THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
International Relations Theory and the International System
Course Schedule: Tuesday/Thursday 2 to 3:20 pm
Location: Buchanan A, Room 102
Instructor: Robert M. A. Crawford
Office & Hours: IBLC 374—Tuesday & Thursday 1:00 to 2:00 pm
Phone: 604-822-3009
Email: robert.crawford@ubc.ca
Course Blog: There is no Canvas site for this course. Instead I will use a blog platform called World Peace is None of your Business, a site that is in the process of being updated. On this site you will find links to course handouts, announcements, and materials like lecture slides, videos etc).
TA: Sadia Tasleem
Email: sadia.tasleem@gmail.com
Office & Hours: TBA
Course Description & Format: This course examines the origins, development, and current status of theoretical inquiry in world politics. It examines past and unfolding debates over the defining features, core problems, and appropriate theoretical methods and aspirations for International Relations (IR), and critically evaluates the various “schools” of IR identified by its practitioners. The course also traces the pre-disciplinary roots of what is today called “IR theory” in the broader traditions of ancient and modern political philosophy and related fields, offering detailed analysis of the formative era of IR as a self-standing academic discipline in the years following the First World War. While the course is organized around analysis of distinct theories it also seeks to alert students to conflicting views about the nature and limits of knowledge, underlying assumptions about what constitutes the “reality” of world politics, and the intricate ways in which the normative, legal, and practical aspects of international relations are fused. The course does not merely rehearse the major debates that have come to define international relations discourse, but reveals deeper disputes that seem to threaten the very existence of a united, coherent IR discipline. Ultimately, the course makes a case for international relations as an inter discipline that has come to profit from embracing and amalgamating insights from a number of overlapping fields.
Prerequisites: No previous completion of an introductory course in international relations (e.g. POLI 260 or its equivalent) is required. The subject matter of the course, however, is demanding and for most weeks I have included readings designed to provide deeper context and background for the lectures.
Required Course Readings
Textbook: Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Hyperlinks: ???? This symbol denotes Hyperlinked PDF articles (some of these may require a free account @ academia.edu or similar)
Course Package: ???? This symbol denotes a reading from a small supplementary course reading pack for purchase at UBC Bookstore
Assessment and Assignments
Modes of assessment have evolved in recent years and it is now widely recognized that teaching and learning are dynamic activities that cannot be imparted or measured fully and finally in high stakes end of course exams. The scholarship of teaching and learning makes a distinction between formative and summative evaluation and this course seeks as much as feasible to use a blend of these approaches. In formative evaluation, assignments are designed to get a handle on student learning and provide ongoing feedback both from instructor to student (by providing information about how best to revise and modify for improvement) and from student to instructor (by identifying areas where a course can be improved). Formative assessments typically have a low point value but can be a crucial part of a student’s overall success measured both through identifying strengths and overcoming weaknesses, and in the final course grade. By contrast, the goal of summative assessment is to evaluate student learning at the end of a course by comparing it against some standard or benchmark (a final grade). This course uses a blend of formative and summative assessments.
Formative Assessment
1. Blog posts (5 marks max): You will need to set up your own blog site for this course and do two posts (minimum 400 words, no maximum) over the academic term. I recommend you use UBC blogs, a very stable and user-friendly WordPress installation stored on servers in Canada. You can use other blogging sites if you wish, but there is a lot of support available for helping you with UBC Blogs. Here is how to set up your blog: ???? UBC Blogs: 5 Steps to Getting Started Send me URLs of each post as soon as it is published. There are options for staying private, or being anonymous if you wish (e.g.you can use a pseudonym, or you can use a password on your posts that can be shared with myself, the TA, and other members of the class). These do not need to be formal, elegant pieces (that’s not what blogs are for) but please be respectful and moderate in your expression. Click here for a PDF of the UBC Respectful Environment Statement. You can comment on other blogs, including mine or those of your peers, but this is not required. I will distribute a fuller guide for this assignment over the next week or so.
First post, due September 23: Explain what drew you to the course and share your first impressions of the subject matter. You may discuss course reading materials, lecture themes, and whatever course related issues you wish. You might also discuss an item in the news that you think illuminates aspects of the course.
Second post, due October 17: Critically discuss one of the required course readings from the first 6 weeks of the course and suggest how it did, or did not, help to shed light on the relevant course theme/theory.
