III. Course Design and Resources

I.Course description

Welcome to International Relations Theory!В In this course, we will examine the different ways in which international politics is understood, explained, interpreted and judged by different theoretical traditions and paradigms.В We will be exploring different frameworks for thinking about why and how international politics works in the way that it does, but also for thinking about how international politics ought to be. The course will focus primarily on theoretical texts and concepts, rather than on empirical or historical knowledge, though we will try to relate the ideas discussed in to the empirical and real world examples from international politics.

 

Level: third-year course

Duration: 14 weeks, 54 classes

Prerequisite: Introduction to International Relations

Course Objective:

This course will allow you to develop a broad knowledge of the tools used in studying international relations and of the debates between different theoretical perspectives. I will acquaint you with ideas, concepts and texts in international political theory (both classical and modern) in their historical context, introduce you to issues of methodology in IR, and enable you to think critically about alternative ways of explaining, understanding and judging international politics.

Learning Outcomes:

• demonstrate knowledge of different frameworks for thinking about international politics

• demonstrate knowledge of a range of ideas, concepts and texts in international political theory and the historical contexts in which they arose

• distinguish and evaluate different methodological approaches within the study of international politics

• evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways of explaining, understanding and judging contemporary international politics.

Course Materials:

Study Guide “International Relations Theory” by K. Hutchings (2018).

 

Baylis, John and Steve Smith (eds) The Globalization of World Politics. (Oxford,

Oxford University Press, 2014)

 

Brown, Chris. Understanding International Relations. (Basingstoke, Palgrave,

2005) second edition.

 

Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger (eds) International Relations

in Political Thought: texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War.

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002)

 

Burchill, S., Andrew Linklater et al. Theories of International Relations.

(Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2005).

 

Additional readings (articles and book chapters) can be found in the course dropbox folder:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qbdlo9uz5imq7d2/AAA2H8Q1T4Qrl1vm-3_SPSN0a?dl=0

 

II.Assessment Policies

Classroom policies:

Code of Conduct	! The professors reserve the right to impose sanctions in the cases described in the document
Expectations

The Final Grade consists of two major parts: Cumulative Grade and Exam Grade (each of them having the weight of 60% and 40% respectively).

Cumulative Grade is divided into two parts. A student gets 30% for his/her participation in the seminars during the year, and 30% for the MOCK exams. Each MOCK exam contains 3 questions, duration – 3 hours.

If the discipline is held in the Fall Semester, a student gets 15% for participation in the seminars in the 1^st Module and 15% for participation in the seminars in the 2^nd Module.

If the discipline is held in the Spring Semester, a student gets 20% for participation in the seminars in the 3^rd Module and 10% for participation in the seminars in the 4^th Module.

Exam grade is provided by the University of London Exam Committee. The exam is usually held in May, the date of exam is announced not later than 4 month in advance.

Final Grade Formula:

Fall semester: (1^stModule seminars*0.15) + (2^ndModule seminars*0.15) + (1^stModule MOCK exam*0.15) + (2^ndModule MOCK exam*0.15) + Final Exam*0.4

Spring semester: (3^rdModule seminars*0.2) + (4^thModule seminars*0.1) + (3^rdModule MOCK exam*0.15) + (4^thModule MOCK exam*0.15) + Final Exam*0.4

 

 

IV.Exam questions

List of exam questions is announced at the exam by the University of London Exam Committee.

For preparation students may use exam questions of the previous years with Examiners’ commentaries available through VLE of the University of London.

 

 

Course Readings

Part 1: Introduction

 

Machiavelli and Hobbes

 

Required:

Brown, et.al. (2002) Chapter 5, pp.255-259, 270-282; Chapter 6, pp. 349-354.

Femia, Joseph and Paul Kelley (2005), “Machiavelli” Chapter 9 in David Boucher and Paul Kelley (eds.) Political Thinkers. Oxford.

Vincent, R. John (1981). "The Hobbesian Tradition in Twentieth Century International Thought." Millennium 10.2 : 91-101.

Recommended:

Skinner, Quentin (2000). Machiavelli: A very short introduction. Oxford.

