Course: POSC 6200, Sec. 001 Instructor: Miriam Anderson Classroom: SN--�2033 Class Times: Tuesday, 2--�5pm Office: SN--�2046 Office hours: Tuesday, 9am--�1pm Email: Logon to D2L Phone: 864--�8181 Web:

w ww.mun.ca/posc/people/anderson CRN: 47105

   

 

DESCRIPTION, COURSE AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND LEARNING OUTCOMES

   

 

Description: POSC 6200 examines the major theories and debates in International Relations (IR) through classic and contemporary readings in International Relations. The objective of the course is to provide students with an overview of key historical and contemporary issues, debates, and readings in the academic discipline of IR. Upon completion of the course students should understand what the discipline encompasses and how their own research projects and intellectual questions speak to and are informed by the existing body of work.  

 

ASSESSMENT    

 

Short Essays (60%= 15% X 4): Every student is required to write four short   essays (two on ‘debate’ topics and two on ‘theory’ topics) of 2000--�2500 words in length. Essays must be written prior to discussion of a particular topic in class, and should be submitted by 11:59pm to the D2L Dropbox the day before that class. (Since our classes are on Tuesday, papers are due at 11:59pm on Monday.) This is to prevent you from staying up all night working on your paper (i.e. it’s for your own good!). You must attend every class for which you write a paper so that the rest of the class can benefit from the knowledge you gained through the reading and writing process. Barring a medical note, I will not mark a paper for a class that you did not attend. A 2%/day deduction will apply to late papers beginning a minute past the deadline.

 

The first paper--�type is ‘debate.’ ‘Debate’ essays should answer the weekly debate question, giving evidence to support the position taken by drawing on the (second set of) assigned readings. ‘Theory’ essays should discuss the strengths/weaknesses, commonalities/divergences, and assess the overall usefulness and relevance of the

 

 

(first set of) assigned readings. It might be helpful for you to think about some or all of the following questions in assessing the readings:

 

 � What is the question or puzzle? � What is the argument? � What are the explicit or implicit assumptions? � Who are the relevant actors? � What are their preferences and interests and where do they come from? � At what level of analysis is the argument? � Where does the argument fit into the theoretical landscape of IR and who would

disagree? � What is the relative importance of agency versus structure? � What evidence is provided in support of the argument and is it convincing?

It is imperative that essays are clearly organized with identifiable thesis statements. They should also make clear arguments and consider the broader implications of their claims. You may wish to use the six--�point structure I provide to undergraduate students found on the final page of this syllabus.

 

You must submit an essay on the same topic as your presentation, but you may not submit a theory and a debate paper for the same week. To ensure that an approximately equal number of students write papers each week, topics will be chosen on the first day of class. General Reading Tip: I suggest creating a new Word/Pages document for each article/book you read. Save each as the Author’s surname and the year of the publication (e.g. Wendt 1992). Record your notes on the article/book along with specific page numbers for concepts and direct quotes. This will provide you with notes for class discussions as well as a set of reference materials for future papers and/or other courses you may take or teach.

Presentation (20%= 10% X 2): Each student is required to give two 15--�20 minute presentations and facilitate class discussion following the presentation for half of the seminar class (1 hour and 20 minutes). Each student must do both presentation types during the semester.

The first presentation--�type is a theory presentation. The presentation should discuss the strengths/weaknesses, commonalities/divergences, and assess the overall usefulness and relevance of the assigned theory readings (the first set of readings) and conclude with 3--�5 provocative questions that will spur discussion.

The second presentation type is a debate presentation. You should a) outline the debate as articulated in the assigned debate readings; b) answer the debate question, giving evidence to support your position; c) conclude with 3--�5 provocative questions for class discussion.

  Students may use presentation aids such as Powerpoint/Keynote, but should keep text on slides to a minimum—pictures and diagrams are better. Remember that a presentation should be much less detailed than a paper. Give key points and sum up information. It is the presenter’s responsibility to guide and structure the class discussion in a stimulating and interesting way. You may use a mixture of large and

 

 

small groups, ask each student to answer specific questions in turn, etc.  

