Syllabus - INR 4603: Theories of International Relations (Fall 2014)

Theories of International Relations INR 4603 (U02) Fall 2014 Course Information: Meetings: Wednesday (5:00—7:40 PM) Classroom: Charles Perry (PC) 310 Class no.: 81679 Instructor: Nicolás Terradas (nicolas.terradas@fiu.edu) Office: SIPA 213 Office hours: Wednesday 3:00 to 5:00 PM (w/appt.) Course Description: This course examines the main schools of thought in International Relations (IR) and their main theoretical debates on various aspects of world politics. Also, it evaluates the internal logic and coherence, historical evolution, and changing explanatory value of several mainstream theories grounded in different school of thought. The course ascertains how to organize mainstream theories of IR in order to make them more accessible to different research needs and applications. The aim is to move out of the epistemological “trench-mentality” and into the “tool-box” mode. The course treats theories as road maps to guide and facilitate research rather than to obfuscate the study and analysis of world politics. Hence, every effort will be made to connect theoretical abstraction and the theorybuilding enterprise with methodological implementation, problem-solving usefulness, and the promotion of empirical relevance. The style of the course is a reading-seminar. First, the instructor outlines and discusses basic themes, concepts, and theoretical implications in class. Second, students are urged in our weekly sessions to discuss questions and original writings of different IR theorists. Learning Objectives: The principal aim of this course is to teach students independent, abstract, and critical thinking. Accordingly, it introduces students to the process of abstraction and critical inquiry in the discipline, while also familiarizing them with various viewpoints regarding each theoretical argument. Students are expected to learn about theory-building in the Social Sciences, in general, and in IR, in particular. The analytical tools offered will help students assimilate, explain, organize, and engage IR theories in order to render them more relevant to different current (and future) research needs and applications. At the end of this course, students are expected to know about the theoretical evolution of IR; why and how are IR theories developed for the analysis of global or world politics; what are the main philosophical perspectives informing various IR schools of thought and their attendant theories; how different assumptions and norms lead to different theoretical positions in the field; and how to use theories to ask fundamental questions, seek answers to those questions, and make sense of the past, the present, and, possibly, the future, and the pressing international issues affecting our earthly existence. General Organization: To successfully accomplish the learning objectives listed above, the course is organized around three main parts. Part 1, as a way of introduction, explores the historical contours that led to the development of contemporary IR theorizing in the early 20th century, and culminating in a “foundational moment” in the mid-1950s, when the theoretical study of IR became a recognized discipline and a self-standing pillar within the Social Sciences. In this section, students will be presented with certain epistemological and conceptual issues—a “tool-kit”—with which to engage later different schools of thought in IR. Several useful concepts and categories, as for instance “system” and “levels of analysis,” will be examined thoroughly. Part 2 studies each individual school of thought in detail through a critical engagement with their main works and authors. A key objective here will be to make intelligible for the student the deep and fundamental connections between these classical works and the contemporary theoretical developments in IR. Finally, Part 3 offers the opportunity for a more applied and reflexive (and entertaining!) engagement with IR’s principal theories by way of exploring the theoretical implications for world politics of a zombie apocalypse(!!!). Course Requirements: Class Preparation: In order for students to take full advantage of the class and make it more enjoyable for all, the required readings must be completed before each class meeting. Students are also encouraged to come to class with a set of questions that they may have encountered while preparing for the meetings, and to share them with the rest of the students at the appropriate moment during class. Class preparation should go both ways: as the instructor prepares the lectures, every student must also dedicate at least an hour of preparation prior to each lecture. Otherwise, the instructor will sound like he is speaking an incomprehensible language. In short, prepare thoughtfully and thoroughly before each class. Class Participation: There is a difference between tactical dilatory “participation” and