Overview & Prompt.
The assigned readings cover a range of topics related to conflict, territoriality, state formation, and sovereignty. Scholars argued, that since the end of the Cold War, forms of global and national order reveal changes from a bundled ideal of Westphalian sovereignty—a system of discrete states as territorial units—toward a system of fragmented, “novel assemblages” (Sassen, 2008) composed of a range of ‘stakeholders’ rather than formal state institutions, solely (Ballve, 2012). On one hand, identifying and including multiple stakeholders can be a positive element of state- formation that recognizes a diverse array of human experiences and claims within a defined space. Are there drawbacks? What are the implications and impacts of the emergence of fragmented interests? How do actors within a specific territory come to gain legitimacy as viable ‘stakeholders’? What is the relationship between territoriality and sovereignty in this period of fragmented power assemblages? Evaluate whether or not new power and state formations have been beneficial or detrimental to the overall order and stability of states and their territories.
Specifics.
In about 4-5 double spaced pages (excluding header material), develop an argument responding to the prompt. Your task is to determine, based on the arguments raised in the texts assigned from weeks 8-10, challenges to conventional, ideal sovereignty have been helpful or harmful. You are also free to argue that the balance lies somewhere in between the two. Your paper will be evaluated on the strength of your argument and how well you support it with evidence from the assigned readings only.
• 4-5 pages, double spaced, standard 12 pt font
• APA in-text parenthetical citations, works cited
• Use of 4 examples of supporting evidence drawn only from 3 assigned readings
• No title pages
This is an argumentative/ position-based essay, so it should be clear within the first paragraph what perspective you are taking, and where the essay is headed. Support your perspective with evidence and examples from the texts. It is also fine to use empirical examples, but cover your bases with the 3 assigned texts before including any external sources.
Sources you will want to draw from.
• LeBillion, “Diamond wars?”
• Ballve, “Everyday state formation”
• Sassen, “Neither global nor local”
• Moore, “Ethnoterritoriality and ethnic conflict”
• Packer, “The end of the American century”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/george-packer-pax-americana-richard-holbrooke/586042/
• Evans & Sahnoun, “The Responsibility to Protect”
You do not need to use all of these but some combination of 4 examples from 3 of these readings would be enough evidence to support your argument.
