Show syllabus valid from

Course syllabus The Study of War and Conflict

Swedish name: Studiet av krig och konflikter

Course code:

2KR025

Valid from semester:

Spring Term 2022

Education cycle:

Second cycle

Scope:

15.0 credits

Progression:

A1N

Grading scale:

Three-grade scale

Main field of study:

War Studies

Department:

Department of War Studies and Military History

Subject:

War Studies

Language of instruction:

The teaching is conducted in English.

Decided by:

Forsknings- och utbildningsnämndens kursplaneutskott (KUS)

Decision date:

2022-01-01

Entry requirements

Bachelor of Science Degree in Military Studies or Bachelor's degree worth 180 credits, of which 90 credits are in War Studies or another related, relevant subject, such as International Relations, Peace and Conflict Studies, Security Studies, Political Science, etc.

English proficiency equivalent to English B or English 6 is also required.

Course content and structure

The course aims to give the student a qualified social scientific understanding of traditional and modern perspectives of war, conflicts and military power. The course offers both a broad introduction to contemporary theories, and an in-depth study of different analytical perspectives. The course has two overarching themes. The first theme focuses on different perspectives of war and conflicts, such as how, why for what purposes, and under what conditions war is waged. The second theme focuses on different perspectives of the military means of power, such as how military power is created and organised.

Type of Instruction
Instruction is in the form of lectures, mandatory seminars, and scenario exercises.

Objectives

After completed course the student should be able to:

Competence and skills

Identify, contrast and problematise different analytical orientations/theoretical approaches to the study of war and conflicts.
Independently and with good grounding in theoretical perspectives, analyse wars, conflicts and use of military force.
Clearly communicate, both verbally and in writing, the content, arguments and conclusions in the course literature and independent analyses.

Judgement and approach

Evaluate arguments about war, conflict and use of military force based on ethical considerations.

Examination formats

Assessment takes place through active participation in the mandatory seminars and written submission in the form of a memorandum, which is also presented at a final seminar.

Examinations submitted late will not be graded unless special circumstances exist and the examiner finds the reason acceptable.

The examiner may decide to allow supplementation in order for a passing grade to be achieved in the course. The supplementation shall be submitted no later than three working days after notification of the examination results and the decision on supplementation, unless special circumstances exist that are acceptable to the examiner.

Grading
Grades are set according to a three-grade scale: Pass with Distinction (VG), Pass (G) and Fail (U). Grading criteria are specified by no later than the start of the course.

To earn the grade Pass (G) in the course, the student must actively and constructively participate in mandatory seminars and earn a grade of Pass (P) on the written assignment in the form of a memorandum.

To earn the grade Pass with Distinction (VG) in the course, the student must meet the requirements for Pass (G) and earn a grade of Pass with Distinction (VG) on the written assignment in the form of a memorandum.

The number of examinations is not limited.

Transitional provisions

When the course is no longer given or when the course content has changed substantially, the student has the right to be examined once per semester during a three-term period in accordance with this syllabus.

Other regulations

The course cannot be included in a degree with another course whose content fully or partially corresponds to the content of this course.

The course is given within the framework of the Master’s Programme in Politics and War, and may also be given as a freestanding course.

From autumn semester 2021, the course is included as an elective course within the Master's Programme in Politics, Security and War.

If a student has a decision from the Swedish Defence University regarding special educational support due to a disability, the examiner may decide on alternative forms of examination for the student.

On completion of the course, an evaluation will be conducted under the auspices of the course director and will serve as the basis for any changes to the course.

This is an edited version of the syllabus, created to transfer the original to the education database Ladok education planning. For originals, refer to the archive.

