Political Science 8401 Fall 2006

Professor Michael Barnett

Theories of International Relations Objectives. This course is designed as an introduction to contemporary theories, debates, and major scholarly traditions in international relations. As the "core" course offered in this field, the intention is to provide a general, but not elementary, overview. Most of the course explores nine traditions in international relations scholarship, five "mainstream" (realism, neo-realism, institutionalism, society of states, and liberalism) and four critical (marxist, constructivist, critical/post-structural, and feminist). Our primary concern is to examine and assess each approach's foundational assumptions, method and scope of the problem defined, understanding of the units of global politics, how it conceptualizes international institutions, and the relationship between agency and international structure. As we march through the course we also want to ask ourselves about the relationship between these different approaches. Are these approaches necessarily exclusionary? Do bridges and connections between them exist? To help us think through this issue, we will examine the issue of international change and explore how different theories attempt to explain the end of colonialism. Subsequently, we examine how we might reimagine international space - that is, the international as consisting of non-anarchy based organizing principles) and international change. We conclude by asking whether it is possible to have theoretical progress in international relations; if so, what would it look like, and, if not, why not. Requirements. The class format will place a premium on discussion; therefore, it is expected that everyone will come prepared to discuss these materials in an informed and critical manner. There are a set of general questions posed at the top of each week's reading list, and the assumption is that this will both guide your reading of the required materials and provide a set of questions for some of the week's discussions. The questions, however, provide only a set of suggestions for, but do not determine, the seminar's content for that week. For each week after the first two sessions, several topics are identified on the syllabus. Each student must select two of these topics and write a short, four to five page, typed, double-spaced, critical, "thought piece" for each, based on readings presented on the syllabus. Papers are due by the class session for which the topic is assigned. Each paper will account for 25% of your course grade. As members of a graduate seminar the expectation is that you are active participants; accordingly, 10% of your grade will be based on discussion. Finally, there will be take-home essay worth 40% of your grade. The final will be distributed in class on December 7 and due on December 14, Office Hours. My office is in 261 HHH and I have office hours on Tuesdays from 2-3 and Thursdays from 10:00-11:00. I am happy to make an appointment for those who cannot make these hours. My telephone number is 626-3194 and my email address is mbarnett@umn.edu. Calendar. The following is the list of class dates and topics to be covered over the semester: September 7 The Discipline of the Discipline September 14 Realism

2

September 21 Beyond Classical Realism September 28 Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, I: Foundations October 5 Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, II: Recent Developments October 12 Society of States October 19 Liberalism October 26 Constructivism: Conventional

November 2 Constructivism: Recent Developments November 9 Marxism November 16 Critical and Poststructural Theory November 30 Feminism

December 7 Can We Have Theory in International Relations? Course Readings. The articles are available on WebCT and the books are available at the University Bookstore: Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World: International

Organizations in World Politics, Cornell University Press. Barry Buzan. 2004. From International to World Society? : English School Theory and the

Social Structure of Globalisation , NY: Cambridge University Press. Hedley Bull. 2002. The Anarchical Society, third edition. Columbia University Press. E.H. Carr. 1964. The Twenty Year's Crisis, 1919-1939. Harper and Row. Michael Doyle. 1997. Ways of War and Peace, NY: Norton. David Harvey. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press. Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, and Stephen Krasner. 1999. Exploration and Contestation

in the Study of World Politics, MIT Press. Robert Keohane, ed. 1988. Neorealism and Its Critics. Columbia University Press. John Mearsheimer. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. NY: Norton. J. Ann Tickner. 2001. Gendering World Politics. Columbia University Press. Alexander Wendt. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. NY: Cambridge University

Press. Walter Carlneas, Beth Simmons, and Thomas Risse, eds., 2002. Handbook of International

Relations, Sage Press.

3

September 7. The Discipline of the Discipline This week provides a broad overview to the study of international relations as a discipline; offers a set of organizing themes and concerns that have motivated students of the field; and review various themes. Think about: how has the historical development of the discipline of internation-al relations shaped its contemporary character?

* Brian Schmidt. 2002. “On the History and Historiography of International Relations,” in Handbook of International Relations.

* Steve Smith. 2007. “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press).

* Ole Waever. 1999. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline,” in Katzenstein, et al., Explorations and Contestations in the Study of World Politics.

* Robert Keohane, Steve Krasner, and Peter Katzenstein. 1999. “International Organization at Fifty,” in Katzenstein, et al.

Steve Smith. 2000. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still An American Social

Science?” British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2, 3, October, 374-402. Jim George. 1994. “Thinking Beyond International Relations: The Critical Theory Challenge,”

in his Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical .Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder: Lynne Reinner Press, pp.171-90.

Barry Buzan and Richard Little. 2001. “Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to do About It,” Millennium, 30, 1, 19-40.

Miles Kahler. 1997. “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory After 1945.” In Michael Doyle and G. John Ikenberry, International Relations Theory, Westview Press.

Steve Smith .1995. "The Self-Images of Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory," in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theory Today, Penn State Press, pp. 1-38.

Hedley Bull .1972. "The Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969," in Der Derian, 181-211. Stanley Hoffmann .1977. "An American Social Science: International Relations,” in James

Der Derian, ed., International Theory: Critical Investigations, NYU Press, pp. 212-41. Donald J. Puchala .1990. "Woe to the Orphans of the Scientific Revolution," Journal

International Affairs, 44.1), Spring, 59-80. J. L. Holzgrefe.1989. "The Origins of Modern International Relations Theory," Review of International

Studies, 15.1), 11-26. Hayo Krombach. 1992. "International Relations as an Academic Discipline." Millennium, 21,

243-262. William Olson and Nicholas Onuf.1985. "The Growth of a Discipline: Reviewed," in Steve Smith,

ed., International Relations: British and American Perspectives. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1-28.

Kal Holsti.1993. "International Relations at the End of the Millenium.".Review Ariticle), Review of International Studies, 19, 4, October, 401-408.

Kal Holsti.1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

Ekkehart Krippendorf.1987. "The Dominance of American Approaches in International Relations," Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16.2, Summer, 207-214.

Martin Wight.1966. "Western Values in International Relations," in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays on the Theory of International Politics. London: George Allen and Unwin, 89-131.

4

Gene Lyons. 1986. "The Study of International Relations in Great Britain", World Politics, 38.4, 626-45.

C. G. Thies C.G. 2002. “Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist-Realist Debate,” European Journal of International Relations, 8, 2, 147-185.

5

September 14. Realism Realism represents the oldest and the dominant paradigm in international relations theory. In fact, its dominance is reflected by the simple fact that all other approaches that we will examine in this seminar define and situate themselves in opposition to realist thought. This week we will read some of the classics of the realist thought. Questions for the week include: What is en-tailed by being a realist? How does a realist see international politics? What constitutes the core of having a realist vision of international politics? What are the limitations of a realist view of the world?

*E. H. Carr. The Twenty Years' Crisis, Introduction and chapters 5-8. *Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace, Part One.

*Brian Schmidt. 2005. “Competing Realist Conceptions of Power,” Millennium, June 33, 3, 523-550.

* Richard Ned Lebow. 2007. “Classical Realism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press).

Jeff Legro and Andrew Moravcsik. 1999. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security, 24, 2, Fall, 5-55. Also see responses in 25, 1, Summer.

Barry Buzan. 1997. “The Timeless Wisdom of Realism?” In Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marisya Zalewski, Beyond Positivism, Cambridge University Press.

Hedley Bull.1981. "Hobbes and the International Anarchy," Social Research, 48.4, Winter, 717-738.

Justin Rosenberg.1990. "The Trouble with Realism." Chapter One in his Empire of Civil Society. Michael Williams. 2005. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations,

Cambridge University Press. Benjamin Frankel, ed., 1996. Roots of Realism, Portland: Frank Cass. Daniel Deudney. 2000. “Regrounding Realism: Anarchy, Security, and Changing Material

Contexts,” Security Studies, 10, 1, Autumn, 1-42. Thucydides (translated R. Warner). 1954. The Peloponnesian War. New York: Penguin, 1954. Read "Revolt of

Mytilene," "The Mytilenian Debate," and "The Melian Dialogue," pps. 194-223, 400-9. Stephen Brooks. 1997. “Dueling Realisms,” International Organization,51, 3, Summer, 445-79. Ronald Spegele. 1997. Political Realism in International Theory, Cambridge University

Press. Fareed Zakaria. 1998. From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America‟s World Role,

Princeton University Press. Hans J. Morgenthau (revised Kenneth W. Thompson).1967. Politics Among Nations: The

Struggle for Power and Peace, 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Chapters 1, 3, 11; pp. 3-14, 25-35, 161-71.

R. B. J. Walker. 1987. "Realism, Change, and International Political Theory," International Studies Quarterly, 31, 65-86.

Barry Buzan. 1994. People, States, and Fear, 2nd ed., Lynne Reinner. Michael Joseph Smith.1986. Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. Baton Rouge:Louisiana

State University Press, especially Chapter 1, "Modern Realism in Context," pp. 1-22. Trevor Taylor.1978. "Power Politics," in Trevor Taylor, ed., Approaches and Theory in

International Relations. New York: Longman, 122-140. Ian Clark.1989. The Hierarchy of States, New York: Cambridge University Press. Especially

"The Ideology of International Order," 11-89. Morton A. Kaplan. 1957. System and Process in International Politics. New York: John

6

Wiley and Sons. Chapters 2-3, pp. 21-85. Inis L. Claude.1962. Power and International Relations. Random House. Kenneth N. Waltz.1959. Man, the State and War. New York: Columbia University Press,

especially Chapters 6-7, pp. 159-223. Ronen P. Palan and Brook M. Blair. 1993. "On the Idealist Origins of the Realist Theory of

International Relations." Review of International Studies, 19, 4, October, pp. 385-400. Peter Stirk. 2005. “John Herz: Realism and the Fragility of the International Order,” Review of

International Studies, 31, 2, April, 285-307. Short Paper Topic #1: How Useful is the Concept of the "National Interest"? 1. Fred A. Sondermann. 1977. "The Concept of the National Interest," Orbis, 21, 1, Spring,

121-138. 2. Stephan Krasner. 1977. Defending the National Interest, Princeton: Princeton University

Press. "A Statist Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy," and "The National Interest and Raw Materials," 5-54.

3. Alexander George and Robert Keohane.1980. "The Concept of National Interest: Uses and Limitations," in Alexander George's Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy, Boulder: Westview Press, 217-38.

4. Jutta Weldes. 1996. “Constructing National Interests,” EJIR, 2, 3, September, 275-318. 5. Martha Finnemore.1996. "Defining the National Interest in International Society," in her

The National Interest in International Society, Cornell University Press. 6. Michael Williams. 2005. “What is the National Interest? The Neoconservative

Challenge in IR,” European Journal of International Relations, 11, 3, September, 307-338. Short Paper Topic #2: Should (Have) Nuclear Weapons Transform(ed) the Character of the States System? 1. John Lewis Gaddis.1989. "The Long Peace," in his The Long Peace: Inquiries into the

History of Cold War, Oxford University Press, pps. 215-47. 2. John Vasquez.1991. "The Deterrence Myth: Nuclear Weapons and the Prevention of

Nuclear War," in Charles Kegley, ed., The Long Postwar Peace: Contending Explanations and Projections, Harper Collins, pps. 205-33.

3. Kenneth Waltz.1990. "Nuclear Myths and Political Realities." American Political Science Review, 84, 3, September, 731-745.

Short Paper Topic #3: What is the Nature of Power in Realist Thought? 1. David Baldwin. 2002. “Power and International Relations,” in W. Carlsneas, et al.,

Handbook of International Relations, Sage Press. 2. John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan.1990. "Socialization and Hegemonic Power,"

International Organization, 44, 3, 283-316. 3. Stefano Guzzini. 1993. "Structural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis,"

International Organization, 47, 3, Summer, pp. 443-478. Short Paper Topic #4: What Is Gained and Lost by Expanding the Concept of Security? 1. Stephen Walt.1991. "The Renaissance of Security Studies." International Studies

Quarterly, 35, 2, June, 211-239. 2. Helga Haftendorn.1991. "The Security Puzzle: Theory-Building and Discipline-Building

7

in International Security." International Security Quarterly, 35, 1, March, 3-18. 3. Edward Kolodjiez.1992. "Renaissance in Security Studies? Caveat Lector!" International

Studies Quarterly, 36, 4, December, 421-438. 4. J. Anne Tickner.1995. "Re-Visioning Security," in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds.,

International Relations Theory Today, Penn State Press, pp. 175-97. 5. Keith Krause and Michael Williams. 1996. “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies:

Politics and Methods,” Mershon International Studies Review, 40, 2, October, 229-54. 6. Terry Terriff, et al. 1999. “International Relations and Security Studies,” in Security

Studies Today, Polity Press. Short Paper Topic #5: How Useful is the Concept of Balance of Power? 1. Stephen Walt.1987. "Explaining Alliance Formation" in his The Origins of Alliances,

Cornell University Press. 2. Michael Sheehan.1996. "The Meaning of the Balance of Power," and "The Future of the

Balance of Power Concept," in his The Balance of Power: History and Theory, Routledge. 3. Ernie Haas.1953. "The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda?" World

Politics, 5, 4, 442-77. Short Paper Topic #6: How Should We Think About the Pelopennesian War? 1. Richard Ned Lebow. 2003. The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests, and Orders.

