|
|
|
||
|
O transatlantických vztazích se často říká, že spočívají na třech pilířích společného zájmu – otevřeném obchodu, vzájemné bezpečnosti a sdílených normativních hodnotách. Tyto perspektivy jsou zakotveny ve společné historii, institucionalizované spolupráci a husté síti mezilidských kontaktů. Ačkoli se obecně má za to, že představují kolektivní „Západ“, při bližším pohledu na Evropu EU a Spojené státy se objevují rozdíly v organizaci demokratických institucí, ve vztahu jednotlivců ke státu a vládě, v uspořádání ekonomických vztahů atd. Kurz je ve svém duchu komparativní a má za cíl porovnat různé instituce Evropy a Spojených států se záměrem poskytnout hlubší pochopení amerického politického, sociálního a ekonomického systému. Kromě toho se kurz bude snažit identifikovat regionální a lokální rozdíly v identitě a institucích USA. Tato komparativní perspektiva navíc pomůže studentům identifikovat silné a slabé stránky institucí na obou stranách Atlantiku a zamyslet se nad jejich reformami a udržitelností. Poslední úprava: Hornát Jan, doc. PhDr., Ph.D. (16.09.2025)
|
|
||
|
1. Students will be required to attend classes regularly, read assigned readings and be active in discussions - this activity will constitute 10 points of the final grade. 2. Paper I: each student will be required to hand in a commented, AI-generated op-ed, which will debate any issue related to (contemporary) transatlantic relations. Each student will create a prompt and provide an analysis (1000 – 1200 words; excluding the AI-generated text) of the text generated by the AI-model. The analysis will entail the assessment of the text’s relevance, factual precision and plausibility. The activity will constitute 20 points of the final grade. The op-ed will be due on 23. 3. 2026. Examples of prompts: “Write an op-ed about the problems of Transatlantic trade in beef” “Write an 800-word op-ed about the challenges of data privacy between the US and the EU” 3. Paper II: each student will hand in a reaction paper to one of the required readings (1200 - 1500 words). The activity will constitute 20 points of the final grade. The reaction paper will be due on 19. 4. 2026. 3. Final test: Students will answer open-ended questions based on the mandatory readings. The activity will constitute 50 points of the final grade. Grading: 100 - 91 points: A 90 - 81 points: B 80 - 71 points: C 70 - 61 points: D 60 - 50 points: E less than 50 points: F (fail) Sanctions: Late submission of papers: -3 points/day Paper submission: Students will submit the papers via the Turnitin system: https://library.cuni.cz/services/turnitin/ Class ID: 47258667 Enrollment key: Jinonice1 Class Ethics (A) Any use of quoted texts, including AI-generated phrases, in submitted papers must be acknowledged. Such use must meet the following conditions:
It is recommended to use the style of Chicago Manual of Style. (B) In case the use of any texts other than those written by the author is established without proper acknowledgment as defined in (A), the paper will be deemed plagiarized and handed over to the Disciplinary Commission of the Faculty of Social Sciences. Poslední úprava: Hornát Jan, doc. PhDr., Ph.D. (23.01.2026)
|
|
||
|
Literature and other resources are listed in the syllabus. Poslední úprava: Bartůšek Jaroslav, Bc. (04.02.2025)
|
|
||
|
Teaching methods include lectures followed by a discussion with students.
Use of generative AI tools: The use and citation of generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT or MS Copilot) in seminar papers and other coursework must comply with the decrees of the IMS Director No. 7/2023 and 9/2023. Generative AI tools may be used unless explicitly prohibited by the instructor. However, they may not be used to generate substantial sections of the text or replace the student’s own intellectual contribution. The student remains fully responsible for any content generated with assistance of AI tools. Presenting AI-generated content, whether verbatim, rephrased, or only slightly modified, as one’s own work constitutes plagiarism. Every submitted paper must include a transparent statement specifying which generative AI tools were used, in which stage of the work they were employed, and how they were used, or confirming that no generative AI tools were used. If this statement is missing or incomplete, the instructor is not permitted to accept the paper for evaluation. Unless the instructor explicitly prohibits the use of generative AI tools, the decision to use or not to use them rests fully with the student. The student has the right to request that the instructor does not use AI assistance for evaluating their work. Poslední úprava: Hrubá Kateřina, Mgr. (07.01.2026)
|
|
||
|
Course schedule 2026 Bloc I: Introduction 1. Course introduction and requirements (17.2.) 2. Searching for narratives: Debates about US and EU identity (24.2.) Discussion: · Huntington, Samuel P., Who are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004). Chapter 3 – “Components of American Identity”. Optional: · Diez, Thomas, “Europe’s Others and the Return of Geopolitics,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17 (2), 2004: 319–335. · Gerstle, G. (1997). Liberty, Coercion, and the Making of Americans. The Journal of American History, 84(2), 524–558. · Schildkraut, Deborah J. Americanism in the Twenty-First Century: Public Opinion in the Age of Immigration (Cambridge University Press, 2011), Chapter 3 – Defining American Identity in the Twenty-First Century.
Bloc II: Organizing territory – The United States vs. the United States of Europe 3. Building a federation (3.3.) Discussion: · Edling, Max M. “Peace Pact and Nation: An International Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States”, Past & Present 240 (1), 2018: 267–303. Optional: · Lundestad, Geir, ‘Empire’ by Integration: The United States and European Integration, 1945-1997 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 1-28. · Deudney, Daniel H., “The Philadelphian system: sovereignty, arms control, and balance of power in the American states-union, circa 1787–1861,” International Organization 49 (2): 1995, 191-228.
