IR 621 Current Debates in International Relations Theory Fall 2004 Pýnar Bilgin Aims Objectives

IR 621 Current Debates in International Relations Theory Fall 2004 Pýnar Bilgin office: A313 phone: (290) 2164 e-mail: pbilgin@bilkent.edu.tr webpage: http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~pbilgin office hours: Tuesday 14:00-15:00, Wednesday 14:00-15:00 and by appointment Aims This course is designed as a post-graduate level introduction to current debates in International Relations theory. The content and nature of International Relations theory is by no means fixed. Indeed, International Relations theory has been the subject of intense academic, intellectual and political debate. The main aim of this course is to introduce students to some of the major debates in International Relations theory. Objectives The objectives of this course are both subject-specific and general. General objectives include the development of oral, written and research skills as the course requires students to become able to read, absorb and critically assess a significant amount of complex (and at times contradictory) material. The subject-specific objectives include developing students 1) understanding of what is meant by theory and why theorising is an important enterprise; 2) knowledge and understanding of the key literature in the discipline; 3) knowledge and understanding of International Relations beyond their immediate area of interest; 4) ability to locate their area of interest within the discipline; 5) ability to analyse practices of world politics from a conceptual perspective; 6) ability to write a critical review of a key text in the discipline; 7) ability to discuss in depth some of the main issues in International Relations theory. 1

Teaching Since the course is taught as a post-graduate level seminar, the onus is on you to read widely around the topics. The seminars on occasions may include mini lectures designed to introduce and/or contextualise that week s topic, but you will be doing most of the work. My role will be to provide a basic overview of that week s topic, offer you contending perspectives on the issues concerned, and seek to generate a discussion structured around a set of questions. The aim is to encourage you to think independently and critically whilst remaining firmly grounded in the knowledge provided by the readings. The following list is by no means exhaustive. It should rather be viewed as a representative sample of theoretical works. In the pages that follow, you will find a list of required and recommended readings for each week. Our discussions will be based mostly on the required readings. The lists of recommended texts are there to provide a broader context as well as more detail, which may be useful as a starting point and reference for written assignments or future studies. You are advised to do your readings in the order they are presented. 1 What you should remember at all times is that good discussions depend on serious preparation by students. You are strongly encouraged to read the texts carefully and prepare written answers to the questions to ensure thorough preparation especially in the first few weeks of the course when you are less experienced in participating in seminars. It is critical that you do all your readings and come in ready to take active part in class discussions. This is critical not only for your own intellectual development but also because participation is 40% of your overall grade. Please be reminded that you will only be in a position to do well in your assignments if you have attended the classes and read the literature (all of the required texts plus some of the recommended ones). Coming to the classes prepared is necessary not only because this constitutes a part of your assessment, but also because this will help you understand the course material much better so that you would be in a very strong position to do well in your exams/assignments. You are required to attend all the classes (in accordance with the University regulations). If you cannot attend please let me know beforehand, or contact me (immediately) afterwards to provide a legitimate excuse for your absence. Attendance will be taken and absences will be noted. 1 Please note that this does not apply to the recommended texts which are listed in alphabetical order. 2

Assessment 40% of your assessment will be based on in-class participation. This will take the form of participating in class discussions. You will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having read and thought about that week s topic. 30% of your assessment will be based on assignment 2 (due 29,12,2004, 17:30). You are asked to write a 2000-word review essay on a key book in the discipline. Please find below a list of the books from which you may choose. The review should situate the selected text within the discipline, evaluate its contribution and discuss the reactions it has so far received. 1) Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). 2) Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990). 3) Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990). 4) David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, rvs. ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998). 5) E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Papermac, 1981 [1939]). 6) Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2 nd ed, (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991). 7) Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 8) Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985). 9) Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 2 nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1995). 10) Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979). 11) Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). 12) R.B.J. Walker, Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 13) Robert W. Cox, Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987). Since no more than one student will be allowed to sign up for each text, you are strongly encouraged to choose your texts and e-mail me pbilgin@bilkent.edu.tr as soon as possible. 30% of your assessment will be based on assignment 3 (due 14.1.2004, 17:30). You are asked to write a 2000-word essay in response to one of the questions listed below. 3