Bull, Hedley (1981). “Hobbes and International Anarchy”, Social Research, 48(4): 717-38.

Heller, Mark (1980). “The Use and Abuse of Hobbes: The State of Nature in International

Relations”, Polity, 13(1): 21-32.

 

Grotius and Rousseau

Required:

Bull, Hedley. “The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations” in Bull, Hedley, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts, eds. Hugo Grotius and International Relations. Oxford University Press, 1992

Brown et.al. (2002) Chapter 7, 393-401, 431-442

Recommended:

Brown et.al. Chapter 6, pp.348–49

Bull, Hedley, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts, eds. (1992). Oxford University Press, Hugo Grotius and International Relations. Chapter 1 Introduction

Fidler, David P. (1996) "Desperately Clinging to Grotian and Kantian Sheep: Rousseau’s attempted escape from the state of war." In Clark and Neumann (1996), Classical theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 120-141.

 

Kant and Marx

 

Required:

Brown et al (2002) Chapter 7, pp. 401-408, 443-472, Chapter 9, pp. 590-592.

Brewer, Anthony (2002). Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. Routledge. pp. 11-16, 25-57.

Recommended:

Williams, Howard, and Ken Booth. "Kant: theorist beyond limits." In Clark and Neumann (1996) Classical theories of international relations. pp. 71-98.

Marx, Karl (1852). “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon”

Part 3 – Major Schools of IR Theory

6. Realism Part 1 – From Classical to Structural Realism

 

Required:

Chapter 6: “Realism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (sixth edition) Oxford University Press. pp. 99-112

Donnelley, Jack (2005), “Realism” in Burchill, Scott et. al Theories of International Relations Palgrave. pp. 29-51.

Jervis, Robert. (1994). Hans Morgenthau, realism, and the scientific study of international politics. Social research, 853-876.

Recommended:

Waltz, Kenneth (2000). "Structural realism after the Cold War." International security 25.1: 5-41.

Snyder, G. H. (2002). Mearsheimer's World—Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay. International Security, 27(1), 149-173.

Rynning, S and Ringsmose J (2008) Why Are Revisionist States Revisionist? Reviving Classical Realism as an Approach to Understanding International Change”, International Politics 45.1, 19–39.

 

7. Realism Part 2 – … and Back

 

Required:

Brown (2005) Chapter 6

Wohlforth, William C (2011) "Gilpinian realism and international relations." International Relations 25.4: 499-511.

Rathbun, Brian (2008). "A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism." Security Studies 17.2 (2008): 294-321.

Recommended:

Schweller, Randy. L. (1994). “Bandwagoning For Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In”. International Security, 19(1), 72-107.

Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., and Taliaferro, J . W. (eds) (2009), Neoclassical Realism, the State,and Foreign Policy (Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press). Chapter 1.

 

Ronald L. Tammen, "The Organski Legacy: A Fifty-Year Research Program" International Interactions, 34:4, 2008 pp 314-332

 

The English School

 

Required:

Armstrong, David (2014) Chapter 2: “The Evolution of International Society” in Baylis, Smith and Owens. pp. 36-49

Linklater, Andrew (2005) Chapter 4: “The English School” in Burchill et. al. .pp 84-109.

Recommended:

Brown, Chris (1995). �International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the

Middle Way’, Review of International Studies 21(2) pp.183–96.

Hall, Ian (2012). �Taming the Anarchical Society’, E-International Relations, July 5, available here: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/05/taming-the-the-anarchical-society/ 

Hoffman, Stanley (1986). �Hedley Bull and His Contribution to International Relations’ International Affairs, Vol. 62, No. 2. pp. 179 – 195

Little, Richard D (2003). �The English School vs. American Realism: A Meeting of Minds or Divided by a Common Language?’ Review of International Studies 29 (3) pp. 443 – 460.

Suganami, Hidemi (2010). �The English School in a Nutshell’, Annual Review of International Studies, Vol.9 pp. 15–28.

Suganami, Hidemi (2017). �The Argument of The Anarchical Society’ in Hidemi Suganami, Madeline Carr and Adam Humphreys (eds.) The Anarchical Society at 40: Contemporary Challenges and Prospects. Oxford University Press. pp 23–40.

