Theories and Perspectives

in International Relations

Module Guide

Department of Politics

University of York

Module Convener:

Dr Nicole Lindstrom

Email:

Office: Derwent D Block, Room 202

Module description:

This module is designed to provide students with a critical understanding of concepts, methods and approaches of contemporary theories of international relations. Seminars are designed to engage in a closer reading of key texts discussed in each week’s lecture.

Learning outcomes:

By the end of the module students should be able to:

§  Develop an understanding of the key concepts and assumptions of different theoretical approaches to international relations;

§  Analyze the coherence and contradictions of theoretical approaches;

§  Critically evaluate the claims and applications of different theories to issues in international relations;

§  Improve the organisation and clarity of both written and oral expression.

Teaching and learning methods:

The module consists of a weekly 1-hour lecture and a weekly 1½ hour seminar. Lectures provide a survey of each approach, providing a broad context for more in-depth discussion in seminars. Deeper learning comes through your own reading of essential and additional readings; lecture and seminar attendance alone will not suffice in gaining mastery of the material.

Module requirements:

Students are required to attend all seminars. Because seminar participation is mandatory at the University of York, you are expected to inform your seminar tutor of the reason for your absence in advance of the seminar or, if this is not feasible, as soon as possible after the missed seminar. Beyond seminar attendance, module requirements include:

§  One 2,500 word procedural essay to be handed in at the end of Week 8 of Term 4.

§  One seminar presentation (see seminar description below) in each term.

Module assessment:

A three-hour unseen examination will be held in Week 1 of the summer term. A long essay, of 3000 words, is to be submitted on Monday Week 2 of the summer term.

Module feedback:

Students will receive feedback through written evaluations of their procedural essays and seminar presentations, as well as on their assessed essay. The convenor is available for consultations on essays and feedback during normal office hours (see the notice-board outside the Politics Department office for times) as well as via email at .

Students also have an opportunity to give feedback on the structure, content and delivery of the module through questionnaires to be distributed in Week 8 of the winter term.

Seminars:

Seminars are a key component of the module. The seminars provide an opportunity to examine in more depth the key themes and concepts discussed in the lectures, as well as provide a forum for students to express informed views on the topics and engage with the views of other participants.

Each student is required to deliver one seminar presentation. The presentation should provide a critical reading of an essential (or additional) text for one week’s topic. A critical reading implies that the presentation should not simply summarize the text; instead it should offer a critical review of the text. In approximately ten minutes, presenters should (1) present the author’s main argument(s); (2) suggest how the text contributes to existing theories and approaches to international relations; (3) examine ways in which the theory is applied, or could be applied, to particular issue areas; (4) and provide critiques and/or questions for discussion. Presenters can choose the format of the presentation, and should feel free to use presentation software such as PowerPoint or provide photocopied handouts. All organization matters are the responsibility of the presenter.

Readings:

One text is required for this module:

Baylis, John; Steve Smith; and Patricia Owens. 2008. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 4th Edition. Oxford University Press.

Two copies will be placed in the key texts collection. Given that you will be required to read chapters of the text each week, you are strongly encouraged to purchase the book. Purchasing the book also gives you access to on-line resources associated with the textbook. To gain access to the on-line resource site, you must have a log-in access code that comes with the textbook.

All other required and further readings can be located on-line and in the library. Links to most on-line resources are provided on the Yorkshare module page (see section on Yorkshare below). Other essential readings that are not available on-line will be placed in the key texts collection.

Yorkshare (VLE):

A module page for International Relations is available on Yorkshare, the University of York’s virtual learning environment (VLE). You can log-in to Yorkshare at vle.york.ac.uk. Each enrolled student should have automatic access to the module page (‘International Relations’ listed under ‘Modules’). If you do not see the module listed under ‘courses in which you are enrolled’, please contact the module convenor.

The first function of the Yorkshare page is to disseminate copies of lectures and presentations and to provide a list of and links to readings. All lecture materials will be uploaded at least two days prior to the scheduled lecture for that week. You can also find on the Yorkshare page a list of all essential and additional readings for each week, as well as links to journal articles and other sources on-line.

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the use of material in the public domain without acknowledgment of the source: in other words, academic theft. It is treated as serious academic misconduct by the University and it subject to severe penalties. Please inform yourself of the definitions and practices that constitute plagiarism as well as the policies of the Department of Politics and University of York concerning plagiarism. If in doubt, ask the convenor.

