Response paper:

Each student will select one week to be a discussion leader. The discussion leader is required to write a response paper, which is due one night before the class. The discussion leader will send the response paper to all students. Each paper should be at least 3-pages long (Times New Roman font size of 12, double space), including summaries and critique. At the end of the paper, students will propose two questions for class discussion. The discussion leaders will take 20-30 minutes to present and discuss his/her paper at the beginning of the class. No slides for presentation.

NO COPY&PASTE from the text.

Summary paper:

In addition to being a discussion leader, students will select two weeks according to their own interests. Students will submit the summary paper before the class begins. The paper should be at least 1 pages long.  (Times New Roman font size of 12, double space)

NO COPY&PASTE from the text.

Final exam:

Three hours open book exam.

All assignments and exams use English.

Readings

Week 1 (9/13): Introduction to the course

Week 2 (9/20): Methodology in social science

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press. Ch 2-3.

Shively, W. Phillips. 2012. The Craft of Political Research. 9 edition. Boston: Routledge. Ch4

*Recommended

Babbie, Earl R. 2012. The Practice of Social Research, 13th Edition. 13th edition. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Publishing. Ch5

Week 3 (9/27): the use of theory: what does it look like today?

Kristensen, Peter Marcus. n.d. “International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy.” International Studies Quarterly. Accessed May 14, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy002.

Reiter, Dan. 2015. “Should We Leave Behind the Subfield of International Relations?” Annual Review of Political Science 18 (1): 481–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-053013-041156.

Week 4 (10/4): Concept in IR

Baldwin, David. “Power and International Relations”. In Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, eds. 2012. Handbook of International Relations. 2 edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Powell, Robert. 1991. “Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory.” The American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1303–20.

*Recommended

Jervis, Robert. 1978. “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 30 (2): 167–214.

Mattern, Janice Bially, “The Concept of Power and the (Un)discipline of International Relations”, in The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. OUP Oxford.

Week 5 (10/11) Classical Realism

Thucydides, ‘The Melian Dialogue’

Hans J. Morgenthau & Kenneth Thompson. Politics among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace, sixth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985, Ch1 “A Realist Theory of International Politics”, Ch11 “the Balance of Power”, Ch 16 (or 18 depending on which version you use) “The main problem of international law”.

*Recommended

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1964. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. 450th ed. edition. New York, N.Y.: Harper Perennial. Ch5-6

Week 6 (10/18): Neorealism (I)

Waltz, Kenneth Neal. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Edited by Anonymous. Addison-Wesley Series in Political Science. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Skim chapters 1-2, and read chapters 3-8.

Krauthammer, C. 1990. “The Unipolar Moment.” Foreign Affairs 70 (1): 23–33.

Week 7 (10/25): Neorealism (II)

Christensen, Thomas J., and Jack Snyder. 1990. “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity.” International Organization 44 (2): 137–68.

Waltz, Kenneth N. 2000. “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security 25 (1): 5–41.

Baldwin, David A. 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism?: The Contemporary Debate. New Directions in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Ch2

*recommended

Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The War Ledger. Edited by Anonymous. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Week 8 (11/1): Offensive Realism

Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.  New York: Norton.

*Recommended

Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War.” Atlantic (0276-9077) 266 (2): 35.

Snyder, H. Glenn. 2002. “Mearsheimer’s World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay.” International Security 27 (1): 149–73.

Zakaria, Fareed. 1999. From Wealth to Power?: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role. . Princeton Studies in International History and Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Ch2

Week 9 (11/8): Neoclassical realism 

Narizny, Kevin. 2017. “On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism.” International Security 42 (2): 155–90.

Schweller, Randall L. 2006. Unanswered Threats?: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power. Princeton Studies in International History and Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University. Intro and Ch2

*recommended

Kupchan, Charles. 1994. The Vulnerability of Empire. Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Ch 1-2.

Week 10 (11/15): Liberalism

Doyle, Michael W. 2005. “Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace.” American Political Science Review null (03): 463–466.

