PSCI 6600F - Carleton.ca - Carleton University

Carleton University Department of Political Science

Fall 2006

PSCI 6600F Theory and Research in International Politics I Friday 9:35 a.m. – 12:25 p.m. C665 Loeb

Instructor: Office: Phone:

Dr. Brian C. Schmidt D698 Loeb 520-2600 ext. 1062

E-mail: [email protected] Office Hours: Mon. 10-12, Wens. 2:30-4:30

I. Aims and Objectives This seminar and its counterpart in the winter term, PSCI 6601, constitute the core of the international relations program in the department. They are the basis of the comprehensive examination in international relations at the doctoral level. The Graduate Calendar describes this course as "An examination of the principal problems in contemporary international relations theory and research, emphasizing the state of the field and current directions in it." To pursue this objective in the fall term, we undertake a historical approach to help determine the “state of the field.” The course is designed to introduce graduate students to the theories, debates, and major scholarly traditions in international relations. As the core course offered in this field, the intention is to provide a general, but not elementary, overview. The fall seminar is organized around some of the seminal works in the field that reflect the respective contributions of realist, rationalist, liberal, neorealist, and neoliberal approaches. Together these approaches represent the so-called rationalist mainstream. The winter seminar examines the contributions of a number of contemporary “critical” approaches in the field. The seminar focuses on the study of international relations from a disciplinary perspective. Throughout the course, we examine the development of international relations theory that constitutes the essence of the field. We begin with a broad overview of the discipline, surveying the changing fashions and debates in both theories and methods. After examining the historiography of the field and investigating the general nature of theory, the rest of the course explores the main traditions in international relations scholarship. Our primary concern is to examine and assess each of the approach's foundational assumptions, epistemology, methodology, and scope of the problem(s) defined. We are concerned with assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the respective theoretical traditions of international relations. We would like to determine how successful the field has been in developing a theory of international relations. This in turn will help us to assess the current state of the field.

1

II. Course Requirements The class format will place a premium on discussion; therefore, it is expected that everyone will come prepared to discuss the material in an informed and critical manner. Failure to participate in a constructive manner will be taken as a sign of inadequate preparation. There are a set of general issues and questions posed at the top of each week's reading list, and the assumption is that this will help guide your reading of the required materials and provide a set of questions for some of the week's discussions. The questions, however, provide only a set of suggestions for, but do not determine, the seminar's content for that week. Class Participation………10% Participation grades will be based on the quality and quantity of your class participation. Attendance is obviously a pre-requisite for participation and failure to attend class will result in a grade reduction. In addition to attending class, it is expected that you will participate in an informed and consistent manner in weekly seminar discussions. You will be evaluated on the basis of your level of participation and on the quality of your contribution to class discussions. Presentation…………….15% Each student is required to provide two 15-20 minute oral presentations in which you discuss the material that has been assigned for a particular week. Only one of your presentations will be formally assessed and you should indicate in advance which one you have selected. The presentation should explain the research question the work addresses and evaluate the theoretical contribution of the work. You should not simply summarize the book or article, rather you should make an argument to help structure your presentation of the material. On the day of your presentation you are also required to write a single-spaced, two-page summary of the book or article(s) that you have selected to discuss. You should photocopy your summary and distribute them to all participating members of the class. Do not go beyond two-pages; the point of the exercise is to develop your ability to present the essence of an argument. You should keep all summaries on file as these can serve as a study guide for the comprehensive examination in the field of international relations. Paper Assignment…………25% Each student is required to write a 10 page typed, double-spaced paper that addresses any one of the questions listed in the course outline from September 15 to October 6. The assignment is due in class on October 13. In answering the question that you have selected, you should engage the essential reading that has been assigned for that particular week. You should also seek to incorporate some of the recommended reading into your answer. 2

You have two options for the remaining 50% of your grade. You may either complete the literature review assignment or complete a take-home final exam. Option 1: Literature Review Assignment…………50% If you select this option, you are required to write a 15-18 page typed, double-spaced, critical "thought piece" based on the readings assigned for a particular class session (you may not select the same topic as your assessed oral presentation). Your paper should serve as a "state of the art" of the particular topic that you have selected. The paper should not simply be a review of the literature, but should present an argument about the topic that you have selected. In making an argument about the topic, you should demonstrate your understanding of, and familiarity with, the literature (both essential and some of the recommended). You should aim to be as comprehensive as possible and provide a broad survey of the literature. The paper is due on December 1, 2006. Option 2: Final Exam………………50% If you forego the literature review assignment, you will be required to complete a takehome final exam. The approximate length of the take-home final is 15 pages. The final exam will be distributed in class on December 1 and will be due on December 7 at 12:00 p.m. III. Course Topics 1. Sovereignty 2. International Political Theory 3. The History and Historiography of IR 4. Theory and Method of IR 5. Liberalism and the Interwar Period 6. Realism 7. English School 8. Neorealism 9. Liberal Institutionalism 10. Democratic Peace 11. Offensive and Neoclassical Realism 12. Rationalism IV. Course Readings The following books have been ordered for purchase at the Carleton University Bookstore. All of the books have been placed on reserve in MacOdrum Library (4 hour reserve). Some of the books we will be reading are also available in second-hand bookstores. David Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001). 3

Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage , 2002). Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990). Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, and Stephen Krasner eds., Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000). Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001). Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Brief Edition (McGraw Hill, 1993). Bruce Russett and John Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001). Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998). Hendrik Spruyt, The Sovereign State and its Competitors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (McGrawHill, 1979). V. Course Schedule Week 1 (Sept 8)

Course Introduction

Week 2 (Sept 15)

Sovereignty and the Westphalian System

Sovereignty is the foundational principle of the Westphalian state system that has served as the central analytical framework in the field of IR. Yet the meaning and significance of sovereignty has been, and continues to be, essentially contested. This seminar examines the rise of the sovereign state and considers some of the debates and issues that continue to revolve around the concept of sovereignty. Key Questions: · How have IR scholars accounted for the historical emergence of the sovereign state? · How have IR scholars conceptualized sovereignty? · How have recent changes in the practice of international politics impacted the manner in which IR understands the concepts of sovereignty, state, and territory?

Essential Reading Hendrik Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). (R) Thomas J. Biersteker, "State, Sovereignty and Territory" in Carlsnaes, Risse and 4

Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), ch. 8. (R) Janice E. Thomson, “State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research,” International Studies Quarterly 39 (1995): 213-233. (R) Recommended John Agnew, “The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory,” Review of International Political Economy, 1 (Spring 1994): 53-80. Jens Bartelson, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Jean Bodin, On Sovereignty, ed. and trans. by Julian H. Franklin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber, State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck, Law, Power, and the Sovereign State (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995). F.H. Hinsley, Sovereignty, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Gregory A. Raymond, Exorcising the Ghost of Westphalia (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002). Stephen Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). Gene M. Lyons and Michael Mastanduno eds., Beyond Westphalia: State Sovereignty and International Intervention (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995). Daniel Philpott, “Usurping the Sovereignty of Sovereignty,” World Politics 53 (Summer 2002): 297-324. Janice E. Thomson, Mercenaries, Pirates and Sovereigns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Week 3 (Sept 22)

International Political Theory

This seminar examines the relationship between political theory and international relations theory. We are interested in ascertaining the contribution that political theory has made to international relations theory. We will also focus on the contribution that political theory has made to the development of normative international theory. Key Questions: · What is the relationship between political theory and IR theory? · What is “normative” international theory and has there been a resurgence of normative theory in the field? · Is Martin Wight correct to argue that there is no international theory? · What is the character of international political theory? Essential Reading

5

David Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). (R) Martin Wight, “Why is There No International Theory?” in James Der Derian ed., International Theory: Critical Investigations (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1995), ch. 2 (R) Andrew Hurrell, “Norms and Ethics in International Relations,” in Carlsnaes, Risse and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations, ch. 7 (R) Recommended Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, Revised Edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1992). Ken Booth, “Human Wrongs and International Relations,” International Affairs 75 (1995): 103-126. David Campbell and Michael Shapiro eds., Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics in World Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999). Molly Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Michael Desch, “Its Kind to be Cruel: The Humanity of American Realism,” Review of International Studies 29 (July 2003): 415-426. Michael Donelan, Elements of International Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). Richard Falk, Explorations at the Edge of Time: The Prospects for World Order (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992). Mervyn Frost, Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Kimberly Hutchings, International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era (London: Sage, 1999). Torbjorn L. Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory, 2nd ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997). Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998). Terry Nardin and David Mapel eds., Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). Steve Smith, “The Forty Years’ Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21 (1989): 489-506. Brian C. Schmidt, "Together Again: Reuniting Political Theory and International Relations Theory," British Journal of Politics and International Relations Vol. 4, No. 1 (2002), pp. 115-140. Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977). R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Howard Williams, International Relations and the Limits of Political Theory (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996). 6

Week 4 (Sept 29)