Cambridge University Press. Read Chapter Three, “Thucydides and War.” 2. Per Jansson. 1997. “Identity-Defining Practices in Thucydides‟ History of the

Pelopennesian War,” European Journal of International Relations, 3, 2, June, 147-166. 3. Laurie M. Johnson Bagby.1994. "The Use and Abuse of Thucydides," International

Organization, 48, 1, Winter, 131-51. 4. Daniel Garst.1989. "Thucydides and Neorealism," International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3-27. 5. Jonathan Monten. 2006. “Thucydides and Modern Realism,” International Studies

Quarterly, March, 50, 1, 3-26. Short Paper Topic #8: How Should We Think about Unipolarity? 1. William Wohlforth. 1999. “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” International Security, 24, 1,

Summer, 5-41. 2. Ethan Kapstein and Michael Mastanduno. 1999. “Realism and State Strategies after the

Cold War,” in E. Kapstein and M. Mastanduno, eds., Unipolar Politics, NY: Columbia University Press.

3. Michael Mastanduno. 1997. “Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and U.S. Grand Strategy after the Cold War,” International Security, 21, 4, Spring, 49-88.

Short Paper Topic #9: What is the American in American Realism? 1. Forum on American Realism. 2003. Contributions by Glaser, Desch, Copeland, and

Little, Review of International Studies, 29, 3, July, 401-450. Short Paper Topic #10: Why Not Appease? 1. Daryl Press. 2004. The Credibility of Power: Assessing Threats during the

"Appeasement" Crises of the 1930s,” International Security, October 29, 3, 136-169. 2. Kenneth Schultz. 2005. “The Politics of Risking Peace: Do Hawks or Doves Deliver the

Olive Branch? International Organization, 59, 1, Winter, 1-38. 3. Daniel Treisman. 2004. “Rational Appeasement,” International Organization, Spring, 58,

2. 345-74.

8

4. Ethan Bueno de Mesquita. “Conciliation, Counterterrorism, and Patterns of Terrorist Violence,” International Organization, 59, 1, Winter, 145-76.

5. Navin Bapat. 2006. “State Bargaining with Transnational Terrorist Groups,” International Studies Quarterly, March, 50, 1, 213-230.

Short Paper Topic #11: What is Asia‟s Future? 1. Amitav Acharya. 2003. Will Asia‟s Past Be Its Future? International Security, December

28, 3, 149-164. 2. D.C. Kang. 2003. Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles in Asian International

Relations, International Security, December 28, 3, 165-180. 3. A.I. Johnston. 2003. “Is China a Status Quo Power?” International Security, March, 27,

4, 5-56. 4. D.C. Kang. 2003. “Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks,”

International Security, 2003, 27, 4, 57-85.

9

September 21. Beyond Classical Realism Neo-realism represents an attempt to make realism "scientific" by offering a deductive theory of international politics. In the readings for this week we will examine and evaluate neo-realism, with particular attention to the benefits that might be gained from a more self-conscious “scien-tific" approach. Questions include: What is the relationship between neorealism and realism? What does neorealism gain over realism by its more "scientific" approach? what is lost? What are the big questions that neo-realism can answer?

*Robert O. Keohane, ed. 1986. Neorealism and Its Critics. Chapters 1-5, 7. * John Mearsheimer. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, NY: Norton. Chaps. 1-2, 5.

skim 6 & 7. *John Mearsheimer. 2007. “Structural Realism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds.,

International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press). *Stephen Brooks. 2005. Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the

Changing Calculus of Conflict. Princeton University Press. Robert Jervis. “Realism in the Study of World Politics,” in P. Katzenstein, ed., Explorations and

Controversies in World Politics. Glenn Snyder. 2002. “Mearsheimer‟s World: Offensive Realism and the Struggle for

Security,” International Security, June, 27, 1, 149-173. Marin Hollis and Steve Smith. 1995.

Hollis and Smith. Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Read "The International System," pps. 92-118.

Kenneth Waltz. 2000. Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security, 25, 1, 5-41.

Randall Schweller. 1996. “Neorealism‟s Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?” in B. Frankel, ed., Realism: Restatements and Renewal, Portland: Frank Cass, 90-121.

Stacie Goddard and Daniel Nexon. 2005. “Paradigm Lost: Reassessing Theory of International Politics, European Journal of International Relations, 11, 1, March, 9-62.

Robert Jervis. 1978. “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, 30, 2, pp. 167-214.

Jack Snyder. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, Cornell University Press, Read Chapter One. Andrew Linklater. 1995. "Neo-Realism in Theory and Practice," in Ken Booth and Steve Smith,

eds., International Relations Theory Today, Penn State Press, pp. 241-62. Stefano Guzzini. 2004. “The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism,” European Journal of

International Relations, 10, 4, December, 533-68. John Vasquez. 1997. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research

Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz‟s Balancing Proposition,” APSR, 91, 4, December, 899-913. With responses by Kenneth Waltz, Colin and Miriam Elman, Randall Schweller, and Stephan Walt.

Gideon Rose. 1998. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World Politics, 51, October, 144-72.

Kenneth Waltz. 1995. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” in Michael Brown, et al., eds. The Perils of Anarchy, 42-77.

Thomas Christenson. 1997. “Perceptions and Alliances in Europe, 1865-1940,” International Organization, 51, 1, Winter, 65-98.

Glenn Snyder. 1998. Alliance Politics. Cornell University Press. Charles Glaser. 1994/95. “Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help,” International

10

Security, 19, 3, Winter. Frank Wayman and Paul Diehl. 1994. “Realism Reconsired: The Realpolitik Framework and Its

Basic Propositions,” in Wayman and Diehl, eds., Reconstructing Realpolitik, University of Michigan Press, pp. 3-28.

John Barkdull.1995. "Waltz, Durkheim, and International Relations: The International System as an Abnormal Form," American Political Science Review, 89, 3, September, pp. 669-80.

Colin Elman. 1997. “Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy?” Security Studies, 6, 1. Reply by Kenneth Waltz.

Stephen Haggard.1991. "Structuralism and Its Critics: Recent Progress in International Relations Theory," in E. Adler and B. Crawford, eds., Progress in Postwar International Relations, Columbia University Press, 403-37.

Helen Milner.1991. "The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory," Review of International Studies, 17, 1, January, 67-85.

Kenneth N. Waltz.1990. "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory," Journal of International Affairs, 44, 1, Spring/Summer, 21-37.

Richard K. Ashley.1981. "Political Realism and Human Interests," International Studies Quarterly, 25, 2, June, 204-236; and "Comment" by John H. Herz: 237-241.

Robert Gilpin.1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press. Stephen Walt.1996. Revolution and War, Cornell University Press. Joseph Grieco.1990. Cooperation Among Nations, Cornell University Press. Barry Buzan, David Jones, and Richard Little.1992. Logic of Anarchy, Columbia University

Press. Friedrich Kratochwil. 1993. "The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-Realism as the Science of

Realpolitik Without Politics," Review of International Studies 19, 1, January, 63-80. Paul Schroeder.1994. "Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory." International Security, 19, 1,

Summer, pp. 108-148. And Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, Paul Schroeder, Exchange) "History v. Neorealism: A Second Look" in International Security, Summer, 20, 1, 1995, pp. 182-195.

Steven Forde.1995. "International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machievelli, and NeoRealism," International Studies Quarterly, 39, 2, June, 141-60.

Short Paper Topic #1: Does Neo-Realism Need to Account for Nationalism? 1. Yosef Lapid and Freidrich Kratochwil.1995. "Revisiting the `National': Toward an Identity

Agenda in Neorealism?" in Y. Lapid and F. Kratochwil, eds., The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Boulder: Lynn Rienner.

2. Jack Citrin, E. Haas, C. Muste, and B. Reingold.1994. "Is American Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy," International Studies Quarterly, 38, 1, March, 1-32.

3. Stephen Van Evera.1994. "Hypotheses on Nationalism and War," International Security, 18, 4, Spring, pp. 5-39.

4. Ernst Haas.1986. "What is Nationalism and Why Should We Study It?" International Organization, 40, 3, 707-44.

Short Paper Topic #2: What Conditions Produce Stability in the International System? 1. Kenneth Waltz.1989. "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory," in Robert Rotberg and

Theodore Rabb, eds., The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars, New York: Cambridge University Press.

2. Karl Deutsch and J. David Singer.1964. "Multipolar Power Systems and International

11

Stability," World Politics, 16. 3. Emerson M. S. Niou, Peter C. Ordeshook, and Gregory F. Rose.1989. The Balance of

Power: Stability in International Systems. Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1-4, pp. 1-145.

4. Robert Powell.1996. "Stability and the Distribution of Power," World Politics, 48, 2, January, pp. 239-67.

Short Paper Topic #3: Can Neorealism Save Itself After the Cold War? 1. William C. Wohlforth.1994/95. "Realism and the End of the Cold War." International

Security, 19, 3, Winter, 91-129. 2. Charles Glaser.1994/95. "Realists as Optimists." International Security, 19, 3, Winter,

pp. 50-90. 3. Ethan Kapstein.1995. "Is Realism Dead? The Domestic Sources of International Politics,"

International Organization, 49/4, Autumn, pp. 251-274. 4. William Wohlforth. 1998. “Reality Check: Revising Theories of International Politics in

Response to the End of the Cold War,” World Politics, 50, 4, July, 650-79. 5. Richard Ned Lebow.1994. "The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of

Realism." International Organization, 48, 2, Spring, 249-277. Short Paper Topic #4: Does the Offense-Defense Distinction Matter for System Stability? 1. Stephen Van Evera. 1998. “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War,” International

Security, 22, 4, Spring, 5-43. 2. Charles Glaser and Chaim Kaufmann. 1998. “What is the Offense-Defense Balance and

How Can We Measure It?” International Security, 22, 4, Spring, 44-82. 3. Ted Hopf.1991. "Polarity, the Offense-Defense Debate, and War," American Political

Science Review, 85, 2, June, 475-94. 4. Keir Leiber. 2000. “Grasping the Technological Peace: The Offense-Defense Balance

and International Security,” International Security, 25, 1, 71-104. 5. K.R. Adams. 2003. “Attack and Conquer? International Anarchy and the

Offense-Defense-Deterrence Balance,” International Security, December 28, 3, pp. 45-83. 6. Colin Elman. 2004. “Extending Offense Realism: The Louisiana Purchase and America‟s

Rise to Regional Hegemony,” American Political Science Review, 98, 4, November, 563-76.

Short Paper Topic #5: If the U.S. Is So Bad, Why is there no Balancing? 1. Robert Pape. 2005. “Soft Balancing against the United States,” International Security,

30, 1, 7-45. 2. T.V. Paul. 2005. “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy,” International Security, 30,

1, 46-71. 3. Stephen Brooks and William C. Wohlforth. 2005. “Hard Times for Soft Balancing,”

International Security, 2005, 30, 1, 72-108. 4. Keir Lieber and Gerard Alexander. 2005. “Waiting for Balancing: Why the World Is Not

Pushing Back,” International Security, 30, 1, 109-139. 5. Randall Schweller. 2004. “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of

Underbalancing,” International Security, 29, 2, 59-201. Short Paper Topic #6: What is So Good About Multilateralism and Bad about Uniliateralism?

12

1. Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth. 2005. “International Relations Theory and the Case Against Unilateralism,” Perspectives on Politics, 3, 3, September, 509-24.