Barring a medical note or making prior arrangements with me, if you do not give your presentation on the assigned date, you will receive a 0. Participation (20%): Students are expected to attend all classes, complete all assigned readings, bring questions and comments to class, and contribute to discussions (without dominating them)—I will ensure that each student in the class has the opportunity to speak a minimum of three times each class. Students are also expected to upload evaluation sheets for each presentation. This will help your fellow students improve their presentation skills and hone your own evaluation skills. On your presentation evaluation sheet, please identify three students (excluding yourself and myself; you may include the presenter(s)) whom you believe best contributed to helping you achieve a better understanding of the readings and the issues at hand. These need not be students who spoke the most. I will take your nominations into consideration in assigning weekly participation marks.

Absences and late assignments: If you do not give a presentation on the date assigned, you will receive a zero unless you produce a note from documenting a health issue. In that case, you will be allowed to make a presentation on another day. The late penalty for the submission of papers is 2%/day beginning a minute after the deadline.

Format style: I encourage all students to submit the best paper written in POSC 6200 to the department’s student--�run journal Mapping Politics. Therefore, please use the journal’s submission guidelines found at http://journals.library.mun.ca/mp_styleguide.pdf.  

RESOURCES AND REGULATIONS    

 Supplementary instructions that constitute part of this syllabus are available online at http://www.mun.ca/posc/courses/policies.php. This includes information about campus support services, a statement about equity and instructions regarding accommodations for students with disabilities. Students are expected to review this online information and to be familiar with this course’s policies surrounding academic honesty, classroom demeanour, the conduct of examinations, the requirement to use a university email account and the use of recording devices in classrooms.

Persons with Disabilities: The Glenn Roy Blundon Centre (mun.ca/blundon) serves students whose disabilities involve conditions affecting mobility, vision, hearing, learning, chronic illness, or mental health. Support is also provided to students with documented temporary illnesses and injuries.

ESL Students: The ESL Centre (mun.ca/esl) at MUN offers various forms of support to students who would like to improve their English.

 

 

Political Science Website: The website (mun.ca/posc) offers information about upcoming courses, sample course syllabi, work internships, international exchanges, degree requirements etc. Writing Centre: The Writing Centre (mun.ca/writingcentre) is a free, drop--�in facility for all Memorial University students who want help with their writing; the Centre provides individualized tutorials to students from all schools and faculties. Use of Recording Devices in Classrooms: Students may not make a visual and/or audio recording, openly or surreptitiously, of any lecture material delivered in a course without the written permission of the course instructor.

Plagiarism: MUN’s policy on plagiarism applies. Please review it in the university calendar.

Desire to Learn: We will be using Desire to Learn (D2L) (online.mun.ca) during the course. You will also be able to access your grades through that platform. As well, I will send feedback on your presentations and essays as soon as I’ve marked them to enable you to have feedback prior to the subsequent class (whenever possible). Facebook Groups: “MUN Political Science” and “Memorial Political Science Department” Join our Facebook group (MUN Political Science) to find out about events and international work/travel opportunities, buy and sell textbooks, and discuss politics. “Like” Memorial Political Science Department to receive official departmental announcements.  

OPPORTUNITIES  

 

 SSHRC: All students (who have an 80% or higher average for their most recent 20 courses) who will be in the second year of their MA or hope to begin a PhD program next academic year should apply for the MA or PhD SSHRC. Our students have been very successful in the competition over the last few years. Applications are due in the department (in past years) near the beginning of November. Please see www.sshrc.ca for more information, and watch for the Faculty of Arts information session. Several Programs of Work (the two--�page research proposal that must be included in your application) are posted on D2L for your reference. Going Global Grant: Grants of $3500 each are available to fund graduate fieldwork in a developing country and four grants of $2500 each are available to fund attendance at an international conference or workshop. Last year two political science students won awards. See the following website for more information: http://www.mun.ca/international/Outbound/GoingGlobalGrant.php.

 

READINGS

 

 

 

 

Required Text: � Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith (ed.), International Relations

Theories: Discipline and Diversity 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (On sale at the university bookstore and on two--hour reserve in the QEII.) � Most articles can be obtained through the library’s e--�resources:

library.mun.ca � Books are on 2--�hour reserve at the QEII.

     

 

COURSE OUTLINE  

 

September 10: Introduction, Course Overview, Selection of Presentation and Paper Topics  

September 17: Methodology and the Discipline of IR  

Milja Kurki and Colin Wight, “International Relations and Social Science” (Chapter 1) in Dunne, Kurki and Smith.  

