International Relations Theory POLI 802/603 Dr. Norrin M. Ripsman Concordia University Fall 2008 Mondays 12:05-2:35 PM Office: H1225-63, 848-2424 ext. 2156 E-mail nr2006@alcor.concordia.ca This course will explore the major theoretical approaches to the study of international relations. It will examine the leading contemporary paradigmatic approaches to international politics, including varieties of realism, liberalism and constructivism, as well as more eclectic approaches. Particular attention will be paid to their understanding of the dynamics of the international system, the leading actors within it, and the influence of material versus ideational factors. PLAGIARISM The Department has zero tolerance for plagiarism. 1. What is plagiarism? Any form of cheating, plagiarism, personation, falsification of a document as well as any other form of dishonest behaviour related to the obtention of academic gain or the avoidance of evaluative exercises committed by a student is an academic offence under the Academic Code of Conduct. To find out more about how to avoid plagiarism, see the Concordia University Student Learning Services at http://cdev.concordia.ca/cnd/studentlearn/help/handouts/writingho/avoidingplagiaris m.html 2. What are the consequences of getting caught? One of the following sanctions may be imposed: i) a written reprimand; ii) piece of work be re-submitted; iii) specified community service at the University of up to ten (1) hours per week for a specified period of time; iv) a failing grade for the piece of work in question or for the course if applicable; v) a failing grade and ineligibility for a supplemental examination or any other evaluative exercise for the course; vi) the obligation to take and pass courses of up to twenty-four (24) credit in addition to the total number of credits required for the student s program as specified by the Academic Hearing Board. If the student is registered as an Independent student, the sanction will be imposed only if he or she applied and is accepted into a program. Complete regulations can be found on page 61 of the University calendar. Requirements (Ph.D. level):
An 8,000-8,500 word research paper on a suitable topic approved by the instructor (50%). A 2-page outline and bibliography (due October 20) must be approved one month prior to submission of the paper or your paper will not be accepted. The due date is December 12. A 15-minute presentation of your research paper (in-progress) during the last three classes (10%). Your classmates will offer you comments which should help you improve your final submission. Two 15-minute seminar presentations, based on both the required and the recommended readings (10% each, for a total of 20%). Seminar participation (20%). {NOTE: This is not merely an attendance grade, but a participation grade. You will be judged on both the quality and the quantity of your contributions to class discussions. Of course, class attendance is mandatory.} Requirements (M.A. level): A 7,000-7,500 word research paper on a suitable topic approved by the instructor (50%). A 2-page outline and bibliography (due October 20) must be approved one month prior to submission of the paper or your paper will not be accepted. The due date is December 12. A 15-minute presentation of your research paper (in-progress) during the last three classes (10%). Your classmates will offer you comments which should help you improve your final submission. A 15-minute seminar presentation, based on both the required and the recommended readings (20%). Seminar participation (20%). {NOTE: This is not merely an attendance grade, but a participation grade. You will be judged on both the quality and the quantity of your contributions to class discussions. Of course, class attendance is mandatory.} Required Readings: Students are required to purchase the following: Steven Van Evera, A Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997) (at bookstore). A photocopied packet of readings available at Concordia s Downtown Bookstore.
Topic Outline: 1. Introduction to the Course What is International Relations Theory? (September 8) Steven Van Evera, A Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science. 2. Realism I: The Problem of Anarchy in the International System (September 15) Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979) Chapters 4 & 6. John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001), Chapters 1 and 2. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 3 rd ed. (New York: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 3-73. Arnold Wolfers, Statesmanship and Moral Choice, chapter 4 in Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962), pp. 47-65. Helen V. Milner, The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique, Review of International Studies 17, no. 1 (January 1991), pp. 67-86. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Reconsidered," International Security, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Winter 2000/2001), pp. 152-186. # Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (New York: Norton Critical Edition, 1998), Book I 1-99, 139-146 (pp. 4-39, 54-57); Book II 34-54 (pp. 71-79); Book III 36-50, 70-85 (pp. 113-119, 127-132); Book V 84-116 (pp. 227-231); Book VI, 6-31 (pp. 235-244). # Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth W. Thompson, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf, 1985), pp. 3-17, 198-240. # Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). # Christopher A. Layne, Peace of Illusions (Ithaca, N.Y.: Corenell University Press, 2006), chaps 1-2. # Steven E. Lobell, War is Politics: Offensive Realism, Domestic Politics, and Security Strategies, Security Studies, vol 12, no. 2 (winter 2002/03), pp.165-95. # Elizabeth Kier and Jonathan Mercer, Setting Precedents in Anarchy: Military Intervention and Weapons of Mass Destruction, International Security vol. 20, no. 4 (Spring 1996), pp. 77-106. Q1. What is anarchy in the international system? What does it mean for the character of international relations? Q2. According to offensive structural realists, what does anarchy require great powers to do? Why do defensive structural realists disagree? Which argument, if any, is more persuasive?
