human trafficking it global significances from a gender perspective
Order Description
Subject: International Relations and Security Studies.

You are to analyse a security problem through one of the key security human trafficking from a gender perspective, this essay should be guided by the following security issues: Human rights abuses, Migration and human trafficking, Pandemics and health, Failed states and societal insecurity. This concern be argued through a post-structuralist approach.

Structure
introduction, main body of the essay, and conclusion.
Subject: International Relations and Security Studies
• Clearly identified the theory and case study you plan to write about
• Make clear what this theoretical approach in security studies tells us about this case study in particular
Be sure to:
• Define key terms
• Ensure your case study works with your chosen approach or theory
• Think about how other approaches might read your case study and come up with different ideas, focal points or conclusions. For example, you may choose to examine diseases as a security issue through a postcolonial approach, but the focus and conclusion will differ greatly if you applied a realist or feminist lens to that same issue. So, think about what we gain by understanding this security problem through this approach.
• Think of key scholars you need to include
Evenly give space to the points you need to cover – remember, you have to adequately explain relevant points of the theory, at times comparing or contrasting them to other opposing approaches or perspectives or showing how they differ. You then have to give a background on the security problem under analysis, so treat these two aspects as the main parts of the essay, topped and tailed with a clear intro and conclusion.
• Brief introduction – 1-2 paragraphs. This should tell the reader what the essay is covering, and why your chosen approach tells us something worthwhile about how to understand it.
• It’s good to give the reader a quick overview of a security problem, and then briefly explain your chosen theory and why you are covering it.
Suggested structure:
Introduction
Main body 1: theory
Main body 2: security issue
Section that brings analysis and case study together
Conclusion – summing up, no new points
Reading and preparation
• List of minimum 10-17 sources you will be using.
• Identify key articles, scholars in the field, necessary textbooks chapters, book chapters, etc. have a good spread but keep your websites to a minimum and make sure they are for good, respectable sources.
For instance, you may opt to examine human trafficking from a gender perspective, terrorism through a post-colonial approach, or drone warfare through a post-structuralist approach. These are just examples. You should be guided by the security issue that has interested you the most in this unit. In terms of choosing an approach, you should think about what you wish to argue and how we can best understand the selected security issue.
You should choose a different approach to the one you selected for your minor essay.
We are not covering liberalism, realism, or Marxism – you must choose one of the post-positivist theories/approaches.
UNDERSTAND THE TASK
This is where many students go wrong. An essay is not writing down everything you know about a topic. You need to be able to tell the reader something about the chosen theory and how it applies to your selected case study.
RESEARCHING THE ESSAY
I expect to see students conducting research for this essay. That means using a range of reliable and respectable sources (avoid Wikipedia or dodgy online). First, you need to use sources from the unit reading guide. You should aim to include books, book chapters, journal articles, primary sources, official policy documents and news reports. Less than 10 sources are a sign of lack of research. Do not skimp on research. It shows in your knowledge and argument.
Remember, the essay is a chance to show off all that hard word you have done for this unit.
THE INTRODUCTION
• Many students forget that an essay needs a good introduction. Some students skip straight to the ‘meat and bones’ of the essay – don’t do this! If you do, you end up simply clobbering your reader over the head with a bunch of information that has no context. So, think of the introduction as the warm-up act. It tells the reader what the essay is about and what’s in store. It is a brief roadmap of where you are going and what you will argue.
• Your introduction should be no longer than two paragraphs and should set out the context of the essay, what it will cover and what you will argue.
• Observe the book chapters and journal articles you read. Note how they tell the reader from the start what the argument is, how the case will be built, and what the focus is. Don’t write a shopping list of what you will do. Give the introduction a narrative – it tells a story.
• It is often helpful to write the introduction last, when you know what you have argued and how you have built up your case.
THE MAIN BODY OF THE ESSAY
• Here is where you start getting into the detail of what you promise in the introduction. First, you should ensure that you define any key terms. For instance, don’t assume the reader knows what you mean when you refer to ‘sovereignty’, ‘securitization’, or ‘failed state’. Explain these concepts or general ideas.
