COURSE CODE BAI212 COURSE NAME INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Task brief & rubrics Task (Part 2 of Course Assessment): • Individual task • The task is split in to three sections (essay type from different IR topics): o Exercises – worth 20% of the marks for this task, split in to 2 exercises worth 10% of the marks each for this task. Question 1 (10%) From recent years Chinese representatives have claimed that their country is embarked on a "peaceful rise”, meaning that China will emerge as a major world power in a peaceful manner, without major disruption to the international system. Some scholars think, however, that a change in the general distribution of power in the international system occasions major war, or comes about through major war. Give arguments supporting "peaceful rise" as a theoretically plausible concept. Question 2 (10%) For more than a decade some academics and political actors have been declaring that the sovereign state is just about dead. The reality is that the states are still here and it doesn’t seem that they will soon disappear. Indicate how has the concept of sovereignty changed and to what extent, and in which areas, has national autonomy become weaker, and to what extent and in which areas has national autonomy become stronger? o Case study – worth 30% of the marks for this task. Question 3 (30%) Many academic realists opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion. They argued that this opposition followed logically from their theory/theories of International Relations. Some are sceptical of this. Drawing on your knowledge of realism, make the realist case against invasion. o Critical thinking questions – worth 50% of the marks for this task, split in to 2 questions worth 25% of the marks each for this task. Question 4 (25%) Some observers see globalization as a recent process, occurring over the last few decades, and producing lasting changes in the structure of global politics; others view globalization more as a long-run historical process, one which decline and rise over time. (a) briefly define "globalization"; (b) discuss the impact of globalization on the following domestic policy areas –taxation and -environmental; and (c) discuss whether globalization, given your response in section (b), is "something new" or part of a longer-range historical process. Question 5 (25%) Last year’s we can see that US is a highly politically divided country. One of the central contemporary debates regarding US foreign policy has been between those who claim that US assertion of national interest in a unilateral manner is good politics and likely to be effective in achieving its goals, and those who consider US policy most effective if it unfolds within a multilateral framework. Discuss these contending claims, highlighting normative, theoretical and empirical differences between them regarding traditional issues of international politics such as realis ...

1. COURSE CODE BAI212 COURSE NAME INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS Task brief & rubrics
Task (Part 2 of Course Assessment):
• Individual task
• The task is split in to three sections (essay type from different
IR topics):
o Exercises – worth 20% of the marks for this task, split in to 2
exercises worth 10% of the marks each for this task.
Question 1 (10%) From recent years Chinese representatives
have claimed that their country is embarked on a "peaceful
rise”, meaning that China will emerge
as a major world power in a peaceful manner, without major
disruption to the international system. Some scholars think,
however, that a change in the general
distribution of power in the international system occasions
major war, or comes about through major war. Give arguments
supporting "peaceful rise" as a
theoretically plausible concept.
Question 2 (10%) For more than a decade some academics and
political actors have been declaring that the sovereign state is
just about dead. The reality is that

2. the states are still here and it doesn’t seem that they will soon
disappear. Indicate how has the concept of sovereignty changed
and to what extent, and in which
areas, has national autonomy become weaker, and to what
extent and in which areas has national autonomy become
stronger?
o Case study – worth 30% of the marks for this task.
Question 3 (30%) Many academic realists opposed the 2003 Iraq
invasion. They argued that this opposition followed logically
from their theory/theories of
International Relations. Some are sceptical of this. Drawing on
your knowledge of realism, make the realist case against
invasion.
o Critical thinking questions – worth 50% of the marks for this
task, split in to 2 questions worth 25% of the marks each for
this task.
Question 4 (25%) Some observers see globalization as a recent
process, occurring over the last few decades, and producing
lasting changes in the structure of
global politics; others view globalization more as a long-run
historical process, one which decline and rise over time. (a)
briefly define "globalization"; (b) discuss
the impact of globalization on the following domestic policy
areas –taxation and -environmental; and (c) discuss whether
globalization, given your response in

3. section (b), is "something new" or part of a longer-range
historical process.
Question 5 (25%) Last year’s we can see that US is a highly
politically divided country. One of the central contemporary
debates regarding US foreign policy has
been between those who claim that US assertion of national
interest in a unilateral manner is good politics and likely to be
effective in achieving its goals, and
those who consider US policy most effective if it unfolds within
a multilateral framework. Discuss these contending claims,
highlighting normative, theoretical
and empirical differences between them regarding traditional
issues of international politics such as realism, power,
hegemony, trade, diplomacy, and alliance
politics.
• Contextual information (PWP’s and in-class lectures).
• Expected table of contents (NO).
• Students should submit their task (document) in pdf.
Formalities:
• Wordcount: 2.000 words.

4. • Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are
excluded of the total wordcount.
• Font: Arial 12,5 pts.
• Text alignment: Justified.
• The in-text References and the Bibliography have to be in
Harvard’s citation style.
Submission: Week 10 – Via Moodle (Turnitin). Deadline: (Week
12) 9th January 2021 at 23:59 CEST.
Weight: This task is a 60% of your total grade for this subject.
It assesses the following learning outcomes:
• Outcome 1: Identify and distinguish between the main theories
of IR;
• Outcome 2: Understand the central debates in contemporary
international studies;
• Outcome 5: Describe the nature of units and social structures
within the contemporary international system.
Rubrics:
Exceptional 90-100 Good 80-89 Fair 70-79 Marginal fail 60-69

5. Knowledge &
Understanding
(20%)
International Relations
student demonstrates
excellent understanding of
key concepts and uses
vocabulary in an entirely
appropriate manner.
International Relations
student demonstrates good
understanding of the task
and mentions some
relevant concepts and
demonstrates use of the
relevant vocabulary.
International Relations
student understands the
task and provides minimum
theory and/or some use of
vocabulary.
International Relations
student understands the task
and attempts to answer the
question but does not
mention key concepts or uses
minimum amount of relevant
vocabulary.
Application (30%) Student applies fully
relevant knowledge from

6. the topics delivered in
class.
Student applies mostly
relevant knowledge from
the topics delivered in
class.
Student applies some
relevant knowledge from
the topics delivered in
class. Misunderstanding
may be evident.
Student applies little relevant
knowledge from the topics
delivered in class.
Misunderstands are evident.
Critical Thinking
(30%)
Student critically assesses
in excellent ways, drawing
outstanding conclusions
from relevant authors.
Student critically assesses
in good ways, drawing
conclusions from relevant
authors and references.
Student provides some
insights but stays on the
surface of the topic.
References may not be

7. relevant.
Student makes little or
noncritical thinking insights,
does not quote appropriate
authors, and does not
provide valid sources.
Communication
(20%)
Student communicates
their ideas extremely
clearly and concisely,
respecting word count,
grammar and spellcheck.
Student communicates
their ideas clearly and
concisely, respecting word
count, grammar and
spellcheck.
Student communicates
their ideas with some
clarity and concision. It
may be slightly over or
under the wordcount limit.
Some misspelling errors
may be evident.
Student communicates their
ideas in a somewhat unclear
and unconcise way. Does not
reach or does exceed
wordcount excessively and

8. misspelling errors are
evident.
[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
SHA614: Achieving Hotel Asset Management Objectives
School of Hotel Administration, Cornell UniversityProject:
Tactical Renegotiation for the Tucson Turnadot Hotel
Instructions:
First, read the Case Description and review Exhibits A and B on
page 5 of this document. You should also review Exhibits C, D,
and E, which you can download. When you have read the
description of the case and reviewed the supporting materials,
answer the five questions on page 4 of this document.
To submit this assignment, please refer to the instructions in the
course.
Case Description
The Tucson Turnadot Hotel is a 400-room four-star suburban
hotel; it is widely considered to be a well-run hotel that
achieves a slight RevPAR premium compared to its competitors.
Like many hotels built in the late 20th century, the hotel opened
with two restaurants, but demand for the specialty restaurant
dwindled and the space has been vacant for over a year. The
owner (“Owner”) and manager had discussed a conversion of
the space to meeting rooms but acknowledged that additional
meeting space was not in demand at the hotel. The Owner of the
Tucson Turnadot Hotel (“Hotel”) proposed to the manager that
the Hotel enter into a lease with Sophie’s Restaurant in 6,600
square feet of vacant space (the former fine-dining restaurant)

9. adjacent to the Hotel lobby. (See Exhibit A for an abstract of
the proposed lease.)
Sophie’s is a well-known and well-respected steakhouse
restaurant in Tucson. As part of the lease agreement, the Owner
would invest $1,025,000 of the $3,025,000 investment needed to
convert the vacant space into an operating Sophie’s Restaurant,
with Sophie’s contributing the remaining $2,000,000. The new
restaurant is expected to open at the beginning of Year 1. Both
the Owner and the manager, Turnadot Operations (“Turnadot”),
agree that the proposed steakhouse restaurant would make a
positive addition to the Hotel. On the other hand, the manager
made it clear (and the Owner reluctantly agreed) that the
management contract gives Turnadot the right to reject any such
change in the operation for two major reasons. First, the change
would affect brand standards, as indicated below, and second,
the management contract gives Turnadot (not the Owner) the
right to control every aspect of the Hotel’s operation. Thus, to
implement the change, the management contract would have to
be amended to allow the leased restaurant.
The Hotel currently has one operating restaurant, the Grazer’s
Grill, a classic three-meal hotel restaurant operated by
Turnadot. The Owner’s original proposal was to close the
Grazer’s Grill and convert the space into meeting rooms as soon
as Sophie’s Restaurant opened. The tenant of Sophie’s
Restaurant indicated that they are willing to work with Turnadot
to operate all food and beverage at the Hotel according to
Turnadot brand standards, including breakfast and dinner from
Sophie’s and room service and catering from the banquet
kitchen. However, Turnadot brand standards require Turnadot to
operate at least one restaurant in the Hotel because prior
experience indicates that leased restaurants do not provide
acceptable breakfast service, room service, and catering
services, which are important to overall guest satisfaction. The
Owner reluctantly agreed to Turnadot’s position over the short

