Thomas Lindemann, University Professor of Political Science.
This seminar focuses on three central themes to understand contemporary conflicts.
- The first is the causes of war and international violence,
- the second is war prevention strategies,
- and the third is war strategies and armament policies.
We settle our analysis in the discipline of International Relations, its main concepts and case studies, to better understand current conflicts such as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in 2022. First of all, we will identify the structural causes of international violence, to detect factors of conflict and cooperation in the new international system (1991-2022). As demonstrated by the conflict in Ukraine, but also by many other lesser-known and far more deadly conflicts (such as the 1998 and 2002 conflicts in the former Democratic Republic of Congo, which claimed between 3 and 5 million victims), conflicts are very much a part of our political landscape.
As for international conflict prevention, one of the basic ideas of this seminar is the observation that not all potential conflicts culminate in armed violence. The role of the "human" factor in conflict avoidance is often underestimated. Whether a crisis is resolved peacefully or belligerently also depends on how it is "managed" by political decision-makers.
However, even the basic principles of international crisis management remain contested. Those who adhere to the rational choice model evaluate that wars break out because the state challenging the status quo is not credibly discouraged from undertaking aggression. Thereby, the ambiguity of British policy during the July 1914 crisis would have encouraged German decision-makers to persevere with a policy of conflict as much as the concessions made at Munich in 1938.
However, most wars are lost by aggressive power. On the contrary, the threat of reprisal and heavy losses did not prevent Milosevic in 1999 or Saddam Hussein in 2003 from resisting the American superpower.
So what are the limits of dissuasion- both nuclear and conventional - in an international crisis? What complements or alternatives are there to dissuasive postures?
Finally, we will look at armaments policies, particularly those of France and the major powers. Contrary to common belief, we will demonstrate that the elaboration of military strategies and "defense policies" does not always correspond to the model of rationality in terms of national interest, but that a large number of actors with corporatist interests are involved in this process, which can fuel the armaments race. It is also a question of understanding how militarily weaker players are likely to resist the superpowers (the United States losing war in Afghanistan).
Evaluation
- Presentation (no more than 10 minutes per person discussing the concepts presented in the article): 30%.
- Participation: 20% (including participation in the discussion of an article)
- Final assignment (3000 words): 50%. Discussing the impact of a key concept - dissuasive policies, "reassurance" policies, economic sanctions, material compensation, symbolic sanctions...
- Teaching coordinator: Lindemann Thomas