dyadic Capability Preponderances Really More Pacific?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6): 728–750. |
| 5 | System-Level Theories II : Power Transition & Uncertainty | Lemke, Douglas M. 1997. “The Continuation of History: Power Transition Theory and the End of the Cold War.” Journal of Peace Research, 34(1):23–36. Levy, Jack S. 1987. “Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War.” World Politics, 40(1):82–107. Baş, Muhammet and Robert Schub. 2014. “How Uncertainty about War Outcomes Affects War Onset.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(6):1099–1128. |
| 6 | State- and Individual-Level Theories I: Democratic Peace & Audience Cost | Russett, Bruce and Zeev Maoz. 1993. “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review, 87(3):624–638. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, James Morrow, Randolph Siverson, and Alastair Smith. 1999. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review, 93(4):791–807. Fearon, James D. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review, 88(3):577–592. |
| 7 | State- and Individual-Level Theories II | Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1988. “The Contribution of Expected Utility Theory to the Study of International Conflict.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18:629-652. Chiozza, Giacomo and H. E. Goemans. 2011. Leaders and International Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1 & 2, pp. 1–45. Jervis, Robert. 1988. “War and Misperception.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4):675–700. DeRouen, Karl Jr. 2000. “Presidents and the Diversionary Use of Force: A Research Note.” International Studies Quarterly, 44(2): 317–328. |
| 8 | Midterm Exam | |
| 9 | Economic Interdependence | Gartzke, E. and Oliver Westerwinter. 2016. “The Complex Structure of Commercial Peace Contrasting Trade Interdependence, Asymmetry, and Multipolarity.” Journal of Peace Research, 53(3):325–343. Aydin, Aysegul. 2008. “Choosing Sides: Economic Interdependence and Interstate Disputes.” The Journal of Politics 70(4): 1098–1108. Ottaway, Marina, and David Ottaway. 2014. “How the Kurds Got Their Way.” Foreign Affairs 93(3): 139–49. |
| 10 | Sanctions | Lektzian, David and Mark Souva. 2007. “An Institutional Theory of Sanctions Onset and Success.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(6):848–871. |
| 11 | Bargaining & War | Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization, 49(3):379–414. Gartzke, Erik. 1999. “War is in the Error Term.” International Organization, 53(3):567–587. Baş, Muhammet and Robert Schub. 2016. “Mutual Optimism as a Cause of Conflict; Secret Alliances and Conflict Onset.” International Studies Quarterly, 60(3): 552–564. |
| 12 | Alliances & Deterrence | Huth, Paul and Bruce Russett. 1993. “General Deterrence between Enduring Rivals: Testing Three Competing Models.” American Political Science Review, 87(1):61–73. Leeds, Brett Ashley. 2003. “Do Alliances Deter Aggression? The Influence of Military Alliances on the Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes.” American Journal of Political Science, 47(3):427–439. |
| 13 | Escalation in International Conflict | Reed, William. 2000. “A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1):84–93. Braithwaite, A. and Douglas Lemke. 2011. Unpacking Escalation. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(2):111–123. |
| 14 | Mediation & Intervention | Savun, Burcu. 2008. “Information, Bias, and Mediation Success.” International Studies Quarterly, 52(1):25–-47. Bercovitch, J. and Houston, A., 2000. Why do they do it like this? An analysis of the factors influencing mediation behavior in international conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(2), pp.170-202. |
| 15 | Termination of Conflict | JR Chapter 14. |
| 16 | Cyber Conflict | Valeriano, Brandon, and Ryan C Maness. 2014. “The Dynamics of Cyber Conflict between Rival Antagonists, 2001–11.” Journal of Peace Research 51(3): 347–360. Mitchell, George E., and Allison Pytlak. 2020. “Correlates of State-Sponsored Cyber Conflict.” In Routledge Handbook of International Cybersecurity, eds. Eneken Tikk and Mika Kerttunen. London: Routledge, 22–35. Gartzke, Erik. 2013. “The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth.” International Security 38(2): 41–73. |
| Resources |
| Weekly scholarly articles updated every semester based on topic coverage. |
Course Contribution to Program Qualifications
| Course Contribution to Program Qualifications | |||||||
| No | Program Qualification | Contribution Level | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| 1 | PC1. Students know the fundamental concepts, theories, research methods and analysis techniques used in the fields and sub-fields of Political Science and International relations. | X | |||||
| 2 | PC2. Students understand the political, economic, social, and cultural relations among political systems, international actors, states and non-state actors; analyzes the reasons for the issues and problems in these fields, develop skills for systematic and critical thinking for alternative solutions. | X | |||||
