Foundations of Theory

Seminar, 1st term 2017-2018

Thursdays, 11:00 -13:00

Organized by Prof. Jennifer Welsh

Please register online

Contact: [email protected]

Description This course focuses on about, and explanations of, international relations, concentrating mainly (but not exclusively) on introductions to the major theoretical approaches in the academic study of international relations since 1945. The key theories and approaches to be examined include: realism and neo-realism; theories about , security and the use of force in international relations; classical liberalism, , and transformation in world ; theories about inter- co-operation and transnationalism; the concept of international society; constructivism and the impact of and norms in international relations; neo-Marxist and approaches to international relations; and theory and . The seminar should be seen as a core on which students build, not as complete coverage of all developments in the subject. It seeks to provide not only an overview of the key theoretical debates, but also a ‘toolkit’ of concepts that students can use to analyze international relations. Throughout the course, an emphasis will be placed on the need to marry empirical analysis and normative reflection in the study of international relations. In order to add specific content to the theoretical structure, a ‘real world’ example has been chosen for reflection in the final week (the 2014 crisis in Ukraine), where the theories can be assessed as they are applied.

Seminar Content The ten topics this term are: 1. Theorizing in International Relations 2. Classical Realism 3. Neo-realism 4. Liberalism and Liberal Institutionalism 5. Constructivism 6. International Society 7. Domestic Politics and International Relations 8. Post-Structuralism and Feminism 9. Normative Theory and International Ethics 10. IR Theories in Action

Requirements The seminar is taught in two-hour sessions. At each meeting there is are two short oral presentations by students on the topic questions (of no more than 10-12 minutes), followed by discussion. Normally, these are circulated to the whole class the evening before the session on EU Collab. Students who wish to take this seminar for credit must meet Department attendance requirements, complete all required readings, and participate actively in seminar discussions. This seminar is worth 20 credits. Students have the option of writing a term paper for the class, and if they wish to take this option they should discuss their proposed topic with Professor Welsh well before the Department’s due date for term papers (in January) Anyone wishing to audit the class must fulfil all requirements expected of other students. Those who wish to write a term paper for this seminar should submit it to Professor Welsh by email (with a cc to Martina Selmi).

Schedule The seminar takes place on Thursdays at 11:00-13:00, in Seminar Room 4 in the Badia, and will run from Thursday 5th October to Thursday 14th December. The full list of the seminar sessions is the following:

Readings

General background readings

Reus-Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan, eds. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (2008). *Please note that we are reading a number of chapters from the Oxford Handbook of International Relations denoted OHIR below and you therefore might wish to purchase a copy of the book.

Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth, eds. Sage Handbook of International Relations (2002).

Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith eds., International Relations Theories (2007).

Burchill, Scott, (eds.), Theories of International Relations 3rd edn. 2005).

While the reading list focuses heavily on book, you should also be consulting the major IR journals to keep up with the field. These include: European Journal of International Relations, Quarterly, International Theory, International Organization, , Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Research, Millennium, Ethics and International Affairs, International Politics, Review of International Studies and, World Politics.

***NOTE: All readings in bold are required readings for each session, other readings are recommended.

2 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18

Session 1: Friday 6th October – 16.00 – 18.00 What it means to do IR Theory

This seminar deals with questions of theory at a general level. The questions raised here have no definitive answers but are subject to on-going contention and evolution in the field – and in the course.

1. Is it possible to do “science” in international relations?

2. What is (or should be) the relation between the practical/empirical and the conceptual/theoretical in IR theory?

Reus-Smit, Christian and Duncan Snidal. “Between Utopia and Reality: The Practical Discourses of IR.”, OHIR, Chapter 1 Jackson, Patrick. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. Chapters 1 and 2. Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics (1979), chapter 1. Dunne, Tim, Hansen, Lene and Wight, Colin. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 19 (3), 2013: 405-425. Avery, Paul C and Desch, Michael. “What do -Makers Want from Us? A Survey of Current and Former Senior Decision-Makers’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 58 (2), 2014: 227-246. Darby, Philip, 'A Disabling Discipline', OHIR Chapter 5. Hoffmann, Stanley, “An American : International Relations”, ch.1 of Hoffmann, Janus and Minerva (1987) Hollis, Martin & Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (1991) Nau, Henry, 'Scholarship and Policy-Making: Who Speaks Truth to Whom?', OHIR Chapter 36

Session 2: Thursday, October 12th Classical Realism

This seminar discusses the general realist understanding of international order and its critique of interwar idealism.

1. What are the primary arguments that Carr mounts against the liberals of the interwar period?

2. How does Morgenthau generate his “” of international politics, and what do they consist of?

Carr, E.H., The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction To The Study Of International Relations (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), any edition Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948, most recent edition 1985) *First four chapters Wohlforth, William, ‘Realism’, OHIR, Chapter 7 Donnelly, Jack, ‘The Ethics of Realism’, OHIR, Chapter 8 Smith, Michael, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (1986) Jervis, Robert, “Realism in the Study of World Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 52, 1998.

3 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18

Session 3: Thursday, October 19th Neo-realism

This seminar discusses the differences between classical realism and neo or structural realism, and the nature of neo-realism’s explanatory approach. It also deals with the particular neo-realist focus on the balance of power.