Since no more than one student will be allowed to sign up for each question, you are strongly encouraged to choose your questions and e-mail me pbilgin@bilkent.edu.tr as soon as possible. 1) A key failure of constructivism, critical theory and postmodernism alike is that they all offer no foundation or basis for evaluating alternative arguments. As a result, at best they lapse into relativism and at worse into nihilism. Agree or disagree. 2) According to Kal Holsti, Theorists of international relations have taken some patterns of the eighteenth-to twentieth-century European powers out of their historical and ideological contexts and given them a generic context. If the Hapsburgs, French, Prussians, Russians and British all expanded through conquest and predation, then it is assumed that all powers, regardless of location, history, culture and the like, must similarly expand. But for the most part, the pattern is not repeating itself. The generic is really historically conditioned. In an age characterized by intra-state wars, the democratic peace, growing economic interdependence and the existence of nuclear weapons, assess the continued relevance or lack thereof of cyclical great power theorists like E.H. Carr and Robert Gilpin in this regard. 3) According to Steve Smith, a discipline s silences are often its most significant feature. Silences are the loudest voices. Discuss with reference to specific examples. 4) After five decades of efforts to develop theories of International Relations, scholars have produced precious little in the way of useful, high confidence results that would meet the scientific tests of validity. There is no reason to suppose that another 50 years of research would result in anything resembling a valid theory that meets scientific standards. IR scholars should give up trying to create a science of International Relations. Agree or disagree. 5) The debate between neo-realism and neo-liberalism has shaped international theory for a long time. This is a prime example of the ethnocentric character of International Relations theory because the neo-neo debate is structured around a very narrow view of what International Relations is about. Agree or disagree. 6) Feminism is relevant, perhaps even interesting, for fields like literature, sociology, or the arts but it cannot help us to theorize about International Relations. When it comes to explaining such things as diplomacy, war, the balance of power, national security and foreign policy decisionmaking, feminism is useless and irrelevant. Agree or disagree with specific examples. 7) For neo-realists, the end of the Cold War was a cause for concern rather than celebration. This is because neo-realists think that it was nuclear deterrence that kept the peace during the Cold War and that deterrence is more stable in a bipolar structure. Discuss the nuclear peace argument in the light of the debate concerning the controlled spread of nuclear weapons. 8) Has International Relations progressed from Kal Holsti s 1985 characterization of the field as a divided discipline? Identify some of the field s divisions regarding framework of analysis, methodology and subject matter. Which theoretical/conceptual framework and which methodology has generated the most robust findings, on what substantive aspects of International Relations? 9) Identify and discuss the differences between realist and at least three non-realist approaches to International Relations with reference to their conception of the international system (i.e. whether it is anarchical or not). 10) In Man, the State and War, Kenneth Waltz argued that wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them. Explain Waltz s logic and choose three critical or nonmainstream approaches to IR Theory and write their response to this argument. 4

11) International Relations as an academic discipline is fundamentally premised upon the belief that international relations are distinct and analytically separable from domestic politics. Discuss the ways in which feminists, post-modernists and neo- Marxists have all challenged this domestic/international dichotomy. 12) John Lewis Gaddis has argued that The behavioralist enterprise of attempting to theorize about, and then to forecast, the actions of individuals, societies, nations, and groups of nations on the basis only of observable, calculable evidence and without taking into account the critical variable of self-awareness is, ultimately, an attempt to transform clouds into clocks. It is an incomplete, misleading, and washed-out representation of reality... Agree or disagree with specific examples. 13) Kenneth Waltz: States vary widely in size, wealth, power, and form. And yet variations in these and in other respects are variations among like units... States are alike in the tasks they face, though not in their abilities to perform them. Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach: By any standard territory, ethnicity, GNP, industrialization, military capability, governing capacity states have little in common. They are as different as persons, dogs, and whales in the mammal category. Assess these two statements in the context of the role of theory and description in international relations. 14) Notwithstanding the many rigorous analyses of the democracy-war question, some major problems of interpretation remain. Indeed, it can be argued that the prevailing interpretations put the cart before the horse. Is it democracy which leads to peace, or is it geopolitical factors, like the prior establishment of regional primacy, which create the context or permissive conditions for democratization? Discuss with specific references. 15) Postmodernists have been highly critical of realist theory. Yet, Barry Buzan argues that in principle, there is no reason why much of the post-modern discourse cannot eventually be merged into realism. There are traditions within realism that are receptive to the idea of language as power, and discourse as a major key to politics, and much of the post-modern debate is precisely concerned with issues of power, hierarchy and domination that are congenial to the realist tradition. Agree or disagree and discuss the problems and prospects for a realist-postmodernist synthesis. 16) Quincy Wright has argued that Although war manifests the weakness of the community of nations, it also manifests the existence of that community. Agree or disagree and discuss in reference to specific authors. 17) Realism is unable to account for change in international relations. Agree or disagree with evidence and examples. 18) Rey Koslowski and Friedrich Kratochwil have argued that the rapid and fundamental change of the international system from 1989 to 1991 demonstrates the inadequacy of analyzing present international politics in terms of its anarchical structure and its distribution of capabilities. The recent changes that reconstituted the international system were not the result of a shift in capabilities, even though they have led to such a shift. Roughly speaking, the total numbers of Warsaw Pact weapons and forces did not change much from February 1989 to February 1991. It was political change that resulted in the deterioration of Soviet capabilities. To that extent, systemic theories that use balancing as an explanans do not explain change; at best they only describe its outcome. Discuss with specific references. 19) Robert Cox famously argued that Theory is always for someone and for some purpose. Agree or disagree and evaluate the theoretical and methodological significance of this argument for the study of International Relations. 20) Robert Cox famously distinguished critical theory from problem-solving theory. Problem-solving theory, due in part to its positivist methodological orientation, was seen as inherently conservative and comfortable with the status quo. Michael Nicholson, however, argues that many people today, who should know better, are 5

