Paper Brainstorming Sheet

Hello all! The purpose of this sheet is to suggest some potential ideas for topics that may
help you in crafting your essays. I am also posting a rubric to the L@G site which
provides a bit more detail on assignment expectations to the course website. However,
the rubric essentially replicates the expectations laid out in the course guide, that in the
structure of the essay, you should offer 1) a clear introduction; 2) a literature review that
sets out the limits of alternative arguments; 3) a concise theoretical discussion of the
assumptions underlying your approach; 4) a structured, focused presentation of the
evidence, and; 5) a conclusion that restates the arguments and offers some observations
based on your research.

In this brainstorming sheet, I just want to help you in two ways

1) To remind you of whats at stake in the key theoretical debates and to drop
some hints in the process about potential key definitions and articles to cite

2) To review each essay question and suggest some potential empirical topics. The
point in doing is not to restrict what you can write about, but suggest some topics
that might be useful, highlight some relevant evidence, and help you in deciding
what you specifically want to address in your essays.

The goal is for everyone to feel in command of their argument and evidence well in
advance of the end of the term.

I. Review: Whats at stake in the theoretical debates (and what to cite!)

To provide a helpful reminder (especially important in essay #1), realists argue that
states define their interests in terms of the distribution of power, and will combine to
prevent any single state from dominating the system. For example, Kissinger (1994, 20)
argues that balance-of-power politics prevail when a group of states so constituted are
obliged to deal with one another. In such a situation, where no state dominates, there
are only two possible outcomes: either one state becomes so strong that it dominates all
the others and creates an empire or no state is ever quite powerful enough to achieve that
goal In the latter case, the pretensions of the most aggressive member of the international
order are kept in check by a combination of the others; in other words, by the operations
of a balance of power. Given a realist view, one might argue that the Cold War was
caused by the struggles between Russia and America for control of Europe.

To provide another reminder (especially important in essay #2), constructivists counter

realists by arguing that states cant use their power until they identify their interests,
defined as beliefs about how to meet needs (Wendt 1999, 129). In other words, we
cannot know what we want outside an ideational context. Key beliefs can be defined
with respect to an ideology (e.g., communism or capitalism), nationalist or ethnic
identities (e.g., a German desire for a place in the sun or a Chinese desire to avenge a
century of humiliations) or any other ideological commitments. Given a constructivist
view, one might argue that the Cold War was caused by struggles between the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America to advance the spread of
capitalist or communist values throughout the world. Other constructivists that you can
cite from our course include Barkin and Cronin (1994) and Tulis (1987).

Moving forward, essay #3 situates constructivist insights regarding ideas in a discussion

of emotional appeals and rhetorical leadership. So, if you answer question 3, you might
engage Tuliss arguments regarding demagoguery, defined as leadership which
attempts to sway popular passions (Tulis 1987, 28).

Likewise, if you answer # 4, you might engage the arguments of Barkin and Cronin
(1994, 108) regarding the variable nature of sovereignty, which they argue is neither
fixed nor constant, but rather subject to changing interpretations as they stress a
historical tension between state sovereignty, which stresses the link between sovereign
authority and a defined territory, and national sovereignty, which emphasizes a link
between sovereign authority and a defined population emphases added) More recently,
one might argue that notions of sovereignty have been expanded further to highlight the
notion of sovereignty as a responsibility in a way that has given rise to recent notions
of a responsibility to protect.

II: Topics: So, what might be a good topics that correspond to these research
questions? Lets look at each one and then list a few potential ideas. These are only
suggestive You should feel to develop your own interests.

Question one: (Which we can call the realist question)

To what extent is security defined in terms of material power/maintaining the balance of
power? How have these dynamics manifested themselves in a past or contemporary war,
crisis or moment of international change? In your answer, having offered an introduction,
please be sure to address the limits of alternative approaches and outline the essential
components of a realist view. Having done so, you should then show empirically how
realist assumptions offer insight into your chosen case. In your conclusion, very briefly
(in a paragraph of less than 200 words) address implications for current international
trends.