Constructivism

Required:

Reus-Smit, Christian (2005) Chapter 8: “Constructivism” in Burchill et. al. pp 188-212.

Weber, Cynthia (2010). International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction (3^rd edition). Routledge. �Constructivism: Is Anarchy What States Make of It?’ pp. 61�82.

Wendt, Alexander (1992). �Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics,’ International Organization, 46, Spring 1992. pp. 391 – 425.

Recommended:

Adler, Emanuel (1997). �Seizing the Middle Ground’, European Journal of International Relations 3, pp.319–64.

Adler, Emanuel (2013). �Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions, and Debates’ in: Walter E. Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth A Simmons (eds.). Handbook of International Relations (2nd ed.), Sage. pp. 112 – 144.

Barnett, Michael (2014) Chapter 10: “Social constructivism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens. pp. 155-168

Copeland, Dale (2000). �The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism: A Review Essay’. International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 187–212

Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998). �International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’. International Organization 52, no.4, pp. 887 – 917.

Rengger, N. (2000). International Relations, Political Theory and The Problem of Order. Routledge. “Society” Chapter.

Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. �Three Cultures of Anarchy’. pp. 264 – 312.

 

Marxism

Required:

Chapter 9: “Marxist Theories of International Relations” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds) pp. 141-154

Linklaer, Andrew (2005) “Marxism”, in Burchill et.al. pp: 110-136.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (2011) Chapter 5: “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis”, in The Essential Wallerstein

Recommended:

Frank, A. G. (1966) �The Development of Underdevelopment’, Monthly Review 18(4): 17–31

McKelvey, Charles (2018). The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution Palgrave. В Chapter 1: Global and Historical Context.

Ho-Fung, H. (2009). “China: America's Head Servant?”. New Left Review, No 60,

 

Part 4 –Critiques of Mainstream IR

Poststructuralism

Required:

Devetak, Richard (2005) Chapter 7: “Postmodernism” in Burchill et. al. pp 161-187.

Hansen, Lene (2014) Chapter 11: “Poststructuralism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds) pp. 169-183

Rengger, N. (2000). International Relations, Political Theory and The Problem of Order. Routledge. “Limits” Chapter.

Recommended:

Der Derian, J. (2009). Critical Practices in International Theory: Selected Essays. Routledge. �Post-theory’, �The (S)pace of International Relations’, �S/N: International Theory’, Balkanisation and the New World Order’ & �Virtuous War/Virtual Theory’. pp. 43�62, 97�119, 190�209 & 243–261.

Weaver, Ole. (2013) �Still a Discipline after all these Debates?’. In Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki & Steve Smith (eds.). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (3rd edition). Oxford University Press. pp. 306 – 328.

Weber, C. (2001). International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. Routledge. “Conclusion” chapter. 

Part 5 - Methodology

Unipolarity

Required:

Brown (2005), Chapter 12

Cox, Michael. (2002). “September 11th and the U. S. Hegemony – Or Will the 21st Century Be American Too?”, International Studies Perspectives 3: 53–70.

Ikenberry, Mastanudo and Wohlforth (2009) “Unipolarity, State Behavior and Systemic Consequences”, World Politics, 61

Recommended:

Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2000), Empire. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press)

Wohlforth, W. �American Primacy’, Foreign Affairs 81(3), 2002.

Mallaby, S. �The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States and the Case for American Empire’, Foreign Affairs 81(2), 2002, pp.318–45.

 

Regionalism

 

Required:

Acharya, Amitav (2009) “Regional Worlds in a Post-hegemonic Era,” Spirit Working Papers No. 1 (Bordeaux: Science Po).

Hurrell, Andrew (2012) “Regional Powers and the Global System from a Historical Perspective”, in Daniel Flemes (ed), Regional Leadership in Global Perspective. GIGA.

Buzan, Barry and Ole Waever (2004), Chapter 3 “Security complexes: a theory of regional security”, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge.

