Attached is a draft of a literature review for a course on Critical Security Studies (lit review.doc). Below you will find the assignment guidelines and feedback on the draft.

FEEDBACK ON DRAFT:
The problem is that it isn’t really a literature review; rather is a largely historical, descriptive piece within which there are a number of issues; nuclear acquisition, use/non-use, proliferation, disarmament.

The purpose of the literature review is to map respective positions in a particular debate(s) around a guiding point: here, that guiding point seems to be reasons for nuclear non-use. So…

To begin with, you first need to re-state Tannenwald’s position; and, in doing so, you need to present her argument about the existence of the taboo. Following that, you then need to box/categorise the positions in the wider literature around this very point/argument. For example, who else supports the notion of the taboo? Maybe some partly accept it. Maybe others reject it completely. This is what you need to show.

To help you in this, apart form the sources that you have already cited, I suggest that you take a look at a forum on the nuclear taboo which appears in the following: Review of International Studies, vol.36, no.4, 2010.

Also, you need to use an appropriate style of referencing; instead of Tannenwald, p.6, Tannenwald, 2005: 6. Moreover, when you refer to ‘Nina p.2’, I assume you are also referring to Tannenwald!

ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES:
The purpose of the literature review is essentially two-fold: one, to situate the chosen key text within the wider debate(s); and two, to make a critique of the key text informed by the existing literature.
Any text can be situated in a wider debate: its theoretical/conceptual standpoint and the more specific arguments that derive from that standpoint can only be properly understood when set against other works. Together, these texts collectively constitute a written conversation. Some texts may exemplify a particular debate; others might be read as belonging to several, overlapping written conversations. The literature review thus demands that students not only identify the general context within which the key text can be situated, but are also explicit as to the specific nature of the debate according to which they will structure their critique.
In terms of structure, one or two introductory paragraphs should be devoted to the above task (context and debate). Following on from this, the main body should then put in place a coherent and sustained, critical evaluation of the key text. Some concluding paragraph is also warranted, although the exact content of that paragraph is dependent on the purpose of the critique. The main points of the critical evaluation should derive explicitly from the wider literature. Given the length of the literature review; 2,500 words, you need to use at least 6 sources.
Please keep in mind that the key text remains the focus of the literature review, and will thus serve to structure both the general nature of the debate and the specifics of the critical evaluation.

Key Text:
Nina Tannenwald, ‘Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo’, International Security, vol.29, no.4, 2005.

Additional Sources:
Jeffrey Legro, ‘Military Culture and Inadvertent Escalation in World War II’, International Security, vol.18, no.4, 1994.
Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The U.S. and the Non-Use of Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge: CUP, 2007).
Peter Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), Chapter 4: Richard Price & Tannenwald, ‘Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboos’; Chapter 6: Elizabeth Kier, ‘Culture and French Military Doctrine Before World War II’; Chapter 7: Alistair Iain Johnston, ‘Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China’.
Theo Farrell & Helene Lambert, ‘Courting Controversy: International Law, National Norms and American Nuclear Use’, Review of International Studies, vol.27, no.3, 2001.
Farrell, ‘Transnational Norms and Military Development: Constructing Ireland’s Professional Army’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.7, no.1, 2001.
Farrell, ‘World Culture and Military Power’, Security Studies, vol.14, no.3, 2005.
Emily Goldman, ‘Cultural Foundations of Military Diffusion’, Review of International Studies, vol.32, no.1, 2006.
Edward Lock, ‘Refining Strategic Culture: Return of the Second Generation’, Review of International Studies, vol.36, no.3, 2010.