quality participation. While normal, quality class participation is always welcome, dilatory interventions are discouraged. For example, simply posing misinformed questions about the readings or the lecture—and when clearly showing a lack of proper class preparation (or reading, at all) of the assigned texts—may actually end up working against, rather than in favor of, the student’s overall grade. In contrast, active, quality participation, demonstrating intimate and thoughtful familiarity with the assigned readings and class topics, is highly welcome as it will help students improve not only their final grade but also will enrich the class. Written Evaluations: • WEEKLY PAPERS: There will be no partial exam(s) throughout the semester. Instead, students will have to hand-in at the end of each class-meeting a continuous series of papers based on the assigned readings. These assignments will consist of two-page Summary Papers (for Part 1), and of two-page Analytical Papers (for Part 2). The summary papers (for Part 1) should prioritize the detection of the main arguments, major points, and crucial contribution(s) to the given class-topic by each of the required readings. In contradistinction, the analytical papers (for Part 2) should go beyond mere summary and description (“who said what and when”) and focus instead on the student’s own analysis. Although direct personal opinion on the readings is an inseparable part of any analysis, students should not stop simply at that. By all means possible, students should avoid platitudes, meaningless repetitions, and typically vacuous comments like “it is interesting,” or “it is very complex.” It is important to remember that successful analytical papers are not summary papers, and should make analytical connections between the authors and their contributions to the class topics. Each analytical paper must display the student’s: (a) understanding of the main arguments from the readings; and (b) capacity to make simple, but meaningful, connections between each author’s main argument, in a clear and ordered manner. • PRESENTATION FORMAT: The printed required format for the summary and analytical papers is the following. Page size: Letter Font Type: Palatino Linotype Font Size: 12 points Margins: Normal (2,54cm or 1 inch, on each margin) Line Spacing: 1.5 Normal academic standards should be followed throughout the papers. There will be no make-up assignments. Papers are due on the scheduled date. If papers are not received on the due date, it will not be graded. No cover page is needed. Papers should be only 2 pages long. • FINAL EXAM: There will be a final, comprehensive written exam at the end of the course. The room will be the same as used for regular class meetings; the duration will be 2 hours (120 minutes); and it will take place on Wednesday, December 10. The exam will draw from any aspect of the entire set of readings in the course and will consist of three questions, of which the student should answer only two. The questions will be analytical, pushing the student to think critically, to make connections and comparisons, and to come up with personal, informed assessments of different possible ways to apply specific theories to certain contemporary scenarios. Grading Criteria: The grading scale will follow FIU official standards. Therefore, the minimal passing grade will be C (a C- will not do). Please note that less than a 60% in average score is an automatic F. Also, no incomplete (INC) grade will be granted unless an extreme situation exists and is properly documented. Students who, by the end of the semester, owe any assignments (papers or the final exam) or have missed more than 60% of the classes, will automatically be granted an F. A: A-: B+: B: B-: 93-100% 90-92% 88-89% 83-87% 80-82% C+: C: C-: D: F: 78-79% 73-77% 70-72% 60-69% <60% Summary Papers: Analytical Papers: Final Exam: Course Grade 15% 50% 35% 100% Readings: Students should acquire full copies of the following five (5) books:  Edward H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, [1939] 2001). ISBN: 978-0333963777.  Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Waveland, [1979] 2010). ISBN: 978-1577666707.  Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Fourth edition (Palgrave Macmillan, [1977] 2012). ISBN: 978-0230393387. [Also ISBN: 978-0231161299 by Columbia Univ. Press].  Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1999). ISBN: 978-0521469609.  Daniel W. Drezner, Theories of International Politics and Zombies (Princeton University Press, 2011). ISBN: 978-0691147833. The following books are not required, but are highly suggested as complementary reading:  Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (Columbia University Press, [1959] 2001). ISBN: 978-0231125376.  John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Updated edition (W. W. Norton & Co., [2001] 2014). ISBN: 978-0393349276.  