International Relations Theory

IR 501
International Relations Theory

Pınar Bilgin
Department of International Relations

Aims
This course is designed as a post-graduate level introduction to 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 main 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’

· understanding of what is meant by theory and why theorising is an important enterprise;
· knowledge and understanding of the key literature in the discipline;
· knowledge and understanding of International Relations beyond their immediate area of interest;
· ability to locate their area of interest within the discipline;
· ability to analyse practices of world politics from a conceptual perspective;
· ability to write a critical review of a key text in the discipline;
· ability to discuss in depth some of the main issues in International Relations theory.

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.

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 30% 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.

Assessment

30% of your assessment will be based on in-class participation. This will take the form of participating in class discussions, which will be structured around questions that will be provided in advance (i.e. questions that you will have time to prepare for). You will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having read and thought about that week’s topic.

40% of your assessment will be based on a take-home examination due on the day of the final exam.

30% of your assessment will be based on a written assignment (due December 21, 2001 beginning of class). You are asked to write a 1000-1200-word review of a key text (article) in the discipline. Please find below a list of the texts you can choose from. The review should situate the selected text within the discipline, evaluate its contribution and discuss the reactions it has so far received. You may make a presentation, if you wish, in the seminar in which your choice of text is being discussed. This presentation will not be assessed. The idea is to provide an opportunity for you to receive feedback thereby helping you present a tighter argument in your essay.

1. Adam Jones, ‘Does “Gender” Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations,’ Review of International Studies, 22: 4 (1996) 405-429.
2. Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics,’ International Organization 46:2 (1992) 391-425.
3. Alexander Wendt, ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,’ International Organization, 41 (1987) 335-370.
4. Andrew Linklater, ‘The Transformation of Political Community: E.H. Carr, Critical Theory and International Relations,’ Review of International Studies 23:3 (1997) 321-338.
5. Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,’ International Organization 51:4 (1997) 513-553.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Beate Jahn, ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27: 3 (1998) 613-641.
9. Chris Brown, ‘“Turtles All the Way Down”: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23 (1994) 213-236.
10. Christopher Layne, ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace,’ International Security, 19: 2 (1994) 5-49.
11. David Held and Anthony McGrew, ‘The End of the Old Order? Globalisation and the Prospects for World Order,’ Review of International Studies 219-243.
12. J. Ann Tickner, ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,’ International Studies Quarterly 41: 4 (1997) 611-632.
13. Jill Hills, ‘Dependency Theory and Its Relevance Today: International Institutions in Telecommunications and Structural Power,’ Review of International Studies, 20: 2 (1994) 169-186.
14. John Lewis Gaddis, ‘International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War,’ International Security 17: 3 (1992) 5-58.
15. John Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,’ International Security 15:1 (1990) 5-56.
16. John Mearshemier, ‘The False Promise of International Institutions,’ International Security, 19: 3 (1994/95) 5-49.
17. Jutta Weldes, ‘Constructing National Interests,’ European Journal of International Relations 2:3 (1996) 275-318.
18. Ken Booth, ‘Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice,’ International Affairs 67:3 (1991) 527-545.
19. Kenneth Waltz, ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War,’ International Security 25:1 (2000) 5-41.
20. Michael W. Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics,’ in American Political Science Review 80:4 (1986) 1151-1169.
21. Ole Wæver, ‘The Sociology of Not So International a Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,’ International Organization 52:4 (1998) 687-727.
22. 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.
23. Robert L. Rothstein, ‘On the Costs of Realism,’ in Political Science Quarterly 87:3 (1972) 347-362.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Stanley Hoffman, ‘An American Social Science: International Relations (1977)," in International Theory: Critical Investigations, James Der Derian, ed. (London: Macmillan, 1995).
27. Stephen Walt, ‘The Renaissance of Security Studies,’ International Studies Quarterly (1991) 211-239.
28. Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey, ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalisation,’ European Journal of International Relations 5:4 (1999) 403-434.
29. Tim Dunne, ‘The Social Construction of International Society,’ European Journal of International Relations, 1: 3 (1995) 367-389.
30. William Wallace, 'Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations,' Review of International Studies 22:3 (1996) 301-321.

Since no more than two students 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 far in advance of the deadline for submission. Those who have not e-mailed me by November 16, 2001 will be allocated a text by me.

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:

· 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.

Week 1: September 28, 2001

Introduction

Week 2: October 5, 2001
Uses of Theory in the Study of International Relations

Required

· 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.
· 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.
· 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.