Patrick Thaddeus Jackson (2010). The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics.

 

Peter Katzenstein and Rudra Sil. 2008. Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of International Relations. In Reus--�Smit and Snidal, eds., Oxford Handbook of International Relations, pp. 109--�30. Oxford University Press.

 James Fearon & Alexander Wendt. 2002. Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View, in Carlsnaes, Risse & Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations, pp. 52--�72.

  What should we study in International Relations ((Where) should the boundaries of the discipline be drawn? If so, who should draw them?)

 

Steve Smith, “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity” in International Relations Theory” in Dunne, Kurki and Smith.

 

Lucian Ashworth, (2012) “The Poverty of Paradigms: Subcultures, Trading Zones and the case of Liberal--�Socialism in Interwar International Relations,” International Relations, March 2012, 26(1). KJ Holsti (2001). “Along the Road of International Theory in the Next Millennium: Four Travelogues” in Robert M.A. Crawford and Darryl S.L. Jarvis (eds.) Toward Diversity in International Thought. New York: State University of New York Press.

 

 

Christine Sylvester (2004), “Woe or Whoa! International Relations where it’s not supposed to be,” Brown Journal of World Affairs. Vol. 10, Issue: 2.

     

 

September 24: Normative IR Theory

Toni Erskine, “Normative IR Theory” in Dunne, Kurki, and Smith. Chapter 2.  

Joseph Carens, "Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders," pp. 229--�253 in Ronald Beiner (ed.), Theorizing Citizenship (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995).  Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Odysseys (Oxford University Press, 2007).

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1992).

Debate: Do wealthier states have a duty to assist poorer states?  

S. Caney (2008). “Global Distributive Justice and the State.” Political Studies, 57: 487--� 518.  T. Pogge (2002). World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Cambridge: Polity Press.  

Peter Singer (1985). "Famine, Affluence and Morality," pp.247--�261 in Charles Beitz, et.al. International Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

 L. Wenar (2008). “Property Rights and the Resource Curse” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 36:2--�32.

   

 

October 1: Classical Realism

Richard Ned Lebow, “Classical Realism” in Dunne, Kurki and Smith, Chapter 3. E.H. Carr,

The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-­1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 2nd edition (New York: Harper & Row, 1946).

 Hans Morgenthau. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: McGraw--�Hill, 6th edition revised by Kenneth W. Thompson, 1985).

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw--�Hill, 1979). Chapter 1

in Robert Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).

 

 

Robert Kagan, “Power and Weakness,” Policy Review No. 113 (June/July 2002), available on--�line at http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html  Debate: What is the balance of power? How do we know? Which system is preferable? (Read at least four of the following for the debate paper):  Ernst Haas, “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda?” World Politics 5:4 (July 1953), pp.442--�477.

 Richard Rosencrance, “Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and the Future,” Journal of Conflict Resolution X (September 1966).  

Kenneth Waltz, “The Stability of a Bipolar World,” Daedalus 93:3 (Summer 1964), pp.881--�901.

 Kenneth Waltz, “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” International Security 18:2 (Fall 1993), pp.44--�79.  William Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” International Security 23:1 (Summer 1999), pp.5--�41.

 Stephen D. Brooks and William Wohlforth, “American Primacy in Perspective,” Foreign Affairs, 81, 4 (2002), pp. 20--�33.  Robert Pape, “Soft Balancing Against the United States,” International Security 30 (2005), pp.7--�45.  William Wohlforth, Richard Little, Stuart J. Kaufman, David Kang, Charles Jones, Charles, Victoria Tin--�Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, William Brenner, "Testing Balance--�of--�Power Theory in World History," European Journal of International Relations 13 (June 2007), pp.155--�185.

     

 

October 8: Structural/Neo--Realism John J. Mearsheimer, “Structural Realism” in Dunne, Kurki, and Smith, Chapter 4. Robert Keohane (ed.) (1986), Neorealism and its Critics. Columbia University Press, Chapter 6.

Kenneth Waltz (1979), Theory of International Politics (Addison Wesley) Chapter 5. Kenneth Oye (1985), “Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy,” in World Politics, Vol. 38, No. 1.

