Theories and Perspectives in International Relations

Module Guide

Department of PoliticsUniversity of York

Module Convener:

Dr Nicole Lindstrom

Email: nl518@york.ac.uk

1

Office: Derwent D Block, Room 202

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

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

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

Analyze the coherence and contradictions of theoretical approaches; Critically evaluate the claims and applications of different theories to

issues in international relations; Improve the organisation and clarity of both written and oral expression.

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

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

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

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

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

Module feedback:Students will receive feedback through written evaluations of their procedural essays and seminar presentations, as well as on their assessed essay. The convenor is available for consultations on essays and feedback during normal office hours (see the notice-board outside the Politics Department office for times) as well as via email at nl518@york.ac.uk.

2

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

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

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

Readings:One text is required for this module:

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

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

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

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

3

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

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

Lecture and Seminar Topics:

Term I: Theoretical Approaches to World Politics

Week 1: IntroductionsWeek 2: Realist approachesWeek 3: Liberal approaches.Week 4: The neo-realist and neo-liberal debateWeek 5: The English SchoolWeek 6: Constructivist approachesWeek 7: Marxist approachesWeek 8: Feminist approaches

Term II: Problems and Issues in World Politics

Week 2: International and global securityWeek 3: International organizationsWeek 4: International law and human rightsWeek 4: Global trade and financeWeek 5: Environmental issuesWeek 6: Culture in world affairsWeek 7: Regionalism in world affairsWeek 8: Globalization and the post-Cold War Order

4

General reading

The following list provides a sample of additional resources

Textbooks

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

On International Relations as a Discipline

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

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

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

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

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

Academic journals

5

ScheduleTERM I: Theoretical Approaches to World Politics

Week 1:

Week 2: Realism

Required reading

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

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

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

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

Further reading

General reading on realism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6

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

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

20th Century Classical Realism

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

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

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

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

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

Neo-Realism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neoclassical Realism

7

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

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

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

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

8

Week 3: Liberalism

Required reading

Further reading

General reading on/in the liberal tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9

Democratic Peace Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10

Week 4: Neo-realism and neo-liberalism

Required reading

Grieco, Joseph. 1988. ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.’ International Organization 42: 485-507.

Martin, Lisa. 1992. ‘Institutions and Cooperation: Sanctions during the Falkland Islands Conflict.’ International Security 16(4): 143-178.

Further reading

General reading:

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

Kegley, C., ed. 1995. Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. St. Martins Press.

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

Martin, L.L. and B. Simmons. 1998. ‘Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions.’ International Organization 52: 729-57.

Nye, Joseph. 1988. ‘Neorealism and Neoliberalism.’ World Politics 40: 235-251.

Powell, R. 1994. ‘Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-neoliberal Debate.’ International Organization 48: 313-344.

Neoliberal institutionalism

Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.

Axelrod, Robert and Robert Keohane. 1985. ‘Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions.’ World Politics 38: 226-254.

Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.

Keohane, Robert. 1988. ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches.’ International Studies Quarterly 32: 379-396.

Lipson, Charles. 1984. ‘International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs.’ World Politics 37: 1-23.

March, J and J. Olson. 1984. ‘The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life.’ American Political Science Review 79: 734-49.

Martin, Lisa. 1992. Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions. Princeton University Press.

Milner, Helen. 1992. ‘International Theories of Cooperation among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses.’ World Politics 44: 466-494.

11

Oye, K. A., ed. 1985. ‘Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies.’ World Politics 38: 1-24.

Young, Oran. 1986. ‘International Regimes: Towards a New Theory of Institutions.’ World Politics 39: 104-22.

And its neo-realist critics

Grieco, Joseph. 1988. ‘Realist Theory and the Problem of International Cooperation: Analysis with an Amended Prisoner’s Dilemma Model.’ The Journal of Politics 50: 600-624.

Hellman, Gunther and Reinhard Wolf. 1993. ‘Neo-realism, neo-liberal institutionalism, and the Future of NATO.’ Security Studies 21(3).

Mastanduno, Michael. 1991. ‘Do Relative Gains Matter? America’s Response to Japanese Industrial Policy.’ International Security 16: 73-113.

Mearscheimer, John. 1994/95. ‘The False Promise of International Institutions.’ International Security 19: 5-49.

Powell, Robert. 1991. ‘Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory.’ American Political Science Review 85(4).

Tucker, Jonathan. 1991. ‘Partners and Rivals: A Model of International Collaboration in Advanced Technology.’ International Organization 45: 83-120.

12

Week 5: The English SchoolRequired reading

Linklater, Andrew. Chapter 4: ‘The English School.’ In Theories of International Relations 3rd Edition, eds. Scott Burchill et. al. Palgrave.

