Below is a sample midterm exam for the course. It is take home in format and worth 30% of the final course grade.
Mid Term Take Home Essays
You are free to use notes, book as, etc. as long as you provide full references for your key points. This means author, date, and if possible pages (necessary if you use direct quotes). You do not need to spend more than 2 hours per question, not counting the final typing. But you can spend longer if you wish. Please be sure to do an outline for your answers before you begin to write. It is also useful to indicate at the beginning what you plan to do, what you will cover and what you will not.
Please answer 3 questions out of the 4 questions below.
The quality is important, and not the length. As a rough rule, you might consider writing 3-5 pages single space for each question. This is only a general guideline.
-
The term "globalization" is increasingly being used in the study of international relations and international political economy. Increasingly, also, there are debates surrounding the definition of the term and the extent of relevance in the global economy. Please write an essay on 'globalization', its various 'meanings', and the issues surrounding debates about the 'new' versus the 'old' globalization.
-
What are the role (if any) of state boundaries in international relations? To what extent do these roles shape relations among states? What are the major 'leakages' that appear to take place? Of what relevance are these to the conduct of domestic politics and international politics? In your essay please illustrate with specific examples of 'roles' and literatures.
-
Increasingly, reference is made to 'global civil society'. What is the meaning of this concept? What, if any, are the empirical manifestations? What relevance, if any, is there for the robustness of conventional concept of 'sovereignty' in international relations? How do these issues relate to matters of 'globalization'?
-
Often it is argued that technology is the critical driver of globalization. What is the the nature of this argument? Do you agree, disagree, or wish to amend or to reframe? Why and how?