• In order to avoid covering too many points and running out of space to adequately analyse and discuss, you should concentrate on a limited range of points in relation to the task. So, you need to decide what the most fundamental issues are for the topic and question. You need to bear in mind you must spend some time explaining an approach or theory so make sure you are comprehensive on this and don’t leave out very important and obvious elements. For instance, when explaining and outlining social constructivism, you do need to discuss identity, norms, values and other relevant themes central to that approach. Be sure to also acknowledge the critiques of that approach.
• Remember too that examples you draw upon and case studies you use may illustrate your point and provide evidence for your argument. But case studies in particular can also work the other way because they are open to a range of interpretations. For instance, consider Australia’s support for the US in its war on terror and engagement in Iraq. From a liberal point of view, Australia is helping spread democracy. From a critical theory point of view, it’s an entirely different interpretation. So, think about how your case studies are interpreted and how they work with you or against.
• A good way to show depth of research is to recognise the contribution of different schools of thought and writers. Know who the key scholars are in the theory or approach you use. Know where they disagree with each other. Acknowledge the critiques of your approach. And be a savvy researcher – don’t immediately accept the arguments and positions presented to you.
• At the end of each section, make sure you return to the point of that section. This is a good way to ensure you are not going off track and you are building up your argument.
• Avoid rants. The essay is not the space for you to rant about how horrible certain orange politicians are. Yes, that may be the case. But you do that in the pub, not in an essay.
• Remember that there is always a counter-argument to contend with and address. So, if you are happily cruising along building up your case as to why the war on terror is gendered, you should think about the arguments that would refute that claim. How strong are they? Do they show weaknesses to a gendered perspective on the war on terror? How? Does this weaken your argument? What you need to do here is assess the criticisms, and, based on your research and argumentation, tell the reader how those critiques fit into your argument. It is ok to acknowledge that some criticisms may be valid and spot on – an essay should not always be one argument for/against by any means. Just know your pitfalls and have a response ready.
CONCLUSION
• Your conclusion should sum up what the essay has covered and what you have argued.
• It is not the place for any new information or points.
• It is ok to pose further questions in your conclusion that are of relevance to the essay topic.
REFERENCING AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Unless you REALLY want to lose marks in your essay, make sure you reference correctly and include a complete bibliography.
• By now, as second year students, you should know how to use the Harvard system. This also means including page numbers when you are citing material. Don’t leave out page numbers. Did I mention page numbers? No? Well, include them.
• Use your quotes carefully. Don’t spend time filling up an essay with a load of useless quotes. A common example of this is when students quote basic things, such as well-known events. If you can paraphrase or put it in your own words (whilst still referencing), do so. Save your quotes for lovely passages of speeches or significant lines by key thinkers. And don’t put in chunks of quotes. If you are unsure about quotes and how you want to use them, ask your tutor.
• Any figures or statistics used must be referenced.
• Your reference list should list the sources you have used/cited (and not every single source you consulted but then didn’t use) for the essay. Don’t list sources that I don’t see appearing in citations in the essay.
• A final note on readings: the reading list is extensive for a reason. It is to give you a wide range of sources on a topic or approach AND it covers the most important works in the field. It is a start and is by no means exhaustive, but it does contain the most relevant and up to date sources in the discipline of international relations and security studies. For that reason, don’t use texts from other units unless you discuss them first with your tutor. Often these texts won’t be useful or engage with the core questions and academic debates we’ll be covering in this unit.
References:

M. Dunn Cavelty and V. Mauer (eds) (2009) The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies London: Routledge.

K. Fierke (2007) Critical Approaches to International Security Cambridge: Polity.

K. Krause & M. C. Williams (eds) (1997) Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. London: UCL Press.

C. Peoples & N. Vaughan-Williams (2010) Critical Security Studies. An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Paul D. Williams (ed) (2012) Security Studies: An Introduction. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.