Bull, H. 1995 [1977]. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 2nd Ed. Palgrave. Chapter 2: ‘Does Order Exist in World Politics?’

Copeland, Dale. 2003. “A Realist Critique of the English School.” Review of international Studies 29: 427-441.

Further reading

Brown, C. 2001. ‘World Society and the English School: An International Society Perspective on World Society.’ European Journal of International Relations 7: 423-441.

Bull, H. 1966. ‘International Theory: A Case for a Classical Approach.’ World Politics 18.

Bull, H. 1995 [1977]. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 2nd Ed. Palgrave.

Bull, H. and A. Watson, eds. 1984. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford University Press.

Buzan, B. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, B. and R. Little. 2000. International Systems in World History. Oxford University Press.

Butterfield, H. and M. Wight, eds. 1966. Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Relations. Allen & Unwin.

Clark, I. 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford University Press.

Dunn, Tim. 1995. ‘The Social Construction of International Society.’ European Journal of International Relations 1: 367-89.

Dunn, Tim. 1998. Inventing international Society: A History of the English School. Palgrave.

Dunn, Tim. 2003. ‘Society and Hierarchy in International Relations.’ International Relations 17: 303-320.

Jackson, R. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford University Press.

Keal, P. 2003. European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: The Moral Backwardness of International Society. Cambridge University Press.

Keene, E. 2002. Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism, and Order in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.

Little, R. and J. Williams. 2006. The Anarchical Society in a Globalised World. Palgrave.

13

Sharp, P. 2003. ‘Mullah Zaeef and Taliban Diplomacy: An English School Approach.’ Review of International Studies 29: 481-498.

Watson, A. 1992. The Evolution of International Society. Routledge.

Wheeler, N. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford.

Wight, M. 1991. International Theory: The Three Traditions. Leicester University Press.

For an on-line guide of English School resources: www.leeds.ac.uk/polis/englishschool/default.htm

14

Week 6: ConstructivismRequired reading

Wendt, Alexander. 1992. ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.’ International Organization 46: 391-425.

Keene, Edward. 2007. ‘A Case Study of the Construction of Hierarchy: British Treaty-Making Against the Slave Trade in the Early Nineteenth Century.’ International Organization 61: 311-339.

Further reading

Adler, E. 2002. ‘Constructivism.’ In Handbook of International Relations, eds. W. Carlneas; B. Simmons, and T. Risse. Sage. See also J. Fearon and A. Wendt. ‘Rationalism and Constructivism’ in same volume.

Fierke, K.M. and K.E. Jorgensen. 2001. Constructing International Relations. M. E. Sharpe.

Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests and International Society. Cornell University Press.

Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.’ International Organization 52: 887-917.

Jacobsen, J. K. 2003. ‘Duelling Constructivisms: A Post-Mortem on the Ideas Debate in Mainstream IR/IPE.’ Review of International Studies 29: 39-60.

Katzenstein, Peter. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Columbia University Press.

Kubálková, V.; N. Onuf; and P. Kowert. 1998. International Relations in a Constructed World. M.E. Sharpe.

Mercer, Jonathan. 1995. ‘Anarchy and Identity.’ International Organization 49: 229-52.

Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. University of South Carolina Press.

Palan, R. 2000. ‘A World of their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations.’ Review of International Studies 26: 575-598.

Parsons, Craig. 2002. ‘Showing Ideas as Causes: The Origins of the European Union.’ International Organization 66: 47-84.

Price, Richard. 2008. ‘Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics.’ International Organization 62: 191-220.

Reus-Smit, Christian. 2006. Chapter 8: ‘Constructivism’. In Theories of International Relations 3rd Edition, eds. Scott Burchill et. al. Palgrave.

Risse, Thomas. 2000. ‘’Let’s Argue!’ Communicative Action in World Politics.’ International Organization 54: 1-39.

Ruggie, J.G. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. Routledge.

15

Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2002. ‘Realism and the Constructivist Challenge: Rejecting, Reconstructing, or Rereading.’ International Studies Review 4.

Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2000. ‘Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism and Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared.’ International Studies Quarterly 44: 97-119.

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

Zehfuss, M. 2002. Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. Cambridge U. Press.

16

Week 7: Marxist approachesRequired reading

Linklater, A. 2006. Chapter 5: ‘Marxism.’ In Theories of International Relations 3rd Edition, eds. Scott Burchill et. al. Palgrave.

Wallerstein, I. 1974. ‘The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis.’ Comparative Studies in Society and History 14: 387-415.

Cox, R. 1986. ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.’ In Neorealism and its Critics, ed. Robert Keohane. Columbia University Press.

Robinson, William. 2004. A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World. Johns Hopkins University Press. Chapter 1.

Further reading:

On Marxism and Imperialism

Brewer, A. 1990. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. Routledge.