Reading list valid from date 2025-09-01

Reading list decided date: 2025-06-25

Baaz, Maria Eriksson, and Maria Stern. 2008. ‘Making Sense of Violence: Voices of Soldiers in the Congo (DRC)’. The Journal of Modern African Studies 46 (1): 57–86.
Betts, Richard K. 1997. ‘Should Strategic Studies Survive?’ World Politics 50 (1): 7–33.
Betts, Richard K. 2000. ‘Is Strategy an Illusion?’ International Security 25 (2): 5–50.
Biddle, Stephen D. 2006. ‘The Modern System’. In Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle, 28–51. Princeton University Press.
Bove, Vincenzo, Mauricio Rivera, and Chiara Ruffa. 2020. ‘Beyond Coups: Terrorism and Military Involvement in Politics’. European Journal of International Relations 26 (1): 263–88.
Brooks, Risa A. 2020. ‘Paradoxes of Professionalism: Rethinking Civil-Military Relations in the United States’. International Security 44 (4): 7–44.
Brooks, Risa, Jim Golby, and Heidi Urben. 2021. ‘Crisis of Command: America’s Broken Civil-Military Relationship Imperils National Security’. Foreign Affairs 100 (3): 64–75.
Burk, James. 2002. ‘Theories of Democratic Civil-Military Relations’. Armed Forces & Society 29 (1): 7–29.
Byman, Daniel L., and Matthew C. Waxman. 2002a. ‘Coercive Instruments’. In The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might, by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 1. publ. RAND Studies in Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Byman, Daniel L., and Matthew C. Waxman. 2002b. ‘Coercive Mechanisms’. In The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might, by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 1. publ. RAND Studies in Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Byman, Daniel L., and Matthew C. Waxman. 2002c. ‘Introduction’. In The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might, by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 1. publ. RAND Studies in Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Byman, Daniel L., and Matthew C. Waxman. 2002d. ‘The Theory of Coercion’. In The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might, by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 1. publ. RAND Studies in Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Byman, Daniel L., and Matthew C. Waxman. 2002e. ‘Coercion and Coalitions’. In The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might, by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 1. publ. RAND Studies in Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Byman, Daniel L., and Matthew C. Waxman 2002f. ‘Domestic Politics and Coercion’. In The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might, by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 1. publ. RAND Studies in Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Byman, Daniel L., and Matthew C. Waxman. 2002g. ‘Humanitarian Coercion and Non-State Actors’. In The Dynamics of Coercion: American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might, by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 1. publ. RAND Studies in Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Campbell, Peter. 2019. ‘Military Autonomy: Its Origins, Limits, and the Politico-Military Dialectic of War’. Defence Studies 19 (3): 277–96.
Cohn, Carol. 1987. ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’. Signs 12 (4): 687–718.
Duyvesteyn, Isabelle. 2004. ‘How New Is the New Terrorism?’ Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 27 (5): 439–54.
Duyvesteyn, Isabelle, and James E. Worrall. 2017. ‘Global Strategic Studies: A Manifesto’. Journal of Strategic Studies 40 (3): 347–57.
Eastwood, James. 2016. ’“Meaningful Service”: Pedagogy at Israeli Pre-Military Academies and the Ethics of Militarism’. European Journal of International Relations 22 (3): 671–95.
Evetts, Julia. 2003. ‘Explaining the Construction of Professionalism in the Military: History, Concepts and Theories’. Revue Française de Sociologie 44 (4): 759–76.
Feaver, Peter D. 1998. ‘Crisis as Shirking: An Agency Theory Explanation of the Souring of American Civil-Military Relations’. Armed Forces & Society 24 (3): 407–34.
Fjelde, Hanne, Lisa Hultman, and Desirée Nilsson. 2019. ‘Protection Through Presence: UN Peacekeeping and the Costs of Targeting Civilians’. International Organization 73 (1): 103–31.
Fortna, Virginia Page. 2015. ‘Do Terrorists Win? Rebels’ Use of Terrorism and Civil War Outcomes’. International Organization 69 (3): 519–56.
Frowe, Helen. 2016. ‘The Conditions of Jus Ad Bellum’. In The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction, 52–74. Routledge.
Hazelton, Jacqueline L. 2017. ‘The “Hearts and Minds” Fallacy: Violence, Coercion, and Success in Counterinsurgency Warfare’. International Security 42 (1): 80–113.
Hundman, Eric, and Sarah E Parkinson. 2019. ‘Rogues, Degenerates, and Heroes: Disobedience as Politics in Military Organizations’. European Journal of International Relations 25 (3): 645–71.
Johnson, Dominic, and Dominic Tierney. 2003. ‘Essence of Victory: Winning and Losing International Crises’. Security Studies 13 (2): 350–81.
Jones, Seth G. 2017a. ‘Introduction’. In Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State, 1–15. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Seth G. 2017b. ‘Starting Insurgencies’. In Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State, 16–34. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Seth G. 2017c. ‘Ending Insurgencies’. In Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State, 159–75. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Seth G. 2017d. ‘Organizational Structures’. In Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State, 83–113. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Seth G 2017e. ‘Outside Support’. In Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State, 134–58. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Seth G 2017f. ‘Strategies’. In Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State, 35–56. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Seth G 2017g. ‘Tactics’. In Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State, 57–82. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Seth G. 2017h. ‘Implications for Counterinsurgency Warfare’. In Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Vietcong to the Islamic State, 176–203. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
King, Anthony. 2007. ‘The Existence of Group Cohesion in the Armed Forces: A Response to Guy Siebold’. Armed Forces & Society 33 (4): 638–45.
Krause, Peter. 2013. ‘The Political Effectiveness of Non-State Violence: A Two-Level Framework to Transform a Deceptive Debate’. Security Studies 22 (2): 259–94.
Larsdotter, Kersti. 2011. ‘Defining Success’. In Military Interventions in Internal Wars The Study of Peace or the Study of War?, 73–95. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, Faculty of Social Sciences.
Larsdotter, Kersti. 2014. ‘Fighting Transnational Insurgents: The South African Defence Force in Namibia, 1966–1989’. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 37 (12): 1024–38.
Larsdotter, Kersti. 2019. ‘Military Strategy and Peacekeeping: An Unholy Alliance?’ Journal of Strategic Studies 42 (2): 191–211.
Lindsay, Jon R., and Erik Gartzke. 2022. ‘Politics by Many Other Means: The Comparative Strategic Advantages of Operational Domains’. Journal of Strategic Studies 45 (5): 743–76.
Maleševic, Siniša. 2014. ‘Is War Becoming Obsolete? A Sociological Analysis’. The Sociological Review 62 (S2): 65–86.
Martel, William C. 2011. ‘Victory in Scholarship on Strategy and War’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24 (3): 513–36.
Meiser, Jeffrey W. 2016. ‘Are Our Strategic Models Flawed? Ends + Ways + Means = (Bad) Strategy’. Parameters 46 (4): 81–91.
Melander, Erik, Magnus Öberg, and Jonathan Hall. 2009. ‘Are “New Wars” More Atrocious? Battle Severity, Civilians Killed and Forced Migration Before and After the End of the Cold War’. European Journal of International Relations 15 (3): 505–36.
Moskos, Charles C. 1977. ‘From Institution to Occupation: Trends in Military Organization’. Armed Forces & Society 4 (1): 41–50.
Nuechterlein, Donald E. 1976. ‘National Interests and Foreign Policy: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis and Decision-Making’. British Journal of International Studies 2 (3): 246–66.
Pape, Robert A. 1996a. ‘Beyond Strategic Bombing’. In Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, 1st edition, 314–31. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.