happily ready to assert that positivism... is an inherently conservative doctrine in that it deals with what is the case rather than what can be the case... This seems to me rather like saying that to research the aetiology of AIDS is to imply approval of AIDS. The whole aim of research for change is to find out what is changeable about any system, whether human or otherwise, and what are the constant factors... We can only know what is and what is not possible by looking at what is the case and seeing how it can be re-arranged... Hopeful worlds, where hope is not based on hard analysis of what can be done, must be looked at with scepticism. Agree or disagree with Nicholson in reference to Cox s arguments on critical theory and problem-solving theory. 21) Robert Keohane argues that in contrast to Marxism and Realism, Liberalism is not committed to ambitious and parsimonious structural theory. Michael Doyle also notes that There is no canonical description of liberalism, while Mark Zacher and Richard Matthew maintain that liberalism should be considered an approach to International Relations and not a theory because its propositions cannot be deduced from its assumptions. Agree or disagree with these assessments and evaluate their significance and implications for using liberalism to study International Relations. 22) Since the end of the Cold War, International Relations theory has placed a much greater emphasis on domestic or second-level variables. In terms of their abilities to explain International Relations using domestic variables, critically assess at least two of the following theoretical perspectives: liberalism, constructivism, feminism, Marxism and critical theory. 23) Ten years ago, Kal Holsti argued that, Where post-modernism will lead remains problematic. Its stance of methodological and theoretical relativism and its call for the deconstruction of classical and more recent international theories could lead to the abandonment of rigorous bases for evaluating additions to knowledge, to an indifference to the realities of international life, and to the promotion of fads. Assess the accuracy or inaccuracy of this prediction with specific evidence and examples. 24) The debate between neo-realism and neo-liberalism has shaped international theory for a long time. This is a prime example of the ethnocentric character of International Relations theory because the neo-neo debate is structured around a very narrow view of what International Relations is about. Agree or disagree. 25) The existence of the democratic peace invalidates structural realism. Agree or disagree and discuss using the levels of analysis framework. 26) The study of international relations has two interrelated and complementary components: on the one hand, defining phenomena, reasoning and generalizing about them, and distinguishing among different outcomes, and, on the other hand, collecting and investigating facts. To only do the first is to engage in pointless scholasticism, to only do the second is to accumulate facts with little purpose and even less ability to identify important from unimportant facts, or causal from coincidental facts. Discuss. 27) There is no reason to expect that a decline in hegemonic power will lead to the collapse of international cooperation. Secondary powers will be willing to participate in collective action provided they have sufficient incentives to do so. Collective action can thus take up where hegemonic power leaves off. Indeed, hegemonic decline and the changed strategic situation it creates may even lead to higher levels of cooperation. Agree or disagree with specific references to the theoretical literature and to events in the real world. 28) To understand is to reproduce the order in the minds of actors, to explain is to find causes in the scientific matter (Martin Hollis and Steve Smith). Discuss. 29) The distinction between the political scientist s theory-based analysis and the historian s evidence-based description is false. The historian s description is a form of analysis (it explains); likewise, narrative (which has nothing to do with chronology) is applied theory, an analytical test of a proposition...most historians, unhappy to 6