The first post is worth a max. 2 marks, the second post is worth a max. 3 marks. Unlike your other writing assignments, these short posts do not need to be submitted to TurnItIn.com (see below) The assignment as a whole makes up a maximum 5% of your final grade.
2. Midterm (20 marks max): You will write a midterm in class on Thursday, October 24 and be responsible for all material covered up to week 7. The midterm will be in the form of an in-class essay the exact format for which will be discussed in class. This assignment makes up a maximum 20% of your final grade.
3. Paper Proposal (5 marks max): You will write a paper proposal (800 words minimum, excluding proposed bibliography) in which you make a case for looking at a particular theory, set of theories, or theoretical/conceptual problems in the subject of IR as a whole. This proposal should show how you plan to address one of several topics to be distributed early in the academic term. You must provide a provisional title, suggest possible lines of analysis, and an indicative reading list (e.g. a bibliography of all the sources you have located so far) that includes information from at least 8 sources, 4 of which must come from outside of the required readings. Using the supplementary “further reading” for each week is fine, but you are encouraged to find your own sources. The purpose of the assignment is to see how your ideas are developing, assess whether the argument is hanging together, and receive some thoughts about what, if any, gaps need to be filled either in terms of research or conceptualization. It will also prompt you to think early about your final paper (discussed below) and ensure you receive constructive feedback from myself and/or your TA prior to submission of the final paper.
The proposal must be submitted in hard copy, in-class, by November 5, and must also be submitted to TurnItIn by the same date. The assignment makes up a maximum 5% of your final grade.
Summative Assessment
4. Paper (30 marks max): You will write an essay based on a set of topics to be distributed early in the academic term or, subject to my approval, an original topic of direct relevance to the course. The paper should incorporate instructor feedback from the paper proposal assignment. The approximate length required is 3,000 words (e.g. 12 or so double spaced typed pages). Please do not significantly exceed or fall short of this length. More guidance for the assignment will be available on my course blog. This assignment makes up a maximum 30% of your final grade.
5. Final Exam (40 marks max): There will be a final examination during the regular examination period. You will be accountable for the readings assigned for each class and all lecture material. The exam will be cumulative but weighted post-midterm. The exam format will be discussed in class. This assignment makes up a maximum 40% of your final grade.
Assessment at a Glance
Due dates
Blogs 5% Sept. 23 1st post
Oct. 17 2nd post
Midterm 20% Oct. 24
Paper Proposal 5% Nov. 5
Paper 30% Nov. 28
Final Exam 40% TBA
Course Policy Statement
Course materials & attendance
you are responsible for material covered in lectures, class discussions, and assigned readings. Regular attendance in class is expected. If you miss classes (and you should not make a habit if doing so) PDFs of lecture slides will eventually be made available. But these are for study purposes and depend upon the actual lecture for context and full coherence. Just about everybody misses an occasional class, but please do not expect me or the TA to offer personalized supplemental information.
Laptops & other devices
laptops have become a normal classroom resource for students but should be used only as a note-taking device; you are asked to refrain from using them for any other purpose. Phones must be on silent or off during lecture. No texting, e-mailing, internet surfing, social media time etc., is permitted in class.
I welcome and respond as quickly as possible to emails, but complicated issues are best dealt with face-to-face. Please feel free to email but do not ask myself or the TA questions that you know cannot be properly answered in a short response.
Academic concessions
Please note that UBC Senate recently passed revisions to the Academic Concession policy that are now in effect. For in-term concession options please contact Arts Academic Advising for adjudication of the first request for concession during the term. For more information, click on the link above. Medical, emotional, or personal problems that may arise during, and affect your performance in, the course should be discussed immediately with the Faculty of Arts Academic Advising Office (Buch. A201 604-822-4028). Students who miss examinations for non-medical reasons will not have an opportunity to rewrite.
In-class Accommodation
This course welcomes and seeks to accommodate students with physical or learning disabilities or challenges (e.g. visual, hearing, or speech impairments, or chronic illnesses). If you require any assistance or adaptation of teaching or evaluation styles, please feel free to discuss your needs with me and the UBC Access and Diversity office. Documentation from Access and Diversity must be provided early in the course.