The first half of the unit will largely focus on conceptual and theoretical approaches to security, and require a familiarity with some key theories of international relations, the basics of liberalism, realism and Marxism. Here are some good
IR materials that provide the basics of these theories and approaches.
J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens, (eds) (2014) The Globalization of World Politics, 6th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

S. Burchill, et. al. (eds) (2013) Theories of International Relations,5th edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Richard Devetak, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds) (2012) An Introduction to International Relations 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds) (2013) International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

R. Jackson & G. Sorensen (2012) Introduction to International Relations–Theories and Approaches 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

D. Baldwin (1997) ‘The concept of security’, Review of International Studies, 23(1): 5-26.

A. Collins (2012) ‘Introduction: What is security studies?’, in A. Collins (ed.) Contemporary Security Studies, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

S. Smith (2005) ‘The Contested Concept of Security,’ in Ken Booth (ed.) Critical Security Studies and World Politics Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

P. D. Williams (2012) ‘War’, in Paul D. Williams (ed) Security Studies: An Introduction. 2nd edition. London: Routledge

D. Baldwin (1995) ‘Security studies and the end of the Cold War’, World Politics 48(1): 117-41.

K. Krause & M. C. Williams (1996) ‘Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods’, Mershon International Studies Review40(2): 229-254

P. Morgan (2012) ‘Liberalism’, in A. Collins (ed) Contemporary Security Studies,

K. Fierke (2007) Critical Approaches to International Security.
Cambridge: Polity. Chapters 1 and 2.

J. George (1996) ‘Understanding International Relations after the Cold War: Probing Beyond the Realist Legacy’, in Shapiro, M. J., and Alker, H. R. (eds.) Challenging Boundaries. Global Flows, Territorial Identities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 33-79

R. N. Lebow (1994) ‘The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism’, International Organization48(2): 249-277.

P. Morgan (1999) ‘Realist and liberal security studies at 2000: Two decades of progress’, Contemporary Security Policy, 20(3): 39-71.

W.C. Wohlforth (2009) ‘Realism and Security Studies’, in M. Dunn Cavelty and V. Mauer (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies London: Routledge.

M. McDonald (2009) ‘Emancipation and Critical Terrorism Studies’, in Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth, J. Gunning (eds)
Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda. New York: Routledge. E-Book.

R. Cox (1981) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2): 126-55

B. Buzan (2007) People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era 2nd rev.ed. Colchester: ECPR Press. Copy on Reserve/Additional copies on 2-
day loan –can place holds.

K. Krause (1998) ‘Critical Theory and Security Studies. The Research Programme of `Critical Security Studies’’, Cooperation and Conflict 33(3): 298-333.

M. Ayoob (1995) ‘The Security Problematic of the Third World’, World Politics, 43(2): 257-83

R. Charli Carpenter (2006) ‘Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations’, Security Dialogue 37(1): 83-103.

C. Agius (2012) ‘Social Constructivism’, in A. Collins (ed) Contemporary Security Studies, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

J. Bially Mattern (2001) ‘The Power Politics of Identity’, European Journal of International Relations7(3): 349-397

Odysseas Christou and Constantinos Adamides (2013) ‘Energy securitization and desecuritization in the New Middle East’, Security Dialogue 44: 507-522.

A. Burke (2012) ‘Post-structural Security Studies’, in L. J. Shepherd (ed) Critical Approaches to Security. An Introduction to Theories and Methods. London: Routledge.

Miguel De Larrinaga and Marc G. Doucet (2008) ‘Sovereign Power and the Biopolitics of Human Security’, Security Dialogue 39(5):517-537.

