Contemporary International Theory

Week 1: Why Study IR Theory?

 

Themes

What is theory? Why do we need theory? Why are there so many theories? What is the subject matter of international theory? These are key questions that we need to ponder on before looking at individual international theories in subsequent weeks. Smith provides an overview of these issues, while Wight’s famous article makes the classic case for IR theory having a unique subject matter.

 

 

Required Readings

Smith, Steve (2007) ‘Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations theory’, in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 1-12.

Wight, Martin (1966) ‘Why Is There No International Theory?’, in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.) Diplomatic Investigations: Essay in the Theory of International Politics, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,17-34.

 

Additional Readings

Aron, Raymond (1967) ‘What is a Theory of International Relations?’ Journal of International Affairs 21, no. 2, pp.185-206.

Ashworth, Lucian (2014) ‘A New IR for a New World?: The Growth of an Acadamic Field since 1945’ in A History of International Thought. From the Origins of the Modern State to Academic International Relations, London: Routledge.

Brown, Chris and Kirsten Ainley (2005) Understanding International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, especially Chapter 2 (‘The Development of International Relations Theory in the Twentieth Century’) and Chapter 3 (‘International Theory Today’).

Booth, Ken (2010) ‘International Politics. The Inconvenient Truth’ in Realism and World Politics, edited by Ken Booth, London: Routledge.

Burchill, Scott, and Andrew Linklater (2013) ‘Introduction’ in Theories of International Relations, 5th Edition, by Scott Burchill et al, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Darby, Phillip (2008) ‘A Disabling Discipline?’ Chapter 5 of The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit, C., and Duncan Snidal, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘International Relations Theory’, in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Hoffman, Stanley (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus, 106(3) pp.41-60.

Knutsen, Torbjorn (2016) A History of IR Theory, Third Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Rosenberg, Justin (2016) ‘International Relations in the Prison of Political Science’, International Relations, June 2016; vol. 30, 2: pp. 127-153.

Schmidt, Brian (2002) ‘On the History and Historiography of International Relations’ in Walter Carlsneas et al (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, 2nd Edition, London: Sage Press.

Schmidt, Brian (2002) ‘Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline’, International Relations, 16(1): 9–31.

Schmidt, Brian (1998) The Political Discourse of Anarchy. A Disciplinary History of International Relations, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Smith, Steve (1995) ‘The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of IR Theory’, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today, Oxford: Polity, pp. 1–37.

Smith, Steve (2000) ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?’ The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2(3), pp. 374-402.

Snidal, Duncan and Alexander Wendt, (2009) ‘Why there is International Theory Now’, International Theory, 1(1), pp. 1-14

Snyder, Jack (2004) ‘One World, Rival Theories’, Foreign Policy 145, 52-62.

Tickner, Arlene and Ole Waever (eds.) (2009) International Relations Scholarship around the World, London: Routledge.

Wæver, Ole (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline’, International Organization, 1998, 52(4): 687–727.

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

 

Reading Guide

For general discussions of the role of theory in IR, see Burchill & Linklater (2013), Jorgensen (2010), and Viotti & Kauppi (2012). An excellent survey of the modern history and current varieties of IR theory can be found in Brown (2005). Schmidt (various writings) is a leading historian of the development of IR as an academic discipline. At various points, authors have identified key problems with the field of IR theory and have proposed solutions – see for examples: Hoffman (1977), Smith (2000), Buzan & Little (2001), and Rosenberg (2016). Finally, the question of ‘how international is IR?’ is discussed in Waever (1998) and Tickner & Waever (2009).

 

 

Week 2: Realism

 

Themes

Realism sees itself as the original theory of international relations, and traces its roots as far back as Hobbes, Machiavelli, and even Thucydides in the 5th Century BCE. Its core idea is that states exist in an endless competition for power, and that this fact – rather than any high-flown moral values – must be the guide to political practice.

Traditional realists like Hans Morgenthau (1948) based this view on their reading of human nature. In the 1970s, Kenneth Waltz tried to give it a more ‘scientific’, ‘neo-realist’ foundation, by arguing that it followed logically from the condition of ‘anarchy’ in which states find themselves.

The best-known realist author today is John Mearsheimer, who has developed his own ‘offensive realist’ (seriously!) version of the theory, and has used it to criticise US foreign policy on everything from the Iraq War and the wider War on Terror (2011), to relations with China (2014b), and the West’s involvement in the Ukraine conflict (2014a).

 

Required Readings

Morgenthau, Hans J. (1967/1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 4th edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Chapter 1.

Waltz, Kenneth (1986/1979) ‘Reductionist and Systemic Theories’, in Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley 1979) chapter 4 [reprinted in Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), chapter 3].

Mearsheimer, John (2006) ‘China’s Unpeaceful Rise’, Current History, April 2006, 160-162.

 

Additional Readings

Brown, Michael et al (eds) (1995) The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carr, Edward H. (1981/1939) The Twenty Years Crisis. 1919-1939, London: Macmillan.

Donnelly, J. (2008) Realism and International Relations, Cambridge: CUP. (online)

Elman, Colin and Michael Jensen (eds.) (2014) The Realism Reader, London: Routledge.

Gilpin, Robert (1981) War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guzzini, Stefano (1998) Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: the Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London: Routledge,  Introduction, Part I, and Conclusion.

Halliday, Fred and Justin Rosenberg (1998) ‘Interview with Ken Waltz’, Review of International Studies, 4:3.

Haslam, Jonathan, (2002) No Virtue like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since Machiavelli, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ikenberry, G. John et al. (2011) International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity, Cambridge: CUP. (online)

Krasner, Stephen, (1977) Defending the National Interest, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Krasner, Stephen, Power, the State and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations.

Krasner, Stephen, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1999

Mearsheimer, John (2014a) ‘Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault’, Foreign Affairs, September/October.

Mearsheimer, J. (2011) ‘Imperial by Design’, The National Interest, Jan-Feb 2011: 16-34.

Mearsheimer, J.J., and Walt, S.M., ‘An Unnecessary War’, Foreign Policy (2003), 134: 50-59.

Mearsheimer, John (2005) ‘Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism’, OpenDemocracy website, http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp.

Mearsheimer, John (2012) Why Leaders Lie, Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.

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

Mearsheimer, John (2014b) ‘Can China Rise Peacefully?’ The National Interest, Oct. 25, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/can-china-rise-peacefully-10204

Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 4th edition,  (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967) Chapter 1.

Smith, Michael Joseph, (1986) Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press 1986; especially Chapter 1, ‘Modern Realism in Context’, pp. 1-22.

Waltz, Kenneth N., (2008) Realism and International Politics: the Essays of Ken Waltz, London: Routledge.

Waltz, Kenneth N., (1959) Man, the State and War, New York:  Columbia University Press 1959, especially chapters 6-7, pp. 159-223.

Waltz, Kenneth, N., (1979) Theory of International Politics, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Wolfers, Arnold (1962) Discord and Collaboration, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, chapters 6-8.

 

Chapter-length Overviews

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘Realism’ and ‘Neorealism and Neoliberalism’ in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Donnelly, Jack (2013) ‘Realism’ in Theories of International Relations, 5th Edition, by Scott Burchill et al, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dunne, Timothy and Brian Schmidt (2011) ‘Realism’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Elman, Colin (2007) ‘Realism’ in International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge.

Jorgensen, Knud Erik (2010) ‘The Realist Tradition’ in International Relations Theory. A New Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lamy, Steven (2011) ‘Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2003) ‘Realism’ in Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches, Second Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Mearsheimer, John (2016) ‘Structural Realism’ in International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Oxford: OUP.

Steans, Jill et al (2010) ‘Realism’ in An Introduction to International Relations Theory. Perspectives and Themes, Third Edition, Harlow: Longman.

 

 

Critiques of Realism

George, Jim (1994) Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1994, especially chapter 5: ‘The Backward Discipline Revisited: The Closed World of Neorealism’.

Keohane, Robert O. (ed.) (1986) Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, chapters by Ruggie and Ashley).

Kirshner, Jonathan (2012) ‘The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China’ European Journal of International Relations, March 2012 vol. 18 no. 1 53-75. (Extracted in the Realism Reader, edited by Colin Elman and Michael Jensen, London: Routledge, 468-80.)