Written Work (formatting, style, submission)
Proposals and final papers must be double-spaced, stapled—no paper clips please—have proper margins and normal sized font, include a title page, bibliography, and references, have numbered pages, and follow a properly utilized, academically recognized form of citation. Use the style that works for you, but please be consistent (e.g. do not mix styles). If you have any questions about these or other matters, please ask.
Papers must be submitted in hard copy only (e.g. no email attachments/PDFs please). You are also required to submit your essay to TurnItIn and are advised to consult department and university policy on plagiarism (see below).
Course policy on lateness, missing work, and regrading
Late work will be penalized 2% per business day. Missing work will receive a zero unless alternative arrangements are made on the basis of a recognized hardship per the Academic Concession Policy above.
Students should retain a copy of all returned assignments. If you believe the grade does not adequately reflect the quality of your work, return the assignment to me with short, specific, written comments explaining why you think you deserve a higher grade. It is best to do this within a week of the time the test/assignment is returned.
Final exams will not be returned but students have the right to review their final exam with me, providing they apply to do so within a month of receiving their final grades.
Academic Integrity/Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the most serious form of academic misconduct and established cases are treated severely and, at a minimum, will result in a mark of zero. It is your responsibility to be aware of what constitutes plagiarism; the following links will make clear university policy and help you to avoid all forms of academic misconduct (What is misconduct?; How to avoid the dreaded P).
The UBC Political Science Department requires that all undergraduate papers be submitted to TurnItIn, a service that compares submissions to thousands of published documents, essays-for-purchase, all other student papers submitted to the website, and so forth to detect levels of overlap in wording and generate “originality reports.” To learn more about how and why we require and use TurnItIn, click here: Political Science and TurnItIn
Because TurnItIn servers are located outside of Canada, you are permitted, if you wish, to submit work that is anonymous as per BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy policy. The easiest way to do this is to use an alias when using TurnItIn and then share the alias with your TA and I so we can match you to submitted work.
To submit your assignment, log onto the site TurnItIn.com and click on the “create a user profile” link and select “student” on the pull-down menu. To enrol, you will be asked to enter your “class ID” and “class enrolment key” The information you will need is as follows:
course ID: 22309075
enrolment key: Paradigm
You will not receive credit for your proposals or papers unless they are submitted to TurnItIn. The due date for TurnItIn is the same as the assignment due dates above. Please note that your submissions will NOT be available to anyone to read as a public document—so you do not need to worry about other students finding your paper on the internet and copying it for their own use. Please also retain all rough work used in the preparation of your assignments, and be ready to submit this work if and when you are requested to do so.
UBC Statement of Values and Policies
“UBC provides resources to support student learning and to maintain healthy lifestyles but recognizes that sometimes crises arise and so there are additional resources to access including those for survivors of sexual violence. UBC values respect for the person and ideas of all members of the academic community. Harassment and discrimination are not tolerated nor is suppression of academic freedom. UBC provides appropriate accommodation for students with disabilities and for religious and cultural observances. UBC values academic honesty and students are expected to acknowledge the ideas generated by others and to uphold the highest academic standards in all of their actions. Details of the policies and how to access support are available here” (https://senate.ubc.ca/policiesresources-support-student-success )
Learning Goals
The course aims to introduce, develop, critically assess, and distinguish between mainstream and critical theories of international relations. On completion of the course students will be able to:
• identify the major tenets, authors, proponents, intellectual foundations, and analytical aspirations of classical realism, neo-realism (also known as structural realism), liberalism, neoliberalism, constructivism, Marxist and related approaches, and a host of theories grouped under the broad label of critical theory, including poststructuralism, various feminisms, and approaches grounded in traditions of political philosophy that predate the modern discipline of International Relations (IR).
• understand distinctions among the major theories of IR and be able to appreciate and reflect on how theory and practice intertwine in forming both discrete theories of international relations, and the creation of the modern discipline of IR as a free standing academic field.
• be able to transcend the narrow constraints of traditional conceptions of social science and develop an appreciation for, and knowledge of, IR approaches drawn from other disciplines
Discuss critically, and write knowledgeably about, major IR theories, relating these both to contemporary events and historical processes
• show how theory and practice intertwine in forming mainstream and critical IR theories
think and write critically about key debates in contemporary IR theory.