The History and Historiography of IR

This week provides a broad overview of the study of international relations as a discipline; offers a set of organizing themes and concerns that have motivated students of the field; and reviews the historiography of the field. We review some of the literature, both old and new, that attempts to describe the historical development of the discipline of IR. We also carefully consider the manner in which the history of the field has been presented. Key Questions: · What is the relationship between disciplinary history and the contemporary character of the field? · Is there a truly global discipline of IR or is it essentially an American social science? · How has the recent wave of revisionist disciplinary history challenged the conventional wisdom regarding the development of IR? Essential Reading Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany, NY: SUNY Press,1998). (R) Brian C. Schmidt, "On the History and Historiography of International Relations," in Carlsnaes, Risse and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), ch. 1 (R) Stanley Hoffmann, "An American Social Science: International Relations," in James Der Derian ed., International Theory: Critical Investigations (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1995), ch. 9 (R) Also in Daedalus Vol. 106, No. 3 (1977), pp. 41-60. Miles Kahler, “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory After 1945,” in Doyle and Ikenberry eds., New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997): 20-53. (R) Ole Waever, "The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline," International Organization 52 (1998): 687-727 (R) and also in Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, and Stephen Krasner eds., Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000). (R) Recommended Hedley Bull, “The Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969,” in Brian Porter ed., The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics 1919-1969 (London: Oxford University Press, 1972). Robert M.A. Crawford and Darryl S.L. Jarvis eds., International Relations--Still An American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2001). Kjell Goldmann, “International Relations: An Overview,” in Robert E. Goodin and HansDieter Klingemann eds., A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996): 401-27. Gerald Holden, "Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers? Disciplinary History and IR 7

Discourse," Review of International Studies 28 (2002): 253-270. Kal Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Div(eBrosisttyoinn: IAnltleernnantidonUanl w Thine,o1r9y.85). Ekkehart Krippendorf, "The Dominance of American Approaches in International Relations," Millennium Vol. 16, No.2 (1987), pp. 207-214. David Long and Brian C. Schmidt eds., Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations (Albany: SUNY Press, 2005). William C. Olson and Nicholas Onuf, "The Growth of the Discipline: Reviewed," in Steve Smith ed., International Relations: British and American Approaches (Oxford: Basil Blackburn, 1985): 1-28. William C. Olson and A.J.R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation (London: HarperCollins, 1991). Steve Smith, "Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science," Millennium Vol. 16, No. 2 (1987), pp. 189-206. Steve Smith, "The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory," in Ken Booth and Steve Smith eds., International Relations Theory Today (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995). Cameron G. Thies, 2002. “Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist-Realist Debate,” European Journal of International Relations 8 (2002): 147-185. Quincy Wright, The Study of International Relations (New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1955). Week 5 (October 6)

Theory and Method of IR

As almost everyone recognizes, theory is central to the enterprise of IR. Yet while there is widespread agreement that theory is central, there is little if any consensus on the meaning of international relations theory. Theory is used in a bewildering number of ways and in this seminar the aim is to focus on the various meanings that scholars associate with international relations theory and to examine the distinction that Hollis and Smith make between "explaining" and "understanding." In this seminar we will review the efforts that have been made to develop something called international relations theory and look closely at what is meant by a “theory of international relations.” We will also consider some of the issues arising from the quest to create a science of international politics. Key Questions: · What impact has the philosophy of science had on the field of IR? · What are the possibilities for international relations theory? · What is the purpose of IR theory? · What is the difference between "explaining" and "understanding"? Essential Reading Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) (R) Colin Wight. 2002. “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations,” in Handbook of International Relations. (R) 8

Richard Hermann. 2002. “Linking Theory and Evidence in International Relations,” in Handbook of International Relations. (R) Scott Burchill, “Introduction,” in Scott Burchill et al., Theories of International Relations (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001): 1-28. (R) Hans J. Morgenthau, “The Intellectual and Political Functions of Theory,” in James Der Derian ed., International Theory: Critical Investigations (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1995), ch. 3 (R) Recommended Raymond Aron, “What Is a Theory of International Relations?” Journal of International Affairs XXI, 2 (1967): 185-206. (R) Hedley Bull, "International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach," World Politics 18 (1966), 361-77. (R) Michael Doyle and G. John Ikenberry. “Introduction: The End of the Cold War, the Classical Tradition, and International Change,” in Doyle and Ikenberry eds., New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997): 119. (R) Stanley H. Hoffmann, “International Relations: The Long Road to Theory,” World Politics 11, 3 (April 1959): 346-377. (R) Michael Nicholson, Causes and Consequences in International Relations: A Conceptual Study (London: Pinter, 1996). Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1993). Morton Kaplan, "The New Great Debate: Traditionalism Versus Science in International Relations," World Politics 19 (1966), 1-20. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Ken Booth, Steve Smith and Marysia Zalewski eds, International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Kenneth N. Waltz, “Evaluating Theories,” APSR 91 (December 1997): 913-917. Arend Lijphart, “The Structure of the Theoretical Revolution in International Relations,” International Studies Quarterly 18 (1974): 41-74. Steve Smith, "Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science," Millennium, 16(2), Summer 1987, 189-206. Stephen Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis,” International Security. See responses in “Formal Methods, Formal Complaints.” 24, 2, Fall 1999, 56-130 Oran R. Young, "The Perils of Odysseus: On Constructing Theories of International Relations," World Politics 24 (1972), 179-203.