grope about in a fog, try to explain what did happen, as well as what their subjects thought had happened. Their work implies and demands a theory taken with them in a baggage (Edward Ingram, The Wonderland of the Political Scientist, International Security 22:1 (Summer 1997) 113-4). Agree or disagree. 30) Area studies have, for long, been a problem for political science. They have resisted to the search for theory and to the use of rigorous methods for evaluating arguments. In an age of globalisation where the need for area-based knowledge has decined, the weakening of area studies is a welcome development. Agree or disagree. 31) William Wallace has recently argued that our discipline is in danger of becoming unbalanced, preoccupied with theory for its own sake rather than as a means of exploitation, and with a remarkable neglect of detailed study of developments within our own region and of their relevance to theory. Agree or disagree. 32) Critics have argued that, over the years, realism has become increasingly unrealistic. Agree or disagree. 33) According to Daniel Deudney and John Ikenberry, Neorealist theory provides two powerful explanations for cooperation within the West: balance of power and hegemony. The basic thrust of these realist theories [today] is that the relations among the Western states will return to the patterns of the 1930s and early 1940s, in which the problems of anarchy dominated: economic rivalry, security dilemmas, arms races, hypernationalism, balancing alliances, and ultimately the threat of war. Thus, John Mearsheimer argued in 1990 that we will soon miss the Cold War. Evaluate realist explanations for why the Cold War was kept cold and assess the relevance or validity of their predictions for the post-cold War era. 34) Neoliberals place great emphasis on the ability of institutions to transform the prospects for cooperation in international relations by lengthening the shadow of the future. Yet, according to Kenneth Waltz, Political leaders may be astigmatic, but responsible ones who behave realistically and do not suffer from myopia. Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane believe that World War I might have been averted if certain states had been able to see how long the future s shadow was. Yet..., the future was what the major states were obsessively worried about. The war was prompted less by considerations of present security and more by worries about how the balance might change later. The problems of governments do not arise from their short time horizons. They see the long shadow of the future, but they have trouble reading its contours, perhaps because they try to look too far ahead and see imaginary dangers.... The contours of the future s shadow look different in hierarchic and anarchic systems. The shadow may facilitate cooperation in the former; it works against it in the latter. Worries about the future do not make cooperation and institution building among nations impossible; they do strongly condition their operation and limit their accomplishment. Liberal institutionalists were right to start their investigations with structural realism. Until and unless transformation occurs, it remains the basic theory of international politics. Agree or disagree and discuss. 35) If national security was all that mattered in world politics, the Somalia, Bosnia- Herzegovina and Kosovo problems would be left to the people who live in those places to sort out themselves. These three cases of international intervention show that realism is necessary but not sufficient to account for the normative complexity of world politics. Agree or disagree. 36) Marxist-inspired theories of International Relations (broadly conceived to include Marxism, Neomarxism, Dependency, World Systems and Gramscian approaches) are no longer useful in the study of world politics. The end of the Cold War resoundingly disproved them. Agree or disagree. 37) While constructivism is important in pushing mainstream International Relations theory to specify the content and sources of state interests and the social fabric of the significance of world politics, it lacks a theory of agency. In other words, 7

constructivism highlights the significance of norms and social structures but cannot explain how they started or how they change. Agree or disagree. 38) According to Ken Booth, It is interesting to speculate about the extent to which our sense of what we do as academics would have been different had the subject been founded in universities not by a liberal MP in mid-wales (David Davies) in the aftermath of the Great War, but instead by Dr. Zungu, the admirable feminist medic she-chief of the Zulus. The apparent preposterousness to most Western academic minds of such a disciplinary beginning is itself a powerful signifier of the ethnocentric, masculinized, northern and top-down character of our subject. Discuss with specific references. 39) In 1999 Kenneth Waltz wrote: many globalisers believe that the world is increasingly ruled by markets. Looking at the state among states leads to a different conclusion. The main difference between international politics now and earlier is not found in the increased interdependence of states but in their growing inequality. With the end of bipolarity, the distribution of capabilities across states has become extremely lopsided. Rather than elevating economic forces and depressing political ones, the inequalities of international politics enhance the political role of one country. Politics, as usual, prevails over economics. Agree or disagree. 8