Major journals of relevance to this course:
International Organization, International Security, Review of International Studies, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, International Studies Quarterly, European Journal of International Relations, Review of International Studies, British International Studies, International Affairs, International Theory, and Millennium.
Sampling of key websites and blogs:
Websites, blogs and social media are an increasingly common, powerful, and rigorous means of conducting, and thinking about, IR theory and you may wish to be part of the conversation. There are a number of blogs devoted to international studies. Major blogs include The Duck of Minerva, The disorder of things, Relations international,Political Violence at a Glance, and e-International Relations.
SCHEDULE OF LECTURES AND READINGS
Sep 5 (week 1) Introduction and Organization
Assigned Readings
None
Sep 10-12 (week 2) Stories of origin: the isms and ologies of a contested academic subject
Assigned Reading
Dunne text: Steve Smith, “Introduction, “Diversity and Disciplinarity in IR Theory” (pp. 1-12); and Milja Kurki and Colin Wight, chapter 1, “International Relations and Social Science” (pp. 13-33)
Suggested further reading
Martin Hollis and Steve Smith (1990) “The growth of a discipline,” Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Robert M. A. Crawford (2001) “Introduction,” Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline. London: Routledge.
Arlene Tickner and David Blaney eds. (2012) Thinking IR Differently (London: Routledge).
???? Justin Rosenberg (2007) “International Relations — The ‘Higher Bullshit’: A Reply to the Globalization Theory Debate,” International Politics 44: 450–482 Rosenberg
Barry Buzan and George Lawson (2013) “The Global Transformation,” International Studies Quarterly 57(3): 620-634.
Brian Schmidt (2002) “Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline,” International Relations 16(1): 9-31.
Sept 17-Sept 19 (week 3) Stories without origin: World Politics as “Eternal Recurrence”
Assigned Reading
Dunne text: Richard Ned Lebow, “Classical Realism” (ch. 2); and John Mearsheimer, “Structural Realism” (ch. 3)
???? Daniel Garst (1989) “Thucydides and Neorealism,” International Studies Quarterly, 33: 3-27. Garst
???? Kenneth Waltz (2012) “Why Iran should get the bomb,” Waltz interview
Suggested further reading
???? Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Kenneth Waltz, and Robert Gilpin: selections from Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, eds. (1987) International Relations Theory. New York: Macmillan.
Thucydides –“The Melian Dialogue” (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm)
Justin Rosenberg (1990), “What’s the matter with Realism,” Review of International Studies, 16 (4): 285-303.
Michael Williams (2004) “Why Ideas Matter in IR: Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 58(4): 633-665.
E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis (2001 edition) edited by Michael Cox, London: Macmillan: and Hans J. Morgenthau (first published 1948: any edition) Politics Among Nations.
Kenneth Waltz (1993) “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” International Security, 18(2): 44-79.
???? Kenneth Waltz (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley (see also A Conversation with Kenneth Waltz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9eV5gPlPZg)
Kenneth Waltz (1990) “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory,” Journal of International Affairs 44: 21-37.
Laura Sjoberg (2012) “Gender, Structure and War: What Waltz couldn’t see,” International Theory 4 (1) (2012): 1-38.
Brian C. Schmidt (2004) “Realism as Tragedy,” Review of International Studies, 30(3) (2004), 427-441.
J. Ann Tickner (1991) “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation,” in Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland Eds., Gender and International Relations, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Sept 24-Sept 26 (week 4) Foundations: IR as a Modern Academic Discipline
Assigned Readings
???? Benjamin de Carvalho, Halvard Leira and John Hobson (2011) ‘The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919’, Millennium 39(3): 735-758.
Carvalho
???? E. H. Carr (chapters 1 and 2), The Twenty Years Crisis. London: Macmillan, 1939 (COURSEPACK).
???? Kal Holsti (1985) The Dividing Discipline. Boston: Allen and Unwin, chapter 1 (COURSEPACK).
Suggested further reading
Tim Dunne (1998) “E. H. Carr,” Inventing International Society, New York: Macmillan.
J. D. B. Miller, Norman Angell and the Futility of War. London: Macmillan, 1986.
Beate Jahn (1998) “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism,” Millennium 27(3): 613-642.
Martin Wight (1991) The Three Traditions. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Trevor Taylor (1985) “Utopianism.” in International Relations: British and American Perspectives. Edited by Steve Smith, 92–107. Oxford: Blackwell.