| 3 | PC3. Students of the program will be able to work at public and private institutions, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations. They will be able to involve in the foreign policy making, analysis, and implementation processes; manage project implementations, and shoulder responsibilities at different positions of decision-making processes. The multi-disciplinary perspective they have developed in the program facilitates following solution-oriented perspective at times of crisis, evaluating existing resolutions and developing new alternatives. | X | |||||
| 4 | PC4. Students will be able to conduct scientific research in the fields and sub-fields of political science and international relations, analyze the results and report the findings to stakeholders. | X | |||||
| 5 | PC5. Students will be able to conduct scientific research in the fields and sub-fields of political science and international relations, analyze the results and make scientific publications. | X | |||||
| 6 | PC6. Students will be able to work as group leader in public and private institutions, plan and administer events and activities. | ||||||
| 7 | PC7. As a result of development of critical thinking, students stay open to change and development; adopt never-ending learning principle to their life. | X | |||||
| 8 | PC8. Students use the appropriate oral and written language skills and adopt professional ethics in their communication while sharing results, analyses, and solution suggestions with colleagues and stakeholders | X | |||||
| 9 | PC9. Students use English language skills in research and fields of expertise; easily follow international developments and communicates with international stakeholders. | X | |||||
| 10 | PC10. Students use fundamental computer skills in communication with colleagues and stakeholders. | X | |||||
| 11 | PC11. Students will be able to lead decision-making mechanisms, involve in policy making and analysis processes, and manage negotiation processes in public and private institutions. | X | |||||
| 12 | PC12. Students will be able to develop original and scientific solutions and knowledge in their fields of expertise, create projects and act as a consultant to decision-making mechanisms. | X | |||||
Assessment Methods
| Contribution Level | Absolute Evaluation | |
| Rate of Midterm Exam to Success | 40 | |
| Rate of Final Exam to Success | 60 | |
| Total | 100 | |
| ECTS / Workload Table | ||||||
| Activities | Number of | Duration(Hour) | Total Workload(Hour) | |||
| Course Hours | 14 | 3 | 42 | |||
| Guided Problem Solving | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Resolution of Homework Problems and Submission as a Report | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Term Project | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Presentation of Project / Seminar | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Quiz | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Midterm Exam | 1 | 60 | 60 | |||
| General Exam | 1 | 70 | 70 | |||
| Performance Task, Maintenance Plan | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Total Workload(Hour) | 172 | |||||
| Dersin AKTS Kredisi = Toplam İş Yükü (Saat)/30*=(172/30) | 6 | |||||
| ECTS of the course: 30 hours of work is counted as 1 ECTS credit. | ||||||
Detail Informations of the Course
Course Description
| Course | Code | Semester | T+P (Hour) | Credit | ECTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT and COOPERATION | INT4111128 | Fall Semester | 3+0 | 3 | 6 |
| Course Program | Salı 14:30-15:15 Perşembe 13:30-14:15 Perşembe 14:30-15:15 |
| Prerequisites Courses | |
| Recommended Elective Courses |
| Language of Course | English |
| Course Level | First Cycle (Bachelor's Degree) |
| Course Type | Elective |
| Course Coordinator | Assist.Prof. Osman Zeki GÖKÇE |
| Name of Lecturer(s) | Assist.Prof. Osman Zeki GÖKÇE |
| Assistant(s) | |
| Aim | This course will survey theories of international conflict. Assigned readings will cover major theoretical perspectives, debates, and recent empirical research on the causes of international conflict and war. The seminar will also touch upon factors that influence the duration, severity and termination of international conflict. Special emphasis will be given to ”unified theories”, i.e. theories that concomitantly account for multiple stages of a conflict process. This seminar is intended to develop students’ skills in building coherent arguments on complex international phenomena that lend themselves to empirical testing. Upon completion of this course, students will (i)have read some of the most influential formal and empirical studies that have set the research agenda on international conflict during the last two decades, (ii) be able to identify some of the major debates re, (iii) develop logically coherent arguments on interstate dynamics (or any political event for that matter) that take the strategic linkages among that event’s constituent stages into account. |