Legro, Jeff and Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Is Anybody Still a Realist?’, International Security, 24:2, 1999, pp. 5-55 (also see responses in 25:1, 2000) (Extracted in the Realism Reader, edited by Colin Elman and Michael Jensen, London: Routledge, 505-17.)

Milner, H., ‘The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A critique’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1991

Rosenberg, Justin, ‘The Trouble with Realism’, chapter one in Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society, London: Verso, 1994

Schroeder, Paul, ‘Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory’, International Security, 19:1, 1994, pp. 108-148.

Wilson, Peter, ‘The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate’’, Review of International Studies, 24, Special Issue, 1998.

 

Reading Guide

For short, introductory overviews of Realism, see any of the following: Daddow(2013), Donnelly (2013) Dunne & Schmidt (2011), Elman (2077), Jackson & Sorensen (2003), and Steans (2010). More substantial book-length treatments include Donnelly (2008), Guzzini (1998), Haslam (2002) and Smith (1986).

Leading postwar Realist authors have included: EH Carr, Hans Morgenthau, Arnold Wolfers, Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, Stephen Krasner, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and Willaim Wohlforth. You should also be aware of some of the key variations in modern Realist thought: e.g. modern realism, neo-realism, defensive and offensive realism, neoclassical realism etc. If you find Mearsheimer’s arguments interesting, you can access pdfs of nearly all his articles on his web-page at http://johnmearsheimer.uchicago.edu/all-pubs.html

All the different strands of realism are featured in The Realism Reader, edited by Elman and Jensen, which also covers some of the key historical and contemporary debates around Realism. Another wide-ranging reader is Brown et al (1995) which includes a section on critiques of Realism by Schroeder, Sakaria and Martin. For other critiques, see also Rosenberg (1994), Milner (1991) and George (1994). Finally, shorter critiques can also be found in Viotti & Kauppi (2012, pp.74-80), Steans (2010, pp. 71-3) and Jorgensen (2010, Chapter 8).

 

 

 

Academic Advising and Personal Development:

Wk 2: Feedback – Self-Audit – Action Plan

 

You’ve completed your First Year, and you’re starting your Second Year. Now’s a great time to take stock of how you’re doing – and to focus on how you could do better.

The AAPD element of this week’s topic is designed to enable you to do just that. In the lecture, we’ll work with a ‘Study Skills Audit’ form. By filling out this sheet, you’ll build up a picture of how your academic and personal development is going, and where to get online help with those study skills you may need to prioritise at this point.

There will also be an opportunity to think about the feedback you’ve had so far, and to design an Action Plan for making the most of it.

 

 

 

 

Week 3: Liberalism

 

Themes

Dating from the Eighteenth Century European Enlightenment, Liberalism takes a much more optimistic view than Realism. It argues that the emergence of modern (capitalist) societies with democratic governments transforms the prospects for international relations. Interdependence, democracy and international organisation, it claims, can replace the logic of anarchy and power politics with one of co-operation and peace.

This view was popular at the founding of IR after World War I. It was discredited by the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of World War II. But it later returned due to the rise of economic interdependence in the 1970s, the apparent success of European integration, the end of the Cold War and the great surge of globalization in the 1990s.

Since 9/11, Liberalism has once again been under challenge in IR, from Realist and critical approaches alike, both of whom accuse it of providing the ideological justification of Western dominance in IR.

 

Required Readings

Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2003) ‘Liberalism’ in Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches, Second Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Angell, Norman, ‘The Illusory Benefits of Military Victory’, in Evan Luard, Basic Texts in International Relations (London: Palgrave, 1992) pp. 264-267.

Wilson, Woodrow, ‘The Coming Age of Peace’, in Evan Luard, Basic Texts in International Relations (London: Palgrave, 1992) pp. 267-270.

Ikenberry, G. John (2009) ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order’, Perspectives on Politics, 7.1.

Ikenberry, G. John (2008) ‘The Rise of China and the Future of the West. Can the liberal system survive?’, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2008.

 

Additional Readings

Axelrod, Robert & Keohane, R. (1981) ‘Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions’, World Politics, 34(1): 1-24.

Baldwin, D.A. (ed.), (1993) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: the Contemporary Debate, New York: Columbia University Press.

Brown, Michael et al (eds) (1996) Debating the Democratic Peace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.

Campbell, Susanna et al (eds.) (2011) A Liberal Peace: The problems and Practices of Peacebuilding, London: Zed.

Deudney, Daniel, and John G. Ikenberry (1999) ‘The nature and sources of liberal international order,’ Review of International Studies, 25(2), pp.179-196.

Doyle, Michael (2011) Liberal Peace: Selected Essays, London: Routledge.

Friedman, Rebekka et al (eds) (2013) After Liberalism? The Future of Liberalism in International Relations, London: Palgrave.

Hoffmann, Stanley, (1995) ‘The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism,’ Foreign Policy, vol. 98.

Ikenberry, G. John (2006) Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition: Essays on American Power and World Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kegley, Charles (ed) (1995) Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the neo-Liberal Challenge, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

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

Keohane, Robert (1989) International Institutions and State Power: Essays in IR Theory, Boulder: Westview, chapters 1 & 7.

Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, (1989/1977) Power and Interdependence (London: Harper Collins, chapter 1.

Keohane, Robert (1998) “International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?” Foreign Policy 110: 82–96.

Keohane, Robert (2001) ‘Governance in a Partially Globalized World’, American  

            Political Science Review, 95:1 (2001), pp. 1-13.

Milner, H., (1991) ‘The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations theory: A critique,’ Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1.

Mitrany, David, (1948) ‘The Functional Approach to World Organization,’ International Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 3: 350-363.

Moravcsik, Andrew (1997) ‘Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics,’ International Organization, 51(4), pp.513-553.

Shimko, Keith (2013) ‘War and Democracy’ in International Relations: Perspectives, Controversies and Readings, 4th Edition, Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 85-110.

Wilson, P., The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 24, Special Issue, December 1998.

Zacher, M. and R.A. Matthew, ‘Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands,’ in Kegley (ed.), Controversies in International Relations, NY: St Martin’s Press, 1995, 107-50.

 

Chapter-Length Overviews

Burchill, Scott (2013) ‘Liberalism’ in Theories of International Relations, 5th Edition, by Scott Burchill et al, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘Liberalism’ and ‘Neorealism and Neoliberalism’, in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Doyle, Michael (1986) ‘Liberalism and world politics,’ American Political Science Review, 80(4), pp.1151-1169.

Dunne, Timothy (2011) ‘Liberalism’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Jorgensen, Knud Erik (2010) ‘The Liberal International Theory Tradition’ in International Relations Theory. A New Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lamy, Steven (2011) ‘Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Macmillan, John (2007) ‘Liberalism’ in International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge.

Panke, Diana, and Thomas Risse (2016) ‘Liberalism’ in International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Oxford: OUP.

Richardson, James (2012) ‘Liberalism’ in Richard Devetak et al (eds.) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steans, Jill et al (2010) ‘Liberalism’ in An Introduction to International Relations Theory. Perspectives and Themes, Third Edition, Harlow: Longman.

 

Critiques of Liberalism in IR

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

Grieco, Joseph M. (1988) “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42.3: 485–507.

Jahn, Beate (2010) ‘Liberal Internationalism: From Ideology to Empirical Theory – and Back Again’, International Theory, 1(3) 409-438.

Jahn, Beate (2013) Liberal Internationalism: Theory, History, Practice, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Steele, B.J. (2007) ‘Liberal-Idealism: A Constructivist Critique’, International Studies 

            Review (2007), 9:23-52.

Mearsheimer, John (1994) ‘The false promise of international institutions’ International Security, 19 (3), pp.5-49, and ‘A Realist Reply’, in International Security, 20.1 (1995), especially pp.90-92. See also the replies by Keohane, Ruggie and others in Vol. 20, No1, Summer 1995.

 

Reading Guide

For short introductory overviews of Liberalism in IR, see Burchill (2013), Daddow (2013), Dunne (2011), Jackson & Sorensen (2003), Macmillan (2007), Richardson (2012) and Steans (2010).