Robert G. Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1981). ISBN: 9780521273763.  Ken Booth (ed.), Realism and World Politics (Routledge, 2011). ISBN: 978-0415570589.  G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton University Press, 2000). ISBN: 978-0691050911.  Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press, [1984] 2005). ISBN: 978-0691122489.  Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye, Jr., Power and Interdependence. Second edition (Longman, [1977] 1989). ISBN: 978-0673398918.  Vendulka Kubálková, Nicholas G. Onuf and Paul A. Kowert (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World (M. E. Sharpe, 1998). ISBN: 978-0765602985.  Stephen Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge University Press, 1993). ISBN: 978-0521435239.  Cornelia Navari and Daniel Green (eds.), Guide to the English School in International Studies (WileyBlackwell, 2014). ISBN: 978-1118624777.  Cornelia Navari (ed.), Theorising International Society: English School Methods (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). ISBN: 978-0230547155.  J. D. B. Miller and R. J. Vincent (eds.), Order and Violence: Hedley Bull and International Relations (Oxford University Press, 1990). ISBN: 978-0198275558. Course Policies: Attendance: In order for the classes to begin on time (and end on time too!), students should plan ahead and seriously consider coming to the classroom 15 minutes early (that is, to be in your seats by 4:45 PM). Attendance is mandatory. Students who consistently miss classes, even if their performance in the written assignments and/or final exam is satisfactory, will seriously harm their overall grade. Coming to class is an indispensable part of the student’s training and education. I do not accept “traffic” or “flat-tire” excuses. We all operate in the same Miamian world. So, leave home (or work) early! Electronic Devices: The use of cell-phones, tablets, and other such electronic devices is not allowed inside the classroom during class time, and should be turned off and stored away before the each class starts. Do not wait to be admonished in public. If in need of making a phone-call, please quietly step outside of the classroom. Also, laptop computers are not allowed during class time. Students should take notes oldstyle. Finally, there can be no recording of the lectures. Please adhere to these policies. Syllabus: You are required to bring this syllabus to class. A pdf version of this syllabus is emailed to all the students enrolled in the class a week before the semester starts. Please check your FIU student email account for general communication and future class announcements. Bring the syllabus with you every week and read it carefully. Email Etiquette: I do not email students to their personal email addresses—only to their student ones. Please check your FIU email regularly. Also, when communicating, write in the subject field of your email the class number. Otherwise, your correspondence may not be properly filtered and will run the risk of being overlooked. Plagiarism and Cheating: Students should familiarize with what plagiarism entails. During this course, any case of cheating and/or plagiarism will be automatically reported to the Department of Politics and International Affairs, and the student(s) involved will automatically earn an “F” as final grade for the course and will be dropped from the class. Sanctions may vary from automatically being dropped from the class to being expelled from the university. I encourage you not to risk your entire semester. Be smart. *At any time during the semester, the instructor may input changes to the present syllabus, as deemed necessary. The instructor reserves the right to change material in the syllabus, based on his estimation of the class caliber, comprehension, and progress. In case of any such changes, the instructor will notify the modification(s) in class. Course Calendar: DATE: CLASS ORDER: CLASS TOPIC: Part 1: “Thinking Theoretically” August 27 Class meeting 1 Course presentation: The Logic(s) of Anarchy September 3 September 10* Class meeting 2 Class meeting 3 1. “Inventing” International Relations September 17* Class meeting 4 2. What is IR Theory? September 24* Class meeting 5 3. Systems, Units, and “Levels of Analysis” Part 2: “Schools of Thought” October 1 October 8* Class meeting 6 Class meeting 7 4. Realist Theories of IR October 15 October 22* Class meeting 8 Class meeting 9 5. Liberal Theories of IR October 29 November 5* Class meeting 10 Class meeting 11 6. The “English School” November 12* Class meeting 12 7. Constructivist Theories of IR November 19 November 26* Class meeting 13 Class meeting 14 8. Critical Perspectives Part 3: “Theory in Practice” December 3 Class meeting 15 9. “Theory of International(zombie) Politics” December 10 Final Exam In-class Final Comprehensive (5:00-7:00 PM) December 18 Grade report available by 9:00 AM (https://my.fiu.edu) * Papers are due by this date . Readings: PART 1: “THINKING THEORETICALLY” Course Presentation: The Logic(s) of Anarchy (Aug. 27 [60 pages]) Required Readings: 1. John H. Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2 (January 1950), pp. 157-80. 2. John H. Herz, “The Security Dilemma in the Atomic Age,” in: International Politics in the Atomic Age (Columbia University Press, 1959), pp. 231-43. 3. Edward H. Carr, “The Moral Foundations for World Order,” in: E. H. Carr (ed.), Foundations for World Order (The University of Denver Press, 1949), pp. 53-75. 1. “Inventing” International Relations (Sept. 3 and 10 [146 pages]) Required Readings: 1. E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, [1939] 2001), Parts I and II. 2. Andreas Osiander, “Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Sept. 1998), pp. 409-32. 3. Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” World Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3 (April 1966), pp. 361-77. 4. Morton A. Kaplan, “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations,” World Politics, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Sept. 1966), pp. 1-20. Suggested Readings:  Miles Kahler, “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945,” in: Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Westview Press, 1997), pp. 20-53.  Nicolas Guilhot (ed.), The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory (Columbia University Press, 2011).  Tim Dunne, Inventing International Society: A History of the English School (St. Martin’s Press, 1998). 2. What is IR Theory? (Sept. 17 [87 pages]) Required Readings: 1. Martin Wight, “Why is There No International Theory?,” International Relations, Vol. 2, No. 1 (April 1960), pp. 35-48, 62. 2. Hans J. Morgenthau, “The Intellectual and Political Functions of Theory,” in: Politics in the Twentieth Century. Vol. I: The Decline of Democratic Politics (The University of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 62-78. 3. Raymond Aron, “What is a Theory of International Relations?,” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1967), pp. 185-206. 4. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Waveland, [1979] 2010), Chaps. 1-2. Suggested Readings: • • • • • • Hedley Bull, “The Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969,” in: Brian Porter (ed.), The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics, 1919-1969 (Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 30-55. William T. R. Fox (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of International Relations (University of Notre Dame Press, 1959). Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (Harvard University Press, 1966). Kenneth N. Waltz, “Theory of International Relations,” in: Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.), Handbook of Political Science. Vol. 8: International Politics (Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 1-85. Kenneth N. Waltz, “Evaluating Theories,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 4 (1997), pp. 913-7. Kenneth N. Waltz, “Thoughts about Assaying Theories,” in: Colin Elman and Miriam F. Elman (eds.), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (MIT Press, 2003), pp. vii-xii.  Steve Smith, “Positivism and Beyond,” in: Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 11-44.  Ole Wæver, “Waltz’s Theory of Theory: The Pictorial Challenge to Mainstream IR,” in: Ken Booth (ed.), Realism and World Politics (Routledge, 2011), pp. 67-88.  Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford University Press, 1991). 3. Systems, Units, and “Levels of Analysis” (Sept. 24 [113 pages]) Required Readings: 1. Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (Columbia University Press, [1959] 2001), Foreword, Preface, Chaps. 1-2, 6, 8. 2. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Chaps. 3-4. Suggested Readings: • Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962), Intro., Chap. 1.  J. David Singer, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations,” World Politics, Vol. 14, No. 1 (October 1961), pp. 77-92.  Barry Buzan, “The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations Reconsidered,” in: Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Polity Press, 1995), pp. 198-216.  William B. Moul, “The Problem of Levels of Analysis Revisited,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 6, No. 3 (September 1973), pp. 494-513. • • Robert Jervis, “Systems Theory and Diplomatic History,” in: Paul Gordon Lauren (ed.), Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy (Free Press, 1979), pp. 212-44. Gabriel Almond and Stephen Genco, “Clouds, Clocks and the Study of Politics,” World Politics, Vol. 29 (July 1977), pp. 489-522.  Alexander Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in international Relations Theory,” International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Summer 1987), pp. 35-73.  