Christian Reus-Smit, “The Strange Death of Liberal IR Theory,” European Journal of

International Law, 12, 3 (2001): 573-93

*Recommended

Kindleberger, Charles P. 1986. The World in Depression, 1929-1939: Revised and Enlarged Edition. Revised. University of California Press.

 Ikenberry, G. John. 2018. “The End of Liberal International Order?” International Affairs 94 (1):7–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241.

Oneal, John R, and Bruce M Russet. 1997. “The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (2): 267–94.

Gartzke, Erik. 2007. “The Capitalist Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 166–91

Week 11 (11/22): AMUN. No class.

Week 12 (11/29):

Neoliberalism

Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony?: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Ch2.

Krasner, Stephen D. 1983. International Regimes. Cornell Studies in Political Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Ch1

*Recommended

Keohane, O. Robert. 1998. “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy, no. 110: 82–96+194.

Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Edited by Anonymous. Cambridge?; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Keohane, Robert O. 1989. Power and Interdependence. Edited by Anonymous. Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Series in Political Science. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.

Kucik, J., and E. Reinhardt. 2008. “Does Flexibility Promote Cooperation? An Application to the Global Trade Regime.” International Organization 62 (03): 477–505.

Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. “The Rational Design of International Institutions.” International Organization 55 (04): 761–799.

[make up class]

Neorealism VS. Neoliberalism, Marxism, sharp power

Robert O. Keohane,” Institutional Theory and the Realist Challenge After the Cold War,” in Neorealism and Neoliberalism.

Benno Teschke, “Marxism”, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, chapter 9

*Recommended

Grieco, “Understanding the Problem of International Cooperation,” in Baldwin, David A. 1993.

Neorealism and Neoliberalism?: The Contemporary Debate. New Directions in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Week 13 (12/6): Constructivism (I)

Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (02): 391–425.

Hopf, Ted. 2017. “Change in International Practices.” European Journal of International Relations, August, 1354066117718041. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117718041.

*Recommended

Johnston, Iain. 2007. Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980-2000. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, Ch1

Hopf, Ted. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security 23 (1): 171–200.

Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Week 14 (12/13): Constructivism (II)

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 2001. “Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 4 (1): 391–416.

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (04): 887–917.

*Recommended

Hall, Rodney Bruce and Thomas J. Biersteker. “The Emergence of Private Authority in the International System.” In The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Rodney Bruce Hall and Thomas J. Biersteker, 3-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Risse, Thomas. “Transnational Actors and World Politics”. Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, eds. 2012. Handbook of International Relations. 2 edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Week 15 (12/20): Rational choice and its critics

Kydd, Andrew H. 2015. International Relations Theory: The Game-Theoretic Approach. Cambridge?; New York: Cambridge University Press. Ch1, Ch2

Fearon, J., and A. Wendt. 2002. “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View.” In Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse-Kappen, and Beth A. Simmons, eds. 2013. Handbook of International Relations. 2nd ed. London?; Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.

*Recommended

Green, Donald, and Ian Shapiro. 1996. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. Yale University Press, especially Ch3

Week 16 (12/27): English School and feminist theory

Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. 2000. International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford University Press, USA, Ch2, 3, & part II.

Tickner, J. Ann, and Jacqui True. 2018. “A Century of International Relations Feminism: From World War I Women’s Peace Pragmatism to the Women, Peace and Security Agenda.” International Studies Quarterly. Accessed May 14, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx091.

*Recommended

Tickner, J. Ann. 1997. “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (4): 611–32.

Levy, Jack S. 1997. “Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (1): 87–112.

Week 17 (1/3): Rethinking theories: where will we go

Lake, David A. 2011. “Why ‘Isms’ Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress1.” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2): 465–80.

Week 18 (1/10) Final exam

TBA

Class participation: 30%

Discussion leader and presentation: 15%

Response and summary paper: 20%

Final exam: 35%

Grade Scale:

96-100 A+   93-95   A    90-92   A-    88-89   B+   83-87   B    80-82   B-

78-79   C+   73-77   C    70-72   C-     70 and below F

Please acquire books and articles for this class from the library. Please let me know if the library does not have the material. Please be aware of copyrights regulations and do not reprint these works. Students are encouraged to gather a course pack together.