9

Week 6 (October 13)

Liberalism and the Interwar Period

According to the conventional wisdom, the interwar period (1919-1939) of the field’s history was dominated by an idealist or utopian approach. The idealists, as the story goes, were defeated by the realists during the course of the field’s first “Great Debate.” Carr’s book, published on the eve of WW II, provided the definitive critique of the interwar scholarship and helped to introduce realism. Yet in recent years there have been a number of challenges to the conventional wisdom about the field’s first “Great Debate.” There has also been a revival of interest in the work of E.H. Carr. The aim of this seminar is to examine the interwar period and to consider the argument and significance of Carr's book. Key Questions: · Is Carr a realist and, if so, what type of realist? · Is it appropriate to characterize the interwar period of IR scholarship as idealist? · Who, if anyone, won the first Great Debate? Essential Reading E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001). (R) Peter Wilson, "The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate’," Review of International Studies 24 (December 1998): 1-15. (R) Recommended Norman Angell, The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage (London: Heinemann, 1912). E.H. Carr, Conditions of Peace (London: Macmillan, 1942). E.H. Carr, Nationalism and After (London: Macmillan, 1945). Michael Cox ed., E.H. Carr: A Critical Appraisal (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000). Tim Dunne, Michael Cox, and Ken Booth eds., The Eighty Years’ Crisis: International Relations 1919-1999 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). W.T.R. Fox, “E.H. Carr and Political Realism: Vision and Revision,” Review of International Studies 11 (1985): 1-16. Charles Jones, E.H. Carr and International Relations: A Duty to Lie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). David Long and Peter Wilson eds., Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: Interwar Idealism Reassessed (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). Hans J. Morgenthau, “The Political Science of E.H. Carr,” World Politics 1 (1948): 127134. Cornelia Navari, “The Great Illusion Revisited: The International Theory of Norman Angell,” Review of International Studies 15 (1989): 341-358. Andreas Osiander, “Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited,” International Studies Quarterly 42 (September 1998): 409-432.

10

Week 7 (October 20)

Realism

Realism is the oldest and arguably the dominant theory in the field of IR. The dominance of realism is reflected by the simple fact that all other approaches in the field must define and situate themselves in opposition to realist thought. This week we will read one of the all time classics of the realist school, Hans J. Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations and attempt to assess the contribution that it has made to IR theory. Key Questions: · What does it mean to be a realist in IR? · What constitutes the core of having a realist vision of international politics? · What are the limitations of a realist view of the world? · What does Morgenthau mean when he writes that international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power? Essential Reading Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948). (R) Michael C. Williams, “Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics” International Organization 58 (2004): 663-665. (R) Recommended Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, trans. Richard Howard and Annette Baker Fox (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966). (R) David Baldwin, "Power and International Relations," in Carlsnaes, Risse and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), ch. 9 (R) Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997), Part One. Stephen Forde, “Classical Realism,” in Terry Nardin and David R. Mapel eds., Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Benjamin Frankel, ed., Roots of Realism (London: Frank Cass, 1996). Christoph Frei, Hans J. Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography (Baton Rouge: University of Louisiana State University Press, 2001) Peter Gellman, “Hans J. Morgenthau and the Legacy of Political Realism,” Review of International Studies 14 (1998): 247-266. (R) Joseph M. Grieco, “Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics,” in Doyle and Ikenberry eds., New Thinking in International Relations Theory (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997): 163-201. (R) Stefano Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy (London: Routledge, 1998). John Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism: A Study in Theories and Realities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951). George F. Kennan, American Diplomacy, 1900-1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago 11

Press, 1951). Richard Ned Lebow, The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Hans J. Morgenthau, Scientific Man Versus Power Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946). Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932). Michael Joesph Smith, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986). Thucydides (trans. R. Warner), The Peloponnesian War ( New York: Penguin, 1954). Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War (Columbia: Columbia University Press,1959). Michael C. Williams, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Week 8 (Oct 27)

