Course Detail
Course Description
| Course | Code | Semester | T+P (Hour) | Credit | ECTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS | INT4113321 | Fall Semester | 3+0 | 3 | 6 |
| Course Program |
| 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 | Environmental issues have become a fundamental element of contemporary global political agenda. Global environmental destruction, that we observe in various forms such as climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, pollution, and deforestation, directly influences the industry, poverty, human health, migration, and security. Global environmental politics (GEP) is a field offering several cases and questions to understand and analyze recent developments in global affairs. This course introduces major approaches, topics, and debates in GEP and aims at enabling students to evaluate issues in world politics through developments in GEP. This course begins with a review of the history of GEP and theoretical approaches to this study field. Then, it explores the roles of major actors and institutions of GEP. The second part of the course addresses specific issue-areas like sustainable development goals (SDGs), climate change, biodiversity, and oceans. The course will conclude with a discussion on the role of Turkey in GEP and the future of global environmental governance. |
| Course Content | This course contains; Week 1: Introduction to Global Environmental Politics,Week 2: GEP as a Study Field and Theoretical Approaches to GEP,Week 3: GEP as Politics of Global Commons,Week 4: Environment and Intergovernmental Institutions,Week 5: Science and Scientific Actors, and Nongovernmental Actors,Week 6: International Environmental Regimes,Week 7: Environment and International Political Economy,Week 8: Mid-term exam,Week 9: Sustainable Development, SDGs, and the Environment,Week 10: Climate Change I: Actors, Institutions, and Kyoto Process,Week 11: Climate Change II: Paris Agreement and Challenges Ahead,Week 12: Biodiversity Crisis, Governance of Biodiversity,Week 13: Governance of Oceans,Week 14: Turkey and GEP,Week 15: Global Environmental Governance: How Does it Occur?. |
| Dersin Öğrenme Kazanımları | Teaching Methods | Assessment Methods |
| - Students grasp the complexity of global environmental issues, such as the climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, pollution, and deforestation, and understand how these issues interact and impact world politics. | 10, 16, 19, 9 | A |
| - Students recognize global environmental actors and institutions, including international organizations, states, NGOs, and corporations, and analyze their roles and influences in environmental politics. | 10, 16, 6, 9 | A |
| - Students analyze Turkey's environmental policies, its participation in international environmental agreements and initiatives, and its efforts to balance environmental concerns with other national priorities. | 10, 16, 19, 6, 9 | A |
| Teaching Methods: | 10: Discussion Method, 16: Question - Answer Technique, 19: Brainstorming Technique, 6: Experiential Learning, 9: Lecture Method |
| Assessment Methods: | A: Traditional Written Exam |
Course Outline
| Order | Subjects | Preliminary Work |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Week 1: Introduction to Global Environmental Politics | Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth: A Report to the Club of Rome’s Project on The Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. 1972. United Nations Environmental Program. |
| 2 | Week 2: GEP as a Study Field and Theoretical Approaches to GEP | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 1-12, 29-35. Karin Backstrand. 2004."Scientisation vs. Civic Expertise in Environmental Governance: Eco- feminist, Eco-modern and Post-modern Responses." Environmental Politics 13: 695-714. J. Clapp and P. Dauvergne. 2005. “Peril or prosperity? Mapping Worldviews of Global Environmental Change”. Paths to a Green World: The Political Economy of the Global Environment, MIT Press, 1-16. |
| 3 | Week 3: GEP as Politics of Global Commons | Global Commons: The Planet We Share. Our Planet, the magazine of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). September 2011. Garrett Hardin. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Science 162: 1243-1248. Elinor Ostrom, Joanna Burger, Christopher B Field, Richard B. Norgaard, and David Policansky. 1999. “Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges”. Science 284: 278-282. Thomas Dietz, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. 2003. “The Struggle to Govern the Commons”. Science 302: 1907-1912. |
| 4 | Week 4: Environment and Intergovernmental Institutions | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 51-73. Robert Keohane, Peter Haas, and Marc Levy. 1993. “The Effectiveness of International Environmental Institutions” in Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection, eds. Peter M. Haas, Robert O. Keohane, and Marc Levy. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 3-24. Katharina Holzinger, Christoph Knill and Thomas Sommerer. 2008. “Environmental Policy Convergence: The Impact of International Harmonization, Transnational Communication, and Regulatory Competition”. International Organization 62: 553-587. |