| Course Content | This course contains; Introduction & Overview of the Course,Theories on International Relations,Studying Conflict and War,System-Level Theories I : Balance of Power,System-Level Theories II : Power Transition & Uncertainty,State- and Individual-Level Theories I: Democratic Peace & Audience Cost,State- and Individual-Level Theories II,Midterm Exam,Economic Interdependence,Sanctions,Bargaining & War,Alliances & Deterrence,Escalation in International Conflict,Mediation & Intervention,Termination of Conflict,Cyber Conflict. |
| Dersin Öğrenme Kazanımları | Teaching Methods | Assessment Methods |
| Students will read the most influential formal and empirical studies that have set the research agenda on international conflict over the last two decades and become familiar with the findings that have shaped the literature. | 10, 13, 16, 19, 23, 4, 9 | A |
| Students will be able to understand and explain major debates in the literature of international conflict. | 10, 16, 19, 9 | A |
| Students will be informed about the factors that trigger interstate war in the light of the findings obtained using quantitative methodology and will develop logically coherent arguments based on these findings that take into account the links in the causal mechanisms proposed in the literature. | 10, 16, 19, 23, 9 | A |
| Teaching Methods: | 10: Discussion Method, 13: Case Study Method, 16: Question - Answer Technique, 19: Brainstorming Technique, 23: Concept Map Technique, 4: Inquiry-Based Learning, 9: Lecture Method |
| Assessment Methods: | A: Traditional Written Exam |
Course Outline
| Order | Subjects | Preliminary Work |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction & Overview of the Course | |
| 2 | Theories on International Relations | Walt, Stephen. 1998. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy (Spring): 29–46. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2014. Principles of International Politics, London, UK: Sage Publications. Introduction, pp. 1–34. |
| 3 | Studying Conflict and War | Diehl, Paul. “Just a Phase? Integrating Conflict Dynamics Overtime.” 2006. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 23(3):199–210. Levy, Jack S. and William R. Thompson. 2011. Causes of War. Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 1, pp. 1–27. Bremer, Stuart. 1992. “Dangerous Dyads: Interstate War, 1816–1965.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2):309–341. |
| 4 | System-Level Theories I : Balance of Power | Walt, Stephen M. 2016. “Alliances: Balancing and Bandwagoning.” in R. Art and R. Jervis (Eds.), International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (pp. 153-161). New York, NY: Pearson. Wayman, Frank. 1984. “Bipolarity and War.” Journal of Peace Research, 21(1):653–685. Moul, William. 2003. “Power Parity, Preponderance, and War between Great Powers, 1816–1989.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(4):468–489. Sweeney, Kevin J. 2003. “The Severity of Interstate Disputes: Are Dyadic Capability Preponderances Really More Pacific?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6): 728–750. |
| 5 | System-Level Theories II : Power Transition & Uncertainty | Lemke, Douglas M. 1997. “The Continuation of History: Power Transition Theory and the End of the Cold War.” Journal of Peace Research, 34(1):23–36. Levy, Jack S. 1987. “Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War.” World Politics, 40(1):82–107. Baş, Muhammet and Robert Schub. 2014. “How Uncertainty about War Outcomes Affects War Onset.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(6):1099–1128. |
| 6 | State- and Individual-Level Theories I: Democratic Peace & Audience Cost | Russett, Bruce and Zeev Maoz. 1993. “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review, 87(3):624–638. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, James Morrow, Randolph Siverson, and Alastair Smith. 1999. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review, 93(4):791–807. Fearon, James D. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review, 88(3):577–592. |
| 7 | State- and Individual-Level Theories II | Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1988. “The Contribution of Expected Utility Theory to the Study of International Conflict.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18:629-652. Chiozza, Giacomo and H. E. Goemans. 2011. Leaders and International Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1 & 2, pp. 1–45. Jervis, Robert. 1988. “War and Misperception.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4):675–700. DeRouen, Karl Jr. 2000. “Presidents and the Diversionary Use of Force: A Research Note.” International Studies Quarterly, 44(2): 317–328. |
| 8 | Midterm Exam | |
| 9 | Economic Interdependence | Gartzke, E. and Oliver Westerwinter. 2016. “The Complex Structure of Commercial Peace Contrasting Trade Interdependence, Asymmetry, and Multipolarity.” Journal of Peace Research, 53(3):325–343. Aydin, Aysegul. 2008. “Choosing Sides: Economic Interdependence and Interstate Disputes.” The Journal of Politics 70(4): 1098–1108. Ottaway, Marina, and David Ottaway. 2014. “How the Kurds Got Their Way.” Foreign Affairs 93(3): 139–49. |
| 10 | Sanctions | Lektzian, David and Mark Souva. 2007. “An Institutional Theory of Sanctions Onset and Success.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(6):848–871. |