2. G. John Ikenberry. 2003. “Is American Multilateralism in Decline?” Perspectives on Politics, 1, 3, September, 533-50.

Short Paper Topic #7: Are Alliances Formed by Ideologies? 1. John Owen. 2005. “When Do Ideologies Produce Alliances?: The Holy Roman Empire,

1517-1555,” International Studies Quarterly, March, 49, 1, pp. 73-99. 2. Stephen Walt. 1987. Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Read

Chapter One. Short Paper Topic #8: What Role Do Ideas Play in Shaping Postwar Orders? 1. Jeff Legro. 2005. Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 2. Mark Haas. 2005. The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789-1989. Cornell

University Press. 3. G. John Ikenberry. 2001. After Victory. Princeton University Press. Read Chapter on

post-WWII settlement

13

September 28. Institutionalism, I: Foundations Over the last few years political science in general and international relations in specific have "rediscovered" institutions. Institutional analysis has been applied to a myriad of substan-titive issues in international relations, but are generally unified by the understanding that institu-tions can help self-interested states both overcome collective action problems and encourage cooperation in an anarchic and insecure environment. What are the limitation of institutions for affecting cooperation? In response to the charge that institutions - and not anarchy - may be important for understanding interstate behavior, neo-realists have presented a countercharge. This week will look at the foundations of neoliberal institutions, with particular attention to its roots in economic theorizing.

*Robert Keohane. 1984. After Hegemony: Power and Discord in International Politics, Section II, Princeton University Press.

* Kenneth Shepsle. 1989. “Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach,” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1, 131-47.

* Duncan Snidal. 2002. “Rational Choice and International Relations,” in Handbook of International Relations.

* Lisa Martin. 2007. “Neoliberalism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press).

*Lisa Martin. 1992. “Interests, Power, and Multilateralism,” International Organization, 46, Summer, 561-88.

Kenneth Oye. 1985. “Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies,” in

K. Oye, ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy, Princeton University Press, 1-24. Stephen Krasner. 1983. “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening

Variables,” in S. Krasner, ed., International Regimes, Cornell University Press, 1-22. Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin.1995. "The Promise of Institutionalist Theory." International

Security, 20, 1, Summer, 39-51. Robert O. Keohane.1988. "International Institutions: Two Approaches," International Studies

Quarterly, 32, 4, December, 379-396. Jon Elster. 1994. “The Nature and Scope of Rational-Choice Explanation,” in Michael Martin and Lee

McIntyre, eds, Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, MIT Press, 403-12. Paul Pierson. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,”

American Political Science Review, 94, 2, 251-68. Robert Axelrod.1986. "An Evolutionary Approach to Norms," American Political Science

Review, 80.4, 1095-1112. Robert Keohane.1986. "Reciprocity in International Relations," International Organization,

40.1, 1-27. Robert Keohane.1989. "Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics," in his

International Institutions and State Power, Boulder: Westview Press, 1-20. Robert Keohane and Stanley Hoffman.1991. "Institutional Change in Europe in the 1980s" in

Keohane and Hoffman, eds. The New European Community: Decision-Making and Institutional Change, pp. 1-40, Boulder: Westview Press.

Robert Jervis.1988. "Realism, Game Theory, and Cooperation," World Politics, 40,3, 317-50. Oran Young.1989. International Cooperation, Cornell University Press. Read Chapters 1-4, 8;

1-108, 191-215. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. 1977. Power and Interdependence. Little, Brown. Stephan Haggard and Beth Simmons.1987. "Theories of International Regimes," International

Organization, 41.3, 491-517. Joanne Gowa.1986. "Anarchy, Egoism, and Third Images: The Evolution of Cooperation and

14

International Relations," International Organization, 40.1, 167-86. Helen Milner.1992. "International Theories of Cooperation Among Nations: Strengths and

Weaknesses," World Politics, 44, 3, April, 466-96. Charles Kindleberger.1981. "Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy:

Exploitation, Public Goods, and Free Rides," International Studies Quarterly, 25, 2, June, 242-54.

Charles Kindleberger.1973. The World in Depression, 1929-39, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Robert Axelrod.1984. The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books. Harrison Wagner.1983. "The Theory of Games and the Problem of International Cooperation,"

American Political Science Review, 77, 330-46. Arthur Stein.1990. Why Nations Cooperate, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Short Paper Topic #1: What is the nature and role of learning in transforming international politics? How useful is this idea? 1. Jack Levy.1992. "Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping Through a Conceptual

Minefield" International Organization, 48, 2, Spring, 279-312. 2. George Modelski.1990. "Is World Politics Evolutionary Learning?" International

Organization, 44, 1, 1-24. 3. Philip Tetlock.1991. "Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy: In Search of an Elusive

Concept," in G. Breslauer and P. Tetlock, eds., Learning in U.S. and Soviet Foreign Policy, Westview Press, 20-61.

4. Dan Reiter. 1996. Crucible of Beliefs: Learning, Alliances and World Wars, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Read Chapter Two, “Learning in International Politics.”

5. Jeffrey Knopf. 2003. “The Importance of International Learning,” Review of International Studies, 29, 2, 185-208.

Short Paper Topic #2: Are States Seekers of Relative Gains? 1. Duncan Snidal.1991. "International Cooperation Among Relative Gains Maximizers,"

International Studies Quarterly, 35, 4, December, 387-402. 2. Robert Powell.1991. "Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory,"

American Political Science Review, 85, 4, December, 1303-20. 3. Michael Mastanduno.1991. "Do Relative Gains Matter? America's Response to Japanese

Industrial Policy," International Security, 16, 1, Summer, 73-113. 4. Jeffrey Berejikian. 1997. “The Gains Debate: Framing State Choice,” APSR, 91, 4,

December, 789-806. Short Paper Topic #4: How Does the Concept of Multilateralism Add to our Understanding of International Order? 1. John Ruggie.1992. "Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution," International

Organization, 46, 3, Summer, 561-598. 2. James Caporaso.1992. "International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: The Search for

Foundations," International Organization, 46, 3, Summer, 599-632. 3. Miles Kahler.1992. "Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers," International

Organization, 46, 3, Summer, 681-708. 4. Robert Cox.1992. "Multilateralism and World Order," Review of International Studies, 18,

161-80. Short Paper Topic #5: What Role for International Institutions in Resolving Ethnic Conflict? 1. Barbara Walter. 1997. “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlment,” International

Organization, 51, 3, Summer, 335-64.

15

2. William Dixon. 1996. “Third Party Techniques for Preventing Conflict Escalation and Promoting Peaceful Settlement,” International Organization, 50, 4, Autumn, 629-52.

3. Paul Diehl, Jennifer Reifschneider, and Paul Hensel. 1996. “United Nations Intervention and Recurring Conflict,” International Organization, 50, 4, Autumn, 683-700.

4. David Lake and Donald Rothschild. 1996. “Containing Fear: The Origins and Management of Ethnic Conflict,” International Security, 21, 2, Fall, 41-75.

Short Paper Topic #7: What is the Nature of Power in Institutionalism? 1. Lloyd Gruber. 2000. Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational

Institutions, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2. G. John Ikenberry. 2001. After Victory. Princeton University Press. Read Chapter

One. 3. Stephen D. Krasner.1991. "Global Communications and National Power: Life on the

Pareto Frontier," World Politics, 43, April, pp. 336-66.

16

October 5. Institutionalism, II: Recent Developments The previous week examined the foundations of neo-liberal institutionalism, with partic-ular attention to functionalist and rationalist logic behind institution building and the prospects of cooperation. This week we examine recent extensions and developments of institutionalist analysis. By no means is this a reasonable sample of the impressive developments that have occurred over the last few years; instead it is intended to consider different ways in which the institutionalist foundation has expanded in response to empirical anomalies, logical-analytical difficulties, and toward a tighter specifity of exactly how and the conditions under which institu-tions matter.

* Darren Hawkins, David Lake, Daniel Nielson, and Michael Tierney. 2005. Delegation under Anarchy. Cambridge University Press. Chapter to be assigned.

* George Downs, David Rocke, and Peter Barsoom. 1996. “Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation,” International Organization, 50, 3, Summer, 379-406.

*Robert Keohane. 2001. “Governance in a Partially Globalized World,” American Political Science Review, 95, 1, March, 1-15.

*Barbara Koremenos. 2005. “Contracting Around International Uncertainty,” American Political Science Review, 99, 4, November 549-565.

Andrew Guzman. 2005. “The Design of International Agreements,” European Journal of

International Law, 16, 4, 579-62. B. Peter Rosendorf. 2005. “Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute

Settlement Procedure,” American Political Science Review, 99, 3, August 389-400. Liliana Botcheva and Lisa Martin. 2001. Institutional Effects on State Behavior: Convergence

and Divergence,” International Studies Quarterly, 45, 1, March, 1-26. Special issue of International Organization on “Legalization and World Politics,” 54, 3: Judith

Goldstein, et al. “Introduction: Legalization and World Politics”; and Robert Keohane, et al., The Concept of Legalization”; and Martha Finnemore and Stephen Toope, “Alternatives to “Legalization”: Richer Views of Law and Politics,” in International Organization, 55, 3, Summer, 2001, 743-58.

* Mark Pollack. 1997. Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community,” International Organization, 51, 1, Winter, pp. 99-134.

Celeste Wallander. 2000. “Institutional Assets and Adaptability,” International Organization, 54, 4, Autumn, 705-36.

John J. Mearshiemer.1994/95. "The False Promise of International Institutions." International Security, 19, 3, Winter, 5-49.

Randall Schweller and David Priess. 1997. “A Tale of Two Realisms: The Institutions Debate,” Mershon International Studies Review, 41, 1, May, 1-32.

Beth Simmons. 1996. “Rulers of the Game: Central Bank Independence During the Interwar Years,” International Organization, 50, 3, Summer, 407-44.

Hendrik Spruyt.1994. "Institutional Selection in International Relations," International Organization, 48, 4, Autumn, pp. 527-58.

Katja Weber. 1997. “Hierarchy Amidst Anarchy: A Transaction Costs Approach to International Security Cooperation,” ISQ, 41, 2, June, 320-40.

Robert Keohane and Stanley Hoffman.1993. "Conclusion: Structure, Strategy and Institutional Roles," in R. Keohane, J. Nye, and S. Hoffman, eds., After the Cold War: International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989-1991, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

David Lake.1996. "Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations," International Organization, 50, 1, Winter, 1-35.

17

Andreas Hansenclever, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberg, eds., “Interests, Power, Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes,” Mershon International Studies Review, 40, 2, October, 1996: 177-228.

Short Paper #1: Is the European Court of Justice More than the Sum of Its Parts? 1. Karen Alter. 1998. “Who are the `Masters of the Treaty‟? European Governments and the

European Court of Justice,” International Organization, 52, 1, Winter, 121-48. 2. G. Garrett, R. Daniel Keleman, and Heiner Schulz. 1998. “The European Court of Justice,

National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union,” International Organization, 52, 1, Winter, 149-176.

3. Walter Mattli and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 1998. “Revisiting the European Court of Justice,” International Organization, 52, 1, Winter, 177-210.

Short Paper #2: What are the Domestic Roots of Multilateralism? 1. Karl Orfeo-Fioretes. 1997. “The Anatomy of Autonomy: Interdependence, Domestic

Balances of Power, and European Integration,” RIS, 23, 3, July, 293-320. 2. Helen Milner. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and

International Relations, Princeton University Press. Read Chapter One. 3. Geoffrey Garrett and Peter Lange. 1996. “Internationalization, Institutions, and Political

Change,” in R. Keohane and H. Milner, eds., Internationalization and Domestic Politics, Cambridge University Press, 48-78.

Short Paper #3: What Does it Mean to have a Rationally Designed Institution? 1. Read the following essays from the special issue of International Organization,” The

Rational Design of International Institutions,” 55, 4, Autumn, 2001: Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal, “The Rational Design of International Institutions; Alexander Wendt, “Driving with the Rearview Mirror; and Koremenos, Lipson, and Snidal, “Rational Design.”

2. Nicholas Onuf. 2002. “Institutions, Intentions, and International Relations,” Review of International Studies, 28, 2, 211-28.

Short Paper Topic #4: Do Institutions Minimize the Security Dilemma? 1. Robert Jervis. 1985. “From Balance to Concert: A Study of International Security

Cooperation,” in K. Oye, ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy, Princeton University Press. 2. Charles Kupchan and Clifford Kupchan.1991. "Concerts, Collective Security, and the

Future of Europe," International Security, 16, 1, Summer, 114-161. 3. Jack Snyder.1990. "Averting Anarchy in the New Europe," International Security, 14.4,

Spring, 5-41. 4. David Lake. 2001. “Beyond Anarchy: The Importance of Security Institutions,”

International Security, 26, 1, 129-60.‟ 5. Robert Jervis. 2002. “Theories of War in an Era of Leading Power Peace,” American

Political Science Review, 96, 1, March, 1-14. Short Paper Topic #5: Less Filling? Tastes Great? The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate? 1. David Baldwin, ed., Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism: Baldwin.chap. 1; Stein.chap. 2;

Axelrod and Keohane.chap. 4; Grieco.chap. 5; Keohane.chap. 11; and Grieco.chap. 12. 2. Robert Powell.1994. "The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate," International Organization, 48, 2,

Spring, 313-40. 3. Joseph S. Nye, Jr..1988. "Neorealism and Neoliberalism," World Politics, 40.2, January,

235-251.

