This paper is an initial attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the Global Problems Summit, a simulation exercise developed for the international studies classroom over 10 years ago. We first situate the simulation exercise within the wider literature on active learning techniques and discuss how the Global Problems Summit can be used as a learning tool to introduce international relations students to issues and processes that underlie diplomacy and negotiations. The paper then assesses the pedagogical value of the simulation based on data from an experimental research design. We test whether students who participated in the summit demonstrated a statistically significant level of increased knowledge about these issues compared with control groups who learned the same material in a traditional classroom (lecture/discussion) format. The paper concludes that while both the Global Problems Summit and traditional lecture environments promote learning, they have a significantly different impact on the types of knowledge that students gain from the experience. Active teaching and learning techniques have generated considerable excitement in the discipline. Many teacher-scholars have created interactive educational environments, employing new instructional technologies, case studies, and simulations in the classroom. But these changes have also given rise to criticism that instructors are choosing ''style over substance'' and that there is limited evidence of the value of active learning approaches. To date, there have been very few studies that carefully assess the value of active teaching and learning approaches. This paper sets out to explore the value of one category of approaches, role-playing simulations, for enhancing the educational experiences of students. Using an experimental research design, we test whether students who participated in the summit demonstrated a International Studies Perspectives (2006) 7, 395-407.

Once considered academically unfashionable, studies of the importance of culture and ideas have gained greater attention in the post–Cold War era. Particularly surprising has been the emerging consensus in national security policy studies that culture may significantly affect grand strategy and state behavior. I chart the development of these ideas through several generations of scholarship, both inside and outside the discipline, and explore contemporary arguments about strategic culture and state behavior like theories of the cultural determinants of German and Japanese security policy behavior, constructivist models of the ideational foundations of state behavior, and related work on the “clash of civilizations.” Key questions include: Do cultural theories, newly inspired by constructivism, provide strong explanations of national security policy in the post–Cold War era? Is strategic culture really “semipermanent,” as most of its supporters suggest, or does it evolve over time? I conclude that while there are some compelling arguments about the ideational foundations of national security policy behavior, constructivism poses interesting questions about how much leaders may become strategic users of culture to achieve their policy goals. Finally, I identify several avenues for a progressive research agenda on the link between culture and national security policy in the twenty–first century.

This study examines the effects of contestation on individual norms that are embedded in larger norm clusters. We define norm clusters as collections of aligned, but distinct norms or principles at the center of a regime. Norm clusters include multiple norms that can be insulated from contestatory challenges by degrees of cohesion, institutionalisation, and legalisation. While some constructivists argue that the most important dynamic to study is ‘robustness’ of individual norms, we contend that ‘resiliency’ of norm clusters offers a richer assessment of prospects for international cooperation and long-term impact on state behaviours. Thus, this study distinguishes conceptually between different structural layers that can generate various effects in conjunction with norm contestation. We add a third, or intervening layer of explanation with norm clusters, between the intersection of norms (lowest layer) and normative structures (broadest layer). To explore this argument, comparative case studies examine the resiliency of two prohibitionary norms – the nuclear disarmament norm within the non-proliferation regime and the norm banning assassination of foreign adversaries, which is not embedded in a regime structure. While the robustness of individual norms may be challenged, our results suggest a role for resilient structures in promoting overall longevity of norm clusters.

Debates about humanitarian intervention, foreign and defense policy priorities, and the ethics of the use of force have become highly politicized in the post-Cold War era. This article explores the value of structured classroom debates on ethical dimensions of international relations as active teaching and learning tools for introductory and advanced international studies courses. Specifically, this article presents design information for structured debates on the ethics of the use of military force, humanitarian interventions, and U.S. foreign policy toward international institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). Building on the literature on active teaching and learning, the article describes the development of these exercises and assesses their effectiveness through ten years of classroom application.

No abstract