Key 20th Century Liberal authors have included Woodrow Wilson who argued that peace could be achieved through international law; Norman Angell (1910) who claimed that war between modern states was becoming redundant due to the nature of modern economic power; David Mitrany (1948) who believed that international integration provided an alternative to power politics; Keohane & Nye (1977) who argued that Realism was less and less applicable due to the rise of ‘complex interdependence’; Michael Doyle who gave the classic modern statement of the ‘democratic peace thesis’; Andrew Moravcsik (1997) who tried to answer Waltz with a liberal social scientific theory of IR; and John Ikenberry who has provided some of the leading accounts of liberal international order today.

The classic critiques of Liberalism have been provided by Realists such as EH Carr (1946), Hans Morgenthau (1948), Kenneth Waltz (1959 & 1979), and most recently John Mearsheimer (1994/5).

Shimko (2013) provides a good starting point for assessing the Democratic Peace Thesis (along with Brown et al (1996)). See also Mearsheimer’s (1994) critique of liberal institutionalism, together with the debate in the following issue of the same journal.

 

 

 

Week 4: Constructivism – ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It!’  

 

Themes

The ‘constructivist turn’ in IR Theory has further moved our attention away from the positivist idea of ‘objectivity’ in the social sciences and the realist insistence on the systemic imperatives that states face in a hostile and competitive international environment. In its stead, it has re-emphasised the socially constructed – and therefore historically and culturally variable – nature of world politics. The term ‘constructivism’ was coined by Nicholas Onuf in his World of Our Making (1990) and draws largely on hermeneutics, linguistics and theories of inter-subjectivity. It emphasizes the intentions, norms and meanings that actors attribute to their actions within a sphere of international relations that is defined by commonly agreed norms that prescribe the accepted rules of international politics. These can change. Anarchy is thus never something objectively given that determines international political conduct in a pre-ordained way, but always subjectively (and inter-subjectively) conditioned by what ‘states make of it’ – to quote Alexander Wendt’s felicitous phrase.

 

Required Readings

Wendt, Alexander, (1992) “Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization, 46:2, pp. 391-425.

Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, pp. 887-917.

 

Additional Reading

Barkin, Samuel,  (2003) ‘Realist Constructivism’, International Studies Review, 5(3), pp. 325-342.

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

Checkel, Jeff, (1998) ‘The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory’, World Politics, 50, 2, pp. 324-48

Guzzini, Stefano (2013) Power, Realism and Constructivism’, New York: Routledge.

Florini, Anne, (1996) ‘The Evolution of International Norms’, International Studies Quarterly, 40:3, pp. 363-90.

Hoffmann, Matthew (2013) ‘Norm Constructivism: Contesting International Legal Norms’ in Making Sense of International Relations Theory, edited by Jennifer Sterling-Folker, 2nd Edition, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

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

Mercer, Jonathan (1995) ‘Anarchy and Identity’, International Organization, 49:2, 1995, pp. 229-252.

Onuf, Nicholas (2013) Making Sense, Making Worlds. Constructivism in Social Theory and International Relations, London: Routledge, especially chapter 1: ‘Constructivism: A Users’ Manual’.

Onuf, Nicholas, (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.

Philpot, Daniel, (2001) Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International        Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Reus-Smit, Christian, (1999) The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Risse, Thomas (2000) ‘`Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in International Relations’, International Organization, 54, 1, pp. 1-40

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

Ruggie, John (1993) ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations’, International Organization, 47:1, pp. 139-74

Ruggie, John (1998) Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization, London: Routledge 1998.

Snyder, Jack (2004) ‘One World, Rival Theories’, Foreign Policy, 83.6, 52-62.

Weldes, Jutta (1996) “Constructing National Interests,” European Journal of International Relations, 2:3, pp. 275-318.

Wendt, Alexander, (1995) ‘Constructing International Politics’, International Security, 20:1, pp. 71-80. (A response to Mearsheimer’s critique.)

Wendt, Alexander (1987) ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization, 41:3, pp. 335-370.

Wendt, Alexander, (1999) A Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: CUP, chapters 1, 3, 6 and 8

 

Chapter-Length Overviews

Adler, Emanuel (2013) ‘Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions, and Debates’, in Walter Carlsneas et al (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, 2nd Edition, London: Sage Press.

Barnett, Michael (2011) ‘Social Constructivism’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘Social Constructivism’ in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Fierke, Karen (2016) ‘Constructivism’ in International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Oxford: OUP.

Jackson, Patrick and Joshua Jones (2012) ‘Constructivism’ in Richard Devetak et al (eds.) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, Andrew Bradley (2007) ‘Constructivism’ in International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge.

Reus-Smit, Christian (2013) ‘Constructivism’ in Theories of International Relations, 5th Edition, by Scott Burchill et al, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Steans, Jill et al (2010) ‘Social Constructivism’ in An Introduction to International Relations Theory. Perspectives and Themes, Third Edition, Harlow: Longman.

 

Criticisms of Constructivism in IR

Copeland, Dale (2000) ‘The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism: a Review Essay’, International Security 25.2, 187-212.

Guzzini, Stefano and Anna Leander (eds) (2006) Constructivism and International Relations. Alexander Wendt and his Critics, London: Routledge.

Hofferberth, Matthias and Christian Weber (2014) ‘Lost in translation: a critique of constructivist norm research’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 18.1, pp.75-103.

Keohane, Robert O. (2001) ‘Ideas Part–Way Down’, Review of International Studies, 26:1, pp.125-30.

Kratochwil, Friedrich (2000) ‘Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt’s ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ and the Constructivist Challenge’, Millennium, 29:1, 73-101.

Mearsheimer, J. (1994) ‘The False Promise of Institutions’, International Security 19.3, pp.5-49, and ‘A Realist Reply’, in International Security, 20.1 (1995), especially pp.90-92.

Palan, Ronen, (2000) ‘A World of their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 26:4, pp.575-98.

Teschke, Benno and Christian Heine (2002) ‘The Dialectic of Globalisation: A Critique of Social Constructivism’, in Mark Rupert and Hazel Smith (eds.), Historical Materialism and Globalization, London: Routledge, chapter 9, pp.165-87.

 

For general, chapter-length introductions to constructivism, see Adler, Daddow, Fierke, Jackson & Jones, Phillips, and Steans. Key writers in this field are Wendt, Kratochwil, Onuf, Reus-Smit and Ruggie. Critical engagements include those by Guzzini & Leander, Keohane, Palan and Teschke & Heine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Advising and Personal Development:

Wk 4: Preparing for the Concept Note

 

The assessment for ‘Contemporary International Theory’ includes a 500-word Concept Note, which is worth 10% of the overall mark, and is due in Week 6.

 

The University defines a Concept Note as “A short synthesizing note on a key concept such as Power, Authority, Class or Nationalism”. The purpose of a Concept Note is to demonstrate your ability to expound and analyze a concept that is significant for your field of study. Whereas an Essay involves developing an argument, a Concept Note is more about elaborating, analyzing and clarifying an idea. And because a Concept Note is much shorter than an Essay, it is also a test of your ability to write clearly and concisely.

A high-scoring Concept Note will tie most or all of the following elements into a clear, well-structured exposition:

 

✔   A definition of the concept, together with an awareness of alternative definitions;

✔   An account of why it is important, and what is at stake in its definition;

✔   Knowledge of some key authors associated with the concept;

✔   An awareness of key ambiguities within the concept, and of the debates that have

occurred around its meaning;

✔   A sense of its historical origins and context, as well as its development over time;

✔   Examples of its application in real-world settings.

 

This week’s AAPD session involves hands-on practice in composing a concept note so that you will be clear about what is expected of your assessment next week.

 

 

 

 

Week 5: Marxism and IR Theory

 

Themes

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels created the ‘historical materialist’ approach to social analysis – also known as ‘the materialist conception of history’. Marx himself then applied that approach to modern capitalist society. And since his death in 1883 his followers have tried in various ways to extend the analysis to international relations – producing (Lenin’s) classical theory of Imperialism, (Gramsci’s) theory of ‘hegemony’, (Trotsky’s) theory of ‘uneven and combined development’, (Wallerstein’s) World Systems Theory, David Harvey’s ‘new imperialism’ and so on. In this topic, we read two original texts from this tradition. In the first, Justin Rosenberg argues that Marx’s approach can be used to explain the two most fundamental features of the modern international system – sovereignty and anarchy – as well as making sense of how the formal legal equality of nation-states can co-exist with enormous material inequalities among the peoples of the world. Meanwhile, in the second reading, Alex Callinicos tries to overcome a longstanding challenge for Marxism in IR: understanding the relationship between capitalism and geopolitics.