Peter Wilson (2003) The International Theory of Leonard Woolf: A Study in Twentieth Century Idealism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tim Dunne, Michael Cox, Ken Booth (eds), The Eighty Years’ Crisis: International Relations 1919-1999, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
F. H. Hinsley (1967) Power and the Pursuit of Peace, Cambridge University Press.
David Long, Towards a New Liberal Internationalism: The International Theory of J.A. Hobson. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
David Long and Peter Wilson, eds. (1995) Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: Inter-War Idealism Reassessed. Oxford University Press.
Donald Markell (1986), “Sir Alfred Zimmern Revisited: Fifty Years On,” Review of International Studies.
Oct 1-3 (week 5) Setting: IR and its paradoxical connection to national interests
Assigned Readings
Dunne text: Tim Dunne, “The English School,” (ch. 6)
???? Michael Lipson, Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, and Michael J Tierney (2007) “Divided discipline? Comparing views of US and Canadian IR scholars,” International Journal 62(2) Lipson
???? Daniel Maliniak et. al. (2011) “International Relations in the US Academy,” International Studies Quarterly (2011) 55, 437–464 Maliniak
Suggested further reading
Stephen Walt (2012) “What’s going on in the IR Field? A global survey of IR scholars,” Foreign Policy.
Kim Nossal (2001) “Tales that Textbooks Tell,” Chris Brown, “Fog in the Channel,” and Robert M. A, Crawford, “Where have all the theorists gone?,” in Robert M. A. Crawford and Darryl Jarvis, Eds., International Relations − Still an American Social Science? New York: State University of New York Press.
???? Hidemi Suganami (2010) “The English School in a Nutshell” Annual Review of International Studies, Vol.9, pp. 15-28
Lindsay Hundley, Benjamin Kenzer, and Susan Peterson (2013) “What Pivot International Relations Scholarship and the Study of East Asia,” International Studies Perspectives (2013), 1–16.
Lee Morgenbesser (2013) “The 2012 TRIP survey of international relations in Australia: one problem to rule us all,” Australian Journal of International Affairs. 67(2).
???? Roger Epp (2013) “Translation and Interpretation: The English School and IR Theory in China,” E-International Relations, May 5 Epp
Andrew Linklater (2005) “The English School,” in Scott Burchill, Ed., Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave.
Stanley Hoffman (2001) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations, Robert M. A. Crawford and Darryl Jarvis, International Relations—Still an American Social Science (Albany: State University of New York Press): 27-51.
Barry Buzan (2001) “The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR,” Review of International Studies, 27(3): 471-488.
Barry Buzan (2014) An Introduction to the English School of IR (Cambridge: Polity).
Oct 8-10 (week 6) Fusion: the Neo-Neo debate
Assigned Readings
Dunne text: Bruce Russett, “Liberalism” (ch. 4) and Jennifer Sterling-Folker, “Neoliberalism” (ch. 5)
???? Robert Keohane (2012) “Hegemony and After,” Foreign Affairs, 91(4): 114-118 Keohane
Suggested further reading
Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane (1985) “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions,” World Politics 38: 226-254.
Robert O. Keohane (1984) After Hegemony, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Joseph Grieco (1988) “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’, International Organization (42) 485-508.
John Mearsheimer (1994) “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security 19: 5-49.
Michael Mann (1999) “The Darkside of Democracy: The Modern Tradition of Ethnic and Political Cleansing,” New Left Review 235 (May-June): 18-45.
Azar Gat (2007) “The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers,” Foreign Affairs 86(4): 59-69.
Oct 15-17 (week 7) Evolution: From Neo-Liberalism to Constructivism
Assigned Readings
Dunne text: K. M. Fierke, “Constructivism,” (ch. 9)
???? Alexander Wendt (1992) “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46(2): 391-426 Wendt
???? Richard Price (1998) “Dangerous Liaisons? Constructivism and Critical International Theory” (with Christian Reus-Smit, co-author), European Journal of International Relations, 4:3, pp. 259-294 Price
Suggested further reading
Christian Reus-Smit (2005) “Constructivism,” in Scott Burchill, Ed., Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave.
