Week |
Subject |
Related Preparation |
1) |
Introduction |
|
2) |
Introducing framework and historical background |
*Introduction, Green Planet Blues (Conca, Alberty and Dabelko ed.s, 1995), p. 3-12.
Visual material: Planet Earth
|
3) |
Growth, limits, and the commons |
*Meadows, Meadows, Randers and Behrens III. 1998.‘The Nature of Exponential Growth’, in Debating the Earth, The Environmental Politics Reader, Dryzec and Schlosberg eds. p. 9-22.
*Hardin. 1995 (1968).‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, in Conca, Alberty and Dabelko (eds.), Green Planet Blues, p. 38-45.
Feeny, Berkes, McCay, Acheson. 1995 (1990).‘The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later’, in Conca, Alberty and Dabelko (eds.), Green Planet Blues: p. 53-62.
*Ostrom, E. 1994. ‘Neither market nor state: Governance of common-pool resources in the twenty-first century’, Lecture series 2, International Food Policy Research Institute.
**choice of project actor due**
|
4) |
Environment and development: the sustainability debate-I |
*World Commission on Environment and Development. 2004. ‘From One Earth to One World’, in F. J. Lechner and J. Boli (eds.), The Globalization Reader, Blackwell: p.366-372.
UN Conference on Environment and Development, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, in F. J. Lechner and J. Boli (eds.), The Globalization Reader, Blackwell: p. 373-376.
*Daly, H. E. 1998 (1990). ‘Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 285-289.
|
5) |
Environment and development: the sustainability debate- II |
*Carruthers, D. 2005 (2000). ‘From Opposition to Orthodoxy’: the Remaking of Sustainable Development’ in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 285-300.
Baker, S. 2007, ‘Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: Declaratory politics and the seductive appeal of ecological modernization in the European Union’, Environmental Politics, 16:2, 297-317.
Meadowcroft, J. 2005 (2000). ‘Sustainable Development: A New(ish) Idea for a New Century?’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 265-284.
Visual material: Learning from Ladakh
|
6) |
Environment and modernity: ecological modernization, risk society, deep ecology (anthropocentric versus ecological views) |
*Barry, J. 2005 (2003). ‘Ecological Modernization’ in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 303-321.
York, R., E. A. Rosa, and T. Dietz. 2003. “Footprints on the Earth: the Environmental Consequences of Modernity”, American Sociological Review, 68, 2: 279-300.
Mol, A. P. J. 2002. ‘Ecological Modernization and the Global Economy’, Global Environmental Politics, 2 (February): 92-115.
*Beck, U. 1998 (1992). ‘From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure, and Ecological Enlightment’, in Debating the Earth, Environmental Politics Reader, J. Dryzec and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Oxford University Press: p. 327-346.
|
7) |
Environment and modernity II: deep ecology, anthropocentric versus ecological views, political ecology |
*Dobson, A., 2003, ‘Ch.3: Ecological Citizenship’ in Citizenship and the Environment, Oxford University Press: p. 92-102, 105-108, 111-115.
‘Green political economy and the promise of the social economy’, J. Barry and G. Smith in Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, P. Dauverge (ed.), 2005, UK and USA: Edward Elgar.
Bakker, K. 2007. ‘The ‘Commons’ Versus’ the ‘Commodity’: Alter-globalization, Anti-privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South’, Antipode.
Arsel, M, B. Akbulut, ve F. Adaman. 2016. ‘Türkiye’de Kalkınmacılığı Yeniden Okumak: Hes’ler ve dönüşen Devlet-Toplum-Doğa İlişkileri’, İletişim.
Paker, H. 2017. ‘The politics of serving’ and neoliberal developmentalism: the megaprojects of the AKP as tools of hegemony building’, in Adaman, Akbulut and Arsel (ed.), Neoliberal Turkey and its discontents: Economic policy and the environment under Erdoğan’, I. B. Tauris.
|
8) |
Framing the problem: The environmental movement |
*Agyeman, J. et al. 2016. ‘Trends and Directions in Environmental Justice: From Inequity to Everyday Life, Community, and Just Sustainabilities’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources
*Doherty, B. and T. Doyle, 2006, ‘Beyond Borders: Transnational politics, social movements and modern environmentalisms’, Environmental Politics, 15, 5: 697-712.