 

Required Readings

Rosenberg, Justin (1994) Chapter 5 of The Empire of Civil Society, by Justin Rosenberg, London.

Callinicos, A. (2007) ‘Does Capitalism Need the State-system?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol.20.4, 2007.

 

Additional Readings

Anievas, A. (ed) 2010. Marxism and World Politics. Contesting Global Capitalism, Routledge, London.

Bobbio, N. (1987) ‘Marxism and International Relations’, Which Socialism? Marxism, Socialism and Democracy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987, pp. 197-212.

Brewer, A. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: a Critical Survey, London 1980, pp.10-14: ‘Historical Materialism’.

Callinicos, A. and Rosenberg, J. (2008) ‘Uneven and combined development: the social-relational substratum of “the international”? An Exchange of Letters’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21:1, pp. 77–112.

Cox, R. (1993) ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: an Essay in Method’, in Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, edited by S. Gill, Cambridge, CUP.

Cox, Robert, (1981) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium 10(2).

Cox, Robert (1987) Production, Power and World Order, New York: Columbia University Press.

Frank, Andre Gunder (1966) ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’, Monthly Review, September 1966, also extracted in Perspectives on World Politics, edited by M. Smith et al., London 1981, and reprinted in Imperialism and Underdevelopment, a Reader, edited by R. Rhodes, New York: Monthly Review Press.

Foster, J. B. (2003) ‘The New Age of Imperialism’, Monthly Review, Vol. 55, no.3.

Gramsci, Antonio (1971) The Prison Notebooks, edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Gill, Stephen (ed.) (1993) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, F. (1994) ‘A Necessary Encounter: Historical Materialism and International Relations’, in Rethinking International Relations, Basingstoke 1994.

Halliday, Fred, ‘The Pertinence of Imperialism’, in Mark Rupert and Hazel Smith (eds.), Historical Materialism and Globalisation, London: Routledge 2002, chapter 4.

Harvey, David, (2003) The New Imperialism, Oxford: OUP.

Kiely, R. (2010) Rethinking Imperialism, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Linklater, A. (1990) Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations, New York: St Martin’s Press.

Lenin, Vladimir Illich (2000) Imperialism. The Highest Stage of Capitalism, extracted in Imperialism. Theoretical Directions, edited by Ronald H. Chilcote, Amherst (New York): Humanity Books, pp.85-87.

Panitch, L. and Gindin, S. (2003) ‘Global Capitalism and American Empire’, by L. Panitch and S. Gindin, Socialist Register 2004, London, Merlin Press.

Robinson, W. (2010) ‘Beyond the Theory of Imperialism. Global Capitalism and the Transnational State’, in Marxism and World Politics. Contesting Global Capitalism, edited by Alexander Anievas, Abingdon: Routledge, pp.61-76.

Rosenberg, J.  (1994) The Empire of Civil Society. A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations, London: Verso.

Rosenberg, J. (1996) ‘Isaac Deutscher and the Lost History of International Relations’, by J. Rosenberg, New Left Review, Jan-Feb 1996.

Rosenberg, J. (2013) ‘Kenneth Waltz and Leon Trotsky: Anarchy in the Mirror of Uneven and Combined Development’, International Politics, 50.

Rosenberg, Justin (2014) ‘Uneven and Combined Development Today’, Professorial Lecture, University of Sussex, February 26th. Video recording: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/newsandevents/sussexlectures/2014?lecture=115&fmt=youtube Published as ‘Uneven and Combined Development in Theory and History’, in Alexander Anievas and Kamran Matin (eds.) Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development over the Longue Durée (Rowman & Littlefield International).

Rupert, Mark (2009) ‘Antonio Gramsci’ in Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams (eds.) Critical Theorists and International Relations, London: Routledge.

Saull, R. (2012) ‘Rethinking Hegemony: Uneven Development, Historical Blocs and the World Economic Crisis’, International Studies Quarterly, 56, 323-338.

Smith, J. (2015) ‘Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century’, Monthly Review 67 (3), July.

Stedman Jones, Gareth, ‘The History of US Imperialism’, in Robin Blackburn (ed.), Ideology in Social Science: Readings in Critical Social Theory, Glasgow: Fontana Collins 1972.

Teschke, Benno (2002), ‘Theorising the Westphalian System of States: International Relations from Absolutism to Capitalism’, European Journal of International Relations, 8(1): 5-48.

Teschke, Benno (2005), ‘Bourgeois Revolution, State-Formation and the Absence of the International’, Historical Materialism: Research in Critical Marxist Theory, 13(2): 3-26, (Deutscher Memorial Lecture).

Trotsky, L. (1932) ‘Peculiarities of Russia’s Development’, chapter 1 of The History of the Russian Revolution New York: Pathfinder Books.

Van der Pijl, Kees, (2007) Nomads, Empires, States. Modes of Foreign Relations and Political Economy, London: Pluto Press.

Trotsky, Leon () History of the Russian Revolution, Chapter 1.

Wallerstein, I. (1974) ‘The Rise & Future Demise of the World Capitalist System etc.’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 16, No.4, pp.387-415.

Wallerstein, I. The Politics of the World Economy, Cambridge 1984, especially Part I: ‘The States and the Interstate System’.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1983) Historical Capitalism, London: Verso

 

 

Chapter-length Overviews

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘Marxism’ in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Hobden, Stephen and Richard Wyn Jones (2011) ‘Marxist Theories of International Relations’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Linklater, Andrew (2013) ‘Marx and Marxism’ in Theories of International Relations, 5th Edition, by Scott Burchill et al, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rupert, Mark (2007) ‘Marxism’ in International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge.

Rupert, Mark (2016) ‘Marxism and Critical Theory’ in International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Oxford: OUP.

Teschke, Benno (2008), ‘Marxism’, in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 163-187.

Warren, Bill, (1980) Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism, London: New Left Books.

 

 

Criticisms of Marxism in IR

Berki, R. N. (1971) ‘On Marxian Thought and the Problem of International Relations’, World Politics, October 1971.

Blaut, James () Eight Eurocentric Historians, chapters on Wallerstein and Brenner…

Bromley, S. (2003) ‘Reflections on Empire, Imperialism and United States Hegemony’, Historical Materialism 11:3, pp.17-68.

Davenport, A. (2013) ‘Marxism in IR: Condemned to a Realist Fate?’ European Journal of International Relations, 19:1, pp. 27-48.

Holsti, K. (1985) The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, London: Allen & Unwin, Chapter 4: ‘Neo-Marxist Challenges to the Classical Tradition’.

Kubalkova, V. & Cruickshank, A. (1989) Marxism and International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skocpol, T. ‘Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: a Theoretical and Historical Critique’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 5, 1977.

Waltz, Kenneth, N., (1959) Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press, Chapter V. ‘Some Implications of the Second Image: International Socialism and the Coming of the First World War’, pp. 124-158.

Warren, Bill (1980) Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism, London: New Left Books.

Zolberg, A. ‘Origins of the Modern World System: a Missing Link’, World Politics, Volume  XXXIII No.2, January 1981.

 

For general introductions, see Halliday, Hobden & Wynne Jones, Linklater and Rupert. Leading contemporary Marxist IR writers include Callinicos, Halliday, Harvey, Linklater, Panitch & Gindin, Rosenberg, Rupert, Teschke, and Wallerstein. Callinicos’ article sparked two major recent debates – one about the relation of capitalism and the states-system, and the other on the significance of the idea of ‘uneven and combined development’. These debates have been assembled in Anievas (ed.) (2010). Key IR critics of Marxism have included Berki, Holsti, Kubalkova & Cruickshank, and Waltz.