10. term, even though the profitability of Grazer’s Grill will be
reduced as hotel customers use Sophie’s Restaurant for lunch
and dinner. All three parties (Owner, Turnadot, and Sophie’s)
have agreed to revisit the relationship after two years of
operation by Sophie’s; this will allow the new restaurant to
open and stabilize, and it preserves the option to integrate the
F&B operations into Sophie’s at a future date.
The Owner and Turnadot jointly prepared a financial analysis of
changes in the hotel; this analysis is attached as Exhibit C. Both
the Owner and Turnadot have confidence in the Exhibit C
analysis.
Treatment of Restaurant Investment under the Management
Agreement
Under the terms of the Management Agreement, the Owner’s
$1,025,000 investment in the restaurant could be treated in two
ways.
1. FF&E loan—The Owner could make an FF&E loan to the
Hotel to finance the investment; any FF&E loans carry an
interest rate of 8.0%. The loan will be repaid in five equal
payments of $300,000. The loan is treated as a deduction when
calculating the incentive fee for Turnadot. Thus, FF&E loans
have the effect of lowering Turnadot’s incentive fee. This
treatment lowers the taxable income of the hotel due to the
treatment of the loan’s interest as an expense.
2. Additional capital investment—The Owner’s priority will be
increased by 10.75% of the additional Owner investment of
$1,025,000. This will also lower Turnadot’s incentive fee. This
treatment has no impact on the taxable income of the Hotel.
Impact on Turnadot Management Fees

11. The terms of Turnadot’s management fees are presented in
Exhibit B. Turnadot earns a base fee based on Hotel revenues
and an incentive fee if Hotel profit exceeds the Owner’s
priority. Turnadot has not earned any incentive fees because the
Hotel’s profit has not exceeded the Owner’s priority. Due to
improvements in the Tucson market, the Hotel is projected to
exceed the Owner’s priority in the next few years.
Turnadot prepared an analysis of the impact of the restaurant
lease on Turnadot’s management fees, which is presented as
Exhibit D. The analysis compares Turnadot’s management fees
assuming the investment is treated as an FF&E Loan with the
management fees that would be incurred if the investment were
instead treated as an additional capital investment. The 8%
discount rate is Turnadot’s after-tax risk-adjusted WACC.
Turnadot has not shared the Exhibit D information with the
Owner.
Financial Analysis for the Owner
The Owner prepared a financial analysis of the impact of the
proposed restaurant lease on the value of the hotel, which is
presented in Exhibit E. The analysis compares the Owner’s
before-tax NPV assuming the investment is treated as an FF&E
Loan with the NPV of treating the investment as an additional
capital investment. The 12% discount rate is the Owner’s risk-
adjusted before-tax required return. The Owner has not shared
the Exhibit E information with Turnadot.
Questions
1. Acting as an asset manager representing the interests of hotel
ownership and considering only the financial analysis, would
you recommend that the investment be treated as an FF&E loan
or additional capital investment? Why?

12. 2. Acting for Turnadot and considering only the financial
analysis, would you recommend that the investment be treated
as an FF&E loan or additional capital investment? Why?
3. Now expand your analysis to consider more than just the
finances. List two qualitative factors that the Owner should
consider and two qualitative factors that Turnadot should
consider. How would they alter your analysis for either side?
4. Should Turnadot waive its brand standard and close the hotel
restaurant? Why or why not?
5. How might the Owner and Turnadot deal with the impact of
the new restaurant on Turnadot’s management fees?

13. EXHIBIT A
Proposed Sophie’s Lease Terms
Term: 10 years plus four five-year renewal
options.
Rent: The rent is the sum of the Minimum
Rent and the Percentage Rent.
Minimum Rent: Year 1 $150,000
Years 2–10 $200,000
Years 11–15 $220,000
Years 16–20 $242,000
Years 21–25 $266,200
Years 26–30 $292,820
Percentage Rent: 5% of restaurant revenues above
$3,000,000
Tenant Improvements: $3,025,000 total investment—
$2,000,000 to be paid by tenant and $1,025,000 to be paid by
the Owner.
Utilities: Sophie’s is to pay for all utilities in the leased space,
estimated at $25,000 in the first year of the lease.
EXHIBIT B
Turnadot Management Fees and Term
Contract Term: 20 years with two 10-year extensions. The
contract has 11 years remaining in the initial term.
Base Fee: 3% of revenues

14. Incentive Fee: 25% of Incentive Fee Cash Flow (defined as net
House Profit less the Owner’s Priority)
Owner’s Priority: $4,898,341. This sum is 10.75% of
$45,565,963, the cumulative amount of the Owner’s investment
in the Hotel before any investment in Sophie’s Restaurant. If
the investment in Sophie’s Restaurant is made, the Owner’s
priority increases to $5,008,529.
Exhibit C

15. Exhibit D
Exhibit E
5
© 2017 eCornell. All rights reserved. All other copyrights,
trademarks, trade names, and logos are the sole property of their
respective owners.