Poslední úprava: Jolan Nisbet (08.11.2019)
Please contact me for a PDF of the syllabus!
Office hours by appointment
Jolan Nisbet, MRes
October 3, 2019: Course introduction
October 10, 2019: Gender and IR
Jill Steans, “Gender in International Relations” in Gender and
International Relations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013),
Scott Romaniuk and Joshua Wasylciw, “Gender Includes Men
too! Recognizing Masculinity in Security Studies and
International Relations” Perspectives 18:1 (2010) 23-40.
Carol Cohn and Cynthia Enloe, “A Conversation with Cynthia
Enloe: Feminists Look at Masculinity and the Men Who
Wage War,” Signs 28:4 (2003) 1187-1205.
October 17, 2019: Feminist Security Theory
Eric Blanchard, “Gender, International Relations, and the
Development of Feminist Security Theory,” Signs 28:4
Ann Tickner, “Feminist Security Studies: Celebrating an
Emerging Field,” Politics and Gender 7:4 (2011) 576-580.
October 24, 2019: Gender and National Security
Julia Santucci, “Gender Equality as a National Security Priority”
Centre for New American Security. Available from:
as-a-national-security-priority (15 September
October 31, 2019: Militarism
Cythnia Enloe, “How do they Militarize a Can of Soup?” in
Manoeuvres (Oakland: University of California Press,
Lynne Segal, “Gender, War and Militarism and questioning the
links,” Feminist Review 88 (2008) 21-35.
November 7, 2019: Sexual Violence in War part I
Lindsay Stark and Mike Wessells, “Sexual Violence as a Weapon
of War,” American Medical Association (2012) 677-678.
United Nations Security Council “Resolution 1820 (2008)”
Josh Cerretti, “Rape as a Weapon on War(riors): The
Militarisation of Sexual Violence in the United States,
1990-2000,” Gender and History 28:3 (2016) 794-812.
Weekly Active participation 30%
Personal Narrative 5% (Oct 10)
Presentation Feedback 5% (Nov
21/28, Dec 5/12/19)
Presentation 20% (Nov 21/28, Dec
-a structured 10 minute presentation
Research Paper 40% (Jan. 27, 2020)
-5000 word research paper with a
Office hours by appointment
Jolan Nisbet, MRes
L e a r n i n g O b j e c t i v e s
C o u r s e O u t l i n e
A s s e s s m e n t s
-understand the relationship between
gender norms and security
-critically reflect on how the feminist
gendered perspective challenges
traditional understandings of security
-apply gender lens to dominant
-plan and complete assignments
according to deadlines
-develop clear arguments in
presentations and written work
November 14, 2019: Sexual Violence in War part II
Inger Skjelsbaek, “Sexual Violence and War: Mapping out a complex relationship,” European Journal of
International Relations 7:2 (2001) 211-237.
Paul Kirby, “How is rape a weapon of war? Feminist International Relations, modes of critical explanation and the
study of wartime sexual violence,” European Journal of International Relations 19:4(2012) 797-821.
November 21, 2019: Peacekeeping (*Presentations)
Louise Olsson and Theodora-Ismene Gizelis, “Advancing Gender and Peacekeeping Research,” International
Peacekeeping 21:4 (2014) 520-528.
Sabrina Karim, “Revaluating Peacekeeping Effectiveness: Does Gender Neutrality Inhibit Progress,” International
Interactions 43:5 (2017) 822-847.
November 28, 2019: Terrorism (*Presentations)
Cyndi Banks, “Introduction: Women, Gender and Terrorism: Gendering Terrorism,” Women & Criminal Justice 0
Anita Peresin, “Fatal Attraction: Western Muslimas and ISIS,” Perspectives on Terrorism 9:3 (2015) 21-33.
December 5, 2019: Drones (*Presentations)
Lauren Wilcox, “Embodying algorithmic war: Gender, race, and the post human in drone warfare,” Security Dialogue
48:1 (2017) 11-28.
December 12, 2019: Human Security (*Presentations)
Parveen Kaur Parmar et al. “Need for a gender-sensitive human security framework: results of a quantitative study of
human security and sexual violence in Djohong District, Cameroon,” Conflict and Health 8:6 (2014) 1-12.
December 19, 2019: Environmental Security (*Presentations)
Nicole Detraz, “Environmental Security and Gender: Necessary Shifts in an evolving debate,” Security Studies 18 (2009)
Seminar Participation (30%) Excellent Good Mixed Poor Unsatisfactory
Evidence of preparation
Understanding of key arguments/texts
Presentation (20%) (5% preparation feedback) Excellent Good Mixed Poor Unsatisfactory
Delivery: speed, eye contact, clarity, audibility, tone
Content: sets out relevant issues, explains key
terms, confident with material, aids understanding
Structure: logical, easy to follow, provides
headings, each section relates to overall purpose
Use of visual aids uses handout or other visual aids,
relevant to content
Response to questions: willing to answer
questions, actively seeks questions
Research paper (40%) Excellent Good Mixed Poor Unsatisfactory
Contribution to knowledge
Presentation of Research Question
Research limitations considered?
Research (wide base of relevant sources?)
Referencing (sources acknowledged/
Expression (written clearly in good English?)
Organisation (well-structured and easy to follow?)