Please try to follow the requirements listed below when preparing your assignments: Be careful not to copy out great chunks from the assigned text or other articles/books. This is at best weak and at worst plagiarism. Plagiarism consists of any form of passing off, or attempting to pass off, the knowledge or work of other people as one's own. It is a form of cheating and is considered an academic offence. The following are simple guidelines to help you avoid such problems: 2 Surround all direct quotations with inverted commas and cite the precise source (including page numbers) in a footnote. Use quotations sparingly and make sure that the bulk of the essay is in your own words. Remember that it is 'what you say'that gives an essay merit. Make sure you give references to your source(s) throughout the text, not just when you give direct quotations but also when you paraphrase or give your version. Essay presentation Each essay should be typed. State the number of words used at the end. The word limit is there to make you decide what is or is not important to say. The ability to say what you want in a limited number of words is also a skill you need to gain. Essays that are over length will be penalised. Appropriate footnotes and/or bibliography should be supplied. Do not use single-spacing and leave a sufficient margin for comments. Pay attention to how you write the essay (your style) as well as its content. It is important to develop your 'writing skills'as a student of International Relations. 2 See also Ben Rosamund, Plagiarism, Academic Norms and the Governance of the Profession, Politics 22:3 (2002) 167-174. 9

Week 1 (22.09.2004) Introduction Week 2 (29.09.2004) Current Debates in International Relations Theory: an Overview Mark Neufeld The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). James N. Rosenau, Thinking Theory Thoroughly, in International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond, Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 29-37. Ngaire Woods, The Uses of Theory in the Study of International Relations, in Explaining International Relations Since 1945, Ngaire Woods, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 9-31. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, The Benefits of a Social-Scientific Approach to Studying International Affairs, in Explaining International Relations Since 1945, Ngaire Woods, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 49-76. John Lewis Gaddis, History, Science, and the Study of International Relations, in Explaining International Relations Since 1945, Ngaire Woods, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 32-48. Colin Elman and Miriam F. Elman, eds., Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists and the Study of International Relations, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001) 39-83. Barry Buzan and Richard Little, Why International Relations Has Failed as an Academic Project and What to do about it, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30:1 (2001) 19-39. Ken Booth, Dare not to Know: International Relations Theory versus the Future, in International Relations Theory Today, Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds. (Cambridge: Polity, 1995) 329-350. Marysia Zalewski, All These Theories, Yet Bodies Keep Piling up : Theory, Theorists, Theorising, in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 340-353. Ole Waever, The Sociology of Not So International a Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations, International Organization 52:4 (1998) 687-727. Scott Burchill, Introduction, in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al (London: Macmillan, 1996) 1-27. Miles Kahler, Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945, in New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Michael Doyle and John Ikenberry, eds. (Boulder, CO: Westview press, 1997) 20-53. photocopied material on reserve at the library

Week 3 (6.10.2004) Theory/Practice in International Relations Michael Nicholson, What is the Use of International Relations? Review of International Studies 26:4 (2000) 183-198. Bruce W. Jentleson, The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back in, International Security 26:4 (2002) 169-183. Alexander George, Strategies for Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Scholarship for Policymaking, PS: Political Science and Politics (March 2000). (available online) David Dessler, The Use and Abuse of Social Science for Policy, SAIS Review 9:2 (1989) 203-223. Chris Hill, Academic International Relations: The Siren Song of Policy Relevance in Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas, Christopher Hill & Pamela Beshoff, eds. (London: Routledge, 1994) 3-25. Alexander George, Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy (Wahington, DC: The United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993) xvii-xxvi, 3-29. William Wallace, 'Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations,'Review of International Studies 22:3 (1996) 301-321. Ken Booth, 'A Reply to Wallace,'Review of International Studies 23:3 (1997) 371-377. Steve Smith, 'Power and Truth: A Reply to William Wallace,'Review of International Studies 23:4 (1997) 507-516. On Cox s distinction between problem-solving and critical theories, see Robert W. Cox, Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, in Approaches to World Order, Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 85-123. Martin Kramer, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America (Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy: 2001). Jim George, (Re)Introducting Theory as Practice of International Relations, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) 1-39. Len Scott and Steve Smith, Lessons of October: Historians, Political Scientists, Policy-makers and the Cuban Missile Crisis, International Affairs 70:4 (1994) 659-684. Randolph M. Siverson, A Glass Half-Full? No, but Perhaps a Glass Filling: The Contributions of International Politics Research to Policy, PS: Political Science and Politics (March 2000). William Wallace, Between Two Worlds: Think-tanks and Foreign Policy in Two Worlds of International Relations: Academics, Practitioners and the Trade in Ideas, Christopher Hill & Pamela Beshoff, eds. (London: Routledge, 1994) 139-163. Martin Malin and Robert Latham, The Public relevance of International Security research in an Era of Globalism, International Studies Perspectives 2:2 (2001) 221-230. Christopher Simpson, ed. Universities and Empire (New York: The New Press, 1998). Richard D. Lambert, DoD, Social Science and International Studies, ANNALS, AAPSS 502 (March 1989) 94-107. 11