Marx, K. and F. Engels. 1848. The Communist Manifesto. Bookmarks.

Lenin, V.I. 1939. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. International Publishers.

Brewer, A. 1990. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, 2nd Edition. Routledge.

Wood, E.M. 2003. Empire of Capital. Verso.

On World-Systems Theory

Wallerstein, I. 1974, 1980, 1989. The Modern World-System, Volumes I-III. Academic Press.

Shannon, T. 1992. An Introduction to the World-System Perspective, 2nd ed. W

On Neo-Gramscianism

Gill, Stephen. 1993. Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.

Cox, R. and T. Sinclair. 1996. Approaches to World Order. Cambridge University Press.

Rupert, M. 2003. “Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian Re-Revision.” Review of International Studies 29: 181-198.

Morton, A. 2007. Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Political Economy. Pluto.

Other contemporary approaches

Teschke, B. 2003. The Myth of 1968: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations. Verso.

17

Isaac, J. 1987. Power and Marxist Theory. Cornell University Press.

Kellner, D. 1989. Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity. Cornell University Press.

Robinson, W.I. 2004. A Theory of Global Capitalism. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rosenberg, J. 1994. Empire of Civil Society. Verso.

Rupert, M. and H. Smith, eds. 2002. Historical Materialism and Globalisation. Routledge.

18

Week 8: Feminist approaches

Required reading

True, Jacqui. 2006. Chapter 9: ‘Feminism.’ In Theories of International Relations 3rd Edition, eds. Scott Burchill et. al. Palgrave.

Tickner, J. Ann. 1992. Chapter 1: ‘Man, the State, and War: Gendered Perspectives on National Security.’ In Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. Columbia University Press.

Tickner, J. Ann. 1989. “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation.” Millennium 17: 429-440.

Further reading:

Chin, Christine. 1998. In Service and Servitude: Foreign Female Domestic Workers and the Malaysian ‘Modernity’ Project. Columbia University Press.

Chowdry, G. and S. Nair, eds. 2002. Power, Postcolonialism, and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class. Routledge.

Enloe, C. 1989. Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Pandora.

Enloe, C. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. University of California Press.

Keohane, R. 1998. “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 41: 193-198.

Marchland, Marianne and Anne Sisson Runyan, eds. 2000. Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistances. Routledge.

Moon, K. 1997. Sex Among Allies: Military Prostitution in US-Korea Relations. Columbia University Press.

Peterson, V. Spike and Anne Sisson Runyan. 1999. Global Gender Issues, 2nd ed. Westview.

Prugl, Elisabeth. 1999. The Global Construction of Gender: Home-based Work in the Political Economy of the 20th Century. Columbia University press.

Robinson, Fiona. 1999. Globalising Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory and International Relations. Westview Press.

Tickner, Ann. 1997. ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists.’ International Studies Quarterly 41: 611-632.

Tickner, Ann. 2001. Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era. Columbia University Press.

TERM II: Problems and Issues in World Politics

Week 2: International and global security

19

National Security Strategy.

Further reading

Mullard, M. and B. Cole. 2007. Globalization, Citizenship and the War on Terror. Edward Elgar.

Hocking, J. and C. Lewis. 2007. Counter-Terrorism and the Post-Democratic State. Edward Elgar.

Heazle, M. and I. Iyanatul. 2006. Beyond the Iraq War: The Promises, Pitfalls, and Perils of External Interventionism. Edward Elgar.

Critical security studies

Booth, K. 2005. Critical Security Studies and World Politics. Lynne Reiner.

Buzan, B. 1997. ‘Rethinking Security After the Cold War.’ Cooperation and Conflict 32: 5-28.

Campbell, D. 1998. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Manchester University Press.

Fierke, K. 2007. Critical Approaches to International Security. Polity.

Hansen, L. 2000. ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School.’ Millenium 29(2): 285-306.

Sheehan, M. 2005. International Security: An Analytical Survey. Lynne Reiner.

Williams, M.C. 2003. ‘Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics.’ International Studies Quarterly 47: 511-31.

Week 3: International organizations

Further reading:

Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore. 1999. ‘The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International Organizations.’ International Organization 53: 699-732.

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

Bearce, D. and S. Bondanella. 2007. ‘International Organizations, Socialization, and Member-State Issue Convergence.’ International Organization 61: 703-33.

Boehmer, Charles, et. al. 2004. ‘Do Intergovernmental Organizations Promote Peace?’ World Politics 57: 1-38.

20

Finnemore, Martha. 2005. ‘Fights about Rules: The Role of Efficacy and Power in Changing Multilateralism.’ Review of International Studies 31 (supplement): 187-206.

Haftel, Y. and A. Thompson. 2006. ‘The Independence of International Organizations: Concept and Applications.’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 50: 253-75.