Lecture and Seminar Topics:

Term I: Theoretical Approaches to World Politics

Week 1: Introductions

Week 2: Realist approaches

Week 3: Liberal approaches.

Week 4: The neo-realist and neo-liberal debate

Week 5: The English School

Week 6: Constructivist approaches

Week 7: Marxist approaches

Week 8: Feminist approaches

Term II: Problems and Issues in World Politics

Week 2: International and global security

Week 3: International organizations

Week 4: International law and human rights

Week 4: Global trade and finance

Week 5: Environmental issues

Week 6: Culture in world affairs

Week 7: Regionalism in world affairs

Week 8: Globalization and the post-Cold War Order
General reading

The following list provides a sample of additional resources

Textbooks

Burchill, Scott et. al. Theories of International Relations, 3rd Edition. Palgrave 2005.

On International Relations as a Discipline

Brown, Chris. 2006. ‘IR Theory in Britain: The New Black?’ Review of International Studies 32: 677-685.

Buzan, Barry and Richard Little. 2001. ‘Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About It.’ Millennium: Journal of International Relations 30: 19-39.

Smith, Steve. 2002. ‘The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline.’ International Studies Review 4: 67-85.

Smith, Steve. 2004. ‘Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11.’ International Studies Quarterly 48: 499-515.

Synder, Jack. 2004. ‘One World, Rival Theories.’ Foreign Policy (Nov/Dec): 53-62.

Academic journals


Schedule

TERM I: Theoretical Approaches to World Politics

Week 1:

Week 2: Realism

Required reading

Morgenthau, Hans. 1960 [1948]. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Chapter 1.

Mearscheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Norton. Chapter 2.

Waltz, Kenneth. 1986. Chapter 5: ‘Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power.’ In Neorealism and its Critics, ed. Robert Keohane. Columbia University Press.

Mearsheimer, J. and Stephen Walt. 2003. ‘An Unnecessary War.’ Foreign Policy (Jan-Feb): 51-9.

Further reading

General reading on realism

Donnelly, J. 2000. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.

Grieco, J.M. 1997. ‘Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics.’ In New Thinking in International Relations, eds. M.W. Doyle and G.J. Ikenbertty. Westview Press.

Guzzini, S. 1998. Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy. Routledge.

Jervis, R. 1998. ‘Realism in the Study of International Politics.’ International Organization 52: 971-991.

Kagan, Robert. 2003. Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. Atlantic Books.

Kagan, Robert. 2008. The Return of History and the End of Dreams. Knopf.

Lebow, Richard Ned. 1994. ‘The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism.’ International Organization 48: 249-277.

Schweller, Randall L. and William C. Wohlforth. 2000. ‘Power Test: Evaluating Realism in Response to the End of the Cold War.’ Security Studies 9: 60-107.

Walker, Thomas C. and Jeffrey S. Morton. 2005. ‘Re-assessing the ‘Power of Power Politics’ Thesis: Is Realism Still Dominant?’ International Studies Review 7: 350-365.

Walt, S.M. ‘The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition.’ In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, eds. I. Katznelson and H. Milner. W.W. Norton.

Walt, S. 1998. ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories.’ Foreign Policy 110: 29-46.

20th Century Classical Realism

Carr, E.H. 2001. The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Palgrave.

Gellman, P. 1988. ‘Hans J. Morgenthau and the Legacy of Political Realism.’ Review of International Studies 14: 247-266.

Mearsheimer. 2005. ‘E. H. Carr vs. Idealism: The Battle Rages On.’ International Relations 19 (and see the series of replies in ‘Round Table: The Battle Rages On’ in next issue).

Morgenthau, H.J. 1947. Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Latimir House.

Morgenthau, H.J. 1960. Politics Among Nations, 3rd Edition. Knopf.

Neo-Realism

Baldwin, D.A. 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. Columbia University Press.

Brown, M.E; S.M. Lynn-Jones; and S.E. Miller, eds. 1995. The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security. MIT Press.

Keohane, R., ed. 1986. Neorealism and its Critics. Columbia University Press.

Mearscheimer, J. 1990. ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War.’ International Security 15: 5-56.

Mearsheimer, J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton.