Pinar Bilgin & Adam David Morton, Historicising Representations of Failed States: Beyond the Cold War Annexation of the Social Sciences? Third World Quarterly 23:1 (2002) 55-80. Edward W. Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: Penguin, 1995 [1978]). 12

Week 4 (13.10.2004) Realism E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Papermac, 1981 [1939]) Parts I and II Michael Cox, Introduction, in The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations/ with a new Introduction by Michael Cox, editor (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001) ix-lviii. (xerox) If lost read: Tim Dunne and Brian C. Schmidt, Realism, in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2 nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 141-161. Or read: Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 16-44. Or read: Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 55-99. Hans J. Morgenthau, A Realist Theory of International Politics, Politics Among Nations (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985). Ken Booth, Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice, International Affairs 67:3 (1991) 527-545. Barry Buzan, The Timeless Wisdom of Realism? in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 47-65. Charles W. Kegley, Jr. The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies? Realist Myths and the New International Realities, International Studies Quarterly 37 (1993) 131-146. Peter Wilson, The Myth of the First Great Debate, Review of International Studies 24: special issue (1998) 1-15. Lucian M Ashworth, Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations, International Relations 16:1 (2002) 33-51. Andreas Osiander, Reading early 20 th century IR theory: Idealism Revisited, in International Studies Quarterly 42:3 (1998) 409-432. Brian Schmidt, Lessons from the Past: Reassessing the Interwar Disciplinary History of International Relations, in International Studies Quarterly 42:3 (1998) 433-460. Jim George, The Positivist-Realist Phase: Morgenthau, Behaviouralism, and the Quest for Certainty, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) 91-110. Peter Wilson, Introduction: The Twenty Years Crisis and the Category of Idealism in International Relations, in Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis: Inter-war Idealism Reassessed (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) 1-24. Robert L. Rothstein, On the Costs of Realism, in Political Science Quarterly 87:3 (1972) 347-362. Scott Burchill, Realism and Neorealism, Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al (London: Macmillan, 1996) 67-92. 13

Week 5 (20.10.2004) Neorealism Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979) 1-128. William C. Wohlforth, The Russian-Soviet Empire: a Test of Neorealism, Review of International Studies 27 (2001) 213-235. Kenneth Waltz, Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory, in Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St Martin s Press, 1995) 67-81. John Mearsheimer, Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War, International Security 15:1 (1990) 5-56. Robert O. Keohane, Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond, in International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond, Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 153-183. Kenneth Waltz, Structural Realism After the Cold War, International Security 25: 1 (2000) 5-41. Barry Buzan and Richard Little, The Idea of International System, in International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Andrew Linklater, ed. (London: Routledge, 2000) 1274-1303. Interview with Ken Waltz, by Fred Halliday and Justin Rosenberg, Review of International Studies 24:3 (1998) 371-386. Daniel H. Deudney, Regrounding Realism: Anarchy, Security, and Changing Material Contexts, Security Studies 10:1 (2000) 1-42. Kenneth Waltz, The New World Order, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 22:2 (1993) 187-196. Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, The International System, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 92-118. Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, International Organization 46:2 (1992) 391-425. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Andrew Linklater, Neorealism in Theory and Practice, in International Relations Theory Today, Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds. (Cambridge: Polity, 1995) 241-262. David Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Isabelle Grunberg, Exploring the Myth of Hegemonic Stability, International Organization 44:4 (1990) 431-477. Jim George, The Backward Discipline Revisited: The Closed World of Neo-realism, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) 111-138. Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen, eds., International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995). Robert W. Cox, Realism, Positivism and Historicism, in Approaches to World Order, Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 14

