Word limit: Do not exceed 600 words (2 pages, regular font, double-spaced)
Submission method: post the assignment answer on the bulletin board and e-mail copy to your local instructor.
The title of the assignment should have: all three last names of the students, university abbreviation, course number, week number.
For example: IvanovPetrovSidorovSUSU104week4.

How to submit the assignment answer on the bulletin board:

1. Click on the "discussion forum" button on the IDL website;
2. Enter the login and password to access PanFora;
3. Click on "Enter the Form" link;
4. Click on the title IDL104;
5. Click on the week number;
6. Click on the abbreviation of your university;
7. Post your assignment answer by clicking on the "P" button.

Reminder: Late weekly assignments will be deducted 10 points for EACH DAY it is late - no exceptions.
Before you submit your assignment, check if it follows our writing guidelines.

All assignments will be graded according to the following assignment grading rubric. Please familiarize yourself with this rubric.

WEEKLY ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS

Week 1: Lecture 1 (Due Monday, February 18th, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please ANALYZE the following work in written form, using the Assignment Grading Rubric . The work answers the following question:

Many people believe that intrastate civil wars constitute a matter of international security although, by definition, a civil war is fought between warring factions within a state. Do you agree or disagree that civil wars are a matter of international security? Be sure to support your position with relevant information from the course readings and lectures.

PLEASE NOTE: For this week, you are being asked to use the grading rubric to analyze the sample essay, NOT to write your own essay on the topic.

Week 2: Lectures 2-3 (Due Monday, February 25th , 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions.

•  There is a debate about what specific criteria should guide the UN intervention in violent conflicts. Some people argue that the UN should intervene intervene only in the easiest cases; others believe that it should intervene only when the number of casualties is “sufficiently” high; and a third opinion contends that only humanitarian crises merit UN intervention. Which of these positions do you agree with most? In your answer, briefly but explicitly address the advantages and disadvantages of each of the three alternatives.

•  Some people argue that “early-stage” conflict management in ethnic and regional conflicts is cheaper and easier to implement as compared with “later-stage” conflict management. Do you agree or disagree? Justify your answer.

Week 3: Lecture 4-5 (Due Monday, March 3, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions:

•  Related to the Rwanda case reviewed this week, there is mention of some early warnings of the genocide to com. Do you think that this information was sufficient to predict the occurrence and magnitude of the genocide? Could the Rwanda genocide have been prevented? What are the main general lessons that we can infer from this case in terms of conflict prevention? Justify your answer.

•  What are the advantages and disadvantages of “Just” Peace as compared with just peace? In what circumstances is one more effective than the other? Compare and contrast these options using actual examples.

Week 4: Lecture 6-7 (Due Tuesday, March 10, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions:

• Compare and contrast the cases of mediation in Bosnia and Kosovo in terms of the following issues: mediation strategy, mediation timing, and mediators leverage. In retrospect, what specific actions would you have implemented differently in the Kosovo case to make it successful? Be concrete in your answers.

• in lecture 7, Professor Stedman concludes that, unless it has adequate resources at its disposal, the United Nations should not intervene in cases that are too hard to mediate. Do you agree or disagree with Stedman's claim? Why?

Week 5: Lecture 8-9 (Due Monday, March 17, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions:

• In his lecture, Andrew Russell contends that one of the major lessons learnt in El Salvador is that the international community must have a long attention span when managing internal conflicts and must stay on course for 10-15 years, if necessary. Other analysts, by contrast, point to the problems associated with the protracted peace-keeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and with the nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and conclude that short and focused involvements are preferable.
Which position makes more sense to you and why?

• Professor Stedman makes a case for the importance of identifying, and strategizing about, spoilers in the process of peace implementation. In this question you are asked to apply his analytical framework for a particular case study, namely the civil war in Bosnia. In your judgment, who, if anyone, were/are the spoilers of the peace process in Bosnia and what strategies should the international community follow, or have followed, to deal with these spoilers? Make a focused argument and back it up with evidence.

Week 6: MIDTERM (Due Monday, March 26th , 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Week 7: Lecture 10-11 (Due Monday, March 31, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions:

• In terms of the Paris Peace Accords, the U.N. set up a transitional authority (UNTAC) that assumed a wide range of governance tasks for an interim period in Cambodia. In your opinion, is it a good idea to entitle the U.N. to provisonally take over the governance of countries ravaged by civil wars? Under what circumstances, if ever, would you recommend such a temporary transfer of sovereignty to the U.N.?

• Do states ever intervene in foreign conflicts for purely humanitarian reasons or only when they believe that their national interests are at stake? In other words, is humanitarianism only a fiction that serves as a fig leaf for the self-interested actions of states? Make a coherent argument and illustrate it with concrete examples.

Week 8: Lecture 12-13 (Due Monday, April 7, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions:

• The case of Somalia raises a thorny dilemma: how should the international community go about making peace in a collapsed state? Should it seek the cooperation of all sides and factions, even when some of these are warlords with an appalling criminal record, or should it try to bypass the roguish elements? Make a pointed argument that weighs both sides of the dilemma.

• Reflecting upon the experience of the UN in Bosnia , Professor Stedman contends that “humanitarianism without political and moral judgment is a bankrupt approach.” Would you agree that the implementation of a stable, self-sustaining peace may require mediators to take sides in the conflict? Explain your position in view of the Bosnia case.

Week 9: Lecture 14-15 (Due Monday, April 14, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions:

• In the case of Eastern Zaire crisis of 1994-96, would you recommend that the UN withhold humanitarian aid to refugee camps? Under what circumstances, if at all, would you advocate such policy? Why? Think of the arguments underlying the different policy prescriptions mentioned by Prof. Stedman in the lecture and assess the case in light of those arguments before making your own conclusion.

• The Evans Commission concluded that the NATO intervention in Kosovo was “valid even though it seemed illegal.” Make a well-supported argument for or against that conclusion. For your argument you may want to consider such issues as the criteria that a case needs to satisfy to call for intervention, the international agents that may undertake intervention, and the possible consequences of intervening.

Week 10: Lecture 16-17 (Due Monday, April 21, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)

Please answer only ONE of the following two questions:

• In the lecture about reconciliation Byron Bland suggested that issues of conflict that are going to become more important in the future need to be resolved in the peace agreement, i.e. be “closed”, while those whose importance is going to be reduced in the future may be left unaddressed by the agreement, i.e. “open”. Think of a case that we have studied or a case that you know well. What are the issues that necessarily had to be “closed” and what are issues that could have been left “open” at the time of the peace agreement or what are these issues today, if the conflict is still continuing?

• In the quest for accountability for civil war crimes, how high do you think the standards of justice should be established? How can we balance amongst the positions of the international community, countries' political elites, and the victims? Answer these questions developing a general argument on the matter and then apply it to a specific case.

Week 11: Lecture 18 and FINAL EXAM (Exam due Friday, May 2, 12:00 midnight Moscow time)