| 11 | Bargaining & War | Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization, 49(3):379–414. Gartzke, Erik. 1999. “War is in the Error Term.” International Organization, 53(3):567–587. Baş, Muhammet and Robert Schub. 2016. “Mutual Optimism as a Cause of Conflict; Secret Alliances and Conflict Onset.” International Studies Quarterly, 60(3): 552–564. |
| 12 | Alliances & Deterrence | Huth, Paul and Bruce Russett. 1993. “General Deterrence between Enduring Rivals: Testing Three Competing Models.” American Political Science Review, 87(1):61–73. Leeds, Brett Ashley. 2003. “Do Alliances Deter Aggression? The Influence of Military Alliances on the Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes.” American Journal of Political Science, 47(3):427–439. |
| 13 | Escalation in International Conflict | Reed, William. 2000. “A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1):84–93. Braithwaite, A. and Douglas Lemke. 2011. Unpacking Escalation. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(2):111–123. |
| 14 | Mediation & Intervention | Savun, Burcu. 2008. “Information, Bias, and Mediation Success.” International Studies Quarterly, 52(1):25–-47. Bercovitch, J. and Houston, A., 2000. Why do they do it like this? An analysis of the factors influencing mediation behavior in international conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(2), pp.170-202. |
| 15 | Termination of Conflict | JR Chapter 14. |
| 16 | Cyber Conflict | Valeriano, Brandon, and Ryan C Maness. 2014. “The Dynamics of Cyber Conflict between Rival Antagonists, 2001–11.” Journal of Peace Research 51(3): 347–360. Mitchell, George E., and Allison Pytlak. 2020. “Correlates of State-Sponsored Cyber Conflict.” In Routledge Handbook of International Cybersecurity, eds. Eneken Tikk and Mika Kerttunen. London: Routledge, 22–35. Gartzke, Erik. 2013. “The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth.” International Security 38(2): 41–73. |
| Resources |
| Weekly scholarly articles updated every semester based on topic coverage. |
Course Contribution to Program Qualifications
| Course Contribution to Program Qualifications | |||||||
| No | Program Qualification | Contribution Level | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| 1 | PC1. Students know the fundamental concepts, theories, research methods and analysis techniques used in the fields and sub-fields of Political Science and International relations. | X | |||||
| 2 | PC2. Students understand the political, economic, social, and cultural relations among political systems, international actors, states and non-state actors; analyzes the reasons for the issues and problems in these fields, develop skills for systematic and critical thinking for alternative solutions. | X | |||||
| 3 | PC3. Students of the program will be able to work at public and private institutions, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations. They will be able to involve in the foreign policy making, analysis, and implementation processes; manage project implementations, and shoulder responsibilities at different positions of decision-making processes. The multi-disciplinary perspective they have developed in the program facilitates following solution-oriented perspective at times of crisis, evaluating existing resolutions and developing new alternatives. | X | |||||
| 4 | PC4. Students will be able to conduct scientific research in the fields and sub-fields of political science and international relations, analyze the results and report the findings to stakeholders. | X | |||||
| 5 | PC5. Students will be able to conduct scientific research in the fields and sub-fields of political science and international relations, analyze the results and make scientific publications. | X | |||||
| 6 | PC6. Students will be able to work as group leader in public and private institutions, plan and administer events and activities. | ||||||
| 7 | PC7. As a result of development of critical thinking, students stay open to change and development; adopt never-ending learning principle to their life. | X | |||||
| 8 | PC8. Students use the appropriate oral and written language skills and adopt professional ethics in their communication while sharing results, analyses, and solution suggestions with colleagues and stakeholders | X | |||||
| 9 | PC9. Students use English language skills in research and fields of expertise; easily follow international developments and communicates with international stakeholders. | X | |||||
| 10 | PC10. Students use fundamental computer skills in communication with colleagues and stakeholders. | X | |||||
| 11 | PC11. Students will be able to lead decision-making mechanisms, involve in policy making and analysis processes, and manage negotiation processes in public and private institutions. | X | |||||
| 12 | PC12. Students will be able to develop original and scientific solutions and knowledge in their fields of expertise, create projects and act as a consultant to decision-making mechanisms. | X | |||||
Assessment Methods
| Contribution Level | Absolute Evaluation | |
| Rate of Midterm Exam to Success | 40 | |
| Rate of Final Exam to Success | 60 | |
| Total | 100 | |