49-59 [first appeared in Neorealism and its Critics, Robert O. Keohane, ed. as a postscript to the article Social Forces in 1985]. Robert W. Cox, Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, in Approaches to World Order, Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 85-123 [first appeared in the Millennium in 1981 and re-published in Neorealism and its Critics, Robert O. Keohane, ed., in 1985] Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987). 15

Week 6 (27.10.2004) The English School Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 2 nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1995) xv-xviii, 3-94. Paul Sharp, Taliban Diplomacy and the English School, Review of International Studies 29: 4 (2003) 481-498. Roger Epp, The English School on the Frontiers of International Society; A Hermeneutic Recollection, Review of International Studies 24: special issue (1998) 47-63. Tim Dunne, The Social Construction of International Society, European Journal of International Relations 1:3 (1995) 367-389. Andrew Linklater, The problem of Harm in World Politics: Implications for the Sociology of States-systems, International Affairs 78:2 (2002) 319-338. Barry Buzan, The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR, Review of International Studies 27:3 (2001) 471-488. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). James Mayall, Nationalism and International Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, ed. Gabriele Wight and Brian Porter (London: Leicester University Press, 1991). Nick Wheeler, Guardian Angel or Global Gangster: A Review of the Ethical Claims of International Society, Political Studies 44 (1996) 123-135. Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Robert Jackson, The Political Theory of International Society, in International Theory Today, Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Polity, 1995) 110-128, Tim Dunne, Inventing International Society: A History of the English School (New York: St Martin s Press, 1998). Tim Dunne, Sociological Investigations: Instrumental, Legitimist and Coercive Interpretations of International Society, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30:1 (2001) 67-91. 16

Week 7 (3.11.2004) Is Realism Still Relevant After 9/11? Steve Smith, Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11, International Studies Quarterly 48:3 (2004) 499-515. Forum on American Realism, Review of International Studies 29:3 (2003) 401-460. Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, eds. Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order (London: Macmillan, 2002) Sptember 11 and After Special issue of International Relations 16:2 (2002). 17

Week 8 (11.11.2003) Liberalism and Neo-liberalism Tim Dunne, Liberalism, in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2 nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 163-181. Steven L. Lamy, Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-realism and Neoliberalism, in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2 nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 182-199. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Limits of American Power, Political Science Quarterly 117:4 (2002-3) 545-559. Michael Doyle, A More Perfect Union? The Liberal Peace and the Challenge of Globalization, Review of International Studies 26:special issue (2000) 81-94. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Power and Interdependence revisited, International Organization 41:4 (Autumn 1987) 725-753. Michael W. Doyle, Liberalism and World Politics Revisited, in Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St Martin s Press, 1995) 67-67-81. Charles W. Kegley, Jr, The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction, in in Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, Charles W. Kegley, ed. (New York: St Martin s Press, 1995) 1-24. Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, Review of International Studies 25:2 (1999) 179-196. Michael W. Doyle, Liberalism and World Politics, in American Political Science Review 80:4 (1986) 1151-1169. [re-published in International Relations Theory, Viotti and Kauppi, eds., 233-245] Robert O. Keohane and Joesph S. Nye, Jr, Realism and Complex Interdependence, in Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 307-318. Andrew Moravcsik, Taking Preferences Seriously, International Organization 51:4 (1997) 513-553. Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew, Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands, in in Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, Charles W. Kegley, ed. (New York: St Martin s Press, 1995) 107-150. Bruce Russet, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995). David Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, eds. Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). John Gerard Ruggie, Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution, in Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 331-339. Joseph M. Grieco, Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism, in Controversies in International Relations Theory: 18

Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, Charles W. Kegley, ed. (New York: St Martin s Press, 1995) 151-171. Karl Deutsch et al, Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957). Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 199-232. Raymond Cohen, Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory that Democracies do not go to War with Each Other, Review of International Studies 20:3 (1994) 207-223. Steven Weber, Institutions and Change, in New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Michael Doyle and John Ikenberry, eds. (Boulder, CO: Westview press, 1997) 229-265. 19