C. Aradau (2008) Rethinking Trafficking in Women: Politics Out of Security Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Michele Anne Clark (2003) ‘Trafficking in Persons: An issue of human security’, Journal of Human Development 4(2): 247-263

S. Davies (2008) ‘Securitizing Infectious Diseases’, International Affairs, 84(2): 295-313.

R. L. Doty (1989) ‘Immigration and the Politics of Security’, Security Studies 8(2): 71-93.
J. Hill (2005) ‘Beyond the Other? A Postcolonial Critique of the ‘Failed State’ Thesis’, African Identities, 3(2): 139-54

J. Huysmans (2006) The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London; New York, NY: Routledge. E-Book

T. Langford (1999) ‘Things Fall Apart: State Failure and the Politics of Intervention’, International Studies Review, 1(1): 59-79.

Roland Paris (2001) ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’, International Security 26(2): 87-102.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2012) Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2012 New York: UN (available at:
https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and analysis/glotip/Trafficking_in_Persons_2012_web.pdf)

J. Giraldo and H. Trinkunas (2012) ‘Transnational Crime’, in A. Collins (ed) Contemporary Security Studies, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simon Reid-Henry (2011) ‘Spaces of security and development: An alternative mapping of the security–development nexus’, Security Dialogue 42(1): 97-104.

T. F. Homer-Dixon (1991) ‘On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict’, International Security
16(2): 76-116.

Jasper Humphreys (2012) ‘Resource wars: searching for a new definition’, International Affairs88(5): 1065–1082.

J. R. McNeill (2003) ‘Environmental Change and Security’ in Brown, M. T. (ed) Grave New World: Security Challenges in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 178 -196

T. Dunne (2005) ‘Terrorism’ in White, B. et al., eds, Issues in World Politics, 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 257-
273

M. McDonald (2005) ‘Constructing Insecurity: Australian Security
Discourse and Policy Post-2001’, International Relations19(3):297-320.

M. McDonald (2009) ‘Emancipation and Critical Terrorism Studies’, in Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth, J. Gunning (eds)
Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda
New York: Routledge.

T. Moore (2012) ‘An Australian Approach to Ethical Warfare? Australia and the ‘War on Terror’’, in A. Bergma-Rosamond and M. Phythian (eds) War, Ethics and Justice: New Perspectives on a Post-9/11 World, London: Routledge.

J. O’Hagan (1995) ‘Civilizational conflict? Looking for cultural enemies’, Third World Quarterly 16(1): 19-38.

Paul D. Williams (2008) ‘Security studies, 9/11 and the long war’, in A. J. Bellamy, R. Bleiker, S. E. Davies and R. Devetak (eds) Security and the War on Terror Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp.24.

J. Wolfendale (2006) ‘Terrorism, Security, and the Threat of Counterterrorism’, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 29(7): 753-770.

David Grondin (2012) ‘The Study Of Drones As Objects Of Security: Targeted Killing As Military Strategy’, in M. B. Salter and C. E. Mutlu (eds) Research Methods in Critical Security Studies. An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Derek Gregory (2011) ‘From a view to a kill: Drones and later modern war’, Theory, Culture and Society 28(7-8): 188-215

Christian Enemark (2011) ‘Drones over Pakistan: Secrecy, Ethics, and Counterinsurgency’, Asian Security 7(3): 218-237.

T. McCrisken (2011) ‘Ten years on: Obama’s war on terrorism in rhetoric and practice’, International Affairs87(4): 781–801.

C. Spearin (2008) ’Private, Armed and Humanitarian?’, Security Dialogue, 39(3): 363-82.

O. Wæver and B. Buzan (2012) ‘After the return to theory: The past, present, and future of security studies’, in A. Collins (ed) Contemporary Security Studies, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

S. Smith (2005) ‘The contested concept of security’ in K. Booth(ed.) (2005) Critical Security Studies and World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. pp. 27-62.

M. McDonald C. Browning (2013) ‘The Future of Critical Security Studies: Ethics and the Politics of Security’, European Journal of International Relations19(2): 235-55