 

 

Week 6: Consolidation Week – No Lecture

 

 

Week 7: Critical Theory

 

Themes

In the 1980s, two strands of Marxist thought – neo-Gramscianism and the Frankfurt School – inspired the emergence of ‘critical theory’ in IR, which rapidly came to include many other non-Marxist branches too. The common link connecting all these approaches is the idea that IR theory should be concerned with emancipation: it should analyse the existing world so as to reveal how it came to be organised in ways that block the realisation of human freedom; it should denaturalise the taken-for-granted structures of power that reproduce this situation; and it should look for the sources of their transcendence in the future. Our original reading this week is an extract from Robert Cox’s seminal 1981 article which placed critical theory on the IR agenda. Our overview piece by Devetak follows the progress of this project over the last three decades. Meanwhile, the chapter by Fisher helps us to think about the overlaps and difference between Critical Theory and ‘critical thinking’.

 

Required Readings

Fisher, Alec (2001) ‘What is Critical Thinking?’ in Critical Thinking. An introduction. Cambridge: CUP.

Devetak, Richard (2009) ‘Critical Theory’, in Theories of International Relations, edited by Scott Burchill et al., Fourth Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Cox, Robert (1981) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium 10(2), 1981 – NB: pages 126-135 only.

 

Additional Readings

Ashley, Richard (1981) ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly, 25.2 pp.204-236.

Ashley, Richard (1984) ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization, 38, 2, 225-286.

Bieler, Andreas and Adam Morton (eds.) (2006) Images of Gramsci, London: Routledge.

Cox, R. (1993) ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: an Essay in Method’, in Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, edited by S. Gill, Cambridge, CUP.

Cox, Robert (1998) Approaches to World Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, Robert (1987) Production, Power and World Order, New York: Columbia University Press.

Crawford, Neta (2009) ‘Jurgen Habermas’ in Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge.

Edkins, Jenny and Nick Vaughan-Williams (eds.) (2009) Critical Theorists and International Relations, London: Routledge.

Hutchings, Kimberly (2001) ‘The Nature of Critique in Critical International Relations Theory’, in Critical International Theory after 25 Years, edited by Nicolas Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79-90.

Leysens, Anthony (2008) The Critical Theory of Robert W. Cox. Fugitive or Guru? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Linklater, Andrew (1999) ‘Transforming political community: a response to the critics’, Review of International Studies, 25:1, 165-175.

Linklater, Andrew (2007) Critical Theory and World Politics. Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity, London: Routledge.

Linklater, Andrew (1990) Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Linklater, Andrew (1998) The Transformation of Political Community, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Linklater, Andrew (1996) ‘The achievements of critical theory’, in S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 279–98

McNally, Mark, and John Schwarzmantel, J. (eds), (2009) Gramsci and Global Politics. Hegemony and Resistance, London: Routledge.

Morton, A., Bieler, A. (2014). Neo-Gramscian Perspectives. In Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler (Eds.), Theories of International Relations, (pp. 214-230). London: Routledge.

Neufeld, Mark (1995) The Restructuring of International Relations Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rengger, Nicolas and Ben Thirkell-White (eds.) (2007) Critical International Theory after 25 Years, Cambridge: CUP.

Roach, Steven (ed.) (2007) Critical Theory and International Relations. A Reader, London: Routledge.

Rupert, Mark (2009) ‘Antonio Gramsci’ in Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge.

Saull, R. (2012) ‘Rethinking Hegemony: Uneven Development, Historical Blocs and the World Economic Crisis’, International Studies Quarterly, 56, 323-338.

Wyn Jones, Richard (ed.) (2001) Critical theory and World Politics, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

 

Chapter-Length Overviews

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘Critical Theory’ in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Devetak, Richard (2013) ‘Critical Theory’ in Theories of International Relations, 5th Edition, by Scott Burchill et al, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

George, Jim (1994) Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder, Co: Rienner, chapters 6&7 (‘Critical Social theory: thinking Beyond the ‘Orthodox Consensus’’, and ‘Thinking Beyond International Relations: The Critical Theory Challenge’).

Linklater, Andrew (2007) ‘Critical Theory’ in International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge.

Rengger, Nicolas and Ben Thirkell-White (eds.) (2007) ‘Introduction: Still Critical After All These Years? The past, present and future of Critical Theory in International Relations.’ Critical International Theory after 25 Years, Cambridge: CUP.

Rupert, Mark (2016) ‘Marxism and Critical Theory’ in International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Oxford: OUP.

Steans, Jill et al (2010) ‘Critical Theory’ in An Introduction to International Relations Theory. Perspectives and Themes, Third Edition, Harlow: Longman.

 

Criticisms of Critical Theory in IR

Ayers, A. (ed.), 2008. Gramsci, Political Economy, and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperors (New York: Palgrave, 2008).

Brown, Chris, (2001) ‘”Our Side”?: Critical Theory and International Relations’,  in Wyn Jones, Richard (ed.) (2001) Critical theory and World Politics, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 191-204.

Burnham, Peter (1991) ‘Neo-Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order’, Capital and Class, Volume 45.

Cammack, Paul (2007) ‘RIP IPE’, Papers in the Politics of Global Competitiveness, No. 7, May 2007.

Hobson, John H. (2007) ‘Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a post-racist critical IR’, in Critical International Theory after 25 Years, edited by Nicolas Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchings, Kimberly (2007) ‘Happy Anniversary! Time and Critique in International Relations Theory’, in Critical International Theory after 25 Years, edited by Nicolas Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jahn, Beate (1998) ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism’, Millennium, 27:3,

Keohane, Robert (1988) ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 379-396.

Schweller, Randall (1999) ‘Fantasy Theory’, Review of International Studies, 25:1, 147-150.

 

 

 

Academic Advising and Personal Development:

Wk 7: Mastering Grammar in Writing

 

Weak grammar is the enemy of clear thinking. It also undermines the confidence of examiners in your abilities – and it can even put off potential employers too. Your time at University may be your last opportunity to get organised help with your grammar. This week’s AAPD topic focuses on three especially common grammatical errors – mistakes that blight all too many student essays: the ‘comma splice’, non-agreement of subjects and verbs, and the incorrect use of apostrophes. At the same time, it introduces you to web resources that provide comprehensive guides to improving all aspects of your grammar, including the excellent ‘Improve Your Writing’ site at Bristol University and Sussex’s own ‘Guide to Punctuation’.

 

 

 

 

Week 8: Poststructuralism

 

Themes

Poststructuralist theories argue that there are no firm grounds for knowledge. This means that the kind of knowledge developed and taught in International Relations and other disciplines is intimately connected to power; and its morality, therefore, is the morality of the powerful constantly suppressing alternative forms of knowledge and morality. For poststructuralists there is no Truth but only truths. This position has been criticized by traditional approaches for being unable to establish not just any knowledge about the world in which we live but, consequently, also grounds for ethics (though see Campbell’s (1998) direct response to this charge). Thus, we have to discuss the possibility of establishing a firm foundation of knowledge in International Relations as well as its ethical consequences. And we have to evaluate the contribution Poststructuralism can make to the study of international relations.

 

Required Readings

Walker, Rob (1995) ‘International Relations and the Concept of the Political’, in International Relations Theory Today edited by Ken Booth and Steve Smith, Cambridge: Polity.

Campbell, D. (1992) Writing Security: US Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Manchester: Manchester University Press, Introduction and Chapter 1.

 

Additional Readings

Alker, H. & M. Schapiro (eds), (1996) Challenging Boundaries, Minneapolis: Minneapolis University Press.

Ashley, R.K. and R.B.J.Walker (eds.), (1990) ‘Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence in International Studies,’ in: Special Issue of International Studies Quarterly, 34:3.

Baudrillard, Jean (1995) The Gulf War Did Not Take Place, Sydney: Power Publications.

Belsey, Catherine (2002) Poststructuralism. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Biersteker, T.J. & C. Weber (eds.), (1996) The Social Construction of State Sovereignty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, D., (1993) Politics Without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics and Narratives of the Gulf War, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Campbell, David (1998) ‘Why Fight: Humanitarianism, Principles, and Poststructuralism’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 27, 497-5221.

Connolly, William (1991) Identity/Difference, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, chapter 2.

Connolly, William (1991) ‘Democracy and Territoriality’ in: Millennium, Vol. 20, No. 3, Winter 1991.