Recommended

· 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.
· 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.
· 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.
· Mark Neufeld, ‘International Relations Theory and the Aristotelian Project,’ in The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 9-21.
· 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. 6 [re-published in Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics, Katzenstein, Keohane and Krasner, eds., 1999]
· Scott Burchill, ‘Introduction,’ in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al (London: Macmillan, 1996) 1-27.

Week 3: October 12, 2001
Theory/Practice in International Relations

Required

· 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.
· David Dessler, ‘The Use and Abuse of Social Science for Policy,’ SAIS Review 9:2 (1989) 203-223.
· 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.

Recommended

Alexander George, ‘Strategies for Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Scholarship for Policymaking,’PS: Political Science and Politics (March 2000).
· 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.
· 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.
· Michael Nicholson, ‘What is the Use of International Relations?’ Review of International Studies 26:4 (2000) 183-198.
· 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.
· 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).
· Stanley Hoffman, ‘An American Social Science: International Relations,’ in International Theory: Critical Investigations (London: Macmillan, 1995) 212-241.
· 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.

Week 4: October 19, 2001
‘The Twenty Years’ Crisis’ and the Theory of Realism

Required

· E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Papermac, 1981 [1939]) 22-94.
· Hans J. Morgenthau, ‘A Realist Theory of International Politics,’ Politics Among Nations (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985) 3-13.
· Peter Wilson,‘The Myth of the “First Great Debate,”’ Review of International Studies 24: special issue (1998) 1-15.
· Ken Booth, ‘Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice,’ International Affairs 67:3 (1991) 527-545.

Recommended

· If lost read: Tim Dunne and Brian C. Schmidt, ‘Realism,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd 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.
· Andreas Osiander, ‘Reading early 20th century IR theory: Idealism Revisited,’ in International Studies Quarterly 42:3 (1998) 409-432.
· 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.
· 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.

Week 5: October, 27, 2001
Structural (Neo-)Realism

Required

· Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, ‘The International System,’ Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 92-118.
· John Mearshimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,’ International Security 15:1 (1990) 5-56.
· Kenneth Waltz, ‘The New World Order,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 22:2 (1993) 187-196.
· 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.

Recommended

· ‘Interview with Ken Waltz,’ conducted by Fred Halliday and Justin Rosenberg, Review of International Studies 24:3 (1998) 371-386.
· 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).
· 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, ‘Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory,’ in The Evolution of Theory in International Relations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991) 21-37.
· Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959).
· Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979).
· 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) 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, i (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).

Week 6: November 2, 2001
Liberalism and Neo-liberalism

Required

· Steven L. Lamy, ‘Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 182-199.
· Michael W. Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics,’ in American Political Science Review 80:4 (1986) 1151-1169. 6 [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.
· Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, ‘The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order,’Review of International Studies 25:2 (1999) 179-196.

Recommended

· If lost, read: Tim Dunne, ‘Liberalism,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 163-181.
· Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Taking Preferences Seriously,’ International Organization 51:4 (1997) 513-553.
· 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.
· 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.

Week 7: November 9, 2001
The English School

Required

· Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1995) xv-xviii, 3-94.
· Barry Buzan,‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR,’ Review of International Studies 27:3 (2001) 471-488.
· Nick Wheeler, ‘Guardian Angel or Global Gangster: A Review of the Ethical Claims of International Society,’ Political Studies 44 (1996) 123-135.

Recommended

· 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).
· 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,
· 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.
· Tim Dunne, Inventing International Society: A History of the English School (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998).

Week 8: November 16, 2001
Marxist-Inspired Theories of World Politics

Required

· 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.
· 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 [first appeared in the Millennium in 1981 and re-published in Neorealism and its Critics, Robert O. Keohane, ed., in 1985]
· 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.

Recommended

· If lost, read: Stephen Hobden and Richard Wyn Jones, ‘Marxist Theories of International Relations,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 200-223.
· 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. 6
· 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).
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).

Week 9: November 23, 2001
Gendering International Politics

Required

· Jan Jindy Pettman, ‘Gender Issues,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 582-598.
· J. Ann Tickner, ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,’International Studies Quarterly 41: 4 (1997) 611-632.
· Cynthia Enloe, ‘Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations,’ in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 186-202.
· Marysia Zalewski, ‘Well, What’s the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia?’ International Affairs 71:2 (1995) 339-356.