Week 9 (17.11.2004) Marxist-inspired Theories of World Politics Stephen Hobden and Richard Wyn Jones, Marxist Theories of International Relations, in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2 nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 200-223. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Inter-state Structure of the Modern World System, in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 87-107. Robert W. Cox, Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, in Approaches to World Order, Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 85-123 Mark Rupert, Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (re-)vision of the politics of governance/resistance, Review of International Studies 29: special issue (2003) 181-198. Or read: Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, Globalism: Dependency and the Capitalist World-System, in International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 341-364. Robert W. Cox, Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An essay on Method, in Approaches to World Order, Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 124-143. Hazel Smith, The Silence of the Academics: International Social Theory, Historical Materialism and Political Values, Review of International Studies 22:2 (1996) 191-212. Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton, The Gordion Knot of Agency-Structure in International Relations: A Neo-Gramscian Perspective, European Journal of International Relations 7:1 (2001) 5-35. Andrew Linklater, Marxism, in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al (London: Macmillan, 1996) 119-144. Daniel Deudney, Geopolitics as Theory: Historical Security Materialism, European Journal of International Relations 6:1 (2000) 77-107. Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair, Approaches to World Order, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Robert W. Cox, Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987). Robert W. Cox, Civil Society at the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order, Review of International Studies 25:1 (1999) 3-28. Theda Skocpol, Wallerstein s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical Critique, American Journal of Sociology 82:5 (1977) 1075-1090. William Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 20

Week 10 (24.11.2004) Constructivism Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, International Organization 46:2 (1992) 391-425. Michael Barnett, The Israeli Identity and The Peace Process: Re/creating the Un/thinkable, Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East, Shibley Telhami & Michael Barnett, eds. (Ithaca: Cornell University press, 2002) 58-87. Jutta Weldes and Diana Saco, Making State Action Possible: The United States and the Discursive Construction of The Cuban Problem, 1960-1994, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 25:2 (1996) 361-395. Alexander Wendt, Collective Identity Formation and the International State, American Political Science Review 88:2 (1994) 384-396. Alexander Wendt, On Constitution and Causation in International Relations, Review of International Studies 24: special issue (1998) 101-117. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Marc Lynch, Jordan s Identity and Interests, in Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East, Shibley Telhami & Michael Barnett, eds. (Ithaca: Cornell University press, 2002) 26-57. Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Christian Reus-Smit, Constructivism, in Theories of International Relations, 2 nd ed. Scott Burchill et al, (London: Palgrave, 2001) 209-230. Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms and Decision: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Jutta Weldes et al, eds. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of Danger (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999). Jutta Weldes, Constructing National Interests, European Journal of International Relations 2:3 (1996) 275-318. Karin Fierke, Multiple Identities, Interfacing Games: The Social Construction of Western Action in Bosnia, European Journal of International Relations 2:4 (1996) 467-497. Michael Barnett, Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998). Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit, Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism, European Journal of International Relations 4:3 (1998) 259-294. Ted Hopf, The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory, International Security 23:1 (1998) 171-200, reprinted in International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Andrew Linklater, ed., vol.iv, 1756-1783. Vendulka Kubálková, Nicholas Onuf and Paul Kowert, eds., International Relations in a Constructed World (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998). Vendulka Kubálková, ed. Foreign Policy in a Constructed World (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2001). 21

Week 11 (1.12.2004) Post-structuralism Kimberly Hutchins, Foucault and International Relations Theory, in The Impact of Michel Foucault on the Social Sciences and Humanities, Moya Lloyd and Andrew Thacker, eds. (London: Macmillan, 1997) 102-127. Roxanne Lynn Doty, Imperial Encounters (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002) 1-72, 163-171. Chris Brown, Turtles All the Way Down : Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23 (1994) 213-236. David Campbell, Politics Without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics and the Narratives of the Gulf War (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993). Bradley S. Klein, Strategic Studies and World Order: The Global Politics of Deterrence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Cynthia Weber, IR: The Resurrection or New Frontiers of Incorporation, European Journal of International Relations 5:4 (1999) 435-450. David Campbell, Politics Without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics and the Narratives of the Gulf War (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993). David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, rvs. ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998). Jenny Edkins, Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back in (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999). Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) esp. pp. 139-231. Mark Hoffman, Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation: Four Voices in Critical International Theory, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 20:2 (1991) 169-185. R.B.J. Walker, Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Richard Ashley, The Achievements of Post-Structuralism, in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 240-253. Richard Ashley and R.B.J. Walker, Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies, International Studies Quarterly 34 (1990) 367-416. 22