- For a critical review of Mearsheimer, see Peter Gowan. 2002. ‘A Calculus of Power’. New Left Review 16: 47-67).

Snyder, G.H. 2002. ‘Mearscheimer’s World: Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security.’ International Security 27.

Walt, S.; K. Waltz; C. Elman; J. Vasquez; T. Christensen and J. Snyder; and R. Schweller. 1997. ‘Forum on Neo-Realism.’ American Political Science Review 91: 899-936.

Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.

Waltz, K. 1988. ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory.’ Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18: 615-628.

Waltz, K. 1990. ‘Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory.’ Journal of International Affairs 44: 21-37.

Neoclassical Realism

Brooks, Stephen. 1997. ‘Dueling Realisms.’ International Organization 51: 445-77.

Rose, G. 1998. ‘Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.’ World Politics 51: 144-72.

Schweller, R.L. 1994. ‘Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.’ International Security 19: 72-107.

Zakaria, F. 1998. From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role. Princeton University Press.


Week 3: Liberalism

Required reading

Further reading

General reading on/in the liberal tradition

Archibugi, D. 1995. ‘Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace.’ European Journal of International Relations 1(4).

Berman, Paul. 2003. Terror and Liberalism. Norton.

Brown, C. 1992. ‘”Really Existing Liberalism” and International Order.’ Millennium 23: 213-38.

Brown, C; T. Nartin; and N. Rengger, eds. 2002. International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War. Cambridge University Press. See especially section 7, 8, 9.

Cavallar, G. 2001. ‘Kantian Perspectives on Democratic Peace: Alternatives to Doyle.’ Review of International Studies 27: 229-248.

Deudeny, D. and J. Ikenberry. 1999. ‘The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order.’ Review of International Studies 25: 179-96.

Doyle, M. 1986. ‘Liberalism and World Politics.’ American Political Science Review 80: 1151-69.

Franceshet, A. 2000. ‘Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy? Liberalism, Kant and International Reform.’ European Journal of International Relations 6: 277-302.

Friedman, Thomas. 2007. The World is Flat: The Globalized World in the 21st Century. Penguin.

Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. ‘The End of History?’ National Interest 16: 3-18.

Kant, I. 1983 [1795]. ‘To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.’ In Immanual Kant: Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals, ed. T. Humphrey. Hackett Publishing

Mandelbaum, Michael. 2002. The Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy and Free Markets in the Twenty-First Century. Perseus.

Pagden, Anthony. 2005. ‘Imperialism, Liberalism and the Quest for Perpetual Peace.’ Daedalus 46-57.

Nye, Joseph and Robert Keohane. 2001. Power and Interdependence, 3rd Edition. Longman.

Richardson, J.L. 1997. ‘Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present.’ European Journal of International Relations 3: 5-33.

Zakaria, Fareed. 2003. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. Norton.

Zakaria, Fareed. 2008. The Post-American World. Norton.

Democratic Peace Theory

Barkawi, T. and M. Laffey. 1999. ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization.’ European Journal of International Relations 5: 403-434.

Beuno de Mesquita, B. and D. Lalman. 1992. War and Reason. Yale University Press.

Brown, M.E.; S.M. Lynn-Jones; and S.E. Miller, eds. 1996. Debating the Democratic Peace. MIT Press.

Cohen, R. 1994. ‘Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory that ‘Democracies Do Not Go To War With Each Other.’ Review of International Studies 20: 207-23.

Doyle, M. 1997. Ways of War and Peace. Norton.

Layne, Christopher. 1994. ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace.’ International Security 19: 5-49.

Macmillan, J. 2004. ‘Liberalism and Democratic Peace.’ Review of International Studies 30: 179-200.

Maoz, Zeev and Bruce Russett. 1993. ‘Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986.’ American Political Science Review 87: 624-638.

Owen, John M. 1994. ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace.’ International Security 19: 87-125.

Ray, J. L. Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition.

Risse-Kappen, T. 1995. ‘Democratic Peace, Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument.’ European Journal of International Relations: 489-515.

Spiro, David. 1994. ‘The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace.’ International Security 19: 50-86.

Williams, M.C. 2001. “The Discipline of Democratic Peace: Kant, Liberalism and the Social Construction of Security Communities.” European Journal of International Relations 7: 525-553.