The English School

While there is a fair amount of controversy regarding the main elements and composition of the school (including its name and who should be included in the school), there has been a significant revival of interest in the “English School” of International Relations. Many of its advocates claim that the English School represents a via media between realism and liberalism; that is, another way of thinking about international relations. Building on Bull's seminal Anarchical Society, Keene examines how international society and order, two key English School concepts, have been applied to the world beyond Europe. Key Questions: · What is the distinctive contribution of the English School? · What are the advantages and disadvantages of thinking about international politics in terms of an international society of states? · How do members of the English School understand the concept of order? Essential Reading Hedley Bull, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations,” in James Der Derian ed., International Theory: Critical Investigations (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 1995), ch. 5 (R) Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). (R) Richard Little, “The English School's Contribution to the Study of International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 6 (September 2001): 395-422. (R) Recommended Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 3rd ed. (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2002). Hedley Bull and Adam Watson eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: 12

Oxford University Press, 1984). Barry Buzan, “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory meet the English School,” International Organization 47 (1992): 327-352. Barry Buzan, From International Society to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). Dale C. Copeland, “A Realist Critique of the English School,” Review of International Studies 29 (July 2003): 427-441. Claire Cutler, "The `Grotian' Tradition in International Relations," Review of International Studies, 17 (1991): 41-65. Tim Dunne, Inventing International Society: A History of the English School (London: Macmillan, 1998). Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996). Andrew Linklater, “Rationalism,” Scott Burchill et al., Theories of International Relations (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001): 103-128. (R) Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami, The English School of International Relations: A Contmporary Reassessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Richard Little, “The English School vs. American Realism,” Review of International Studies 29 (July 2003): 443-460. Nicholas Wheeler, “Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention,” Millennium 21 (Winter 1992):463-487. Nicholas Wheeler and Tim Dunne, “Hedley Bull’s Pluralism of the Intellect and Solidarism of the Will,” International Affairs 72 (1996): 91-107. Martin Wight, Systems of States, ed. Hedley Bull (London: Leicester University Press, 1977). Martin Wight, Power Politics 2nd ed, ed. Hedley Bull and Carsten Holbraad (London: Penguin, 1979). Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, ed. Brian Porter and Gabriele Wight (London: Leicester University Press, 1992). (R) Various Contributors, “Forum on the English School,” Review of International Studies, 27 (July 2001): 465-519. Read the contributions by Watson, Buzan, Hurrell, Guzzini, Neumann, and Finnemore. Week 9 (Nov 3)

Neorealism

The dawn of neorealism or structural realism was a defining moment in the field. It represents an attempt to make realism "scientific" by offering a deductive theory of international politics. In the readings for this week we will examine and evaluate neorealism, with particular attention to the benefits that might be gained from a more selfconscious “scientific" approach. Key Questions: · What is the relationship between neorealism and realism? · How does Waltz define an international system and how does it explain international outcomes?

13

· What is the distinction that Waltz makes between reductionist and systemic theories? · What do the critics say about neorealism? Essential Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (McGrawHill, 1979) (R) Robert O. Keohane ed., Neorealism and its Critics (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1986), chs. 1, 4-11. (R) Recommended David Baldwin, Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). Barry Buzan "The Timeless Wisdom of Realism," in Ken Booth, Steve Smith and Marysia Zalewski eds, International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996): 47-65. Barry Buzan, Charles Jones, and Richard Little, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1993). Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 30, 2 (1978), pp. 167-214. Robert Jervis, “Realism in the Study of World Politics,” International Organization 52 (Autumn 1998): 971-92. Friedrich Kratochwil, "The Embarrassment of Changes: Neorealism as the Science of Realpolitik without Politics" Review of International Studies 19 (1993):63-80. Keith Shimko, “Realism, Neorealism, and American Liberalism,” Review of Politics 54 (Spring 1992): 281-301. Stephen Walt, “The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner eds., Political Science: The State of the Discipline III (New York: W.W. Norton, 2003). Kenneth N. Waltz, “Theory of International Relations,” in Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby eds., Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 8 (Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 1975). Kenneth N. Waltz, "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory," Journal of International Affairs, 1990, 44(1): 21-37. Kenneth Waltz. 1995. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” in Michael Brown, et al., eds. The Perils of Anarchy, 42-77. Week 10 (Nov 10)