Pape, Robert A. 1996b. ‘Coercive Air Power’. In Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, 1st edition, 55–86. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Pape, Robert A. 1996c. ‘Explaining Military Coercion’. In Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, 1st edition, 12–54. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Pape, Robert A. 1996d. ‘Why Study Military Coercion?’ In Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, 1st edition, 11–1. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Pape, Robert A. 1996e. ‘Iraq, 1991’ In Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, 1st edition, 211–53. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Pape, Robert A. 2003. ‘The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism’. American Political Science Review 97 (3): 343–61.
Plapinger, Samuel H. 2022. ‘Insurgent Recruitment Practices and Combat Effectiveness in Civil War: The Black September Conflict in Jordan’. Security Studies, June, 1–40.
Ruffa, Chiara. 2017. ‘Military Cultures and Force Employment in Peace Operations’. Security Studies 26 (3): 391–422.
Schelling, Thomas C. 2020. ‘The Diplomacy of Violence’. In Arms and Influence, Veritas paperback edition, 1–34. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schulzke, Marcus. 2013. ‘Ethically Insoluble Dilemmas in War’. Journal of Military Ethics 12 (2): 95–110.
Smith, Rupert. 2019. ‘Introduction: Understanding Force’. In The Utility of Force, 1–26. Penguin Books.
Staniland, Paul. 2017. ‘Armed Politics and the Study of Intrastate Conflict’. Journal of Peace Research 54 (4): 459–67.
Wilner, Alex S. 2011. ‘Deterring the Undeterrable: Coercion, Denial, and Delegitimization in Counterterrorism’. Journal of Strategic Studies 34 (1): 3–37.
Winslow, Donna. 1999. ‘Rites of Passage and Group Bonding in the Canadian Airborne’. Armed Forces & Society 25 (3): 429–57.