| 5 | Week 5: Science and Scientific Actors, and Nongovernmental Actors | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 44-48&89-98. Dale Jamieson. 1996. "Scientific Uncertainty and the Political Process." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 545: 35-43. Peter M. Haas. 1989. “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control”. International Organization 43: 377-403. M. M. Betsill and E. Corell. 2001. “NGO Influence in International Environmental Negotiations: A Framework for Analysis”. Global Environmental Politics 1(4): 65-85. |
| 6 | Week 6: International Environmental Regimes | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 20-29 (pp. 257-297 optional reading). Detlef Sprinz and Tapani Vaahtoranta. 1994. “The Interest-Based Explanation of International Environmental Policy”. International Organization 48: 77-105. Mitchell, R. B. 2007. “Compliance Theory: Compliance, Effectiveness, and Behavior Change in International Environmental Law”. Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, eds. J. Brunnée, D. Bodansky and E. Hey. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 893-921. |
| 7 | Week 7: Environment and International Political Economy | Ronald Coase. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost”. Journal of Law and Economics 3:1-44. David L. Levy and Peter J. Newell. 2005. “Business and International Environmental Governance: Conclusions and Implications”. In The Business of Global Environmental Governance, eds. David L. Levy and Peter J. Newell. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 329-344. K. P. Gallagher. 2009. “Economic Globalization and the Environment”. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34: 279-304. |
| 8 | Week 8: Mid-term exam | |
| 9 | Week 9: Sustainable Development, SDGs, and the Environment | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 309-331, 343-351. Gro Harlem Brundtland. 1987. Presentation of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations Environmental Program, Nairobi, Kenya. |
| 10 | Week 10: Climate Change I: Actors, Institutions, and Kyoto Process | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 162-177. C. Downie. 2012. “Toward an Understanding of State Behavior in Prolonged International Negotiations”. International Negotiation 17(2): 295-320. Edward A. Page. 2008. “Distributing the Burdens of Climate Change”. Environmental Politics 17(4):556–575. Michèle B. Bättig and Thomas Bernauer. 2009. "National Institutions and Global Public Goods: Are Democracies More Cooperative in Climate Change Policy?". International Organization 63(2): 281-308. |
| 11 | Week 11: Climate Change II: Paris Agreement and Challenges Ahead | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 177-186. Arild Underdal 2017. “Climate Change and International Relations (after Kyoto)”. Annual Review of Political Science 20(1):169–188. Jen Iris Allan. 2019. “Dangerous Incrementalism of the Paris Agreement”. Global Environmental Politics 19(1):4–11. Koko Warner. 2017. “Human Mobility and the Paris Agreement: Contribution of Climate Policy to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” |
| 12 | Week 12: Biodiversity Crisis, Governance of Biodiversity | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 189-201. M. Lenzen., D. Moran, K. Kanemoto, B. Foran, L. Lobefaro,& A. Geschke. 2012. “International Trade Drives Biodiversity Threats in Developing Nations”. Nature 486 (7401): 109-112. L. M. Campbell, S. Hagerman, and N. J. Gray. 2014. “Producing Targets for Conservation: Science and Politics at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity”. Global Environmental Politics 14(3): 41-63. |
| 13 | Week 13: Governance of Oceans | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 234-243. Marion Markowski. 2009. “The International Legal Standard for Sustainable EEZ Fisheries Management”. In Towards Sustainable Fisheries Law: A Comparative Analysis, ed. Gerd Winter. Gland: IUCN, 1-27. D. Barrowclough and C. D. Birkbeck. 2022. “Transforming the Global Plastics Economy: The Role of Economic Policies in the Global Governance of Plastic Pollution”. Social Sciences 11: 26. IISD. 2022. 4th Session of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on the BBNJ, Summary Report |
| 14 | Week 14: Turkey and GEP | International and Regional Environmental Conventions and Turkey’s Position. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. E. Turhan, S. Cerit Mazlum, Ü. Şahin, A. H. Şorman, & A. Cem Gündoğan. (2016). Beyond special circumstances: climate change policy in Turkey 1992–2015. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(3), 448-460. |
| 15 | Week 15: Global Environmental Governance: How Does it Occur? | Frank Bierman. 2000. “The Case for a World Environmental Organization.” Environment 42: 22-31. Najam, Adil. 2003. “The Case Against a New International Environmental Organization.” Global Governance 9: 367-384. Fikret Berkes. 2007. “Going Beyond Panaceas Special Feature: Community-based Conservation in a Globalized World.” PNAS 104: 15188-15193. |
| Resources |
| P.S. Chasek, D.L. Downie, and J.W. Brown, Global Environment Politics (Routledge, 2017). |
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. | X | |||||
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| General Exam | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Performance Task, Maintenance Plan | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Total Workload(Hour) | 0 | |||||