Friedrich Kratochwil (2000) “Constructing a New Orthodoxy?” Millennium 29(1): 73-101.
Thomas Risse (2000) “Let’s Argue,” International Organization 54(1): 1-41.
Tim Dunne (1995) “The Social Construction of International Society,” European Journal of International Relations 1(3): 367-389.
Nicholas Onuf (1989) World of Our Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Samuel Barkin (2004) “Realist Constructivism and Realist-Constructivism,” International Studies Review 6(2): 337-352.
Emanuel Adler (1997) “Seizing the Middle Ground,” European Journal of International Relations (3): 319-364.
Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander eds. (2006) Constructivism and IR. London: Routledge.
Harald Müller (2004) “Arguing, Bargaining and all that,” European Journal of
International Relations 10(3): 395-435.
Oct 22-24 (week 8) Values: Theory and practice in IR
Assigned Readings
Dunne text: Toni Erskine, “Normative IR Theory,” (ch. 13).
R. B. J. Walker (1995) “International Relations and the Concept of the Political,” in ???? Ken Booth and Steve Smith, International Relations Theory Today, Oxford: Polity Press. (COURSEPACK)
???? William Wallace (1996) “Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations,” Review of International Studies. Vol. 22. (COURSEPACK)
Suggested further reading
Robert M. A. Crawford (2000) “The Roots of Diversity in Political and Social Theory: Competing Visions of Progress,” in Idealism and Realism in International Relations. London: Routledge.
Molly Cochran (2001) “What Does it Mean to be an American Social Science: A Pragmatist case for diversity,” in Crawford and Jarvis.
Robinson, Fiona (2013) ‘Global Care Ethics: Beyond Distribution, Beyond Justice’, Journal of Global Ethics, Special Issue: Critical Approaches to Global Justice: At the Frontier, 9(2): 131-143.
Chris Brown (2012) “The Practice Turn, Phronesis and Classical Realism,” Millennium 40(3).
Roger Spegele (1996) Political Realism in International Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kimberly Hutchings (2005) ‘Speaking and hearing’: Habermasian discourse ethics, feminism and IR’, Review of International Studies, 31:155-165.
Jim George (1994) “The Making of International Relations,” in Discourses of Global Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Oct 29-31 (week 9) Marxism: The original IR skeptics
Assigned Readings
Dunne text: Mark Rupert, “Marxism and Critical Theory,” (ch. 7).
???? Chris Brown, “International Political Theory and the Idea of World Community,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski Eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 87-107.
(COURSEPACK)
Suggested further reading
R. N. Berki (1971) “On Marxian Thought and the Problem of International Relations,” World Politics. vol. 24, no. 1.
Rupert, Mark (2003) “Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (Re)Vision of the Politics of Governance/Resistance,” Review of International Studies 29(S1): 181-198.
Justin Rosenberg (2006) “Why Is There No International Historical Sociology?” European Journal of International Relations 12(3): 307-340.
Robert Cox (1981) “Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium 10(2): 126-155.
Robert (1983) “Gramsci, Hegemony and IR,” Millennium 12(2): 162-175.
Immanuel Wallerstein (1995) “The Inter-State Structure of the Modern World System,” in: Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski Eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 87-107.
John Hobson (2014) “Why Hierarchy and not Anarchy is the Core Concept of IR,”
Millennium 42(3): 557-575.
Jack Donnelly (2006) “Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy,” European Journal of International Relations 12(2): 139-170.
Bedford, Kate, and Shirin M. Rai. “Feminists theorize international political economy.” Signs 36.1 (2010): 1-18.
Griffen, Penny (2010) ‘Gender, Governance and the Global Political Economy’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(1): 86-104.
Nov 5-7 (week 10) From pillars to “posts”: theories about theory
Assigned Readings
Dunne text: David Campbell, “Poststructuralism,” (ch. 11) and Shampa Biswas, “Postcolonialism,” (ch 12)
Dunne text: Steven Roach, “Critical Theory” (ch. 8)
???? Chris Brown (1994) “Turtles all the Way Down,” Millennium. vol. 23, no. 2. (COURSEPACK)
???? Antony O’Loughlin (2014) Overcoming Poststructuralism: Rawls, Kratochwil and the Structure of Normative Reasoning in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. (COURSEPACK)
Suggested further reading
Jim George (1994) “The Making of International Relations,” in Discourses of Global Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Richard Devetak (2005) “Postmodernism,” in Scott Burchill, Ed., Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave.