Neo-Liberal Institutionalism

Like realism, liberalism is a rather broad church. While a number of distinct theories are often grouped together under the heading of liberalism, in recent years liberalism in IR is most often associated with institutionalism. Institutional analysis has been applied to a myriad of substantitive issues in international relations, but are generally unified by the understanding that institutions can help self-interested states both overcome collective action problems and encourage cooperation in an anarchic and insecure environment. In

14

response to the charge that institutions - and not anarchy - may be important for understanding interstate behavior, neo-realists have presented a countercharge. This week will look at the foundations of neoliberal institutionalism, with particular attention to its roots in economic theorizing. Key Questions: · What are the limitations of institutions or regimes for affecting cooperation? · Can there be cooperation without a hegemon? · What do neoliberals mean by institutions and why do they believe they help to foster cooperation among states? Essential Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). (R) Beth A. Simmons and Lisa L. Martin, “International Organizations and Institutions” in Carlesnaes, Risse, and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations. (R) Recommended Liberalism David A. Baldwin, “Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis,” International Organization 34 (1980): 471-506. Richard Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1968). Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997), Part II. Francis Fukayama, The End of History and the Last Man, NY: Free Press, 1992. David Long, "The Harvard School of Liberal International Theory: A Case for Closure," Millennium, 24, 3, Winter 1995, pp. 489-506. Robert O. Keohane Joesph S. Nye, Jr., Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). Robert O. Keohane Joesph S. Nye, Jr., "Transnational Relations and International Organizations," World Politics 27 (1974): 39-62. Robert O. Keohane and Joesph Nye Jr., Power and Interdependence, 3rd ed. (New York: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2000). (R) Robert Latham, The Liberal Moment: Modernity, Security, and the Making of the Postwar International Order ( NY: Columbia University Press, 1997). Richard Little, "The Growing Relevance of Pluralism?" in Ken Booth, Steve Smith and Marysia Zalewski eds, International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 66-86. Andrew Moravcsik, "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, 51, 4, Autumn 1997, 513-54. (R) Andrew Moravcsik, “Liberal International Relations theory: A Scientific Assessment,” in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003). Richard Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State (New York: Basic Books, 1986). Mary Ann Tetreault, “Measuring Interdependence,” International Organization 34 (1980): 429-443.

15

Jaap H. de Wilde, Saved from Oblivion: Interdependence Theory in the First Half of the 20th Century (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1991). Mark Zacher and Richard Matthews, "Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands," in C. Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the NeoLiberal Challenge, pp. 107-50, St. Martin's Press, 1995. Recommended Neo-Liberal Institutionalism Stephan Haggard and Beth Simmons, "Theories of International Regimes," International Organization, 41(1987), 491-517. Robert Jervis, "Realism, Game Theory, and Cooperation," World Politics, 40 (1988), 317-50. Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-39 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973). Stephen D. Krasner ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983). Arthur Stein, Why Nations Cooperate ( Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990). Oran Young, International Cooperation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989). Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993). Lloyd Gruber, Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). Andreas Hansenclever, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberg, “Interests, Power, Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes,” Mershon International Studies Review 40, 2 (October, 1996): 177-228. John G. Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Building of Order after Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, “The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order,” Review of International Studies 25 (April 1999): 179-196. Robert Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly 32 (1988): 379-96. Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin, "The Promise of Institutionalist Theory," International Security 20 (Summer 1995): 39-51. James G. March and Johan P. Olsen “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders” International Organization 52 (Autumn 1998): 943-969. Lisa L. Martin and Beth Simmons, “Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions” International Organization 52 (Autumn 1998): 729-57. Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin, “Institutional Theory as a Research Program,” in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003). John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security 19 (1994/95): 5-49. Randall Schweller and David Priess, “A Tale of Two Realisms: Expanding The Institutions Debate,” Mershon International Studies Review, 41 (May 1997): 132. Oran Young, International Governance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994). 16

Week 11 (Nov 17)