Constantinou, C., (1994) ‘Diplomatic Representation, or, Who framed the Ambassadors?’, in: Millennium, Vol. 23, No.1.

Der Derian, James and M.J. Shapiro, (1989) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, Lexington: Lexington Books.

Der Derian, James (1991) ‘S/N:  International Theory, Balkanization and the New World Order,’ Millennium, Vol. 20, No. 3.

Der Derian, James (1990) ‘The (S)pace of International Relations:  Simulation, Surveillance and Speed,’ International Studies Quarterly, 34:3,  295-310.

Der Derian, James (1992) Anti-Diplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed and War, Oxford: Blackwell.

Dillon, Michael and Andrew Neal (eds.) (2008) Foucault on Politics, Security and War, London: Palgrave.

Doty, Roxanne (1997) Imperial Encounters, Minneapolis: Minneapolis University Press.

Durie, Robin (2009) ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’ in Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge.

Edkins, Jenny (1999) Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In, Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Fournier, Philippe (2012) ‘Michel Foucault’s Considerable Sway on International Relations Theory’, Bridges: Conversations in Global Politics: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available at: http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/bridges/vol1/iss1/3.

Hansen, Lene (2006) Security as Practice. Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, London: Routledge.

Kelly, M.G. (2010) ‘International Biopolitics: Foucault, Globalisation and Imperialism’, Theoria, June 2010, 1-26.

Kiersey Nicholas and Doug Stokes (eds) (2013) Foucault and International Relations: New Critical Engagements, London: Routledge.

Kuehls, T. Beyond Sovereign Territory: The Space of Ecopolitics, Minneapolis: Minneapolis University Press, 1996.

Lapid, Y., ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era,’ in: International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, 1989,  235-5.

Neal, Andrew (2009) ‘Rethinking Foucault in International Relations: Promiscuity and Unfaithfulness’, Global Society, Vol. 23, No. 4: 539-543.

Neal, Andrew (2009) ‘Michel Foucault’ in Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge.

Shani, Giorgio and David Chandler (2010) ‘Assessing the Impact of Foucault on International Relations’, a forum in International Political Sociology, 4, 196-215.

Shapiro, Michael (1997) Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War, Minneapolis: Minneapolis University Press.

Spegele, R., (1992) ‘Richard Ashley’s Discourse for International Relations’, in: Millennium, Vol. 21, Summer 1992.

Sylvester, Christine (1993) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, Introduction and Chapter 1.

Walker, R., (1992) Inside/Outside:  International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.

Zehfuss, Maja (2009) ‘Jacques Derrida’ in Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge.

 

Chapter-Length Overviews

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘Postmodernism’ in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Devetak, Richard (2013) ‘Post-structuralism’ in Theories of International Relations, 5th Edition, by Scott Burchill et al, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Edkins, Jenny (2007) ‘Poststructuralism’ in International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge.Hansen

Hansen, Lene (2011) ‘Poststructuralism’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

Campbell, David (2016) ‘Poststructuralism’ in International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Oxford: OUP.

Steans, Jill et al (2010) ‘Postmodernism’ in An Introduction to International Relations Theory. Perspectives and Themes, Third Edition, Harlow: Longman.

 

Criticisms of Poststructuralism in IR

Brown, C., (1995) ‘Turtles All the Way Down: Antifoundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations,’ in: Rengger, N.J. and M. Hoffman (eds.), Beyond the Inter-Paradigm Debate, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Krishna, Sankaran, (1993) ‘The Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical International Relations Theory,’ Alternatives, vol. 18, 385-417.

Selby, Jan (2007) ‘Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and the Limits of Foucauldian IR’, International Relations, 21.3, 324-345.

Rosenberg, Justin (2000) ‘Rob Walker: Philosophical Backstop?’, in The Follies of Globalisation Theory: Polemical Essays, London: Verso.

 

 

 

 

Academic Advising and Personal Development:

Wk 7: Effective Presentations

 

Whether in seminars during your university career or in job interviews afterwards, the ability to communicate information clearly and engagingly is a key life skill. In this week’s Academic Advising element, we ask:

 

What makes a good presentation?

What are the key problems to avoid?

How to make slides that reinforce, rather than compete with, your communication?

 

 

 

Week 9: Feminism

 

Themes

One of the most fundamental challenges to both traditional and critical theories of International Relations has come from feminists who argue that International Relations is a gendered discipline. Not only do men and women have different experiences of the core IR dimensions of governance, security and economy; but also, those dimensions themselves are constructed in ways that reflect the gendered ordering of the social world. As a result, non-feminist IR theories do not just fail to perceive the role of gender in global power relations; they actively participate in its reproduction in this form. This week we examine this challenge using three pioneering texts from the 1990s: Peterson and Runyan’s account of gender as a ‘lens on world politics’, Anne Tickner’s argument about how this changes our understanding of ‘security’ in particular, and Chalotte Hooper’s analysis of the role of international relations in shaping the dominant forms of masculinity too.

 

Required Readings

Peterson, V. Spike and Anne Runyan (1993) Global Gender Issues, Boulder: Westview, Chapter 2: ‘Gender as a Lens on World Politics’, pp.17-15.

Tickner, J. Ann (1992) Gender in International Relations, Chapter 2: ‘Man, the state, and war etc.’, New York: Columbia University Press.

Hooper, Charlotte (1999) ‘Masculinities, IR and the ‘Gender Variable’, Review of International Studies, 25, pp.475-91.

 

Additional Readings

Cohn, Carol, (1987) ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’, Signs, vol. 12, no. 4, 687-718.

Connell, Robert  (2005) Masculinities. 2nd Ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. Esp. Chapter 7 ‘Men of Reason’.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke, (1987) Women and War, New York, Basic Books, pp. 3-13.

Enloe, Cynthia (1989) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Relations, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Goldstein, Joshua, (2001) War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), esp. chaps. 4 & 5.

Grant/Newland (eds.), (1991) Gender and International Relations, Milton Keynes, OUP, pp. 1-7.

Hooper, Charlotte (2001) Manly States. Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.

Hunt, Krista (2010) ‘The “War on Terrorism”’, in Gender Matters in Global Politics. A Feminist Introduction to International Relations, edited by Laura Shepherd, Abingdon: Routledge, pp.116-126.

Kimmel, Michael (2000) The Gendered Society. New York: Oxford University Press, chapters 2-5.

McGlen/Sarkees (eds.) (1993) Women in Foreign Policy: The Insiders, London, Routledge, chapters 1, 4.

Parpart, Jane & Marysia Zalewski (eds) (1998) The ‘Man Question’ in International Relations, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Parpart, Jane and Marysia Zalewski (2008) (eds.) Rethinking the Man Question. Sex, Gender and Violence in International Relations, London: Zed Books.

Peterson, V. Spike (1992) ‘Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender and International Relations’, in: Millennium, vol. 21, no. 2.

Peterson, V. Spike and Anne Sisson Runyan (1993) Global Gender Issues, Boulder: Westview Press.

Pettman, Jean (1996) Worlding Women. A Feminist International Politics, London, Routledge.

Shepherd, Laura (2008) Gender, Violence and Security, London: Zed Books.

Shepherd, Laura (ed.) (2010) Gender Matters in Global Politics, London: Routledge.

Shepherd, Laura (2013) ‘Feminist Security Studies’ in Critical Approaches to Security. An Introduction to Theories and Methods, edited by Laura Shepherd, London: Routledge.

Sjoberg, Laura and Caron Gentry, (2011) Women, Gender and Terrorism, Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.

Sjoberg, Laura (2012) ‘Gender, Structure and War: What Waltz Couldn’t See’, International Theory, 4.1, 1-38.

Sjoberg, Laura (ed.), (2009) Gender and International Security. Feminist Perspectives, London: Routledge.

Sjoberg, Laura, (2006) Gender, Justice, and the Wars in Iraq. A Feminist Reformulation of Just War Theory, Lexington Books.

Sjoberg, Laura (2014) Gender, War and Conflict, Cambridge: Polity.

Sjoberg, Laura (2010) ‘Gendering the Empire’s Soldiers: Gender Ideologies, The U.S. Military, and the “War on Terror”’, in Gender, War, and Militarism. Feminist Perspectives, edited by Laura Sjoberg and Sandra Via, Santa Barbara: Praeger, pp.209-218.