Richard Ashley (1986) “The Poverty of Neorealism,” in Neorealism and its Critics, ed. Robert Keohane. Ithaca: Columbia University press.
Ashley, R. and Walker, R. B. J. eds. (1990) ‘Speaking the Language of Exile’, International Studies Quarterly 34(3): 367-416.
Campbell, David (1998) “Why Fight: Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post-Structuralism,” Millennium 27(3): 497-522.
Epstein, Charlotte (2013) “Constructivism or the Eternal Return of Universals in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 499-519.
David Campbell, ‘Cultural Governance and Pictorial Resistance: Reflections on the Imaging of War’, Review of International Studies, 29, Special Issue, 2003: 57-73.
Walker, R. B. J. (1993) Inside/Outside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Der Derian, J. and Shapiro, M. eds. (1989) International/Intertextual Relations. Lexington.
Weber, Cynthia (2010) “Interruption Ashley,” Review of International Studies 36(4): 975-87.
Nov 12-14 (week 11) Worlding the Other
Assigned Readings
???? Dunne text: J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg, “Feminism,” (ch. 10).
Cynthia Weber, Amy Lind, V. Spike Peterson, Laura Sjoberg, Lauren Wilcox, and Meghana Nayak, (2014) “The Forum: Queer International Relations,” International Studies Review. 16, 4: 596-623. (COURSEPACK)
???? Maryisa Zalewski (2007) “Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling feminist encounters within International Relations,” British Journal of Politics and IR, 9(2), 2007: 302-312 Zalewski
Suggested further reading
Amitav Archarya and Barry Buzan (2007), ‘Why is there no non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 7(3): 287-312.
Tickner, J Ann (2011) ‘Retelling IR’s Foundational Stories: Some Feminist and
Postcolonial Perspectives’, Global Change, Peace & Security 23(1): 5-13.
???? Tickner, J. Ann (1997) “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists,” International Studies Quarterly 41(4): 611- 632 Tickner
Youngs, G. (2004) “Feminist IR: Contradiction in Terms?,” International Affairs 80(1): 101-14.
L. Buck, N. Gallant, K. R. Nossal (1998) “Sanctions as a Gendered Instrument of Statecraft,” Review of International Studies 24(1).
Parpart, J. & Zalewski, M. eds. (2008) Rethinking the Man Question. London: Zed Books.
Laura Shepherd ed. (2010) Gender Matters in Global Politics. London: Routledge. J. Steans (1998) Gender and International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jean B. Elshtain (1998) “Women and War: Ten Years On,” Review of International Studies, 24(4).
Jan Pettman (2005) Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics, London: Routledge.
Nov 19-21 (week 12) Beyond isms:no more boundaries?
Assigned Readings
Dunne text: Robyn Eckersley, “Green Theory,” (ch. 14); and Colin Hay, “IR Theory and Globalization,” (ch. 15).
???? Felix Berenskoetter (2012) “The end of IR theory as we know it,” The Disorder of Things Berenskoeter
Suggested further reading
Peter Dauvergne (2016) “The Rise of Transnational Governance as a Field of Study,” International Studies Review (2016) 0, 1–23.
Roland Bleiker (2001) “Forget IR,” in Robert M. A. Crawford and Darryl Jarvis, International Relations—Still an American Social Science Albany: State University of New York Press.
???? Peter Katzenstein, “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations” Katzenstein
Nov 26-28 (week 13) Reflections
Assigned Readings
Dunne text: Ole Waever, “Still a Discipline After All These Debates,” (ch. 16).
Reus-Smit, Christian (2012) ‘International Relations, Irrelevant? Don’t Blame Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(3): 525-540.
???? Tim Dunne, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight (2013) “Abstract and Introduction,” European Journal of International Relations. Special Issue: “The End of
International Relations Theory’? 19(3).
Dunne et al
???? A. C. McKeil (2012) “Is IR a Force for Good in the World Today?” E-International Relations McKeil
Suggested further reading
Steve Smith (2004) “Singing Our World Into Existence,” International Studies Quarterly, 48(3): 499-515.
Sil, Rudra and Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions’, Perspectives on Politics (2010), 8: 411-431.