18

Short Paper Topic #6: How Might Neoliberal institutionalists incorporate ideas? 1. Robert Keohane and Judith Goldstein.1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy, Cornell University

Press. Read the following chapters: Goldstein and Keohane.chap 1; Hall chap. 2. 2. Albert Yee.1996. "The Causal Effect of Ideas on Policies," International Organization, 50,

1, Winter, pp. 69-108. 3. Ngaire Woods.1995. "Economic Ideas and International Relations: Beyond Rational

Neglect," International Studies Quarterly, 39, 2, June, pp. 161-180. 4. John Kurt Jacobsen. 2003. “Dueling Constructivisms: A Post-Mortem on the Ideas Debate

in mainstream IR/IPE,” Review of International Studies, 29, 1, January, 39-60. Short Paper Topic #7: Do International Organizations Promote Peace and Democracy? 1. Jon Pevehouse. 2005. Democracy from Above, Cambridge University Press. Read

Chapter One. 2. Charles Boemer, Erik Gartke, and Timothy Nordstrom. 2004. “Do International

Organizations Promote Peace?” World Politics, 57, 1, 1-38. 3. Kristin Gleditch. 2002. “Deutchian Integration and the Democratic Peace,” in his All

International Politics is Local: The Diffusion of Conflict, Integration, and Democratization, University of Michigan Press.

4. Alan Gilbert. 1999. Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy? Great Power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Read Introduction.

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

Short Paper Topic #8: What is a “Fair” Institution and Does it Matter? 1 Cecilia Albin. 2003. Negotiating International Cooperation: Global Public Goods and

Fairness,” Review of International Studies, 29, 3, July, 365-86. 2. Ethan Kapstein. 2005. “Justice and Power in Global Economic Institutions,” in Michael

Barnett and Raymond Duvall, eds., Power in Global Governance, Cambridge University Press.

Short Paper #9: How Do Ideas Diffuse? 1. R. Daniel Kelemen and Eric Sibbitt. 2004. “The Globalization of American Law,”

International Organization, 58, Winter, 1, 103-36. And the exchange between them and Levi-Faur, April 2005, 451-462

2. Beth Simmons and Zachary Elkins. 2004. “The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy,” American Political Science Review, 98,1 , February 171-90.

3. Amitav Acharya. 2004. “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Integration,” International Organization, 58, Spring, 2,

Short Paper Topic #10: How Does the Security Council Matter? 1. Alexander Thompson. 2006. “Coercion Through IOs: The Security Council and the Logic

of Information Transmission,” International Organization, 60, 1, January, 1-34. 2. Ian Hurd. 2005. “The Strategic Use of Liberal Internationalism: Libya and the UN

Sanctions, 1992–2003,” International Organization, 59, 3, July, 495-526. 3. Eric Voeten. 2005. “The Political Origins of the UN Security Council's Ability to Legitimize

the Use of Force,” International Organization, 59, 3, July 527-557. 4. Jochen Prantl. 2005. “Informal Groups of States and the UN Security Council,”

International Organization, 59, 3, July 559-592.

19

20

October 12. Society of States The Society of States approach offers a "British" view of the structure of global politics. How does this approach differ from neo-realism? What is entailed in adopting an international societal perspective, and how might this affect international relations theory? How is order un-derstood in this view?

*Bull. 2002. The Anarchical Society:. Chapters 1-3, pp. 3-76. *Barry Buzan. From International Society to World Society, NY: Cambridge University Press. *Tim Dunne. 2007. “English School,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International

Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press). Various Contributors. 2005. Forum: Barry Buzan's From International to World Society?

Millennium, 34, 1, August: Tim Dunne, “System, State and Society: How Does It All Hang Together?” Emanuel Adler, “Barry Buzan's Use of Constructivism to Reconstruct the English School: 'Not All the Way Down',” Buzan, “Not Hanging Separately: Responses to Dunne and Adler”; and Afterward.

Various Contributors. 2005. Forum on Barry Buzan's From International to World Society Millennium 34, 1. Articles by Tim Dunne, System, State and Society: How Does It All Hang Together?”; Emanuel Adler, Barry Buzan's Use of Constructivism to Reconstruct the English School: 'Not All the Way Down'”; Barry Buzan,

Richard Little. 2001. “The English School's Contribution to the Study of International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, September, 6, 3, 395-422.

Yongjin Zhang. 2003. “The `English School‟ in China: A Travelogue of iDeas and their Difussion,” European Journal of International Relations, 9, 1, 87-114.

Barry Buzan.1993. "From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School," International Organization, 47, 3, Summer, pp. 327-352.

Various Contributors. 2001. “Forum on the English School,” Review of International Studies, 27, 3, July, 465-519. Read the contributions by Watson, Buzan, Hurrell, Guzzini, Neumann, and Finnemore.

B.A. Roberson, ed., 2004. International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, Washington: Pinter.

Alex Bellamy, ed. 2004. International Society and Its Critics. Oxford University Press. Tim Dunne. 1998. Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. NY:

Macmillan. Kai Alderson and Andrew Hurrell, eds. 2000. Hedley Bull on International Society New York:

St. Martin's Press. Bruce Cronin. 2003. Institutions for the Common Good: International Protection Regimes in

International Society, NY: Cambridge University Press. R.J. Vincent.1990. "Order in International Politics," in J. D. B. Miller and R.J. Vincent, eds.,

Order and Violence: Hedley Bull and International Relations. Oxford University Press, 38-64.

Chris Brown. 2001. “World Society and the English School: An 'International Society' Perspective on World Society,” European Journal of International Relations, December, 7, 4, 423-441.

Richard Little.1995. "Neorealism and English School: A Methodological, Ontological, and Theoretical Assessment," European Journal of International Relations, 1,1, pp. 9-34.

Chris Brown.1995. "International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the Middle Way?" Review of International Studies, 21, 2, April, 183-96.

Robert Jackson. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. New

21

York: Oxford University Press. Jens Bartleson. 1996. “Short Circuits: Society and Tradition in International Relations

Theory,” RIS, 22, 339-60. J. M. Hobson and L. Seabrooke. 2001. “Reimagining Weber: Constructing International

Society and the Social Balance of Power,” European Journal of International Relations, 7, 2, pp. 239-274.

David Armstrong.1993. Revolution and World Order: Revolutionary States in International Society NY: Oxford University Press.

Robert Jackson.1995. "The Political Theory of International Society," in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theory Today, Penn State Press, pp. 110-28.

Adam Watson.1992. The Evolution of International Society, Boston: Routledge. Ole Waever.1992. "International Society: Theoretical Promises Unfulfilled?" Cooperation and

Conflict, 27, 1, 97-128. Stanley Hoffmann .1990. "International Society," in J. D. B. Miller and R. J. Vincent, eds., Order

and Violence: Hedley Bull and International Relations. Oxford University Press, 13-37. Adam Watson.1990. "Systems of States," Review of International Studies, 16.2, April, 99-109. James Mayall.1990. Nationalism and International Society, Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 2, "The Society of States," pp. 18-34. Haskell Fain. 1987. Normative Politics and the Community of Nations. Temple University

Press. Chapters 4-6, pp. 83-160. Terry Nardin.1983. Law, Morality, and the Relations of States. Princeton University Press. Short Paper Topic #1: What is the Grotian Tradition? 1. Read the following in Hedley Bull, Bendict Kingsburg, and Adam Roberts, eds..1990. Hugo

Grotius and International Relations, Oxford University Press: a. Benedict Kingsbury and Adam Roberts, "Introduction: Grotian Thought in International

Relations," pp. 1-64. b. Hedley Bull, "The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations," pp. 65-93.

2. Claire Cutler.1991. "The `Grotian' Tradition in International Relations," Review of International Studies, 17, 41-65.

Short Paper Topic #2: What is Meant and Implied by Intervention? 1. John Mayall.1996. "Introduction," in Mayall, ed., The New Interventionism, 1991-94,

Cambridge University Press. 2. Michael Barnett.1995. "The New U.N. Politics of Peace: From Juridical Sovereignty to

Empirical Sovereignty." Global Governance, 1, 1, Winter, pp. 79-97. 3. Martha Finnemore. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of

Force, Cornell University Press. chap.1 4. Richard Little. 1987. “Revisiting Intervention: A Survey of Recent Developments,” RIS, 13,

49-60. Short Paper Topic #3: Is the Future Medieval? 1. Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society. Chapter 11. 2. J. Friedrichs. 2001. “The Meaning of New Medievalism,” European Journal of

International Relations, December, 7, 4, 475-501. 3. Anne-Marie Slaughter. 1997. “The Real New World Order,” Foreign Affairs. Short Paper Topic #4: Does International Society need an “Other”? 1. Iver Neumann and Jennifer Welsh.1991. "The Other in European Self-Definition: An

Addendum to the Literature on International Society," Review of International Studies, 17,

22

327-48. 2. Paul Keal. 2003. European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: The Moral

Backwardness of International Society, NY: Cambridge University Press. 3. Gerrit Gong.1984. The Standard of `Civilization' in International Society, NY: Oxford

University Press. 4. Yongjin Zhong .1991. "China's Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of

`Civilization'" Review of International Studies, 17, 1, January, 3-17.

23

October 19. Liberalism Since the end of the Cold War we have seen an explosion of liberal theorizing that is ex-plicitly micro-oriented and value-oriented. Although closely associated with Kant's classic Per-petual Peace, in fact the liberal tradition is much richer and varied than Kant and the renewed focus on the democratic peace. What are the different orientations that are situated under "li-beralism"? How does liberalism differ from its "neo" progenitor? What kind of research agen-da is associated with and flows from its assumptions? What is gained and lost in the way that liberalism is being brought into international relations theory?

*Andrew Moravchik.1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, 51, 4, Autumn, 513-54.

*Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace, Part II. * Anne Marie Slaughter. 1995. “International Law in a World of Liberal States,” European Journal

of International Law.6, 4, 503-39. *James L. Richardson. 1997. “Contending Liberalisms - Past and Present,” EJIR, 3, 1, March,

5-34. *Diana Panke and Thomas Risse. 2007. “Liberalism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve

Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press).

* Christian Reus-Smit. 2001. “The Strange Death of Liberal International Relations Theory,” European Journal of International Law,” 12, 3, 573-93.

*John Beate. 2005. “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs.” International Organization, 59, 1, Winter, 177-208 Andrew Hurrell and Ngaire Woods. 1995. "Globalisation and Inequality," Millennium, 24, 3, pp.

447-70. Daniel Deudney and J. John Ikenberry. 1999. "The Nature and Sources of Liberal

International Order,” Review of International Studies, 25, 2, April, 179-98. John Oneal and Bruce Russett. 2001. Triangulating the Peace: Democracy,

Interdependence, and International Organizations, NY: Norton. Robert Keohane.1990. "International Liberalism Reconsidered," in John Dunn, ed., The

Economic Limits to Modern Politics, Cambridge University Press, 165-94. Mark Zacher and Richard Matthews.1995. "Liberal International Theory: Common Threads,

Divergent Strands," in C. Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the NeoLiberal Challenge, pp. 107-50, St, Martin's Press.

Chris Brown. 1996. “`Really Existing Liberalism‟: Peaceful Democracies and International Order,” in R. Fawn and J. Larkins., eds. International Society after the Cold War, NY: MacMillan Press.

Robert Latham.1997. The Liberal Moment: Modernity, Security, and the Making of the Postwar International Order, NY: Columbia University Press.

Andrew Hurrell.1990. "Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations," Review of

International Studies, 16, 3, July, 183-205. Mark Franke.1995. "Immanuel Kant and the Impossibility of International Relations Theory,"

Alternatives, 20, 3, July-September, pp. 279-322. Andrew Wyatt-Walter.1996. "Adam Smith and the Liberal Tradition in International Relations,"

Review of International Studies, 22, 1, January, pp. 5-29. David Long.1995. "The Harvard School of Liberal International Theory: A Case for Closure,"

Millennium, 24, 3, Winter, pp. 489-506.

24

Short Paper Topic #1: Are Democracies Pacific? Choose five of the following: 1. See the following in International Security, 19, 2, Fall, 1994: Christpher Layne, "Kant or

Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace"; Daniel Spiro, "The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace."

2. David Lake.1992. "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, 86, 1, March, 24-37.

3. Bruce Russett.1994. "The Fact of Demoncratic Peace" and "Why Democratic Peace," in his Grasping the Democratic Peace, Princeton University Press.

4. Wade Huntley.1996. "Kant's Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace," International Studies Quarterly, 40, 1, March, pp. 45-76.