Possible realist theses (just to provide a sense of things):

1. Britain was concerned with the rise of Germany, leading to the onset of World
War I
2. The Cold War was caused by a struggle between the Americans and the
Russians over control of Europe
3. World War II led Australia to switch its great and powerful friend from the
UK to the US
4. Nixon visited China in 1971 to join with Mao to balance against the Russians

Question two: (Which we can call the constructivist question)

To what extent is security defined in terms of ideas or identity? How has this view
manifested itself in a past or contemporary moment of international change? In your
answer, having offered an introduction, please be sure to address the limits of alternative
approaches and outline the essential components of a constructivist/critical view. Given
this conceptual foundation, you should then show how these assumptions offer insight
into your chosen case. In your conclusion, very briefly (in a paragraph of less than 200
words) address implications for current international trends.

Possible constructivist theses (just to provide a sense of things):

1. Nationalism contributed to a) the rise of Germany under Bismarck and b) its
intensification under the Kaiser; in ways that led to the onset of World War I.
2. The Cold War was caused by a struggles between the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics and the United States of America to advance capitalist or
communist values throughout the world.
 3. The Vietnam War led Australia to question its ties to the US, moving under
Prime Minister Gough Whitlam into a period of middle power
entrepreneurship.
4. US crusading impulses, rather than any material threats, explain its
overreactions in the War on Terror.

Question three: (Which we can call the demagoguery question)

Does reliance on rhetorical leadership to define the national interest contribute to
demagoguery and policy overreaction, or does it facilitate deliberation and policy
coherence? Please answer this question with reference to Tuliss arguments and a major
public address/addresses. In your conclusion, very briefly (in a paragraph of less than 200
words) address implications for current international trends. (Note: While Tuliss analysis
was developed for the US setting, his insights regarding demagoguery can be applied
across a range of country and case settings. Please feel free to consult on these matters.)

Possible demagoguery theses (just to provide a sense of things):

1. When US President Harry Truman set out to justify US involvement in the Cold
War, he deliberately exaggerated the ideological and global nature of the Russian
threat, constructing a struggle for liberal values that took on a life of its own.
2. When US President George W. Bush set out to justify US involvement in the War
on Terror, he deliberately exaggerated the ideological threat and potential
existence of weapons of mass destruction, leading to a US overreaction
Afghanistan/Iraq.
3. When US President Donald Trump proposed a Muslim ban in the 2016
presidential campaign, he spoke to prejudices and fears in ways meant to reshape
not only US foreign policy but also domestic identities and citizenship rights.

(*Please note that in your packet you have a number of presidential addresses by US
presidents to draw from. While you do not need to focus on the US context as there
have been demagogues in every society this might be a useful first check resource if
you are inclined to focus on demagoguery in a US setting.)

Question four: (Which we can call the sovereignty question)

To what extent does international political development defined most broadly with
respect to changes in the meaning of sovereignty occur through punctuated wars and
crises? Making explicit reference to the arguments of Barkin and Cronin as they
critique realist accounts and advance a constructivist alternative offer an account of
punctuated systemic change. In your conclusion, very briefly (in a paragraph of less than
200 words) address implications for current international trends.

1. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, Raphael Lemkin advanced a construction of

genocide as a crime that would limit what sovereign states could do to their
own people.
2. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the revival of debates surrounding sovereignty
led to the emergence of the doctrine of a responsibility to protect (R2P) in an
effort to reconcile competing notions of state sovereignty and humanitarian
intervention.
3. Shifts in the meaning of sovereignty are more incremental than punctuated. From
adoption of the 1948 Convention Against Genocide to the 2011 R2P intervention
in Libya.
However, it is also worth noting that you could draw on key readings to offer
constructivist analyses of resistance to the notion of a responsibility to protect, as you
could

4. Highlight in the role of US isolationism and liberal naivet in limiting its response
to mass atrocities in Rwanda (See the Samantha Power readings)
5. Highlight the role of institutional pathologies in the UN, where concerns about a
loss of US support for efforts to prevent mass atrocities led the UN to fail to act to
prevent mass atrocities in Rwanda (See the Michael Barnett readings)

Sources Referenced on this Sheet

Barkin, Samuel and Cronin, Bruce. 1994. The State and the Nation: Changing Norms
and the Rules of Sovereignty in International Relations International
Organization. 48(1): 107-130

Barnett, Michael. 1997. The UN Security Council, Indifference, and Genocide in

Rwanda, Cultural Anthropology. 12(4): 551578.

Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: penguin

Kissinger, Henry. 1994. Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Power, Samantha. 2002. A Problem from Hell. New York: Basic Books.

Tulis, Jeffrey. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press