Keck, M. and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
|
9) |
Urgent matters: climate change |
*Genovese, F., 2014, ‘States’ interests at international climate negotiations: new measures of bargaining positions’, Environmental Politics, 23, 4: 610-631.
*Bäckstrand, Karin, Jonathan W. Kuyper, Björn-Ola Linnér & Eva Lövbrand, 2017, Non-state actors in global climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond, Environmental Politics, 26:4, 561-579.
*Vanderheiden, S., 2011, ‘The Politics of Energy: An introduction’, Environmental Politics, 20, 5:607-616.
Visual material: Age of Stupid
**Assignment 1 due**
https://juliesbicycle.com/resource_hub/climate-literacy-101/
**Presentation outline due**
|
10) |
The global commons: limits of national politics and issues of governance |
Newell. 2005. ‘Towards a political economy of global environmental governance’ in P. Dauverge (eds.), Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, Edward Elgar: 187-201.
*Soroos. 2005. ‘Garret Hardin and tragedies of global commons’, in P. Dauverge (eds.), Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, Edward Elgar.
*Downie, C., 2014, ‘Transnational actors in environmental politics: strategies and influence in long negotiations’, Environmental Politics, 23, 3: 376-394.
|
11) |
Presentations |
|
12) |
Presentations |
|
13) |
Environmental Politics in Turkey |
*Arsel, M., B. Akbulut, and F. Adaman. 2015. ‘Environmentalism of the malcontent: anatomy of an anti-coal power plant struggle’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 42, 2: 371- 395.
*Paker, H., F. Adaman, Z. Kadirbeyoglu, and B Ozkaynak, 2013, ‘Environmental organizations in Turkey: engaging the state and finance capital’, Environmental Politics, 22, 5: 760-778.
Kadirbeyoglu, Z. 2005. ‘Assessing the Efficacy of Transnational Advocacy Networks’ in Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development,F. Adaman and M. Arsel (eds.), Ashgate: p. 101-116.
|
14) |
Review and general evaluation |
|
|
Program Outcomes |
Level of Contribution |
1) |
To be able to examine, interpret data and assess ideas with the scientific methods in the area of EU studies. |
2 |
2) |
To be able to inform authorities and institutions in the area of EU studies, to be able to transfer ideas and proposals supported by quantitative and qualitative data about the problems. |
2 |
3) |
To be introduced to and to get involved in other disciplines that EU studies are strongly related with (political science, international relations, law, economics, sociology, etc.) and to be able to conduct multi-disciplinary research and analysis on European politics. |
2 |
4) |
To be able to evaluate current news on European Union and Turkey-EU relations and identify, analyze current issues relating to the EU’s politics and policies. |
2 |
5) |
To be able to use English in written and oral communication in general and in the field of EU studies in particular. |
2 |
6) |
To have ethical, social and scientific values throughout the processes of collecting, interpreting, disseminating and implementing data related to EU studies. |
2 |
7) |
To be able to assess the historical development, functioning of the institutions and decision-making system and common policies of the European Union throughout its economic and political integration in a supranational framework. |
2 |
8) |
To be able to evaluate the current legal, financial and institutional changes that the EU is going through. |
2 |
9) |
To explain the dynamics of enlargement processes of the EU by identifying the main actors and institutions involved and compare previous enlargement processes and accession process of Turkey. |
2 |
10) |
To be able to analyze the influence of the EU on political, social and economic system of Turkey. |
2 |
11) |
To acquire insight in EU project culture and to build up project preparation skills in line with EU format and develop the ability to work in groups and cooperate with peers. |
2 |
12) |
To be able to recognize theories and concepts used by the discipline of international relations and relate them to the historical development of the EU as a unique post-War political project. |
2 |