 

 

Robert Jervis (1978), “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,” in World Politics, January, No. 2, pp. 167--�214.

 Debate:

Are we in an era of US hegemony and/or unipolarity? Can the US establish hegemony?

Robert Kagan, “Power and Weakness,” Policy Review No. 113 (June/July 2002). Christopher

Layne, “The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Arise,” International Security 17:4 (Spring 1993), pp.5--�51.

 

 J. Nye, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone. Oxford University Press, 2002. Chapter 1.

 Christian Reus--�Smit, American Power and World Order (Polity Press, 2004). Chapter 1. Special issue on Unipolarity World Politics, 61:1 (January 2009).  

October 18 (9--12, Friday): Liberalism

Bruce Russett, “Liberalism” in Dunne, Kurki and Smith, Chapter 5.  

Immanuel Kant (2008), “Perpetual Peace, Section II: Containing the Definitive Articles for Perpetual Peace Among States,” in Richard K. Betts (3rd Ed.), Conflict and Cooperation After the Cold War, Allyn and Bacon, pp. 128--�135.

 

John Owen, “How Liberalism Produces World Peace”, International Security vol. 19, no. 2. Zeev Maoz and Nasrin Abdulali, “Regime Type and International Conflict, 1816--� 1976,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 (1989), pp.3--�35.

 

 Debate: Is Democratic Peace Theory Valid?

 

 Michael Brown, Sean Lynn--�Jones, and Steven Miller, eds., Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999). Read from Part II: Layne (pp.157--�201), Spiro (pp.202--�233, pp.351--�354) and Oren (read pp.263--�273). Read Part III.

   

Week 7: October 22: Neoliberalism

Jennifer Sterling--�Folker, ‘Neoliberalism’ in Dunne, Kurki, and Smith, Chapter 6. Downs, G.W.,

Rock, D.M., and Barsoom, P.N. (1996), ‘Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation?’ International Organization, 50(3): 379--�

 

 

406. Keohane, R.O. (2005), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press. Martin, L.L. and Simmons, B. (1998), ‘Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions’, International Organization, 52(4): 729--�757.

   

Debate: What is the role of international institutions / organizations in addressing conflict?  

Barbara Walter, “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement,” International Organization, 51:3 (Summer 1997), pp.335--�64.

 Roland Paris, At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict (Cambridge University Press, 2004), Chapter 1.

 

 Coleman, Katharina, International Organisations and Peace Enforcement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp.19--�58 and 70--�72.  

J. R. Oneal, Bruce Russett and M.L.Bernbaum, “Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885--�1992,” International Studies Quarterly, September, 47:3 (2003), pp. 371--�393.  

October 29: Marxism

Mark Rupert, “Marxism,” in Dunne, Kurki and Smith, Chapter 8.  

Robert Cox and T. Sinclair (1996), Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Introduction and Chapter 1.

 

Brewer, A. (1990), Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, 2nd Ed. (London: Routledge). Introduction and Chapter 1.

   

Do governments have adequate domestic control over the forces of globalization or do those forces mostly dictate their fate?

 

 Jeffrey Garten, “Lessons for the Next Financial Crisis,” Foreign Affairs 78:2 (March/April 1999), pp.76--�92.  Brassett, James; Clarke, Chris (2012). “Performing the Sub--�Prime Crisis: Trauma and the Financial Event.” International Political Sociology 6(1): 4--�20.  Prugl, Elisabeth (2012)."If Lehman Brothers Had Been Lehman Sisters...": Gender and Myth in the Aftermath of the Financial Crisis. International Political Sociology 6(1): 21--�35.

 

 

Joseph Stiglitz, “What I Learned at the World Economic Crisis,” The New Republic, April 17, 2000, available online.

     

 

November 5: Constructivism

K.M. Fierke, ‘Constructivism,’ in Dunne, Kurki, and Smith, Chapter 9.  

Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie (1996), ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on the Art of the State,’ International Organization 40:4, pp. 753--�775. Alexander Wendt (1992), ‘Anarchy is what States make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,’ in International Organization 46:2, pp. 391--�426. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink (1998), ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,’ in International Organization 52:4.

 

Charli Carpenter, “‘Women and Children First’: Gender, Norms and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans, 1991--�1995” in International Organization, Vol. 57, No. 4, (Fall 2003).