Recommended:

Lake, David. (2009) “Regional Hierarchy: Authority and Local International Order,” Review of International Studies 35, no. 1: 35–58.

Katzenstein, Peter (1996) “Regionalism in Comparative Perspective,” Cooperation and Conflict 31, no. 2 (1996): 123–159.

 

 

Bargaining Theory

 

Required:

Fearon, James D. (1995),"Rationalist Explanations for War." International Organization 49.03 (1995): 379-41

Reiter, Dan (2003) “Exploring the Bargaining Model of War”, Perspectives on Politics, March 2003 Vol1 No1

Philip Streich, Jack S. Levy. (2014) “Information, Commitment, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905” Foreign Policy Analysis

Recommended:

Lake, David A.(2011) “Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War”, International Security, Vol. 35, No. 3, Pages 7-52

Kydd, Andrew (2010). “Rationalist Approaches to Conflict Prevention and Resolution”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 13: 101-121

 

Status

 

Required:

Paul, T.V., Deborah Larson and William Wohlforth (2014) “Status and World Order” in Paul, Larson and Wohlforth (eds.) Status in World Politics. Cambridge University Press. pp 3-32.

Wohlforth, William (2009). “Unipolarity, Status, and Major Power War”. World Politics 61, no. 1 : 28–57.

Larson, D. W., & Shevchenko, A. (2010). Status seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to US primacy. International Security, 34(4), 63-95.

Recommended:

Renshon, Jonathan. (2016). "Status deficits and war." International Organization 70.3: 513-550.

Ward, Steven.(2013).В "Race, status, and Japanese revisionism in the early 1930s." Security Studies 22.4: 607-639.

Tsygankov, A. P. (2012). Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: honor in international relations. Cambridge University Press.

Realism Reconsidered

 

Required:

Mearsheimer, John (2014). "Why the Ukraine crisis is the west s fault." Foreign Affairs 93.5: 77-89

Stoner, Kathryn and Michael McFaul. (2015) “Who Lost Russia (This Time)? Vladimir Putin”, The Washington Quarterly 38:2: 167-187.

Kagarlitsky, Boris (2008). Empire of the Periphery: Russia and the World System. Pluto Press. pp. 1-25; 204-325.

Recommended:

Charap, Samuel, and Timothy J. Colton. (2016) Everyone Loses: The Ukraine crisis and the ruinous contest for post-Soviet Eurasia. Delphi.

Marten, Kimberly. (2015) "Informal political networks and Putin’s foreign policy: The examples of Iran and Syria." Problems of Post-Communism 62.2: 71-87.

 

Krickovic, Andrej and Yuval Weber. (2017) “Commitment Issues: Ukraine and Syria as Bargaining Failures”, Problems of Post-Communism, Published online: 29 June

Beyond Constructivism

 

Required:

Clunan, Anne L. (2014). "Historical aspirations and the domestic politics of Russia's pursuit of international status." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47.3-4: 281-290.

Tsygankov, Andrei. (2015). “Vladimir Putin’s Last Stand: The Sources of Russia’s Ukraine Policy,” Post-Soviet Affairs 31:4, pp. 279-303.

Krickovic, Andrej and Yuval Weber. (2018) “What Can Russia Teach Us About Change? Status-Seeking as a Catalyst for Transformation in International Politics” International Studies Review 20(2), 292-300.

Recommended:

Larson, Deborah Welch, and Alexei Shevchenko (2014). "Russia says no: Power, status, and emotions in foreign policy." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47.3-4: 269-279.

Neumann, Iver (2016).В Russia and the idea of Europe: a study in identity and international relations. London: Routledge.

Rutland, Peter (2015). "Petronation? Oil, Gas, and National Identity in Russia." Post-Soviet Affairs 31.1: 66-89.

 

I.Course description

Welcome to International Relations Theory!В In this course, we will examine the different ways in which international politics is understood, explained, interpreted and judged by different theoretical traditions and paradigms.В We will be exploring different frameworks for thinking about why and how international politics works in the way that it does, but also for thinking about how international politics ought to be. The course will focus primarily on theoretical texts and concepts, rather than on empirical or historical knowledge, though we will try to relate the ideas discussed in to the empirical and real world examples from international politics.