3. Realism II: Anarchy and War (September 22) Robert Gilpin, War and Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 9-49, 186-210. A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), Chapter 1. Kenneth N. Waltz, Structural Realism After the Cold War, International Security vol. 25, no. 1 (Summer 2000), pp. 5-41. Robert Jervis, Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma, World Politics, vol. 30, no. 2 (January 1978), pp. 167-214. Robert Powell, Stability and the Distribution of Power, World Politics, vol 48, no. 2 (January 1996), pp. 239-267. Jack S. Levy, The Offensive/Defensive Balance of Military Technology: A Theoretical and Historical Analysis, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2 (June 1984) pp. 219-238. Jack S. Levy, Preventive War and Democratic Politics, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 1 (March 2008), pp. 1-24. # R. Harrison Wagner, Peace, War, and the Balance of Power, The American Political Science Review, vol. 88, no. 3 (September 1994), pp. 593-607 # Stephen Van Evera, The Causes of War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), chapters 3-4, 6-7. # Dale Copeland, The Origins of Major War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), chapters 1-4. # James D. Fearon, Rationalist Explanations for War, International Organization, vol. 49, No. 3 (Summer, 1995), pp. 379-414. # Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Offense Defense Theory and Its Critics, Security Studies vol. 4, no. 4 (Summer 1995), pp. 660-691. # Charles L. Glaser and Chaim Kaufmann, What Is the Offense-Defense Balance and Can We Measure It? International Security, vol. 22 no. 4 (Spring 1998), pp. 44-82. Q3. How do expectations of shifts in the balance of power affect the likelihood of war? Q4. What is the offence-defence balance? Does it affect the likelihood of war? How? 4. Realism III: Cooperation Under Anarchy (September 29) Kenneth A. Oye, "Explaining Co-operation Under Anarchy" pp. 1-24 in Kenneth A. Oye, eds., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). Joseph M. Grieco, Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism, International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3 (Summer 1988), pp. 485-507.
Evan Montgomery, Breaking out of the Security Dilemma: Realism, Reassurance, and the Problem of Uncertainty, International Security, vol. 31, no. 2 (Fall 2006), pp. 151-185. Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), pp. 5-22, 33-52. Stephen D. Krasner, State Power and the Structure of International Trade, World Politics, vol. 28 (April 1976), pp. 317-347. William Wohlforth, The Stability of a Unipolar World, International Security, vol. 24, no. 1 (Summer 1999), pp. 5-41. Charles P. Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), chap. 14. # Glenn H. Snyder and Paul Diesing, Conflict Among Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), pp. 37-52, 79-129. # Stephen Van Evera, Why Cooperation Failed in 1914, pp. 80-117 in Kenneth A. Oye, eds., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). # Robert Powell, Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory, American Political Science Review, vol. 85, no. (December 1991), pp. 1303-20. # Robert Jervis, From Balance to Concert: A Study of International Security Cooperation, pp. 58-79 in Kenneth A. Oye, eds., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). # Duncan Snidal, The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory, International Organization, vol. 39, no. 4 (Autumn 1985), pp. 579-614. # Joanne Gowa, Rational Hegemons, Excludable Goods, and Small Groups: An Epitaph for Hegemonic Stability Theory? World Politics, vol. 41 (April 1989), pp. 307-324. # Bruce Cronin, The Paradox of Hegemony: America's Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, no. 1 (2001), pp.103-130. # Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984). Q5. Is large-scale cooperation possible in an anarchic international system? Explain. Q6. What is hegemonic stability theory? What is it based upon? Is it a useful theory? 5. Liberalism I: Maximizing Preferences and Interests (October 6) Andrew Moravcsik, "Taking Preferences Seriously: Liberalism and International Relations Theory," International Organization (Fall 1997), 512-553. Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Mathew, Liberal International Relations Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands, in Charles Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin s, 1995), pp. 107-150. Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press, 1984). Chapters 4 & 6.
Jeffry A. Frieden, Actors and Preferences in International Relations, pp. 39-76 in David A. Lake and Robert Powell, eds., Strategic Choice and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). John Gerard Ruggie, International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order, International Organization 36, no. 2 (Spring 1982), pp. 379-415. Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. (New York: Norton, 1997), pp. 205-212; 301-314. # Stanley Hoffmann, Liberalism and International Affairs, in Hoffmann, Janus and Minerva: Essays on the Theory and Practice of International Politics (Boulder: Westview Press, 1986), pp. 394-417. # Robert O. Keohane, Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics, in Keohane, ed., International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989), pp. 1-11. # Lisa L. Martin, Interests, Power, and Multilateralism, International Organization 46, no. 4 (Autumn 1992), pp. 765-92. # Stephan Haggard and Beth Simmons, Theories of International Regimes, International Organization 41 (Summer, 1987), pp. 491-517. # Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), pp. 1-35. # G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp. 50-79, 163-214. # Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, Review of International Studies, vol. 25, no. 2 (April 1999), pp. 179-96. # Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. (New York: Norton, 1997), pp. 213-300. Q7. Why do liberals believe that anarchy is not as pernicious as realists believe? What drives cooperation according to liberals? Is their approach convincing? Q8. Do international institutions make states more cooperative? Why or why not? October 13 No class (Thanksgiving) 6. Liberalism II: Domestic Incentives for Cooperation (October 20) John R. Oneal and Bruce M. Russett The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950-1985, International Studies Quarterly vol. 41, no. 2 (June 1997), pp. 267-293. Richard N. Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World (New York: Basic Books, 1986), pp. 22-43, 136-154.
Edward D. Mansfield and Brian M. Pollins, Interdependence and Conflict: An Introduction, pp. 1-28 in Edward D. Mansfield and Brian Pollins, eds., Economic Interdependence and International Conflict (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003). Bruce M. Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), chaps. 1-2. John M. Owen, How Liberalism Produces the Democratic Peace, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994), pp. 87-125. Christopher Layne, "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace," International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994), pp. 5-49. Fred Chernoff, The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations, International Studies Review vol. 6, no. 1 (2004), pp. 49-77. # Norrin M. Ripsman and Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, Commercial Liberalism Under Fire: Evidence from 1914 and 1936, Security Studies vol. 6, no. 2 (Winter 1996-97), pp. 4-50. # David A. Lake, Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War, The American Political Science Review, vol. 86, no. 1 (March 1992), pp. 24-37. # Raymond Cohen, Pacific unions: a reappraisal of the theory that democracies do not go to war with each other, Review of International Studies, vol. 20, no.3 (1994), pp. 207-223. # Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder, Democratization and the Danger of War, International Security vol. 20 (Summer 1995), pp. 5-38. # Norrin M. Ripsman, Peacemaking and Democratic Peace Theory: Public Opinion as an Obstacle to Peace in Post-Conflict Situations, Democracy and Security, vol. 3, no. 1 (January 2007), pp. 89-113. # Errol Henderson, Democracy and War: The End of an Illusion? (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 2002). Q9. Does economic interdependence prevent states from using force to settle international disputes? Q10. Are democracies truly less war-prone than other states? Why or why not? 7. Constructivism I: Ideas, Norms and International Order (October 27) Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chapter 1. Jeff Checkel, The Constructivist Turn in IR Theory, World Politics vol. 50, no. 2 (January 1998), pp. 324-348. Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), chaps. 1 & 4. Emanuel Adler, Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics, European Journal of International Relations vol. 3, no. 3 (1997), pp. 319-363.
Audie Klotz, Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and U.S. Sanctions Against South Africa, International Organization vol. 49, no. 3 (Summer 1995), pp. 451-478. Nina Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use, International Organization, vol. 53, no. 3 (Summer 1999), pp. 433-446. Paper proposals due. # Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, International Organization 52, no. 4 (Autumn 1998), pp. 887-917. # Ann Florini, The Evolution of International Norms, 5nternational Studies Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 3 (September 1996), pp. 363-389. # Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 391-425. # Christopher Gelpi, Crime and Punishment: The Role of Norms in Crisis Bargaining, American Political Science Review 91, no. 2 (June 1997), pp. 339-60. # Jeffrey Checkel, Ideas, Institutions, and the Gorbachev Foreign Policy Revolution, World Politics, vol. 45 #2 (1993), pp. 271-300. # J. Samuel Barkin and Bruce Cronin, The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the Rules of Sovereignty in International Relations, International Organization, vol. 48, no. 1 (Winter, 1994), pp. 107-130. Q11. Why do constructivists argue that state identities and interests are not fixed as realists and liberals assume? How are these determined according to constructivists? What are the implications for anarchy and international politics? Q12. What are international norms? How do they affect state behaviour according to constructivists? Is their argument persuasive? Why or why not? 8. Constructivism II: Institutions and Security Communities (November 3) Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, eds., Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), chapters 1-2. Emanuel Adler, The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO's Post-Cold War Transformation, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 14, no. 2 (2008), pp. 195-230. Harvey Starr, Democracy and War: Choice, Learning and Security Communities, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 29, no. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 207-213. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chapter 6. Amitav Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 15-79. Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 101-125.