Recommended

· Christine Sylvester, ‘Contributions of Feminism,’ in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 254-278.
· Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
· Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).
· Cynthia Enloe, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).
· J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).
· Marysia Zalewski, ‘Feminist Theory and International Relations,’ in From Cold War to Collapse, Michael Bowker and Robin Brown, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 115-144.
· Marysia Zalewski, ‘The Women/“Women” Question in International Relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23:2 (1994) 407-423.

Week 10: November 30, 2001
Constructivism

Required

· 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.
· Michael Barnett, ‘Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change: Israel’s Road to Oslo,’ European Journal of International Relations 5:1 (1999) 5-36.

Recommended

· Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics,’ International Organization 46:2 (1992) 391-425. 6 excerpt published in Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 434-459.
· 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).
· Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
· 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).
· Vendulka Kubálková, Nicholas Onuf and Paul Kowert, eds., International Relations in a Constructed World (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998).

Week 11, December 7, 2001
Critical Theories of World Politics

Required

· Andrew Linklater, ‘The Achievements of Critical Theory,’ in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 279-298.
· Richard Devetak, ‘Postmodernism,’ in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al (London: Macmillan, 1996) 179-209.
· Andrew Linklater, ‘The Transformation of Political Community: E.H. Carr, Critical Theory and International Relations,’ Review of International Studies 23:3 (1997) 321-338.

Recommended

· Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990).
· Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990).
· Beate Jahn, ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism,’ Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 27: 3 (1998) 613-641.
· Bradley S. Klein, Strategic Studies and World Order: The Global Politics of Deterrence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
· Chris Brown, ‘“Turtles All the Way Down”: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23 (1994) 213-236.
· 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).
· Jennifer Milliken, ‘The Study of Discourse in International Relations: a Critique of Research and Methods,’European Journal of International Relations 5:2 (1999) 225-254.
· 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.
· Kimberly Hutchins, ‘Foucault and International Relations Theory,’ in The Impact of Foucault on the Social Sciences and Humanities, Moya Lloyd and Andrew Thacker, eds. (London: Macmillan, 1997) 102-127.
· 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 Wyn Jones, Security, Strategy and Critical Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999).

Week 12: December 14, 2001
International Relations Theory after the Cold War

Required

· K.J. Holsti, ‘Scholarship in an Era of Anxiety: The Study of International Politics During the Cold War,’ Review of International Politics 24 (1998) 17-46.
· Rey Koslowski and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, ‘Understanding Change in International Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System,’ International Organization 48:2 (1994) 215-247. 6 [re-published in International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, Lebow and Risse-Kappen, eds.]
· Richard Ned Lebow, ‘The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War and the Failure of Realism,’ International Organization 48:2 (1994) 249-277. 6 [re-published in International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, Lebow and Risse-Kappen, eds.]
· Ken Booth, ‘Cold Wars of the Mind,’ in Statecraft and Security, Ken Booth, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 29-55.

Recommended

· Fred Halliday, ‘The End of the Cold War and International Relations: Some analytic and Theoretical Conclusions,’ in International Relations Theory Today, Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Polity, 1995) 38-61.
· Johan Galtung, ‘Europe 1989: The Role of Peace Research and the Peace Movement,’ Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations, Ralph Summy and Michael E Salla Westpot, eds. (Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1995).
· John Lewis Gaddis, ‘International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War,’ International Security 17: 3 (1992) 5-58.
· Steve Smith, ‘The Self Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory,’ in International Relations Theory Today, Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Polity, 1995) 1-37.
· Thomas Risse-Kappen, ‘Ideas do not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War,’ International Organization 48:2 (1994) 185-214. 6 [re-published in International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, Lebow and Risse-Kappen, eds.]

Week 13: December 21, 2001
Assignments due

Week 14: December 28, 2001
Studying International Relations in a Globalising World

Required

· David Held and Anthony McGrew, ‘The End of the Old Order? Globalisation and the Prospects for World Order,’Review of International Studies 24: special issue (1998) 219-243.
· Richard Falk, Predatory Globalisation: A Critique (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000) intro & chapter 1.
· Ian Clark,‘Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of International Relations,’ Review of International Studies 24: 4 (1998) 479-498.
· ‘Realism vs Cosmopolitanism: A Debate Between Barry Buzan and David Held,’ conducted by Anthony McGrew Review of International Studies 24:3 (1998) 387-398.

Recommended

· Ian Clark, Globalisation and Fragmentation: International Relations in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
· James Goldgeier and Michael McFaul, ‘A Tale of Two Worlds: Core and Periphery in the post-Cold War Era,’International Organization 46:2 (1992) 467-491.
· Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000).
· Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey,‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalisation,’ European Journal of International Relations 5:4 (1999) 403-434.