 

Level: third-year course

Duration: 14 weeks, 54 classes

Prerequisite: Introduction to International Relations

Course Objective:

This course will allow you to develop a broad knowledge of the tools used in studying international relations and of the debates between different theoretical perspectives. I will acquaint you with ideas, concepts and texts in international political theory (both classical and modern) in their historical context, introduce you to issues of methodology in IR, and enable you to think critically about alternative ways of explaining, understanding and judging international politics.

Learning Outcomes:

• demonstrate knowledge of different frameworks for thinking about international politics

• demonstrate knowledge of a range of ideas, concepts and texts in international political theory and the historical contexts in which they arose

• distinguish and evaluate different methodological approaches within the study of international politics

• evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways of explaining, understanding and judging contemporary international politics.

Course Materials:

Study Guide “International Relations Theory” by K. Hutchings (2018).

 

Baylis, John and Steve Smith (eds) The Globalization of World Politics. (Oxford,

Oxford University Press, 2014)

 

Brown, Chris. Understanding International Relations. (Basingstoke, Palgrave,

2005) second edition.

 

Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger (eds) International Relations

in Political Thought: texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War.

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002)

 

Burchill, S., Andrew Linklater et al. Theories of International Relations.

(Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2005).

 

Additional readings (articles and book chapters) can be found in the course dropbox folder:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qbdlo9uz5imq7d2/AAA2H8Q1T4Qrl1vm-3_SPSN0a?dl=0

 

II.Assessment Policies

Classroom policies:

Code of Conduct	! The professors reserve the right to impose sanctions in the cases described in the document
Expectations

The Final Grade consists of two major parts: Cumulative Grade and Exam Grade (each of them having the weight of 60% and 40% respectively).

Cumulative Grade is divided into two parts. A student gets 30% for his/her participation in the seminars during the year, and 30% for the MOCK exams. Each MOCK exam contains 3 questions, duration – 3 hours.

If the discipline is held in the Fall Semester, a student gets 15% for participation in the seminars in the 1^st Module and 15% for participation in the seminars in the 2^nd Module.

If the discipline is held in the Spring Semester, a student gets 20% for participation in the seminars in the 3^rd Module and 10% for participation in the seminars in the 4^th Module.

Exam grade is provided by the University of London Exam Committee. The exam is usually held in May, the date of exam is announced not later than 4 month in advance.

Final Grade Formula:

Fall semester: (1^stModule seminars*0.15) + (2^ndModule seminars*0.15) + (1^stModule MOCK exam*0.15) + (2^ndModule MOCK exam*0.15) + Final Exam*0.4

Spring semester: (3^rdModule seminars*0.2) + (4^thModule seminars*0.1) + (3^rdModule MOCK exam*0.15) + (4^thModule MOCK exam*0.15) + Final Exam*0.4

 

 

III. Course Design and Resources

Week	Topic
Week #1	Part 1: Introduction to IR Theory
Week #2	Part 2: History of IR Theory - Foundational Thinkers Thucydides and St. Augustine Machiavelli and Hobbes
Week #3	Grotius and Rousseau Kant and Marx
Week #4	Free Week
Week #5	Part 3: Major Schools of IR Theory Realism
Week #6	Liberalism
Week #7	English School Constructivism
Week #8	Marxism Review for Mock Exam
Week #9	Part 4: Critiques of Mainstream IR Critical Theory and Feminism Poststructuralism
Week #10	Part 5 – Methodology IR, Science and the Agency-Structure Debate Part 6: Theorizing International Politics in the 21st Century Human Rights / Humanitarian Intervention
Week #11	Unipolarity Cultural Bias: Towards a Non-Western IR?
Week #12	Regionalism Bargaining Theory
Week #13	Exam Week
Week #14	Status Global Governance: The Last Utopia?
Week #15	Part 7: Using IR Theory to Understand Russia

 

IV.Exam questions

List of exam questions is announced at the exam by the University of London Exam Committee.

For preparation students may use exam questions of the previous years with Examiners’ commentaries available through VLE of the University of London.

 

 

123Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: