SIS PhD Comprehensive Examinations

1. "[T]he social science literature on decision-making has been divided into two camps: work premised on rational models of choice and work designed to discredit such models." Summarize the core contributions of authors such as Allison, Jervis, Janis, Janis and Mann, Levy, and Simon, and categorize them according to how they challenge the realist rational actor assumptions.

2. The preeminent paradigms for analyzing international relations have for some years been the 'neo-realist' approach associated with Kenneth Waltz and the 'neo-liberal' model of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Describe these two approaches, their basic assumptions, and the different world views they yield. Do these models offer insights for understanding the role of the United States in international affairs today?

3. Drawing on appropriate literature, compare the personal styles and approaches to management of various modern presidents in operating their NCS systems.

4. Drawing on literature in the field and other appropriate sources, how would you characterize the G.W. Bush administration's foreign policy; realist, Wilsonian, neo-conservative, globalist-multilateralist, all-some-none of the above? Some other label? Define terms and discuss.

5. Discuss some of the social science findings regarding the public's support for military interventions abroad. What determines whether the public more likely to support an intervention at the start? Does the public always rally-around-the-flag when presidents authorize the use of force? Will the public automatically withdraw support as casualties mount?

6. Several authors have argued that the politics of defense policymaking had entered a new era even before September 11, 2001. They claim, for example, that the iron triangle no longer describes defense politics and that the policy process is best seen as one of collective decision-making. Others suggest further that Congress can even challenge the Executive on strategic issues and they note that some members of Congress even have taken the lead in formulating new approaches to defense policy. To assess these contentions, describe the way in which defense policy is made today, and analyze the extent to which Congress is a meaningful actor in the process.

7. Though the Joint Resolution (see excerpt below) authorizing the use of force states that "Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution," it would seem that the resolution in effect vitiates the essence of the War Powers Resolution for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, it might be argued that the way in which the War Powers Resolution has been enforced since 1973 already had deprived it of any significance. Discuss the validity of these two assertions about the War Powers Resolution.

Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self?defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force".

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

--Passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.