David Dessler, “What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?,” International Organization, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Summer 1989), pp. 441-73.  Harry D. Gould, “What is at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate,” in: Vendulka Kubálková, Nicholas G. Onuf and Paul A. Kowert (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World (M. E. Sharpe, 1998), pp. 79-98.  Andreas Bieler and Adam D. Morton, “The Gordian Knot of Agency—Structure in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, No. 1 (March 2001), pp. 5-35.  Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford University Press, 1991). PART 2: SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT 4. Realist Theories of IR (Oct. 1 and 8 [360 pages]) Required Readings: 1. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Fifth edition (Alfred Knopf, [1948] 1973), pp. 1-15, 27-39, 103-11, 167-77. 2. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Chaps. 5-9. 3. John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Updated edition (W. W. Norton & Co., [2001] 2014), Chaps. 1-2, 9 [skim 10]. 4. Robert G. Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1981), Intro., Chaps. 1, 5-6. Suggested Readings:  Hans J. Morgenthau, “The Political Science of E. H. Carr,” World Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (October 1948), pp. 127-34. • • • • • • Hans J. Morgenthau, “Realism in International Politics,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 10, No. 5 (January 1958), pp. 1-15. Kenneth N. Waltz, “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory,” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 44, No. 1. (1990), pp. 21-37. Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1988), pp. 615-28. Robert G. Gilpin, “The Theory of Hegemonic War,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Spring 1988), pp. 591-613. Robert G. Gilpin, “No One Loves a Political Realist,” in Benjamin Frankel (ed.), Realism: Restatements and Renewal (Frank Cass, 1996), pp. 3-26. Michael Spirtas, “A House Divided: Tragedy and Evil in Realist Theory,” in: Frankel, Realism: Restatements and Renewal, pp. 385-423.  Randall L. Schweller, “Neorealism’s Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?,” in: Frankel, Realism: Restatements and Renewal, pp. 90-121.  Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 391425.  Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (Columbia University Press, 1986), esp. Chaps. by R. Keohane, J. Ruggie, R. Cox, and R. Ashley. 5. Liberal Theories of IR (Oct. 15 and 22 [140 pages]) Required Readings: 1. Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics Revisited,” in: Charles W. Kegley, Jr. (ed.), Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (St. Martin’s Press, 1995), pp. 83-106. 2. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye, Jr., Power and Interdependence. Second edition (Longman, [1977] 1989), Prefaces, Chaps. 1-2, Afterword. 3. Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press, [1984] 2005), Prefaces, Chaps. 1, 4, 11. 4. Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Westview Press, 1989), Chap. 1, 7. Suggested Readings: • G. John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton University Press, 2000).  Randall L. Schweller, “The Problem of International Order Revisited: A Review Essay,” International Security, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 161-86.  Kenneth N. Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer 2000), pp. 5-41.  Sebastian Rosato, “On Democratic Peace,” in: Christopher J. Coyne and Rachel L. Mathers (eds.), Handbook on the Political Economy of War (Elgar, 2011), pp. 281-314. • • • • • • Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (W. W. Norton & Co., 2001). Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton University Press, 1993). Michael Mandelbaum, The Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in The Twenty-first Century (Public Affairs, 2002), Chaps. 1, 8-11. Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn 1997), pp. 513–53. James L. Richardson, “Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 3, No. 1 (March 1997), pp. 5-33. Kenneth Oye (ed.), Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton University Press, 1986).  Fareed Zakaria, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1997), pp. 22-43. 6. The “English School” (Oct. 29 and Nov. 5 [212 pages]) Required Readings: 1. Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (Harvard University Press, 1966), Chaps. 2-3 (both by Hedley Bull). 2. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (Palgrave Macmillan, [1977] 2012), Chaps. 1-3 and Concl. [skim 5-9]. 3. Hedley Bull, Justice in International Relations, Hagey Lectures, 12-13 October 1983 (Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo, 1984). 4. Barry Buzan, “The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3 (July 2001), pp. 471-88. 