Democratic Peace

The greatest challenge to neorealism has come from various versions of liberal theory. This week we examine the democratic peace thesis that holds that democratic states do not fight wars against other democratic states. The basic argument is that institutions, democracy, and economic interdependence help to foster the peace. Proponents argue that the fact of the democratic peace helps to invalidate the theory of realism. Realists, of course, disagree with the democratic peace thesis. Key Questions: · What is the theory of the democratic peace? · Does the democratic peace invalidate realism? · What do the critics say about the democratic peace thesis? Essential Reading Bruce Russett and John Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001). (R) Sebastian Rosato, “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace” American Political Science Review 97, 4 (Nov. 2003): 585-602. (R) Also see the forum that resulted from this article in APSR 99 (August 2005). Recommended Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller eds., Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996). Steven Chan, “In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise,” Mershon International Studies Review 41 (May 1997): 59-91. Miriam Fendius Elman ed., Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997). Nils Petter Gleditsch, “Democracy and Peace,” Journal of Peace Research 29 (November 1992). Joanne Gowa, Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). Wade Huntley, "Kant's Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace," International Studies Quarterly, 40, 1, March 1996, pp. 45-76. David Lake, “Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War,” APSR 86 (1992): 24-37. Christopher Layne, "Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace" International Security 19 (1994). Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder, Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005). John Oneal and Bruce Russett, “The Classic Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950-85,” International Studies Quarterly, 41, 2, June 1997, 267-94. Ido Oren, "The Subjectivity of the "Democratic" Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of Imperial Germany," International Security, 20, 2, Fall 1995, 147-84.

17

James Lee Ray, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Proposition (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995). Hans Reiss ed., Kant: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). Week 12 (Nov 24)

Offensive and Neoclassical Realism

While there were those who suggested or hoped that the end of the cold war spelled the end of realism, this has not proved to be the case. There has been a resurgence of interest in realism, a recognition that there are a variety of different realisms, and attempts to develop new versions of realism such as neoclassical and offensive realism. This week surveys some of the newest developments in realist theory. Key Questions: · What is distinctive, if anything, about neoclassical and offensive realism? · What is at stake in the debate between defensive and offensive realism? · Does realism continue to be a "progressive research programme"? Essential Reading John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001). (R) Gideon Rose, “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World Politics 51 (1998): 144-172. (R) Randall Schweller, “Neorealism’s Status Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?” Security Studies 5 (1996): 90-121. (R)

Recommended Michael E. Brown and Sean M. Lynn-Jones eds., The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995). John G. Ikenberry eds., America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University press, 2002). Ethan Kapstein, "Is Realism Dead? The Domestic Sources of International Politics," International Organization, 49/4, (Autumn 1995): 251-274. Christopher Layne, “The ‘Poster Child for Offensive Realism’: America as a Global Hegemon,” Security Studies 12 (Winter 2002/03): 120-164. Christopher Layne, The Peace of Ilusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006). Jeff Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security 24 (Fall 1999): 5-55. Also see responses in 25, 1, Summer. Brian C. Schmidt, “Realism as Tragedy,” Review of International Studies 30 (2004): 427-441.

18

Randall Schweller, Deadly Imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s Strategy of World Conquest (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998). Randall Schweller, “The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism,” in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003). Michael Spirtas, “A House Divided: Tragedy and Evil in Realist Theory,” Security Studies 5 (1996): 385-423. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, “Security Seeking Under Anarchy,” International Security 25 (2000/01): 128-161. John Vasquez, “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition,” APSR 91, 4 (December 1997): 899-913. With responses by Kenneth Waltz, Colin and Miriam Elman, Randall Schweller, and Stephan Walt John A. Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Kenneth Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security, 25, 1 (2000): 5-41. William C. Wohlforth, “Realism and the End of the Cold War,” International Security 19 (1994/95): 3-41. Fareed Zakaria, From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America’s World Role (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998). Week 13 (Dec 1)

The Rationalist Mainstream

Now that you have immersed yourself in the study of IR theory, it is time to appraise the state of the field. One of the conventional understandings is that there is a fundamental divide between mainstream rationalist approaches and everyone else including constructivists, critical theorists, normative theorists, feminists, ect.. This week provides an opportunity to reflect on the meaning and nature of rationalism in the study of international politics. Essential Reading Duncan Snidal, “Rational Choice and International Relations,” in Carlesnaes, Risse, and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations. (R) James Fearon and Alexander Wendt, "Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View," in Carlesnaes, Risse, and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations. (R) Miles Kahler, “Rationality in International Relations,” in Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, and Stephen Krasner eds., Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000) also in International Organization 52 (1998). (R) Robert O. Keohane, "International Institutions: Two Approaches," International Studies Quarterly 32 (December 1988): 379-396. (R) Lisa L. Martin and Beth A. Simmons, “Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions,” in in Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, and Stephen Krasner eds., Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000) also in International Organization 52 (1998). (R) 19

Helen V. Milner, “Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International, American, and Comparative Politics,” in in Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane, and Stephen Krasner eds., Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000) also in International Organization 52 (1998). (R) Recommended Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984). Jon Elster, "Rational Choice History: A Case of Excessive Ambition," American Political Science Review 94 (September 2000): 685-695. James Fearon, "Rationalist Explanations for War," International Organization 49 (Summer 1995): 379-414. David Lake and Robert Powell, Strategic Choice and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). Helen V. Milner, Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997). Robert Powell, "Game Theory, International Relations Theory, and the Hobbesian Stylization," in Ira Katznelson and Helen Milner eds., Political Science: The State of the Discipline (New York: W.W. Norton, 2002). Duncan Snidal (1985). "The Game Theory of International Politics," World Politics, 38(1), October, 25-57. Reprinted in Kenneth Oye (1986), Cooperation Under Anarchy.