| Dersin AKTS Kredisi = Toplam İş Yükü (Saat)/30*=(0/30) | 0 | |||||
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS | INT4113321 | Fall Semester | 3+0 | 3 | 6 |
| Course Program |
| 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 | Environmental issues have become a fundamental element of contemporary global political agenda. Global environmental destruction, that we observe in various forms such as climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, pollution, and deforestation, directly influences the industry, poverty, human health, migration, and security. Global environmental politics (GEP) is a field offering several cases and questions to understand and analyze recent developments in global affairs. This course introduces major approaches, topics, and debates in GEP and aims at enabling students to evaluate issues in world politics through developments in GEP. This course begins with a review of the history of GEP and theoretical approaches to this study field. Then, it explores the roles of major actors and institutions of GEP. The second part of the course addresses specific issue-areas like sustainable development goals (SDGs), climate change, biodiversity, and oceans. The course will conclude with a discussion on the role of Turkey in GEP and the future of global environmental governance. |
| Course Content | This course contains; Week 1: Introduction to Global Environmental Politics,Week 2: GEP as a Study Field and Theoretical Approaches to GEP,Week 3: GEP as Politics of Global Commons,Week 4: Environment and Intergovernmental Institutions,Week 5: Science and Scientific Actors, and Nongovernmental Actors,Week 6: International Environmental Regimes,Week 7: Environment and International Political Economy,Week 8: Mid-term exam,Week 9: Sustainable Development, SDGs, and the Environment,Week 10: Climate Change I: Actors, Institutions, and Kyoto Process,Week 11: Climate Change II: Paris Agreement and Challenges Ahead,Week 12: Biodiversity Crisis, Governance of Biodiversity,Week 13: Governance of Oceans,Week 14: Turkey and GEP,Week 15: Global Environmental Governance: How Does it Occur?. |
| Dersin Öğrenme Kazanımları | Teaching Methods | Assessment Methods |
| - Students grasp the complexity of global environmental issues, such as the climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, pollution, and deforestation, and understand how these issues interact and impact world politics. | 10, 16, 19, 9 | A |
| - Students recognize global environmental actors and institutions, including international organizations, states, NGOs, and corporations, and analyze their roles and influences in environmental politics. | 10, 16, 6, 9 | A |
| - Students analyze Turkey's environmental policies, its participation in international environmental agreements and initiatives, and its efforts to balance environmental concerns with other national priorities. | 10, 16, 19, 6, 9 | A |
| Teaching Methods: | 10: Discussion Method, 16: Question - Answer Technique, 19: Brainstorming Technique, 6: Experiential Learning, 9: Lecture Method |
| Assessment Methods: | A: Traditional Written Exam |
Course Outline
| Order | Subjects | Preliminary Work |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Week 1: Introduction to Global Environmental Politics | Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth: A Report to the Club of Rome’s Project on The Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. 1972. United Nations Environmental Program. |
| 2 | Week 2: GEP as a Study Field and Theoretical Approaches to GEP | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 1-12, 29-35. Karin Backstrand. 2004."Scientisation vs. Civic Expertise in Environmental Governance: Eco- feminist, Eco-modern and Post-modern Responses." Environmental Politics 13: 695-714. J. Clapp and P. Dauvergne. 2005. “Peril or prosperity? Mapping Worldviews of Global Environmental Change”. Paths to a Green World: The Political Economy of the Global Environment, MIT Press, 1-16. |
| 3 | Week 3: GEP as Politics of Global Commons | Global Commons: The Planet We Share. Our Planet, the magazine of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). September 2011. Garrett Hardin. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Science 162: 1243-1248. Elinor Ostrom, Joanna Burger, Christopher B Field, Richard B. Norgaard, and David Policansky. 1999. “Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges”. Science 284: 278-282. Thomas Dietz, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. 2003. “The Struggle to Govern the Commons”. Science 302: 1907-1912. |
| 4 | Week 4: Environment and Intergovernmental Institutions | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 51-73. Robert Keohane, Peter Haas, and Marc Levy. 1993. “The Effectiveness of International Environmental Institutions” in Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection, eds. Peter M. Haas, Robert O. Keohane, and Marc Levy. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 3-24. Katharina Holzinger, Christoph Knill and Thomas Sommerer. 2008. “Environmental Policy Convergence: The Impact of International Harmonization, Transnational Communication, and Regulatory Competition”. International Organization 62: 553-587. |