Sjoberg, Laura, (2013) Gendering Global Conflict: Toward a Feminist Theory of War, New York: Columbia University Press.

Steans, Jill (1998) Gender and International Relations, Cambridge, Polity Press, chapter 1.

Steans, Jill, (2013) Gender and International Relations. Theory, Practice, Policy, Third Edition, Cambridge: Polity.

Sylvester, Christine (1993) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, Cambridge, CUP, 1993, Introduction.

Tickner, J. Ann, (1992) Gender in International Relations, New York, Columbia University Press, 1992, chapter 1.

Tickner, Anne (1998) ‘Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: a Feminist Reformulation’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17.3, pp.429-440.

Weber, Cindy (1994) ‘Good Girls, Little Girls, Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations,’ in: Millennium, vol. 23, no. 2.

Whitworth, S., (1994) ‘Theory as Exclusion: Gender and IPE,’ in: Stubbs/Underhill (eds.), Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, London, MacMillan.

Zalewski, M. (1993) ‘The Women/’Women’ Question in International Relations,’ in: Millennium, vol. 23, no. 2.

 

Chapter-Length Overviews

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘Feminism’ in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Enloe, Cynthia (2007) ‘Feminism’ in International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge.

Sjoberg, Laura, and J. Ann Tickner (2013), ‘Feminist Perspectives on International Relations’ in Walter Carlsneas et al (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, 2nd Edition, London: Sage Press.

Steans, Jill et al (2010) ‘Feminist Perspectives’ in An Introduction to International Relations Theory. Perspectives and Themes, Third Edition, Harlow: Longman.

Tickner, J. and Laura Sjoberg (2016) ‘Feminism’ in International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Oxford: OUP.

Tickner, J. Ann (2011) ‘Gender in World Politics’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

 

Critiques of Feminism in IR

Jones, Adam (1996) ‘Does Gender Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations’, in: Review of International Studies, vol. 22, no. 4.

Keohane, Robert (1989) ‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint,’ Millennium, 18.2. (See also Cindy Weber’s (1994) reply.)

 

 

 

Academic Advising and Personal Development:

Wk 9: Digital Literacy

 

Soon it will be time to start work on the essays that form part of the assessment on your various modules. A key skill you will need for this is the ability to find relevant materials by searching the Library’s online and print resources. This week’s lecture therefore includes a hands-on workshop designed to enhance your abilities in this area. The workshop will help you:

 

✔Improve your search strategies to find the most relevant materials for your work

✔Search the Library’s print and digital resources including full-text journal articles, e-books and the specific key readings needed for your assignment

✔Locate the high-quality secondary sources that can be found in the academic databases of your subject guide

✔Critically evaluate the resources that you find to ensure that they are appropriate for your work

✔Get further help with referencing and creating a bibliography

 

 

 

 

Week 10: Postcolonial Theory

 

Themes

The discipline of International Relations was created in the West, at a time when most of the world was colonized by Western powers. For this reason, it arguably reflects not only Western or European cultural heritage but also a worldview that justifies the colonization of non-Western peoples. Just as in the case of Feminism, it was initially expected that  political emancipation – in this case, decolonization – would put an end to the inequalities involved, i.e. between the Western and the non-Western world. Yet, this hope has been disappointed. Postcolonialism thus theorizes the continuing inequalities and the means by which they are reproduced. Prominent amongst these means is a construction of knowledge which excludes the particular experiences, issues, and contributions of non-European peoples to international history and politics. In its critique, postcolonialism does not just address the orthodoxy of International Relations but also the so-called critical approaches by arguing that non-Western people face the triple oppression of race, class and gender.

 

Required Readings

Tickner, Arlene (2003) ‘Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World’, Millennium, 32 (2), 295-324.

Seth, Sanjay (2011) ‘Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations’ Millennium, 40(1), 167-183.

 

Additional Readings

Agathangelou, Anna and L.H.M. Ling (2004) ‘Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11, International Studies Quarterly 48, 517-538.

Amin, Samir, (1988) Eurocentrism, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Anghie, Anthony, (1996) ‘Francisco de Vitoria and the Colonial Origins of International Law,’ Social and Legal Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3, 321-336.

Anghie, Anthony, (2006) ‘The evolution of international law: Colonial and postcolonial realities’, Third World Quarterly, 27:5, 739-753.

Bilgin, Pinar (2008) ‘Thinking past ‘Western’ IR?’, Third World Quarterly, 29:1, 5-23.

Bhambra, Gurminder and Robbie Shilliam (eds) (2009) Silencing Human Rights: Critical Engagments with a Contested Project, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chakrabarty, D. (2000) Provincializing Europe : postcolonial thought and historical difference, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Chowdhry, Geeta, and Sheila Niar (2002) Power, Postcolonialism, and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class. London: Routledge.

Darby Phillip and Paolini, (1994) A. J., ‘Bridging International Relations Postcolonialism’, Alternatives, 19(3): 371-397.

Fanon, F. (1965) The Wretched of the Earth, London: Penguin.

Gandhi, Leela, (1998) Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Grovogui, Siba N., (2001) ‘Come to Africa: A Hermeneutic of Race in International Theory,’ Alternatives, vol. 26, no. 4, 425-448.

Grovogui, Siba N., ‘Regimes of Sovereignty: International Morality and the African Condition,’ European Journal of International Relations, vol. 8, no. 3, 315-338.

Grovogui, Siba N., (1996) Sovereigns, Quasi-Sovereigns, and Africans, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Grovogui, Siba (2011) ‘Looking Beyond Spring for the Season: An African Perspective on the World Order after the Arab Revolt’, Globalizations, 8:5, 567-572.

Hobson, John (2014) ‘The Twin Self-Delusions of IR’: Why Hierarchy and not Anarchy is the Core Concept of IR, Millennium – Journal of International Studies.

Hobson, John (2012) The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Western International Theory, 1760-2010, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jabri, Vivienne (2014) ‘Disarming Norms: postcolonial agency and the constitution of the international’, International Theory 6(02) 372-90.

Jahn, Beate, The Cultural Construction of International Relations: The Invention of the State of Nature, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000.

Jones, Branwen Grufydd (ed) (2006) Decolonizing International Relations, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kinnvall, Catarina (2009) ‘Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’ in Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge.

Krishna, Sankaran, (2001) ‘Race, Amnesia and the Education of International Relations,’ Alternatives, vol. 26, no. 4, 401-424.

Ling, L.H.M., (2002) Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire Between Asia and the West, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Ling, L.H.M. (2014) The Dao of World Politics: towards a post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations, New York: Routledge.

Muppidi, Himadeep (2009) ‘Frantz Fanon’ in Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge.

Muppidi, Himadeep (1999) ‘Postcoloniality and the Production of International Insecurity: the Persistent Puzzle of US-Indian Relations’, in Cultures of Insecurity: States, communities and the production of danger, London: University of Minnesota Press.

Said, Edward (1944) Culture and Imperialism, London: Vintage.

Said, Edward (1979) Orientalism, London: Vintage.

Seth, Sanjay (ed) (2012) Postcolonial Theory and International Relations, London: Routledge.

Seth, Sanjay (2014) ‘The Politics of Knowledge: Or, how to Stop Being Eurocentric’, History Compass, 12/4: 311-320.

Shilliam, Robbie (ed.) 2011) International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity, New York: Routledge.

Smith, Karen (2009) ‘Has Africa got anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations’, The Round Table  98, no.402.

Varadarajan, Latha (2009) ‘Edward Said’ in Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge.

Vasilaki, Rosa (2012) ‘Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory’, Millennium, 41, 1, 3-22.

Vitalis, Robert (2000) ‘The Graceful and Generous Liberal Gesture: Making Racism Invisible in American International Relations,’ Millennium, vol. 29, no. 2, 2000, 331-356.

Vitalis, Roberg () Black Skins, White Masks

Watson, Hilbourne (2001) ‘Theorizing the Racialization of Global Politics and the Caribbean Experience,’ Alternatives, vol. 26, 2001, 449-483.

 

Chapter-Length Overviews

Abrahamsen, Rita (2007) ‘Postcolonialism’ in International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge.