Academic Accommodations For Students with Disabilities: Students with disabilities requiring academ ic accom m odations in this course are encouraged to contact the Paul Menton Centre (PMC) for Students with Disabilities (500 University Centre) to com plete the necessary form s. After registering with the PMC, m ake an appointm ent to m eet with the instructor in order to discuss your needs at least tw o w eeks before the first in-class test or CUTV midterm exam. This will allow for sufficient tim e to process your request. Please note the following deadlines for subm itting com pleted form s to the PMC for form ally scheduled exam accom m odations: November 6 th , 2006 for fall and fall/winter term courses, and M arch 9 th , 2007 for winter term courses. For Religious Observance: Students requesting accom m odation for religious observances should apply in writing to their instructor for alternate dates and/or m eans of satisfying academ ic requirem ents. Such requests should be m ade during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accom m odation is known to exist, but no later than two weeks before the com pulsory academ ic event. Accom m odation is to be worked out directly and on an individual basis between the student and the instructor(s) involved. Instructors will m ake accom m odations in a way that avoids academ ic disadvantage to the student. Instructors and students m ay contact an Equity Services Advisor for assistance (www.carleton.ca/equity). For Pregnancy: Pregnant students requiring academ ic accom m odations are encouraged to contact an Equity Advisor in Equity Services to com plete a letter of accommodation. Then, m ake an appointm ent to discuss your needs with the instructor at least two weeks prior to the first academ ic event in which it is anticipated the accom m odation will be required.

20

Plagiarism : The Undergraduate Calendar defines plagiarism as: "to use and pass off as one's own idea or product, work of another without expressly giving credit to another." The Graduate Calendar states that plagiarism has occurred when a student either: (a) directly copies another's work without acknowledgm ent; or (b) closely paraphrases the equivalent of a short paragraph or m ore without acknowledgm ent; or (c) borrows, without acknowledgm ent, any ideas in a clear and recognizable form in such a way as to present them as the student's own thought, where such ideas, if they were the student's own would contribute to the m erit of his or her own work. Instructors who suspect plagiarism are required to subm it the paper and supporting docum entation to the Departm ental Chair who will refer the case to the Dean. It is not perm itted to hand in the sam e assignm ent to two or m ore courses. The Departm ent's Style Guide is available at: www.carleton.ca/polisci/undergrad/styleguide.pdf Oral Examination: At the discretion of the instructor, students m ay be required to pass a brief oral exam ination on research papers and essays. Subm ission and Return of Term W ork: Papers m ust be handed directly to the instructor and will not be date-stam ped in the departm ental office. Late assignm ents m ay be subm itted to the drop box in the corridor outside B640 Loeb. Assignm ents will be retrieved every business day at 4 p.m., stam ped with that day's date, and then distributed to the instructor. For essays not returned in class please attach a stamped, self-addressed envelope if you wish to have your assignm ent returned by m ail. Please note that assignm ents sent via fax or em ail will not be accepted. Final exam s are intended solely for the purpose of evaluation and will not be returned. Approval of final grades: Standing in a course is determ ined by the course instructor subject to the approval of the Faculty Dean. This m eans that grades subm itted by an instructor m ay be subject to revision. No grades are final until they have been approved by the Dean. Course Requirements: Students m ust fulfill all course requirem ents in order to achieve a passing grade. Failure to hand in any assignm ent will result in a grade of F. Failure to write the final exam will result in a grade of ABS. FND (Failure B No Deferred) is assigned when a student's perform ance is so poor during the term that they cannot pass the course even with 100% on the final exam ination. In such cases, instructors m ay use this notation on the Final Grade Report to indicate that a student has already failed the course due to inadequate term work and should not be perm itted access to a deferral of the exam ination. Deferred final exam s are available ONLY if the student is in good standing in the course. Connect Email Accounts: The Departm ent of Political Science strongly encourages students to sign up for a cam pus em ail account. Im portant course and University inform ation will be distributed via the Connect em ail system . See http://connect.carleton.ca for instructions on how to set up your account.

21