5. Ido Oren.1995. "The Subjectivity of the "Democratic" Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany," International Security, 20, 2, Fall, 147-84.

6. John McMillan.1995. "A Kantian Protest Against the Peculiar Discourse of Inter-Liberal State Peace," Millennium, 24, 3, Winter, pp. 523-45.

7. Thomas Risse-Kappen. 1995. “Democratic Peace - Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument,” EJIR,1, 4, 491-517.

8. John Oneal and Bruce Russett. 1997. “The Classic Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdepedence, and Conflict, 1950-85,” ISQ, 41, 2, June, 267-94.

9. Lars-Erik Cederman. 2001. “Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace as a Macrohistorical Learning Process,” American Political Science Review, 95, 1, March 15-32.

10. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. 1999. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace,” American Political Science, 93, 4, 791-809.

11. Sebastian Rosato. 2003. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” American Political Science Review, 97, 4 November, 585-602. And the subsequent forum, 99, 3, August, 2005, with contributions by David Kinsella, Bronislav Slantchev, et al., Michael Doyle, and Sebastian Rosato.

Short Paper Topic #2: What is the relationship between economic interdependence and war? 1. Edward Mansfield.1994. Chapters Four and Seven, in his Power, Trade, and War,

Princeton University Press. 2. Dale Copeland.1996. “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade

Expectations," International Security, 20, 4, Spring, pp. 5-41. 3. Barry Buzan.1984. "Economic Structure and International Security: The Limits of the

Liberal Case," International Organization, 38, 4, Autumn, pp. 223-254. 4. Paul Papayoanou, 1997. “Economic Interdependence and the Balance of Power,” ISQ,

41, 1, March, 113-40. 5. David Rowe. 2004. “Globalization and World War One.” Security Studies, 6. Margit Bussmann, Gerald Schneider, and Nina Wiesehomeier. 2005. “Foreign Economic

Liberalization and Peace: The Case of Sub-Saharan Africa,” European Journal of International Relations, 11, 4, 551-579.

Short Paper Topic #3: Do Liberals have a conception of power? 1. Thomas Risse-Kappen.1995. "Cooperation Among Allies: Power Bargaining or

Democratic Community?" in his Cooperation Among Democracies: The European Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy, Princeton University Press.

2. Lea Brilmayer.1994. Part Two: "A Liberal Theory of International Hegemony," in her American Hegemony: Political Morality in a One Superpower World, Yale University Press.

3. Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry.1993/94. "The Logic of the West," World Policy

25

Journal 10, 4, pp. 17-25. Short Paper Topic #4: Why Do Nations Behave? 1. Read the following article in the symposium in the Michigan Journal of International Law,

1998, 19, Winter: Jose Alvarez, “Why Nations Behave”; George Downs, “Enforcement and the Evolution of International Cooperation”; and Benedict Kingsbury, “The Concept of Compliance as a Function of Competing Conceptions of International Law.”

2. Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes.1993. "On Compliance," International Organization, 47, 2, Spring, 175-206.

3. Chris Reus-Smit. 2003. “Politics and International Legal Obligation,” European Journal of International Relations, 9, 4, December, 591-626.

Short Paper Topic #5: Can We Toss Out The Liberal without Losing International Law? 1. Jose Alverez. 2001. “Do Liberal States Behave Better? A Critique of Slaughter‟s Liberal

Theory,” European Journal of International Law, 12, 2, 183-46. 2. Gerry Simpson. 2001. “Two Liberalisms,” European Journal of International Law, 12, 3,

537-71. Short Topic #6: What Sort of States Do Liberals Like? 1. Peter Lawler. 2005. “The Good State: In Praise of `Classical‟ Liberalism,” Review of

International Studies, 31, 427-449. 2. Roland Paris. “International peacebuilding and the „mission civilisatrice‟,” Review of

International Studies, 28, 4, October 2002, 637-656. Short Topic #7: Can Peace-loving Democracies Also Kick Butt? 1. David Lake. 2003. Fair Fights? Evaluating Theories of Democracy and Victory,”

International Security, June, 28, 1, 154-167. 2. Dan Reiter and Allan Stam. “Understanding Victory: Why Political Institutions Matter,” International Security, 28, 1, 168-179. 3. Michael Desch. 2003. “Democracy and Victory: Fair Fights or Food Fights?”

International Security, 28, 1, 180-194. 4. Michael Desch. 2002. “Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters,”

International Security, 27, 2, 5-47. Short Paper Topic #8: Does International Law Matter - and how? 1. Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner. 2005. The Limits of International Law. Oxford

University Press. Read Part III. 2. Anne Marie Slaughter. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton University Press. Read

introduction and chapter two. 3. Special issue of International Organization on “Legalization and World Politics,” 54, 3:

Judith Goldstein, et al. “Introduction: Legalization and World Politics”; and Robert Keohane, et al., The Concept of Legalization”; and Martha Finnemore and Stephen Toope, “Alternatives to “Legalization”: Richer Views of Law and Politics,” in International Organization, 55, 3, Summer, 2001, 743-58.

26

27

October 26. Constructivist Approaches, I: Foundations The term "constructivism" derives from Onuf's World of Our Making.1990, and is used to denote those approaches that are unified in their understanding that the world is socially con-structed. That is, this week's readings attempt to analyze what people "know" about interna-tional life, what they take as given, and how this knowledge appears objective and real. Or as Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann argue in The Social Construction of Reality: "How objec-tivity of the institutional world, however massive it may appear to the individual, is...humanly produced".p. 60. In this first week we want to examine the roots of constructivist theorizing, primarily though not exclusively from sociological underpinnings.

* Alexander Wendt 1999. A Social Theory of International Politics, Read chaps 1, 3, 6, 8. * Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norms and Political Change,” in P.

Katzenstein, ed., Explorations and Controversies in World Politics *Emanuel Adler. 2002. Constructivism,” in Handbook of International Relations.

* John Ruggie. 1998. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” in Katzenstein, ed., Controversies and Explorations in World Politics

John Ruggie, Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane and Phillippe Schmitter. 2005.

“Transformations in World Politics, The Intellectual Contributions of Ernst B. Haas,” Annual Review of Political Science, 8: 271-296.

Nicholas Onuf. 1998. “Constructivism: A Users‟ Manual,” in Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas Onuf and Paul Kowert, eds., International Relations in a Constructed World, 58-78.

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

Emanuel Adler. 2005. Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations, NY: Routledge.

Ron Jepperson, Peter Katzenstein, and Alex Wendt. 1996. Chapter Two in Katzenstein, ed., Culture and Security.NY: Columbia University Press.

David Dessler. 1999. “Constructivism within a Positivist Social Science,” Review of International Studies, 25, 1, January, 123-38.

Emanuel Adler. 1997. "Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics," EJIR, 3, 3, September, 291-318.

James March and Johan Olsen. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders,” International Organization, October.

Jeff Legro. 1997. “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the Faulure of Internationalism,” International Organization, 51, 1, Winter, pp. 31-64.

John Ruggie.1983. "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order," in Stephen Krasner, ed., International Regimes, pp. 195-232, Cornell University Press.

Anne Florini. 1996. “The Evolution of International Norms,” International Studies Quarterly, 40, 3, September, 363-90.

Alexander Wendt.1995. "Constructing International Politics." International Security, 20, 1, Summer, pp. 71-80.

Hayward Alker.1996. "The Presumption of Anarchy in World Politics," in Rediscoveries and Reformulations: Humanistic Metholodogies for International Studies, chap. 11, Cambridge University Press.

Jeffrey Legro.1996. "Culture and Preferences in the International Cooperation Two-Step," American Political Science Review, 90, 1, March, pp. 118-37.

28

Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie.1986. "International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State," International Organization, 40.4, 753-76.

Michael Barnett.1993. "Institutions, Roles, and Disorder: The Case of the Arab States System." International Studies Quarterly, 37, 3, September, pp. 271-296.

Jonathan Mercer.1995. "Anarchy and Identity." International Organization, 49, 2, Spring, pp. 229-252.

Nicholas Onuf and Frank F. Kling.1989. "Anarchy, Authority, Rule," International Studies Quarterly, 33, 2, 149-173.

Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall.1989. "Institutions and International Order," in Ernst Otto Czempiel and James N. Rosenau, eds., Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 51-73.

Nicholas Onuf.1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations, University of South Carolina Press, pp. 33-95 and 127-159.

Fred Chernoff. 2002. “Scientific Realism as a Meta-Theory of International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly, 46, 2, 189-207.

Alistair Johnston. 1995. Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History, Princeton University Press.

Lars-Erik Cederman. 1997. Emergent Actors in World Politics: How States and Nations Develop and Dissolve.

Short Paper Topic #2: What Does Constructivism Tell Us About Sovereignty? 1. Hendryk Spruyt.1994. "Chapter One" and "Conclusion," in his The Sovereign State and

Its Competitors, Princeton University Press. 2. Thomas Biersteker and Cindy Weber, eds..1996. Read the following chapters in

Sovereignty as a Social Construct, Cambridge University Press: editors' introduction and conclusion; and David Strang.chap. 2.

Short Paper Topic #3: What is at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate? 1. Alexander Wendt.1987. "The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations,"

International Organization, 41, 3, 335-70. 2. David Dessler.1989. "What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate," International

Organization, 43.3, Summer, 441-473. 3. Walter Carlsnaes.1992. "The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis,"

International Studies Quarterly, 36, 3, September, pp. 245-270. 4. Heikki Patomaki.1996. "How to Tell Better Stories about World Politics," European

Journal of International Relations, 2, 1, pp. 105-33. Short Paper Topic #4: Why Can‟t I Hire A Private Army Anymore? 1. Janice Thomson. 1990. "State Practices, International Norms, and the Decline of

Mercernarism," International Studies Quarterly, 34, 1, March, 23-47. 2. Deborah Avant. 2000. “From Mercenaries to Citizen Armies: Explaining Change in the

Practice of War,” International Organization, 54, 1, Winter, 41-72. Short Paper Topic #6: Culture and War: Is Anarchy What States Make of it? 1. Jack Snyder. 2002. “Anarchy and Culture: Insights from the Anthropology of War,”

International Organization, 56, 1, Winter, 7-40. 2. Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett. 1998. “Security Communities in Theory and Practice,”

in E. Adler and M. Barnett, eds., Security Communities, Cambridge University Press. 3. Alexander Wendt. 1992. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of

Power Politics,” International Organization, 46, 2, 391-425.

29

Short Paper Topic #7: Are Regions Socially Constructed? 1. Barry Buzan and Ole Waever. 2002. Regions and Powers : The Structure of International

Security, Cambridge University Press. Chap. 3. 2. Peter Katzenstein. 2005. A World of Regions, Cornell University Press. Chaps. 2 and

3. 3. Emanuel Adler. 1997. “Imagined (Security) Communities: Cognitive Regions in

International Relations,” Millennium, 26, 2, 249-277. 4. Christopher Hemmer and Peter Katzenstein. 2002. “Why Is There No NATO in Asia?

Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism,” International Organization, 56, 3, Summer, 575-608.

5. Bahar Rumelili. 2004. “Constructing Identity and Relating to Difference: Understanding the EU's Mode of Differentiation,” Review of International Studies, 30, 1, 27-48.

Short Paper Topic #8: Where does Legitimacy Come From? 1. Ian Clark. 2003. “Legitimacy in a Global Order,” Review of International Studies,

December, 75-96. 2. Jens Steffek. 2003. “The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse

Approach,” European Journal of International Relations, 9, 2, June, 249-76. 3. Ian Hurd. 1999. “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics.” International

Organization 53, 2, 379-408. 4. Mlada Bukovansky. 2002. Legitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French

Revolutions in International Political Culture, Princeton University Press. Read Chapter One.

5. Shane Mulligan. 2006. “The Uses of Legitimacy in International Relations,” Millennium, 34, 2, 349-375

Short Paper Topic #8: Why Comply? 1. Darren Hawkins. 2004. “Explaining Costly International Institutions: Persuasion and

Enforceable Human Rights Norms,” International Studies Quarterly, December, 48, 4, pp. 779-804.

2. Jeff Checkel. 2001. “Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change,” International Organization, 55, 3, Summer, 553-88.

3. Kate O‟Neil, Jörg Balsiger, Stacy D. VanDeveer. 2004. “Actors, Norms, and Impact, Recent International Cooperation Theory and the Influence of the Agent-Structure Debate,” Annual Review of Political Science, 7: 149-175.

4. Xinyuan Dai. 2005. “Why Comply? The Domestic Constituency Mechanism,” International Organization, 59, 2, April, 363-398.