| 5 | Week 5: Science and Scientific Actors, and Nongovernmental Actors | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 44-48&89-98. Dale Jamieson. 1996. "Scientific Uncertainty and the Political Process." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 545: 35-43. Peter M. Haas. 1989. “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control”. International Organization 43: 377-403. M. M. Betsill and E. Corell. 2001. “NGO Influence in International Environmental Negotiations: A Framework for Analysis”. Global Environmental Politics 1(4): 65-85. |
| 6 | Week 6: International Environmental Regimes | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 20-29 (pp. 257-297 optional reading). Detlef Sprinz and Tapani Vaahtoranta. 1994. “The Interest-Based Explanation of International Environmental Policy”. International Organization 48: 77-105. Mitchell, R. B. 2007. “Compliance Theory: Compliance, Effectiveness, and Behavior Change in International Environmental Law”. Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law, eds. J. Brunnée, D. Bodansky and E. Hey. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 893-921. |
| 7 | Week 7: Environment and International Political Economy | Ronald Coase. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost”. Journal of Law and Economics 3:1-44. David L. Levy and Peter J. Newell. 2005. “Business and International Environmental Governance: Conclusions and Implications”. In The Business of Global Environmental Governance, eds. David L. Levy and Peter J. Newell. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 329-344. K. P. Gallagher. 2009. “Economic Globalization and the Environment”. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34: 279-304. |
| 8 | Week 8: Mid-term exam | |
| 9 | Week 9: Sustainable Development, SDGs, and the Environment | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 309-331, 343-351. Gro Harlem Brundtland. 1987. Presentation of the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations Environmental Program, Nairobi, Kenya. |
| 10 | Week 10: Climate Change I: Actors, Institutions, and Kyoto Process | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 162-177. C. Downie. 2012. “Toward an Understanding of State Behavior in Prolonged International Negotiations”. International Negotiation 17(2): 295-320. Edward A. Page. 2008. “Distributing the Burdens of Climate Change”. Environmental Politics 17(4):556–575. Michèle B. Bättig and Thomas Bernauer. 2009. "National Institutions and Global Public Goods: Are Democracies More Cooperative in Climate Change Policy?". International Organization 63(2): 281-308. |
| 11 | Week 11: Climate Change II: Paris Agreement and Challenges Ahead | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 177-186. Arild Underdal 2017. “Climate Change and International Relations (after Kyoto)”. Annual Review of Political Science 20(1):169–188. Jen Iris Allan. 2019. “Dangerous Incrementalism of the Paris Agreement”. Global Environmental Politics 19(1):4–11. Koko Warner. 2017. “Human Mobility and the Paris Agreement: Contribution of Climate Policy to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” |
| 12 | Week 12: Biodiversity Crisis, Governance of Biodiversity | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 189-201. M. Lenzen., D. Moran, K. Kanemoto, B. Foran, L. Lobefaro,& A. Geschke. 2012. “International Trade Drives Biodiversity Threats in Developing Nations”. Nature 486 (7401): 109-112. L. M. Campbell, S. Hagerman, and N. J. Gray. 2014. “Producing Targets for Conservation: Science and Politics at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity”. Global Environmental Politics 14(3): 41-63. |
| 13 | Week 13: Governance of Oceans | Chasek et al. 2017, pp. 234-243. Marion Markowski. 2009. “The International Legal Standard for Sustainable EEZ Fisheries Management”. In Towards Sustainable Fisheries Law: A Comparative Analysis, ed. Gerd Winter. Gland: IUCN, 1-27. D. Barrowclough and C. D. Birkbeck. 2022. “Transforming the Global Plastics Economy: The Role of Economic Policies in the Global Governance of Plastic Pollution”. Social Sciences 11: 26. IISD. 2022. 4th Session of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on the BBNJ, Summary Report |
| 14 | Week 14: Turkey and GEP | International and Regional Environmental Conventions and Turkey’s Position. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. E. Turhan, S. Cerit Mazlum, Ü. Şahin, A. H. Şorman, & A. Cem Gündoğan. (2016). Beyond special circumstances: climate change policy in Turkey 1992–2015. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(3), 448-460. |
| 15 | Week 15: Global Environmental Governance: How Does it Occur? | Frank Bierman. 2000. “The Case for a World Environmental Organization.” Environment 42: 22-31. Najam, Adil. 2003. “The Case Against a New International Environmental Organization.” Global Governance 9: 367-384. Fikret Berkes. 2007. “Going Beyond Panaceas Special Feature: Community-based Conservation in a Globalized World.” PNAS 104: 15188-15193. |
| Resources |
| P.S. Chasek, D.L. Downie, and J.W. Brown, Global Environment Politics (Routledge, 2017). |
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. | X | |||||
| 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 | |