4. Regionalism in the US (10.3.) · Woodard, Colin, American Character: A History of the Epic Struggle Between Individual Liberty and the Common Good (New York: Viking, 2016). Chapter 3 – “Rival Americas”. Optional: · Harrington, Jesse R. and Michele J. Gelfand, "Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (22), 2014: 7990-7995.
Bloc III: Organizing society – Dialogues over solidarity, equality and liberalism
5. Operationalizing solidarity: Health and social policy (17.3.) Discussion: · Jacobs, Lawrence and Theda Skocpol, Health Care Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). Chapter 1 – “Why Now? Broken Health Care and an Opportunity for Change”. Optional: · Foner, Eric, Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World (New York: Hill and Wang, 2002). Chapter 6 – “Why is there no socialism”.
6. “In Europe, we don’t do God”: The Role of Religion in Society and Politics (24.3.) Discussion: Kopstein, Jeffrey and Sven Steinmo (eds.), Growing Apart? America and Europe in the 21st Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Chapter 1 – “The Religious Divide: Why Religion Seems to Be Thriving in the United States and Waning in Europe” by Steven Pfaff. Optional: · Phillips, Kevin, "Church, State, and National Decline" in American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 218-262. · Gonzalez, Michelle A., "Religion and the US Presidency: Politics, the Media, and Religious Identity," Political Theology 13 (5), 2012: 568–585.
7. Fighting the government, the elite or foreigners? Convergence of American and European Populisms (31.3.) Discussion: · Belin, Célia, “MAGA Goes Global: Trump’s Plan for Europe”. European Council on Foreign Relations, 2025. Optional: · Samuels, Robert, “(Liberal) Narcissism” in Routledge Handbook of Psychoanalytic Political Theory (New York: Routledge, 2019), pp. 151-161. · Judis, John B., The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics (New York: Colombia Global Reports, 2016), 12-61,89-108 and 131-163.
Bloc IV: Organizing the economy – Neoliberalism and Industrial Policy 8. Ideology, politics and identity in the economy (7.4.) Discussion: · Kopstein, Jeffrey and Sven Steinmo (eds.), Growing Apart? America and Europe in the 21st Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Chapter 4 – “One Ring to Bind Them All: American Power and Neoliberal Capitalism” by Mark Blyth. Optional: · Alesina, Alberto and Edward Glaeser, “Why are welfare states in the US and Europe so different: What do we learn?” Horizons stratégiques 2 (2), 2006: 51-61. · Alber, Jens, “What the European and American Welfare States Have in Common and Where They Differ: Facts and Fiction in Comparisons of the European Social Model and the United States,” Journal of European Social Policy 20 (2), 2010: 102–125.
9. The return of industrial policies? (14.4.) Discussion: · Donnelly, S. “Political party competition and varieties of US economic nationalism: trade wars, industrial policy and EU-US relations”. Journal of European Public Policy 31(1), 2024: 79–103. Optional: · Fasteau, Marc, and Ian Fletcher. Industrial Policy for the United States: Winning the Competition for Good Jobs and High-Value Industries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024). Chapters 17 and 18. · Alessio Terzi, Monika Sherwood, Aneil Singh, “European industrial policy for the green and digital revolution”, Science and Public Policy 50 (5), 2023: 842–857.
Bloc V: Ensuring security – Dealing with differing threat perceptions 10. Are “Americans from Mars and Europeans from Venus”? Divergent threat and security perceptions across the Atlantic (21.4.) Discussion: · Horwitz, Joshua and Casey Anderson, Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009). Chapter 1 – What Is the Insurrectionist Idea? Optional: · Kagan, Robert, “Power and Weakness”, Policy Review 113 (3), 2002: 3-28. · Hampton, Mary N., A Thorn in Transatlantic Relations: American and European Perceptions of Threat and Security (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. 1-22. 11. Multilateralism à la carte? (28.4.) Discussion: · Martijn Groenleer, “The United States, the European Union, and the International Criminal Court: Similar values, different interests?” International Journal of Constitutional Law 13 (4), 2015: 923–944. Optional: · Smith, Mike, “The EU, the US and the crisis of contemporary multilateralism”, Journal of European Integration 40 (5), 2018: 539-553. · Sarotte, Mary Elise, “Transatlantic Tension and Threat Perception,” Naval War College Review 58 (4), 2005: 25–37.
12. The daily Transatlantic interactions (5.5.) Discussion: · Kenneth Propp, “Negotiating with the European Union – A U.S. Perspective” in Elaine Fahey (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Relations (London: Routledge, 2023), 38-51. Optional: · Donald E. Abelson, Christopher J. Rastrick, “Think Tanks and Transatlantic Relations: An Overview” in Donald Abelson, Stephen Brooks (eds.), Transatlantic Relations: Challenge and Resilience (London: Routledge, 2022), 228-247. · Joseph Dunne, “Connecting the US Congress and the European Parliament: The Work and Role of the EP Liaison Office in Washington DC” in Elaine Fahey (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Relations (London: Routledge, 2023), 17-30. Poslední úprava: Hornát Jan, doc. PhDr., Ph.D. (23.01.2026)
|