|
Lehrende: Prof. Dr. Heribert Dieter
Veranstaltungsart:
Seminar
Orga-Einheit: Politics, Administration & International Relations
Anzeige im Stundenplan:
Weltgesell.
Semesterwochenstunden:
3
Credits:
5,0
Standort:
Campus der Zeppelin Universität
Unterrichtssprache:
Englisch
Min. | Max. Teilnehmerzahl:
5 | 35
Prioritätsschema: Standard-Priorisierung
Inhalte:
Course description:
The increasing importance of global issues – the need to regulate environmental standards, international trade, cross-border investment, international financial markets – has led to a new debate. Some of the questions will be discussed in the seminar:
• How important is the development of a global society?
• Do nation states lose the ability to shape their own future?
• Or is the concept of “cosmopolitan governance” (David Held) an entirely unrealistic assumption?
• Will the sovereignty of states be curbed further?
• Or does the sovereign state continue to be the most legitimate unit that is able to provide both efficient and legitimate governance?
• How can accountability be organised at the supra-national level?
The course is being divided into six blocs.
1) The course will commence with a discussion of the theoretical basis: How is sovereignty defined in the 21st century? What are the guiding principles of globalisation processes? Why do states sacrifice sovereignty in the economic domain?
2) International in goods and (increasingly) in services has been a major force in international economic relations. The World Trade Organisation WTO governs these processes. Simultaneously, the WTO is criticised for being an burden for the poor and the rich: Some argue the WTO is facilitating the exploitation of developing countries, others argue the WTO permits the undermining of social standards in the North. Furthermore, the WTO appears to be increasingly undermined by competing regimes, in particular by preferential trade agreements.
3) Over the last 150 years, the shape of the international financial order has changed significantly. Whilst capital flows were not restricted before 1914, they were regulated from then until 1973. What has been the rationale for regulation as well as for non-regulation? What is the mandate of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)? How do the perceptions of financial globalisation differ between developing countries and the OECD-economies? How does the current crisis affect the future of global financial governance?
4) Surprisingly, the world's most successful exporting nation does not have a well-developed understanding of the current international economic order. The openness of the trading regime is often taken for granted, but what contribution does Germany make to keep it open? Which parts of the country are more intensively integrated into the global economy than others? How does that affect them in the crisis? What does Germany and do other European countries learn in the crisis?
5) In the 21st century, the existing international order - largely shaped after World War II - does no longer adequately reflect the changing power structures in the world. What are the concepts that address the rise of powers such as China and India? Are the transatlantic powers prepared for the changing power distribution? What are the prospects for the emergence of a multipolar international order?
6) How stable is the current international order? Is the development of a multipolar world a stabilizing or de-stabilizing development? What are the expectations of realist, constructivist and neoliberal institutionalist scholars? What role does Europe play in the current international order?
Lernziele:
The driving factor for the development of a cosmopolitan global society is the increasing integration of relations between hitherto separated societies. Whilst globalisation, for the purpose of the course narrowly defined as increased economic transactions, is shaping the economic sphere of many countries, we see a relatively limited debate on both the processes that lead to globalisation, the consequences for national sovereignty and the institutions that govern globalisation. Students will learn to analyse the policies that contribute to the development of global society, but also look at the forces that weaken “governance beyond the nation state”.
Weitere Informationen zu den Prüfungsleistungen:
• The course will be taught in English. Thus, fluency in English is essential.
• Each participant will have to make a presentation in the seminar (20 minutes), participate actively in the debate and submit an essay of no less than 3.500 words (submission of the essay in German is possible).
• Active participation is of course vital for a good seminar and expected from all participants.
• Composition of assessment: Presentation 50%, essay 50%.
Literatur:
Charron, Nicholas (2010): Déjà Vu All Over Again: A post-Cold War empirical analysis of Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Theory, Cooperation and Conflict, 45 (1), pp. 107-127.
Held, David (2003): Cosmopolitanism: globalisation tamed? Review of International Studies,Vol 29, No. 4, pp. 465-480.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1993): The Clash of Civilizations. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 32 (Summer 1993), pp. 22-49.
Ikenberry, John G. (2008): The Rise of China and the Future of the West. Can the Liberal System Survive? Foreign Affairs, 87, pp. 23–37.
Jackson, Robert (1999): Sovereignty in World Politics: a Glance at the Conceptual and Historical Landscape, Political Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3 (1999), pp. 431-456.
Krasner, Stephen (2001): Rethinking the Sovereign State Model. Review of International Studies, No. 27, pp. 17-42.
Krasner, Stephen (1999): Sovereignty. Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.
Lepsius, M. Rainer (2012): Wir brauchen kein neues Versailles. Die europäischen Krisen verlangen nicht nach einem europäischen Zentralstaat. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7.12.2012, p. 38, available at http://www.faz.net/frankfurter-allgemeine-zeitung/wir-brauchen-kein-neues-versailles-11984609.html
Moravcsik, Andrew (2010): Europe: Rising Superpower in a Bipolar World. In A. S. Alexandroff and A. F. Cooper (Eds.), Rising States, Rising Institutions: Challenges for Global Governance. Baltimore: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 151–174.
Philpott, Daniel (1995): Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 48, No. 2 (1995), pp. 353-368
Philpott, Daniel (1999): Westphalia, Authority, and International Society, Political Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3 (1999), pp. 566-589
Reinhardt, Carmen; Rogoff, Kenneth (2009): This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schaller, Christian (2008): Gibt es eine “Responsibility to Protect?”, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 46/2008, pp. 9-14.
Sharma, Ruchir (2012): Broken BRICs. Why the Rest stopped Rising. Foreign Affairs, 91 (6), pp. 2-7.
Sørensen, Georg (1999): Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution, Political Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3 (1999), pp. 590-604
Wendt, Alexander (2003): Why a World State is Inevitable, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 491-542.
|