Blaney, David and Inayatullah, Naeem, (2008) ‘International Relations from Below’, in Christian Reus-Smith and Duncan Snidal (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press), Chapter 38.

Daddow, Oliver (2013) ‘Postcolonialism’ in International Relations Theory. The Essentials, 2nd Edition, London: Sage.

Grovogui, Siba (2016) ‘Postcolonialism’ in International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity, 4th Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, Oxford: OUP.

Sylvester, Christine (2011) ‘Post-colonialism’ in The Globalization of World Politics, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 5th Edition, Oxford: OUP.

 

Critiques of Postcolonial Theory

Krishna, Sankaran (2009) Globalization and Postcolonialism. Hegemony and Resistance in the Twenty-First Century, New York: Rowman and Littlefield, chapter 4: ‘Critiques of postcolonial theory’.

Matin, Kamran, (2013) ‘Redeeming the Universal: Postcolonialism and the Inner Life of Eurocentrism’, European Journal of International Relations, 19(2): 353-377.

 

 

 

Academic Advising and Personal Development:

Wk 10: Academic Integrity

 

Academic integrity is one of the most important attributes of good scholarly writing. Knowing when and how to formally attribute words, phrases and ideas that you use in your essays will also enable you to avoid the enormous dangers of plagiarism, collusion and other forms of serious academic misconduct. Every year, some students commit plagiarism unintentionally through ignorance of the basics of referencing. This week’s AAPD component is designed to ensure that you do not fall into this trap. It gives you an opportunity to clarify your understanding of referencing by using the online quizzes on the Sussex S3 site: Study Success at Sussex: Referencing

 

 

 

 

Week 11: ‘The End of IR Theory?’  

 

In 2013, the European Journal of International Relations published a special issue called ‘The End of IR Theory?’ The Editors suggested that after the turbulent years of the ‘great debates’ of the 1930s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s-90s, the field of IR theory was exhausted, with no new ‘big ideas on the horizon’. Others too have often suggested that IR theory is over because we now live in a global, ‘post-international’ world.

In this last topic, we consider the state of the field today, and we look at two starkly contrasting assessments. Christine Sylvester suggests that IR theory is now irreversibly fragmented, with the adherents of different approaches sitting round separate ‘campfires’, and no longer engaged in a shared conversation. More recently, however, Justin Rosenberg has argued that IR does have a powerful core message, and one with much to contribute to other disciplines: alone among the social sciences and humanities, IR studies the fact that the human world comprises not one but many societies. The richness of this theme has been concealed by IR’s traditional identity as just a sub-field of Political Science. But if Rosenberg is correct, then IR theory, far from being at its end, could be on the verge of a new beginning…

 

Required Readings

Sylvester, Christine (2007) ‘Whither the international at the end of IR?’ Millennium 35.3, 551-73.

Rosenberg, Justin (2016) ‘International Relations in the Prison of Political Science’, International Relations, 30.2, 127-153.

 

 

Additional Readings

Baron, Ilan Zvi (2014) ‘The Continuing Failure of International Relations and the Challenges of Disciplinary Boundaries’, Millennium 43.1, 224-244.

Bleiker, Roland (1997) ‘Forget IR Theory’, Alternatives 22, 57-85.

Booth, Ken and Toni Erskine (eds.) (2016) International Relations Theory Today, (Second Edition) (Part III: Theorising IR Tomorrow).

Brown, Chris (2013) ‘The Poverty of Grand Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 19.3, 483-498.

Brown, Chris (2017) ‘Review Article: International Political Theory Today’, Millennium 45.2, pp.193-200.

Brown, Chris and Kirsten Ainley (2005) Understanding International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, especially Chapter 3 (‘International Theory Today’).

Burke, Anthony et al. (2016) ‘Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR’, Millennium 44.3, 499-523.

Buzan, Barry and Richard Little (2001) ‘Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About It’, Millennium, 30(1): 19–39.

Dunne, Tim, Lena Hansen and Colin Wight (2013) ‘The End of International Relations Theory?’ European Journal of International Relations, 19.3, 405-426.

Dyvik, Synne, Jan Selby and Rorden Wilkinson (eds.) (2017) What’s the Point of International Relations?, London: Routledge.

Epstein, Charlotte (2015) ‘Minding the Brain: IR as a Science?’, Millennium 43.2, 743-748.

Ferguson, Yale and Richard Mansbach (2007) ‘Post-Internationalism and IR Theory’, Millennium, 35:3, 529-549.

Jahn, Beate (2017) Theorizing the political relevance of international relations theory. International Studies Quarterly, 61 (1). pp. 64-77.

Johnson, Dominic (2014) ‘Survival of the Disciplines: Is International Relations Fit for the New Millennium’, Millennium 43.2, pp.749-763.

Knutsen, Torbjorn (2016) A History of IR Theory, Third Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press, especially chapter 15: ‘Global Politics: the end of International Relations?’.

Lake, David (2013) ‘Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 19.3, 567-87.

Neumann, Iver (2014) ‘International Relations as a Social Science’, Millennium 43.1, pp.330-350. (See also the roundtable published in the same issue.)

Snyder, Jack (2004) ‘One World, Rival Theories’, Foreign Policy 145, 52-62.

Sylvester, Christine (2013) ‘Experiencing the End and Afterlives of International Relations Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 19.3, 405-25.

 

 

 

Academic Advising and Personal Development:

Wk 11: Module Evaluation

 

This week we’ll also take 10-15 minutes for you to fill out the online Module Evaluation Questionnaire.

 

 

 

Week 12: Essay Preparation Workshop

 

The last lecture of the module will be focused on preparing to write your essay, (70% of your grade).

 

But there will also be an Academic Advising element focusing on thinking about careers.

 

 

Academic Advising and Personal Development:

Wk 12: Steps towards your career

 

It’s never too early to start thinking about what kind of career you want to build after you finish your degree. Addressing it proactively now could even mean that you gain relevant work experience while you’re still at Sussex.

This week’s AAPD event is a contribution from the Sussex Careers and Employability Centre. Its purpose is to help you think about what you want from your career, to enable you to review your skills and to get you started on your individual career action plan.

Key outcomes:

✔Gain knowledge of career pathways within International Relations

✔Understand how your degree connects with different jobs and roles

✔Learn how to access opportunities for relevant placements and internships

✔Gain further resources to assist your career progression

 

 

 

 

 

Essay Questions

 

  1. Is theory a necessary part of the study of international relations – and if so, why?
  2. What did Wight mean by claiming that there was ‘no international theory’ – and was he right?
  3. Does Realism deserve its position as the core theory of International Relations – and if so, why?
  4. ‘What are the key liberal ideas in IR theory, and how convincing are they as a solution to the problem of international order?
  5. On what grounds – and how convincingly – does Liberalism argue that ‘democracies do not go to war with each other’?
  6. Explain the grounds on which EITHER the pessimism of Realism OR the optimism of Liberalism in IR can be justified.
  7. Compare the views of Mearsheimer and Ikenberry on the rise of China. Which is more persuasive, and why?
  8. “Anarchy is what states make of it!” Do you agree?
  9. ‘Ideas matter.’ How accurate a description is this of the core claims of constructivism in IR?
  10. Are Marxist theories of imperialism of any use in explaining the contemporary international system?
  11. ‘Historical Materialism analyses the vertical relations between classes, rather than the horizontal relations between states. It therefore cannot produce an international theory.’ Discuss.
  12. In what ways is Critical Theory an advance on mainstream international theory?
  13. ‘Theory is always forsomeone and for some purpose.’ (Cox) Discuss the implications of this statement for international theory
  14. In what ways – and with what consequences – is IR an inherently gendered discipline?
  15. ‘There is nothing outside of discourse.’ What did Campbell mean by this statement, and what are its implications for the study of IR?
  16. Explain the ‘power/knowledge’ nexus, and outline its relevance to the study of IR.
  17. “The study of gender in international politics is of no significance for men.” Discuss.
  18. ’What, if anything, does a ‘postcolonial’ analysis of international relations add to our understanding?
  19. How significant is the problem of Eurocentrism for the study of international relations, and what, if anything, can be done about it?
  20. Assess the claim that the development of IR theory is now over.

 

Order Now