Karns, M. and K. Mingst. 2004. International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance. Lynn Reiner.

Koremonos, Barbara; Charles Lipson; and Duncan Snidal. 2001. ‘The Rational Design of International Institutions.’ International Organization 55(4): 761-99.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 1993. ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach.’ Journal of Common Market Studies 31.

Russett, Bruce and John Oneal. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. Norton.

Zweifel, Thomas. 2006. International Organizations and Democracy: Accountability, Politics and Power. Lynn Reiner.

Week 4: International law, transnational networks and humanitarianism

Further reading:

Allen, T. and D. Styan. 2000. ‘A Right to Interfere? Bernard Koucher and the New Humanitarianism.’ Journal of International Development 12: 825-42.

Bellamy, A.J. 2003. ‘Humanitarian Responsibilities and Interventionist Claims in International Society.’ Review of International Studies 29: 321-340.

Bentham, J. 1962. Principles of International Law. Russell & Russell.

Carpenter, R. C. 2007. ‘Studying Issue (Non)-Adoption in Transnational Advocacy Networks.’ International Organization 61: 643-67.

Chomsky, N. 1999. The New Military Humanism. Pluto Press.

Cutler, A.C. 2001. ‘Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization: A Crisis of Legitimacy.’ Review of International Studies 27: 133-150.

Langlois, A.J. 2002. ‘Human Rights: The Globalization and Fragmentation of Moral Discourse.’ Review of International Studies 28: 479-496.

21

Percy, Sarah. 2007. ‘Mercenaries: Strong Norm, Weak Law.’ International Organization 61: 367-397.

Rengger, N. 2005. ‘The Judgement of War: On the Idea of Legitimate Force in World Politics.’ Review of International Studies 31: 143-161.

Reus-Smit, C. 2001. ‘Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty.’ Review of International Studies 27: 519-538.

Risse, Thomas. 1999. ‘International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behaviour in the Human Rights Area.’ Politics & Society 27(4): 529-559.

Vreeland, J. R. 2008. ‘Political Institutions and Human Rights: Why Dictatorships Enter Into the United Nations Convention Against Torture.’ International Organization 62: 65-101.

Week 4: Global trade and finance

Goldstein, J.; D. Rivers; and M. Tomz. 2007. ‘Institutions in International Relations: Understanding the Effects of the GATT and the WTO on World Trade.’ International Organization 61: 37-67.

Haftel, Y. 2004. ‘From the Outside Looking In: The Effect of Trading Blocs on Trade Disputes in the GATT/WTO.’ International Studies Quarterly 48: 121-42.

Mansfield, E. and J. Pevehouse. 2000. ‘Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict.’ International Organization 54: 775-808.

Steinberg, Richard. 2002. ‘In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO.’ International Organization 56: 339-374.

Week 5: Environmental issues

Wapner, P. 1995. ‘Politics Beyond the States: Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics.’ World Politics 47: 311-340.

Week 6: Culture in world affairs

Further reading

Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Barber, B. 1996. Jihad vs. McWorld. Ballantine Books.

Bell, D. 2000. East Meets West: Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia. Princeton University Press.

22

Bell, L.S, et. al. 2001. Negotiating Culture and Human Rights. Columbia University Press.

Brown, C. 2000. ‘Cultural Diversity and International Political Theory.’ Review of International Studies 26: 199-213.

Connolly, W. 1991. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of a Political Paradox. Cornell University Press.

Huntington, S. 1993. ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ Foreign Affairs 73: 22-49.

Huntington, S. 1994. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

Huntington, S. 1996. ‘The West: Unique, Not Universal.’ Foreign Affairs 75: 28-46.

Nexon, Daniel and Iver Neumann. 2006. Harry Potter and International Relations. Rowman & Littlefield.

Week 7: Regionalism in world affairs

Buzan, B. and O. Waever. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press.

Camilleri, J. et. al. 2007. Asia-Pacific Geopolitics: Hegemony vs Human Security. Edward Elgar.

Jones, D. M. 2006. ASEAN and East Asian International Relations: Regional Delusion. Edward Elgar.

Lemke, Douglas. 2002. Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge University Press.

Mansfield, E. and H. Milner. 1997. The Political Economy of Regionalism. Columbia University Press.

Mansfield, E. and H. Milner. 1999. ‘The New Wave of Regionalism.’ International Organization 53(3): 589-627.

Page, Sheila. 2000. Regionalism among Developing Countries. Macmillan.

World Trade Organization. 2005. Regionalism and the World Trading System. WTO.

Week 8: Globalization and the post-Cold War Order

Birchfield, V. 2005. ‘Jose Bove and the Globalisation Countermovement in France and Beyond: A Polanyian Interpretation.’ Review of International Studies 31: 581-598.

23