30

November 2. Constructivism, II: Recent Developments In this week we want to examine several recent developments in constructivist thinking, with particular attention to how constructivists might think about action and persuasion, the con-struction of state identity and interests, and processes of normative transformation.

*Stephan Guzzini. 2000. “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, June, 6, 2, 147-182.

*Thomas Risse. 2000. “`Let‟s Argue!‟: Communicative Action in International Relations,” International Organization, 54, 1, 1-40.

*Janice Bially Mattern. 2001. “The Power Politics of Identity,” European Journal of International Relations, September, 7, 3, 349-397.

* Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in World Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Brian Frederking. 2003. “Constructing Post-Cold War Collective Security,” American Political

Science Review, 97, 3, August 363-378. Ian Johnstone. 2001. “Treating International Institutions as Social Environments,”

International Studies Quarterly, 45, 4, December, 487-516. Christoph O. Meyer. 2005. “Convergence Towards a European Strategic Culture? A

Constructivist Framework for Explaining Changing Norms,” European Journal of International Relations, 11, 4, 523-549.

Ted Hopf. 2004. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Christian Reus-Smit. 1997. “The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions,” International Organization, 51, 4, Autumn, 555-90.

Richard Price. 1998. “Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines,” International Organization, 52, 3, Summer, 575-612.

Jeff Legro. 2005. Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order, Cornell University Press. Read Chapters 1 and 2.

Michael Williams.1996. "Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration," International Organization, 50, 2, Spring, pp. 213-37.

William Roberts Clark. 1998. “Agents and Structures: Two Views of Preferences, Two View of Institutions,” ISQ, 42, 2, June, 245-70.

Rodney Bruce Hall. 1999. National Collective Identity. NY: Columbia University Press. Jutta Weldes.1999. Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile

Crisis, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore. 1999. “The Politics, Power and Pathologies of

International Organizations,” International Organization, 53, 4, Autumn, 699-32. Nina Tannenwald. 1999. “The Nuclear Taboo,” International Organization, 53, 3, Summer,

433-68. Andrew Cortell and James Davis. 1996. “How Do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic Impact of

International Rules and Norms,” ISQ, 40, 4, December, 451-78. Rodney Bruce Hall. 1997. “Moral Authority as a Power Resource,” International Organization,

51, 4, Autumn, 591-622. Jeff Checkel. 1998. “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory,” World

Politics, 50, 2, January, 324-48. Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, eds. 1998. Security Communities. Cambridge

University Press. Venduka Kubalkova, Nicholas Onuf and Paul Kowert, eds., 1998. International Relations in a

Constructed World Armonk, N.Y. : M.E. Sharpe.

31

Jutta Weldes and Mark Laffey. 1997. "Beyond Belief: From Ideas to Symbolic Technlogies," EJIR, 3, 2, June, 193-238.

Audie Klotz.1995. "Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and US Santions Against South Africa," International Organization, 49, 3, Summer, pp. 451-478

Martha Finnemore.1994. "International Organizations as Teachers of Norms," International Organization, 47, 4, Autumn, 565-98.

Jeffrey Checkel. 1997. “International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the Rationalist-Constructivist Divide,” EJIR, 3, 4, December, 473-501.

G. John Ikenberry. 1998. “Constitutional Politics in International Relations: Three Models,” EJIR, 4, 2, June, 147-178.

Ted Hopf. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” International Security, Summer, 23, 1, pp. 171-200.

Michael Desch. 1998. “Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Studies,” International Security, Summer, 23, 1, pp. 141-70.

Mlada Bukovansky. 1997. “American Identity and Neutral Rights from Independence to the War of 1812,” International Organization, 51, 2, Spring, 209-244.

Masato Kimura and David Welch. “Specifying `Interests‟: Japan‟s Claim to the Northern Territories and Its Implications for International Relations Theory,” ISQ, 42, 2, June, 213-44.

Marc Lynch. 2001. “Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement,” European Journal of International Relations, June, 8, 2, 187-230.

Roger Payne. 2001. “Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction,” European Journal of International Relations, March, 7, 1, 37-61.

Marc Lynch. 2000. “The Dialogue of Civilizations and International Public Spheres,” Millennium, 29, 2, 307-30.

Harald Muller. 2004. “Arguing, Bargaining, and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory, and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations,” EJIR, 10, 3, September, 395-436

Short Paper #1: How Should We Think About Medieval Europe? 1. Benno Teschke. 1998. “Geopolitical Relations in European Middle Ages: History and

Theory,” International Organization, 52, 2, Spring, 325-58. 2. Ronald Diebert. 1997. “Exorcisms Theoriae - Pragmatism, Metaphors, and the Return of

the Medieval in IR Theory,” EJIR, 3, 2, June, 167. 3. Markus Fischer. 1992. "Feudal Europe: Discourse and Practices," International

Organization, 46.2, Spring, 427-66. And exchange between F. Kratochwil and R. Hall, and Marckus Fischer, International Organization, 47, 3, Summer, 1993, 479-500.

Short Paper Topic #2: What Can Sociological Institutionalism Tell Us About International Politics? 1. Martha Finnemore.1996. "Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology's

Institutionalism," International Organization, 50, 2, Spring, pp. 325-47. 2. David Strang.1991. "Anomaly and Commonplace in European Political Expansion: Realist

and Institutionalist Accounts," International Organization, 45, 2, Spring, 143-62. 3. Dana Eyre and Mark Suchman.1996. "Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of

Conventional Weapons," in Peter Katzenstein, ed., Culture and Security, Columbia University Press.

4. John Boli and G. Thomas. 1999. Constructing World Culture.Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Chapter One and conclusion.

Short Paper #3: How Should Constructivists Think About Identity?

32

1. Patricia Goff. 2000. “Invisible Borders: Economic Liberalization and National Identity,” International Studies Quarterly, 44, 1, December, 533-62.

2. M. Zehfuss. 2001. “Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison,” European Journal of International Relations, September, 7, 3, 315-348.

3. Lars Erik Cederman and Christopher Daase. 2003. “Endogenzing Corporate Identities: The Next Step in Constructivist IR Theory.” European Journal of International Relations March, 5-35.

Short Paper #4: Why Outlaw Bad Things? 1. Ethan Nadelmann. 1990. "Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in

International Society," International Organization, 44, 4, Autumn, 479-526. 2. James Lee Ray. 1989. "The Abolition of Slavery and the End of International War,"

International Organization, 44, 4, Autumn, 479-52. 3. Gary Bass. 1999. Stay the Hand of Vengeance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chap. 1. 4. Christopher Rudolph. 2001. “Constructing an Atrocities Regime: The Politics of War

Crime Tribunals,” International Organizations, 55, 3, Summer, 655-92. 5. Chaim Kaufmann and Robert Pape. 1999. “Explaining Costly Moral Action,” International

Organization, 53, 4, Autumn, 631-68. Short Paper #5: Did ideas and that little NGO with a fax machine end the Cold War? 1. Matthew Evangelista. 1999. Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to end the

Cold War Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 2. Daniel Thomas. 2000. The Helsinki Effect. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 3. Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth. 2000/01. “Power, Globalization, and the End of

the Cold War: Reevaluating a Landmark Case for Ideas,” International Security, 25, 3, Winter, 5-53.

4. Margarita Petrova. 2003. “The End of the Cold War: A Battle or Bridging Ground Between Rationalist and Ideational Approaches in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, 9, 1, March, 115-64.

Short Paper Topic #6: What are Epistemic Communities and How Do They Shape World Politics? 1. Emanuel Adler and Peter Haas.1992. "Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order,

and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program," International Organization, 46, 1, Winter, 367-90.

2. Ian Johnstone. 1991. “Treaty Interpretation: The Authority of Interpretive Communities,” Michigan Journal of International Law, 12, Winter, 371-419.

3. Karen Litfin. 1995. "Framing Science: Precautionary Discourse and the Ozone Treaties," Millennium, 24, 2, Summer, pp. 251-278.

4. Diane Stone. 2004. “Knowledge Networks and Policy Expertise in the Global Polity,” in R. Higgott and Morten Ougaard, eds., Beyond System and Society, Routledge, 125-44.

Short Paper Topic #7: Where do Collective Identities Come From? 1. Arash Abizadeh. 2005. “Does Collective Identity Presuppose an Other? On the Alleged

Incoherence of Global Solidarity.” American Political Science Review, 99, 1, February, 45-60.

2. Lars-Erik Cederman and Christopher Daase. 2003. “Endogenzing Corporate Identities: The Next Step in Constructivist IR Theory.” European Journal of International Relations, 5-35.

3. Alexander Wendt.. 1994. “Collective Identity Formation and the International State,”

33

American Political Science Review, 88, 384-396. Short Paper Topic #8: Should We Get All Emotional? 1. Andrew Ross. 2006. “Coming in from the Cold: Constructivism and Emotions,” European Journal of International Relations, 12, 2 June, 197-222. 2. Neta Crawford. 2000. . "The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and

Emotional Relationships," International Security, 24, 4, Spring, 116-156. 3. Jonathan Mercer. 2005. "Rationality and Psychology in International Politics,"

International Organization 59, Winter, 77-106. Short Paper Topic #9: Are States Socialized? 1. Shogo Suzuki. 2005. “Japan‟s Socialization into Janus-Faced European International

Society,” European Journal of International Relations 11, 1, 137-164. 2. Trine Flockhart. 2006. “Complex Socialization‟: A Framework for the Study of State

Socialization,” European Journal of International Relations 12, 1, 89-118. 3. Read from the following special issue on socialization in International Organization, 59, 4,

2005: Jeff Checkel. “Introduction and Framework,” Ian Johnstone, “Conclusions and Extensions: Toward Mid-Range Theorizing and Beyond Europe,” and Michael Zurn and J. Checkel, “Getting Socialized to Build Bridges: Constructivism and Rationalism, Europe and the Nation-State.”

4. Judith Kelley. 2004. “International Actors on the Domestic Scene: Membership Conditionality and Socialization by International Institutions,” International Organization, 58, 3, Summer, 425-458

Short Paper Topic #10: Can We Force Legitimacy or is Legitimacy Forced?

Read the following articles in the special issue of Review of International Studies, December 2005, 31: Andrew Hurrell, Legitimacy and the use of force: can the circle be squared?; Richard Falk, “Legality and legitimacy: the quest for principled flexibility and restraint”; Michael Byers, “Not yet havoc: geopolitical change and the international rules on military force,”; Christian Reus-Smit, “Liberal hierarchy and the licence to use force; Lawrence Freedman, The age of liberal wars; Jeremy Black, War and international relations: a military-historical perspective on force and legitimacy; Nicholas Rengger, The judgment of war: on the idea of legitimate force in world politics; and Martha Finnemore, ights about rules: the role of efficacy and power in changing multilateralism.”

Short Paper #11: Do Transnational Activists Change the World? 1. Sanjeev Khagram. 2005. Dams and Development: Transnational Struggles for Water

and Power. Cornell University Press. 2. Shareen Hertel. 2006. Unexpected Power: Conflict and Change among Transnational

Activists. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 3. Dan Thomas. 2001. The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human Rights, and the Demise

of Communism. Princeton University Press..

34

November 9. Marxist Approaches There is no single Marxist perspective, and particularly so for the study of international relations. For our purposes Marxist approaches can be distinguished by their attention to pro-duction categories and economic forces and substantially determinative of for understanding international life. It is useful, however, to distinguish various schools of thought, including Gramscian and classical traditions. How does a Gramscian perspective depart from a classical marxist perspective? Can a Gramscian approach be usefully transferred from the domestic to the international system? How do Marxism offer a different conception of the central actors of international relations? What is the relationship between class and state? What produces systemic stability? how does this differ from neo-realism's account? What is considered mea-ningful change in the international system? 1. For the classical Marxist perspective

*Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace, Part III. *David Harvey. 2003. The New Imperialism. NY: Oxford University Press.

*Mark Rupert. 2007. “Marxism and Critical Theory,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press).

Mark Rupert and Hazel Smith, eds., 2002. Historical Materialism and Globalization, Routledge:

Mark Rupert and M. Scott Solomon.“Historical Materialism, Ideology, and the Politics of Globalizing Capitalism”; and M. Rupert and Hazel Smith,“Editors‟ Introduction.”