Debate: How important are transnational actors in international politics?  

Jennifer Brinkerhoff (2009). Digital Diasporas: Identity and Transnational Engagement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).  

David Malet (2012). Foreign Fighters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Richard Price, “Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines,” International Organization 52:3 (Summer 1998), pp.613--�644.

 

   

 

November 12: Feminism

J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg, “Feminism” in Dunne, Kurki and Smith, Chapter 8.  

Carol Cohn, ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,’ Signs 12:4 (1987), pp. 687--�718. Cynthia Enloe (1989). Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. London: Pandora Press.

 

Christine Sylvester (1994), Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Post--� Modern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Introduction. Cynthia Weber, ‘Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations’ in Millennium 23:2 (1994),

 

 

pp. 337--�349.   Debate Question: Is masculinity a primary cause of war? If it is, what can (if anything) be

done about it?

Dunne, Kurki and Smith, Chapter 8.    

Barrett, F. J. ‘The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: the case of the US Navy’ in Whitehead & Barrett (eds) The Masculinities Reader.  

Cohn, C. ‘Missions, Men and Masculinities’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1999.

   

Carol Cohn, ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,’ Signs 12:4 (1987), pp. 687--�718.

   

Hooper, C. ‘Masculinities and Masculinism’, (2001) Ch. 2, Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations and Gender Politics. Columbia: Columbia University Press.

   Zalewski, M and Parpart, J. (eds) The “Man” Question in International Relations, Boulder CO, Westview Press, 1998. Chapter 1.  

November 19: No Class  

November 26: Post--Structuralism/Post--Modernism

David Campbell, ‘Poststructuralism’ in Dunne, Kurki and Smith, Chapter 11. Olaf Corry (2010). “What is a (Global) Polity?” Review of International Studies, Volume 36 (Supplement 1). Pp. 157--�180. Lorraine MacMillan (2009), ‘The Child Soldier in North--�South Relations’ in International Political Sociology, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 36--�52.

 

R.B.J.Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Introduction and Chapter 1. Debate: Assess the utility and contribution of Securitization Theory to International Relations

 C.A.S.E. Collective (2006) “Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto,” Security Dialogue, 37:4, 443-487.

 Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, 21-47.

 

 

Michael C. Williams, “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly, 47 (2005), 511-531.

 Holger Stritzel, “Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond,” European Journal of International Relations, 13:3 (2007), 357-383.

 Thierry Balzacs, “A Theory of Securitization: Origins, Core Assumptions, and Variants,” in Thierry Balzacs, ed., Securitization Theory, 1-30.

Matt McDonald, “Securitization and the Construction of Security,” European Journal of International Relations 14:4 (2008), 563-587.  

Stefano Guzzini, “Securitization as a Causal Mechanism,” Security Dialogue, 42:4-5 (2011), 329--�341.  

December 3: Green Theory Robyn Eckersley, “Green Theory” in Dunne, Kurki and Smith. (Chapter 13).

 

Matthew Paterson (2000). Understanding Global Environmental Politics: Domination, Accumulation, Resistance (London: Palgrave). R. Bryant and S. Bailey (1997). Third World Political Ecology (London: Routledge).

 

K. O’Neil (2009). The Environment and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) Debate: What is the cause of the ecological blindness of traditional IR theories? How important is Green Theory to contemporary International Relations?

 

� Draw on the theory readings  

 6-Part Structure For Writing Essays *These are the guidelines I provide to undergraduate students for structuring their essays.

 1) 'Hook'—Start with a couple sentences to get the reader interested in what you are going to say. In essence, you should state why your topic is important and interesting to both generalist and specialist audiences.

 

2) Thesis—In one--�two sentences sum up what your essay will argue.  

3) Roadmap—Tell the reader how you're going to make your argument. Specify the number of sections and how each supports your thesis statement.

 

 

4) Body—make your argument in the way that you outlined in the Roadmap.  

5) Summary—Clearly sum up the body of your argument. This will be very similar to the roadmap. E.g. 'I have discussed X, Y and Z.'

 

6) Broader implications—Conclude with some thoughts on the relevance of your topic to the wider world. What does it tell or fail to tell us about world politics generally? What are some larger questions that it raises? Are your conclusions applicable to other case studies or issue areas?

                                                                                                           

13