# Karl W. Deutsch, Sidney A. Burrell, Robert A. Kahn, Maurice Lee, Martin Lichterman, Raymond E. Lindgren, Francis L. Loewenheim, and Richard W. Van Wagenen, Political Community in the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957). # Michael C. Williams, The Discipline of the Democratic Peace: Kant, Liberalism and the Social Construction of Security Communities, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, no. 4 (2001), pp. 525-553 # Gregory Flynn, Piecing together the democratic peace: The CSCE, norms, and the construction of security in post-cold War Europe, International Organization, vol. 53, no. 3 (Summer 1999), pp. 505-535. # John J. Mearsheimer, The False Promise of International Institutions, International Security, vol. 19, no. 3 (Winter 1994/95), pp. 5-49. # Alice D. Ba, On Norms, Rule Breaking, and Security Communities: A Constructivist Response, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific vol. 5, no. 2 (2005), pp. 255-266. # Ole Waever, Insecurity, Security, and Asecurity in the West European Non-war Community, pp. 69-118 in Security Communities, eds. Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Q13. Do international institutions constrain states or shape their identities? Explain and cite evidence. Q14. What is a pluralistic security community? How is it formed? Can it foster longlasting cooperation between states, or is it unable to mitigate the constraints of international anarchy? November 10 No class (Essay Preparation Day) 9. Critical Approaches: Gender and Discourse (November 17) J. Ann Tickner, Hans Morgenthau's Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol.17, no. 3 (1988), pp. 429-440. Joshua S. Goldstein, War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 1-58. Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit, Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 4, No. 3 (1998), pp. 259-294. Janice Bially Mattern, The Power Politics of Identity, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, no. 3 (September 2001), pp. 349-397.
Richard K. Ashley, The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Towards a Critical Social Theory of International Politics, Alternatives, vol. 12, no. 4 (October 1987), pp. 403-434. # R.B.J. Walker, International Relations and the Concept of the Political, pp. 306-327 in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, International Relations Theory Today (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995). # Latha Varadarajan, Constructivism, Identity, and Neoliberal Insecurity, Review of International Studies, vol. 30, no. 3 (2004), pp. 319-341. # Walker, R.B.J, History and Structure in the Theory of International Studies, Review of International Studies, 18:2, 1989. # Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jorgensen, Introduction, pp. 3-12 in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jorgensen, eds., Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation. # Karin M. Fierke, Critical Methodology and Constructivism, pp. 115-135 in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jorgensen, eds., Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation. # Jennifer Milliken, Discourse Study: Bringing Rigor to Critical Theory, pp. 136-159 in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jorgensen, eds., Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation. # Birgit Locher and Elisabeth Prügl, Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground? International Studies Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 1 (March 2001), pp. 111-129. Q15. What problems do critical theorists identify with conventional realist, liberal and even constructivist approaches to international relations? Are they correct? Do they satisfactorily resolve these problems? Q16. Does the distinction between masculine and feminine socialized genders help us understand the dynamics of international relations better? Does it shed light on the outbreak of war? The incidence of cooperation? Explain. 10. Eclectic and Multi-paradigmatic Approaches (November 24) Peter J. Katzenstein, A World of Regions (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), chaps. 1 & 7. Benjamin Miller, States, Nations and the Great Powers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), chaps. 2-3. Norrin M. Ripsman, Two Stages of Transition From a Region of War to a Region of Peace: Realist Transition and Liberal Endurance, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 4 (December 2005), pp. 669-693. Gideon Rose, Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy, World Politics, vol. 51, no. 1 (October 1998), pp. 144-172. Randall L. Schweller, Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing, International Security, vol. 29, no. 2 (Fall 2004), pp. 159-201.
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, Steven E. Lobell and Norrin M. Ripsman, Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy, in Steven E. Lobell, Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). Norrin M. Ripsman, Jeffrey W. Taliaferro and Steven E. Lobell Conclusion: The State of Neoclassical Realism, in Steven E. Lobell, Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). # Benjamin Miller, The International, Regional and Domestic Sources of Peace, in A. Kacowicz, Y. Bar-Siman-Tov, O. Elgstrom, and M. Jerneck, eds., Stable Peace Among Nations (Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefiled, 2000), pp. 53-73. # Randall L. Schweller, The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism, in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds., Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003), pp. 311-347. # Benjamin O. Fordham, Building the Cold War Consensus: The Political Economy of U.S. National Security Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998). # Jeffrey W. Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, Is Anyone Still a Realist? International Security vol. 24, no. 2 (Fall 1999), pp. 5-55. # Peter D. Feaver et al., Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?) International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer 2000), pp. 165-193. # Brian C. Rathbun, A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism, Security Studies, vol. 17, no. 2 (Summer 2008), pp. 294-321. Q17. What is neoclassical realism? Does it represent an improvement on structural realism and the various first and second image challenges to it? Q18. Does it make sense to reach across paradigms to explain international phenomena? Does doing so generate sufficient gains in explanatory power to overcome a loss of coherence and parsimony. Or not? Explain. 11. Paper Presentations (December 1) 12. Paper Presentations (December 2) 13. Paper Presentations (December 3 Time and place to be announced)