Justin Rosenberg.1994. The Empire of Civil Society, Verso Press. N.J. Rengger.1996. "Clio's Cave: Historical Materialism and the Claims of `Substantive Social

Theory' in World Politics," Review of International Studies, 22, 213-231. Hazel Smith. 1996. "The Silence of the Academics: International Social Theory, Historical

Materialism, and Political Values," Review of International Studies, 22, 191-212. Martin Shaw.1984. "War, Imperialism and the State System: A Critique of Orthodox Marxism

for the 1980s," in Shaw, ed., War, State, and Society, pp. 47-70, MacMillan. Kal Holsti. 1987. “Neo-Marxist Challenges to the Classical Tradition,” The Dividing Discipline

Boston: Allen and Unwin, pp. 61-81. John Maclean.1988. "Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect,"

Millennium, 17, 2, Summer, 295-319. Andrew Linklater.1990. Beyond Realism and Marxism, New York: McMillan Press. Read

"Class and State in International Relations," 140-172. Ralph Pettman.1978. State and Class: A Sociology of International Affairs, St. Martins. V. Kubalkova and A. A. Cruickshank.1985. Marxism and International Relations. Oxford

University Press. Fred Halliday.1987. "Vigilantism in International Relations: Kubalkova, Cruickshank and Marxist

Theory," Review of International Studies, 13.3, July, 163-175. B. K. Gills.1987. "Historical Materialism and International Relations Theory," Millennium, 16.2,

Summer, 265-272. V.I. Lenin.1939. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. New York: International

Publishers. Ernest Mandel.1975. Late Capitalism. London: New Left Books. James O'Connor.1970. "The Meaning of Economic Imperialism," in Robert I. Rhodes, ed.,

Imperialism and Underdevelopment: A Reader. Monthly Review Press, 101-150. 2. For the Gramscian-inspired perspective

35

* Mark Rupert. 2003. “Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian.re-vision of the

politics of governance/resistance,” Review of International Studies, December, 181-98. * Robert W. Cox.1983. "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,"

Millennium, 12, 2, Summer, 162-175. Robert Cox. 1981. 'Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations

Theory', Millennium, 10, 2, 126-55. Stephen Gill.1993. Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International Relations, Cambridge

University Press. See Gill, "Gramsci and Global Politics," and Robert Cox, "Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations."

Randall German and Michael Kenny. 1998. “Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians,” Review of International Studies, 24, 1, January, 3-23.

Craig Murphy.1994. International Organization and Industrial Change, NY: Oxford University Press.

Robert Cox.1996. Approaches to World Order, NY: Cambridge University Press. Stephen R. Gill and David Law.1989. "Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital,"

International Studies Quarterly, 33, 4, December, 475-499. Stephen R. Gill.1990. American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission, New York:

Cambridge University Press. Robert W. Cox.1987. Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of

History, New York: Columbia University Press. Kees van der Pijl.1984. The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class. London: Verso Press. Enrico Augelli and Craig Murphy.1988. America's Quest for Supremacy and the Third World: A

Gramscian Analysis. London: Pinter Publishers. 3. For the World-Systems Perspective. *Immanuel Wallerstein. 1997. “The Interstate Structure of the Modern World-System.” In

Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and M. Zalewski, Beyond Positivism, Cambridge University Press. Wil Hout and Frits Meijerink.1996. "Structures in the International Political Economy,"

European Journal of International Relations, 2,1, pp. 47-76. Christopher Chase-Dunn.1981. "Interstate System and Capitalist World Economy: One logic or

Two?", International Studies Quarterly, 25, 1, 19-42. Immanuel Wallerstein.1979. "The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System:

Concepts for Comparative Analysis," in his The Capitalist World-Economy, Cambridge University Press, 1-36.

Christopher Chase-Dunn.1989. Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy. Boston: Basil Blackwell. Especially chapters 1, 6, 7; pp. 20-47, 109-150.

Thomas Richard Shannon.1989. An Introduction to the World-System Perspective, Boulder: Westview Press.

Immanuel Wallerstein.1983. Historical Capitalism. London: Verso. Samir Amin. 1988. "Accumulation on a World Scale: Thirty Years Later," Rethinking Marxism

1.2, Summer: 54-75. Giovanni Arrighi. 1990. "Marxist Century, American Century: The Making and Remaking of the

World Labour Movement," NLR, 179, January/February: 29-63. Andrew Linklater.1986. "Realism, Marxism and Critical International Theory," Review of

International Studies, 12, 4, October, 301-312. Short Paper Topic #1: How is the End of the Cold War Viewed Through a Marxist Lens?

36

1. Fred Halliday.1990. "The Ends of the Cold War," New Left Review, 180, March/April,

5-23. 2. Mary Kaldor.1990. "After the Cold War," New Left Review, 180, March/April, 23-37. 3. Edward Thompson.1990. "The Ends of the Cold War: Comment," and Fred Halliday, "A

Reply to Edward Thompson," New Left Review, 182, July/August, 139-50. Short Paper Topic #2: How should we think about empire in today‟s world? 1. B.S. Chimni. “International Institutions Today: An Imperial Global State in the Making,

European Journal of International Law, 15, 1, 1-37. 2. Hardt and Negri

37

November 16. Critical and Poststructural Theory This week we examine critical and poststructural theory. Similar to the other theories we have studied, both theories that we examine this week are highly heterogenous, in part because they derive from different intellectual traditions and have emerged in relationship to different intellectual battles. The readings on critical theory are mostly concerned with what are its defining elements and how these elements have been imported into international relations. Specifically, a major source of debate is the Habermasian interpretation versus the alternatives. What is gained and lost by following the Habermasian trail (as presented in current international relations scholarship)? Poststructural theory has many sources, including post-Marxism and cultural studies. We will not have time in this course to explore the many possibilities, but instead will read an empirical investigation influenced by different branches of poststructural theorizing.

* Richard Wyn Jones, ed., 2001. Critical Theory and World Politics, Lynne Reinner. Read the

following chapters: chaps. 1, 2, 12. * Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit. 1998. “Dangerous Liasons? Critical International

Relations Theory and Constructivism,” European Journal of International Relations, 4, 2, 259-94.

*Nicolas Guilhot. 2005. The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and the Politics of Global Order, Columbia University Press. Read Introduction and Chapters 1-3, and 4.

* Jennifer Mitzen. 2005. “Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres,” American Political Science Review, 99, 3, August, 401-417.

*David Campbell. 2007. “Poststructuralism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press). Forum on Habermas. Review of International Studies, 2005, 31, 1. Read the following

essays: Thomas Diez and Jill Steans,: A useful dialogue? Habermas and International Relations,” 127-140' Andrew Linklater, “Dialogic Politics and the Civilising Process, 141-154, Kimberly Hutchings, “Speaking and Hearing' Habermasian Discourse Ethics, Feminism and IR,” 155-166; Nicole Deitelhoff and Harald Müller, “Theoretical Paradise - Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas,” 67-180;Jurgen Aacke, “The Frankfurt School and International Relations' On the Centrality of Recognition,” 181-194; and Martin Weber, “The critical social theory of the Frankfurt School, and the 'social turn' in IR.

Frank Harvey and Michael Brecher, eds., Critical Perspectives in International Studies, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Chris Brown. 1994. “Turtles All the Way Down?: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations,? Millennium, 23, 213-236.

Roundtable on Jacques Derrida‟s Legacy. 2005. Millennium, 34, 1, January. 200-236. Jennifer Milliken. 1999. "The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of

Research and Methods," European Journal of International Relations 5, June. Jenny Edkins and Maja Zehfuss,. 2005. “Generalising the international,” Review of

International Studies, 31, 3, 451-472 Jill Steans and Lloyd Pettiford. 2001. “Critical Theory,” International Relations: Perspectives

and Themes.Harlow, England: Longman, pp. 101-23. Mark Hoffman.1987. "Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate," Millennium, 16.2,

Summer, 231-249. Andrew Linklater.1992. "The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A

Critical-Theoretical Point of View," Millennium, 21, 1, Spring, 77-101. Janice Bially Mattern. Ordering International Politics: Identity Crisis, and Representational

38

Force, Routledge. Chaps 1, 2, 4 and 8. Short Paper Topic #1: What Happens When Force Meets Communicative Rationality? 1. Corneliu Bjola. 2005. Legitimating the Use of Force in International Politics: A

Communicative Action Perspective,” European Journal of International Relations, 11, 2, June, 266-303.

2. Ian Johnstone. 2004. “The UN Security Council and the Use of Force,” European Journal of International Law.

3. Dino Kritsiosis. 2005. “When States Use Armed Force,” in Christian Reus Smit, ed., The Politics of International Law, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45-79.

Short Paper Topic #2: To what kind of critical theory of international politics does a poststructural orientation lead? 1. Richard K. Ashley.1987. "The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical

Social Theory of International Politics," Alternatives, 12.4, October, 403-434. 2. Ramashray Roy, R. B. J. Walker and Richard K. Ashley.1988. "Dialogue: Towards a

Critical Social Theory of International Politics" Alternatives, 13.1, January, 77-102. 3. Jim George and David Campbell.1990. "Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of

Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations," International Studies Quarterly, 34.3, September, 269-293.

Short Paper Topic #3: How Does Foucault Help Us Understand Third World Development? 1. Marc Dubois.1991. "The Governance of the Third World: A Foucaldian Perspective on

Power Relations in Development," Alternatives, 16, 1-30. 2. Arturo Escobar. 1994. Encountering Development, Princeton University Press. Chapter

One. 3. James Ferguson. 1992. The Anti-Politics Machine, Cambridge University Press. Chapter

One. Short Paper Topic #4: How Does Poststructuralism Problematize the Concept of Security? 1. Simon Dalby.1992. Security, Modernity, and Ecology: The Dilemmas of Postwar Security

Discourse," Alternatives, 17, 1, 95-134. 2. G.M. Dillon.1991. "The Alliance of Security and Subjectivity," Current Research on Peace

and Violence, 13, 3, 101-24. 3. Bradley Klein.1988. "After Strategy: The Search for a Postmodern Politics of Peace,"

Alternatives, 13, 293-318. 4. R.B.J. Walker.1990. "Security, Sovereignty, and the Challenges of World Politics,"

Alternatives, 15, 1, 3-27. Short Paper Topic #5: How does poststructuralism affect our understanding of the conceptual foundations of international relations theory: sovereignty? 1. Richard K. Ashley.1988. "Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the

Anarchy Problematique," Millennium, 17, 2, 227-262. 2. R. B. J. Walker.1990. "Sovereignty, Identity, Community: Reflections on the Horizons

of Contemporary Political Practice," in R. B. J. Walker and Saul H. Mendlovitz, eds., Contending Sovereignties: Redefining Political Community. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 159-185.

3. Richard K. Ashley and R. B. J. Walker.1990. "Reading Dissidence/Writing the

39

Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies ," International Studies Quarterly, 34, 3, September, 367-416.

Short Paper Topic #6: How Do Critical and Poststructual Theories Imagine Power? 1. Janice Mattern. 2005. “Why 'Soft Power' Isn't So Soft: Representational Force and the

Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics,” Millennium, 33, 3, 583-612. 2. Thomas Diez. 2005. “Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering

'Normative Power Europe'”, Millennium: 33, 3, pp. 613-636. 3. Jennifer Sterling-Folker and Rosemary Shinko. 2005. “Discourses of Power: Traversing

the Realist-Postmodern Divide,” Millennium: 33, 3, pp. 637-664. 4. Ronnie Lipschutz. 2005. “Power, Politics and Global Civil Society,” Millennium, 33, 3,

747-770. 5. Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall. 2005. Power in International Politics, International

Organization, 59, 1, Winter, 39-76.

40

November 30. Feminist Approaches What constitutes a feminist theory of international relations? What is distinctively fe-minist? Is it the objectives of inquiry? is it the method? What does it mean to say that gender, rather than class or states, is the category of analysis? What happens to our understanding of world politics as a consequence?

*Birgit Locher and Elisabeth Prugl. 2001. “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground?” International Studies Quarterly, 45, 1, March, 111-30.

*J. Ann Tickner. 2000. Gendering World Politics. Columbia University Press. *R. Charli Carpenter. 2003. “Women and Children First: Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian

Evacuation in the Balkans, 1991-95, International Organization, October, 57, 4, 661-94. *Mary Dietz. 2003. “Current Controversies in Feminist Theory,” Annual Review of Political

Science, 6, 399-431. * Laura Shephard. 2006. “Loud Voices Behind the Wall: Gender Violence and the Violent

Reproduction of the International,” Millennium, 34, 2, 377-401. *J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg. 2007. “Feminism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve

Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press).

J. Ann Tickner. 2005. “What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to

International Relations Methodological Questions,” International Studies Quarterly, March, 49, 1, 1-22.

Mark M. Gray, Miki Caul Kittilson and Wayne Sandholtz. 2006. “Women and Globalization: A Study of 180 Countries, 1975–2000,” International Organization, 60, 2, April 293-333

Marysia Zalewski. 1999. “Where is Woman in International Relations? To Return as a Woman to be Heard,” Millennium, 27, 3.