5. Robert H. Jackson, “The Political Theory of International Society,” in: Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today (Polity Press, 1995), pp. 110-28. 6. Nicholas J. Wheeler, “Guardian Angel or Global Gangster: A Review of the Ethical Claims of International Society,” Political Studies, Vol. 44 (March 1996), pp. 123-35. 7. Barry Buzan, “The ‘Standard of Civilisation’ as an English School Concept,” Millennium—Journal of International Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3 (June 2014), pp. 576-94. Suggested Readings:  Hedley Bull, “The Twenty Years’ Crisis Thirty Years On,” International Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Autumn 1969), pp. 625-38. • • • • • • J. D. B. Miller and R. J. Vincent (eds.), Order and Violence: Hedley Bull and International Relations (Oxford University Press, 1990). Cornelia Navari (ed.), Theorising International Society: English School Methods (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford University Press, 1984). Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2002). Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004) Andrew Hurrell, On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society (Oxford University Press, 2007).  Dale C. Copeland, “A Realist Critique of the English School,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3 (July 2003), pp. 427-41. 7. Constructivist Theories of IR (Nov. 12 [165 pages]) Required Readings: 1. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1999), Chap. 1, 6-7 and Concl. 2. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn 1998), pp. 887-917. Suggested Readings:  Vendulka Kubálková, “The Twenty Years’ Catharsis: E. H. Carr and IR,” in: Vendulka Kubálková, Nicholas G. Onuf and Paul A. Kowert (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World (M. E. Sharpe, 1998), pp. 25-57.  Hidemi Suganami, “Alexander Wendt and the English School,” Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol. 4, No. 4 (2001), pp. 403-23.  Dale C. Copeland, “The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism: A Review Essay,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Fall 2000), pp. 187-212.  Kenneth N. Waltz, “Neorealism: Confusions and Criticisms,” Journal of Politics & Society, Vol. 15 (Spring 2004), pp. 2-6. • • • Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 391425. Nicholas G. Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Routledge, [1989] 2013). John G. Ruggie, “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis,” in Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 131-57.  Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander (eds.), Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and His Critics (Routledge, 2006). • • • Vendulka Kubálková, Nicholas G. Onuf and Paul A. Kowert (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World (M. E. Sharpe, 1998). Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics (Cornell University Press, 2004). Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (Columbia University Press, 1996). 8. Critical Perspectives (Nov. 19 and 26 [130 pages]) Required Readings: 1. Mark Hoffman, “Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate,” Millennium— Journal of International Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June 1987), pp. 231-49. 2. Robert W. Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” Millennium—Journal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (June 1983), pp. 162-75. 3. Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in: Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 204-54. 4. Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 16, No. 4 (September 1974), pp. 387-415. 5. Theotonio Dos Santos, “The Structure of Dependence,” American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 2 (May 1970), pp. 231-6. 6. Andrew Linklater, “The Problem of Community in International Relations,” Alternatives, Vol. 15, No. 2 (April 1990), pp. 135-53. Suggested Readings:  Edward H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, [1939] 2001), Part III, IV and Concl.  Beate Jahn, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism,” Millennium—Journal of International Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3 (September 1988), pp. 613-41.  John J. Mearsheimer, “E. H. Carr vs. Idealism: The Battle Rages On,” International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 2 (2005), pp. 139-52. [Also “Roundtable: The Battle Rages On,” Mearsheimer vs. Paul Rogers, Richard Little, Christopher Hill, Chris Brown, and Ken Booth, International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 3 (2005), pp. 337-60]. PART 3: THEORY IN PRACTICE 9. “Theory of International (zombie) Politics” (Dec. 3 [117 pages]) Required Readings: 1. Daniel W. Drezner, Theories of International Politics and Zombies (Princeton University Press, 2011).