Category: International Relations

Today we have a guest post from Elia Elisa Cia Alves, Federal University of Paraíba (UFPB), and Ana Paula Maielo Silva and Gabriela Gonçalves Barbosa, State University of Paraíba (UEPB), of Brazil. Elia Elisa Cia Alves can be contacted at eliacia [at] gmail [dot] com.

The Challenge Game was developed by a group of professors at the State University of Paraiba and the Mettrica Lab in Brazil. It is suitable for teaching concepts in international relations theory, such as state survival within an anarchic system, the security dilemma, alliances and the balance of power, and hegemony.

To play this game in the classroom, you will need 1) approximately 8 to 50 students who can play either individually or in teams, depending on the purpose to which the game is put, 2) candy, points, or some other reward that can be distributed, and 3) a method of determining the winner of a challenge between two parties, such as dice (high roll wins), rock-paper-scissors, or an online random number generator. Also, the rules of the game should be visible to students during the game.

The game is played in four rounds of approximately ten minutes each. A challenge is a one-candy bet (a loss results in one piece of candy being taken away) with a 50% probability of winning. Any individual or team that is challenged must participate in the challenge. Only one challenge should occur at a time so that the instructor can note what happens. A student or team that ends up with zero candy can no longer issue challenges; they are “dead” for the remainder of the round.

Round 1: Each student starts with one piece of candy. The winner of a challenge takes one piece of candy from the loser and can then challenge someone else. Any student who loses all of his or her candy is out of the game for the round. Depending on class size, the instructor may want to limit each student to a maximum number of challenges.

Round 2: Candy is distributed unequally among students. Most students should have 1-2 candies, a few students should have 3, and only a couple of students should have 4. The instructor may want to allow students to form alliances, in which case students can borrow candies from each other if needed. However, the loan is optional.

Round 3: Group students into teams. Distribute candy unequally among teams as in Round 2. Each team represents a nation-state. Students within a team decide, using any decision making method they choose, whether the team challenges any other team. As in Round 2, the instructor might allow teams to form alliances.

Round 4: Group students into teams and distribute candy as in Round 3. The professor grants special rules to only teams that have the greatest number of candies, such as altering their odds of winning a challenge. After the game, the professor should debrief the class to link theoretical international relations concepts to students’ experiences of the game. In our JPSE article, we suggest several questions that can be used as part of the debriefing.

Today we have a guest post by Vincent Druliolle, assistant profesor in the Department of International Relations, Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao, Spain. He can be contacted at vincent [dot] druliolle [at] deusto [dot] es.

Last September I joined a different university, which led to teaching two new modules. This past term I taught foreign policy for the first time and used Model Diplomacy by the Council of Foreign Relations. I had to shift from my initial plan of running Model Diplomacy in class because of Covid-19, but this did not overly worry me, and I was further encouraged by Charity Butcher’s recent post. Like her, I chose the ‘basic’ version of the simulation with a view to devoting only one two-hour class to the activity. I allocated each role to groups of four students, with each group writing a position memo, but I ran the simulation twice with half the class participating each time, so that I could divide each group into pairs. Four students per role is too much for an in-class simulation, and I thought that splitting each group into two was even more necessary for the online format.

I used Google Meet as a platform for the simulation without any technical glitches. Because each role was played by two students, I told the class to connect with their partners through Whatsapp or some other medium so that they could exchange opinions about the proposals put forward by the other actors. I also warned them that I wanted to listen to both members of each pair during the simulation. This worked well and participation was good overall. It was entertaining to see students on various parts of my screen using their mobile phones to debate with their partners while their classmates were speaking. At one point a student was caught speaking on an open mic, which is probably an important lesson to be learned.

Today we have a guest post from Daniela Irrera, associate professor of International Relations and Global Civil Society at the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the University of Catania. She can be reached at dirrera [at] unict [dot] it.

Teaching international relations is a very difficult task. Although I love interacting with my students, convincing them that theories and concepts are necessary for understanding current international events is not easy. To address this problem, I’ve been using a simulation on conflict resolution that I developed called Game of Peace. The outcome of this simulation is the creation of a sustainable peace plan, based on a power-sharing agreement and responses to side effects, like refugee management, human rights and minorities protection. I use this simulation in my Global Civil Society course, part of the MA programme on Global Politics and Euro-mediterranean Relations (GLOPEM), at the University of Catania.

Game of Peace is a face-to-face, theory-driven, role-based simulation that requires participants to settle a civil conflict through negotiations at a peace conference. It consists of several phases. One week prior the simulation, students receive a political scenario and detailed instructions, and are assigned specific roles. The conflicts are real and intractable, like Syria, the Donbass, Afghanistan, and Darfur. I split students into groups, corresponding to real political actors. They are asked to study the scenario, to get familiar with their groups and, in conformity with their assigned roles, identify a policy plan. One of the groups is a diplomatic mediator, the United Nations or the European Union representative, who is expected to facilitate contacts among political actors and promote their agreement.

After this preparatory period, the simulation itself last two rounds, distributed over two days. The first one is based on informal interactions among groups. Political actors can use all diplomatic tools, including secret diplomacy, whereas the mediator can use sanctions or conditionality to convince parties to identify common positions. Students are expected to play according to their roles.

The second round is a formal peace conference chaired by the mediator, usually lasting two hours, during which all political actors submit their positions. It ideally ends with the signature of an agreement (not necessarily sustainable, but in any case, showing some kind of commitment on the part of political actors involved in the conflict). I then hold a debriefing session.

In my experience, Game of Peace allows my students to learn how political concepts apply to real problems. The simulation also provides them with the opportunity to develop soft skills in persuasion and negotiation.