Georgina Waylen. 2006. “You still don‟t understand: why troubled engagements continue between feminists and (critical) IPE,” Review of International Studies, 32, 1, January, 145-164

Fred Halliday. “Gender and IR: Progress, Backlash, and Prospect,” Millennium, 27, 3. Anna Agathangelou, and Lily Ling.2004. "Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of

Violence and Desire from September 11", International Studies Quarterly, 48.3 :517-538. Christine Sylvester. 2002. An Unfinished Journey, NY: Cambridge University Press.

I . Skjelsbaek. 2001. “Sexual Violence and War: Mapping out a Complex Relationship,” European Journal of International Relations, June, 7, 2, 211-237.

Debbie Lisle.1999. "Gender at a Distance. Identity, Performance and Contemporary Travel Writing," International Feminist Journal of Politics 1:66-88.

Christine Sylvester. “Feminist Homesteadings of Security and Cooperation,” Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

L.H.M. Ling,.1996. "Feminist International Relations: From Critique to Reconstruction," The Journal of International Communication, 3:26-41.

Charlotte Hooper, 2000. 'Masculinities in Transition: The Case of Globalization,” in Marianne March and and Anne Sisson Runyan, eds, Gender and Global Restructuring, 59-73. London: Routledge.

Elisabeth Prugl. 1999. The Global Construction of Gender: Home Based Work in the Political Economy of the Twentieth Century, Columbia University Press.

Jill Stearns. 1998. Gender and International Relations, Rutgers University Press. Read Chapter One, “Gender, Feminism, and International Relations.” Read Chapters 1, 5.

Jean Elshtain. 1997. “Feminist Inquiry and International Relations.” In Doyle and Ikenberry.

41

J. Ann Tickner. 1997. “You Just Dont Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,” ISQ, 41, 4, December, 611-32. And the “Dialogue,” in ISQ, 42, 1, March, on feminist theory between Robert Keohane, Marianne Marchand, and J. Ann Tickner, 193-210.

Christine Sylvester.1996. "The Contributions of Feminist Theory to International Relations," in S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, eds., International Theory: Beyond Positivism, pp. 254-79, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Adam Jones. 1996. “Does `Gender‟ Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations,” RIS, 22, 405-29. And see the exchanges between Jones and Terrell Carver, Molly Cochran, and Judith Squires, in RIS, 24, 2, April, 1998, 283-311.

Marysia Zalewski and Jane Parpart, eds., 1998. The “Man” Question in International Relations,Boulder: Westview Press.

Craig Murphy.1996. "Seeing Women, Recognizing Gender, and Recasting International Relations" International Organization, Summer, 50, 3, pp. 513-38.

Sandra Whitworth.1994. Feminism and International Relations: Towards a Political Economy of Gender in Interstate and Non-Governmental Institutions, New York: St. Martins Press. Read Chapter 3, "Gender and International Organization."

\ V. Spike Peterson, ed..1992. Gendered States: Feminist.Re)visions of International Relations Theory, Boulder: Lynne Reinner Press.

Fred Halliday.1991. "Hidden from International Relations: Women and the International Arena," in Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland, eds., Gender and International Relations, Indiana University Press, 8-27.

Carol Cohn.1987. "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals," Signs, 12.4, Summer, 687-718.

Anne Sisson Runyan and V. Spike Peterson.1990. "The Radical Future of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory," Alternatives, 16, 67-106.

Susan J. Ship.1994. "And What About Gender? Feminism and International Relations Theory's Third Debate, in W. Cox and C. Sjolander, eds., Beyond Positivism: Critical Reflections in International Relations, Lynn Reinner, 129-52.

Cynthia Enloe.1990. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Thomas Wartenbert.1988. "The Concept of Power in Feminist Theory," Praxis International, 8, 3, 301-16.

Robert O. Keohane.1989. "International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint," Millennium, 18.2, Summer, 245-253.

Cynthia Weber.1994. "Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane's Critique of Feminist International Relations." Millenium, 23, 2, Summer.

V. Spike Peterson.1990. "Whose Rights? A Critique of `Givens' in Human Rights Discourse," Alternatives, 15, 3, Summer, 303-44.

Sandra Whitworth.1989. "Gender in the Inter-Paradigm Debate," Millennium, 18.2, Summer, 265-272.

Sarah Brown.1988. "Feminism, International Theory, and International Relations of Gender Inequality," Millennium, 17.3, Winter, 461-475.

Jean Bethke Elshtain.1985. "Reflections on War and Political Discourse: Realism, Just War, and Feminism in a Nuclear Age," Political Theory, 13.1, February, 39-57.

Carol Cohn.1989. "Emasculating America's Linguistic Deterrent," in Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King, eds., Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics, Boulder: Westview Press, 153-170.

Christine DiStefano.1983. "Masculinity as Ideology in Political Theory: Hobbesian Man Considered," Women's Studies International Forum, 6.6, 633-644.

42

Short Paper Topic #1: Is War a Man Thing? 1. Joshua Goldstein. 2003. War and Gender. Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1

and 2. 2. Forum in Review of International Studies. 3. Elisabeth Prugl. 2003. “Gender and War: Causes, Constructions, and Critique,”

Perspectives on Politics, 1, 2, June 2003, 335-342. Short Paper Topic #2: How is Development Gendered? 1. Marianne Marchand. 1996. “Reconceptualizing `Gender and Development‟ in an Era of

`Globalization,‟” Millennium, 25, 3, 577-604. 2. Jongwoo Han and L.H.M. Ling. 1998. “Authoritarianism in the Hypermasculized State:

Hybridity, Patriarchy, and Capitalism,” ISQ, 42, 1, March, 53-79. 3. J. Ann Tickner.1991. "On the Fringes of the World Economy: A Feminist Perspective, in

C. Murphy and R. Tooze, eds., The New International Political Economy, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

4. Catherine Scott.1995. Gender and Development: Rethinking Modernization and Dependency Theory. Boulder: Lynn Riener, Chapters 2.

Short Paper Topic #3: How Is Gender Being Mainstreamed? 1. Jacqui True and Michael Mintrom. 2001. “Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion:

The Case of Gender Mainstreaming,” International Studies Quarterly, 45, 1, March, 27-58. 2. Marchand, M. and A.S. Runyon. 2000. Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites,

and Resistances, NY: Routledge. Chap. 1. 3. Emilie Hafner-Burton and Mark Pollack. 2000. “Mainstreaming Gender in Global

Governance," European Journal of International Relations, 8, 3, 339-373. 4. Hillary Charlesworth. 2005. “Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and

Human Rights in the United Nations,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, 18, Spring, 1-18.

43

December 7. Can We Have Theory in International Relations Theory? The formal discipline of International relations is only ninety years old, yet it has ma-naged to have at least three (maybe four) great debates, many schools that go through periodic bouts of hand-to-hand combat, strained etentes, mutual indifference; and predictable moments in which it doubts whether there ever can be knowledge cumulation. In recent years, though, there has been greater interest in the question of whether and how it is possible to have know-ledge cumulation. Sometimes this question is fought at the level of methodology and at other times it is fought at the level of epistemology. Rather than getting dragged into these particular discussions, we will conclude this semester by asking the narrower but highly important ques-tion of the relationship between existing schools of thought. Guiding questions for the week include: What are the possibilities for international relations theory? Why, if at all, should be we be attentive to paradigmatic differences? What sorts of theories should scholars of international relations attempt to build?

* James Fearon and Alexander Wendt. 2002. “Rationalism vs. Constructivism,” in Handbook of International Relations

*Colin Elman and Miriam Elman. 2002. “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research,” International Studies Quarterly, June, 46, 2, pp. 231-262.

*Joseph Jupille, James Caporaso, and Jeffrey Checkel. 2003. “Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union,” Comparative Political Studies, 36, 1/2, February/March, 7-40.

* Colin Wight. 2002. “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations,” in Handbook of International Relations.

*Gunther Hellmann, et al. 2003. “Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations?” International Studies Review, 5, 1, March, 123-53.

*Milja Kurki and Colin Wight. 2007. “International Relations and Social Science,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (NY: Oxford University Press).

Friedrich Kratochwil. 2006. “History, Action and Identity: Revisiting the „Second‟ Great Debate

and Assessing its Importance for Social Theory,” European Journal of International Relations, 12, 1, 5-29.

Milja Kurki. 2006. “Causes of a divided discipline: rethinking the concept of cause in International Relations theory,” Review of International Studies, 32, 2, April 189-216.

Steve Smith. 1996. "Positivism and Beyond," in S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, Beyond Positivism, NY: Cambridge University Press. Richard Hermann. 2002. “Linking Theory and Evidence in International Relations,” in

Handbook of International Relations. Colin Elman. 2005. “Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Relations,”

International Organization, 59, 2, Spring, 293-326. John Vasquez.1995. "The Post-Positivist Debate: Reconstructing Scientific Enquiry and International

Relations Theory After Enlightenments Fall," in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theory Today, Penn State Press, pp. 217-40.

Stephen Walt. 1999. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis,” International Security. See responses in “Formal Methods, Formal Complaints.” 24, 2, Fall, 56-130.

“Symposium: History and Theory,” International Security, 22, 1, Summer, 1997. Contributions by C. and M. Elman; Jack Levy; S. Haber, D. Kennedy, and S. Krasner‟ A. George; E. Ingram; P. Schroeder; and J.L. Gaddis.

Hayward Alker.1996. "The Return of Practical Reason to International Theory," in his Rediscoveries and Reformulations: Humanistic Metholodogies for International Studies,

44

chap. 12, Cambridge University Press. Phillip Tetlock and Aaron Belkin, eds..1996. Counterfactuals and International Relations,

Princeton University Press.

Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach.1991. "Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for Future IR Theory," International Studies Quarterly, 35, 4, December, 363-86.

Alexander George.1979. "Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison," in Paul Lauren, ed., Diplomacy, Free Press.

Duncan Snidal.1985. "The Game Theory of International Politics," World Politics, 38.1, October, 25-57. Reprinted in Kenneth Oye.1986, Cooperation Under Anarchy.

Martin Wight.1966. "Why is There No International Theory?" in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds., Diplomatic Investigations: Essays on the Theory of International Politics. London: George Allen and Unwin, 17-34.

Benjamin A. Most and Harvey Starr.1984. "International Relations Theory, Foreign Policy Substitutability, and `Nice' Laws," World Politics, 36, 3, April, 383-406.

James Fearon.1991. "Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science," World Politics, 43, 2, January, 169-95.

David Sylvan and Stephan Majeski. 1998. “A Methodology for the Study of Historical Counterfactuals,” ISQ, 42, 1, 79-108.

Oran R. Young.1972. "The Perils of Odysseus: On Constructing Theories of International Relations," World Politics, 24, 179-203.

Robert Jervis. 1997. System Effects: Compexity in Political and Social Life, Princeton University Press. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press.

B. On paradigms

Yosef Lapid.1989. "The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-positivist Era," International Studies Quarterly, 33.3, September, 235-254; plus the responses by K. J. Holsti, Thomas Biersteker, and Jim George, pp. 255-279.

Waever, Ole.1996. "The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate," in S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, eds., International Theory: Beyond Positivism, pp. 149-85, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hayward R. Alker, Jr. and Thomas J. Biersteker.1984. "The Dialectics of World Order: Notes

for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire." In James Der Derian. Ernie Keenes.1988/89. "Paradigms of International Relations: Bringing Politics Back In,"

International Journal, 44.1, Winter, 41-67. Steve Smith.1987. "Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International

Relations as a Social Science," Millennium, 16.2, Summer, 189-206. Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach.1988. The Elusive Quest: Theory and International

Politics. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press. Chapter 2, "Values and Paradigm Change in International Relations," 32-48.

Nicolas Onuf.1989. World of Our Making, Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, "Introduction", 1-27.

C. How Should We Test Our Theories? Robert Keohane, Gary King and Sidney Verba.1994. Designing Social Inquiry, Princeton

University Press. Alexander George and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the

Social Sciences, MIT Press Review Symposium.1995. "The Qualitative-Quantitative Disputation," American Political Science

Review, 89, 2, June, pp. 554-81.

45

Hedley Bull.1966. "International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach," World Politics, 18, 361-77.

Morton Kaplan.1966. "The New Great Debate: Traditionalism Versus Science in International Relations," World Politics, 19, 1-20. J.David Singer.1969. "The Behavioral Science Approach to International Relations: Payoffs

and Prospects," in James Rosenau, ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy, New York: Free Press, 65-69.

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Stephen Krasner, and Robert Jervis.1985."Symposium: Methodological Foundations of the Study of International Conflict," International Studies Quarterly, 29, 2, 121-54.

Stanley Hoffman.1959. "International Relations: The Long Road to Theory," World Politics, 1, 3, 346-77.