1. “For classical realists conflict stems from , while for neo-realists conflict stems from the nature of the international system”. Is this an accurate assessment of the differences between classical and neo-realists?

2. Does the “balance of threat” approach (Walt) undermine the scientific aspirations of neo-realism?

Question 1 Mearsheimer, John J., The Tragedy of Great (2001), pp. 1-54 Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (1979), esp. chs. 5-6 Waltz, Kenneth, “Structural Realism after the ”, International Security, vol. 25, 1 (2000) Shimko, Keith, “Realism, Neorealism and American Liberalism”, Review of Politics, vol. 54. 2 (Spring 1992) Donnelly, Jack, Realism and International Relations (2000) Niebuhr, R., Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932), esp. ch. 4 Keohane, Robert, “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond”, in Neo-Realism and its Critics, edited by R. Keohan, 1986, pp. 158-199. Rose, Gideon, “ and Theories of ”, World Politics, vol. 51, no. 1 (October, 1998)

Question 2 Walt, Stephen M., The Origins of Alliances (pb. edn. 1987), esp. chs. 1 and 2 Legro, Jeffrey W. and , ‘Is Anybody Still a Realist?’, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall, 1999). *See also the replies from realists and response in the Summer 2000 edition Vasquez, John A., 'The realist paradigm and degenerative versus progressive research programs', American Review, 91.4, Dec 1997 and responses in same issue Jervis, Robert, ‘A Political Science Perspective on the Balance of Power and the Concert’, American Historical Review 97, 3 (1992) Glaser, Charles, Rational Theory of International Politics (2010) Schweller, Randall L., 'The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism', in Elman & Elman (eds.), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (2003)

NOTE: There is no class on Thursday October 26th

4 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18 Session 4: Monday 30th October – 16.00 – 18.00 Liberalism and Institutionalism

This seminar will look at classical liberalism and its account of war and change in international relations and contrast these writings with contemporary analytical liberalism. It will also examine liberal institutionalism’s response to neo-realism and its analysis of inter-state cooperation and the origin of institutions.

1. To what extent does Moravcsik transform liberalism from an into a theory?

2. How successful is institutionalism in explaining international cooperation?

Question 1 Doyle, Michael, Ways of War and Peace (1997), esp. Part Two; Liberal Peace: Selected Essays (2012), esp. Chapter 3 Keohane, Robert, ‘International liberalism reconsidered’, in John Dunn ed., The Economic Limits to Modern Politics (1990) Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization Vol. 51, No. 4 (1997); and ‘The New Liberalism,’ OHIR, Chapter 13 Simpson, Gerry. ‘The Ethics of the New Liberalism.’ OHIR Chapter 14 Angell, Norman, The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage (1912) Hoffmann, Stanley, “Liberalism and International Affairs”, in Janus and Minerva (1987) Jahn, Beate, ': From Ideology to Empirical Theory – And Back Again', International Theory, Vol.1, No. 3 (2009) and correspondence in 2.1, March 2010 Long, David and Peter Wilson, Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis (1995) Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Liberal International Relations Theory: A Scientific Assessment’ in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (eds.), Progress in International Relations Theory (2002) Zacher, Mark and Matthew, Richard, ‘Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands’, in Charles Kegley (ed.), Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (1995)

Question 2 Baldwin, David A., (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (1993), esp. chs. 1,2,4 and 11 Stein, Arthur, ‘Neoliberal Institutionalism’ OHIR, Chapter 11 Richardson, James “Ethics of Neoliberal Institutionalism.” OHIR, Chapter 12 Keohane, Robert, After : Co-operation and Discord in the World (1984), chs. 4-6 Abbott, Kenneth and Snidal, Duncan, ‘Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1998) Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (1984), esp. chs. 1-4 Hasenclever, Andrea, Peter Mayer and Volker Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes (pb. 2004) Jervis, Robert, ‘Realism, Game Theory and Co-operation’, World Politics 40, 3 (April 1988) Keohane, Robert, Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World (2002)

5 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18 Mearsheimer, John J., ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3, (Winter 1994/95) and exchange in 20, 1 Milner, Helen, ‘International Theories of Cooperation among Nations: Strengths and Weaknesses’, World Politics 44 (April 1992) Ruggie, John, Constructing the World Polity (1998), Part I

Session 5: Thursday, November 9th Constructivism

This seminar will assess the contributions of constructivism to the theory of international relations, particularly through the “state centric” approach of Wendt. It will also examine constructivist claims about the origins, evolution, and impact of norms in international relations.

1. How convincing is the argument that “ is what states make of it”?

2. What are “norms” in international relations, and how do they matter?

Question 1 Adler, Emmanuel, ‘Constructivism’, in Carlsnaes, Walter et al, Handbook of International Relations, Chapter 5 (2002); and ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, The European Journal of International Relations , Vol.3, 3 (1997). Hurd, Ian, ‘Constructivism’, OHIR, Chapter 17. Richard Price, ‘Ethics of Constructivism’, OHIR, Chapter 18. Wendt, Alex, ‘Anarchy is What States Make it: The Social Construction of International Relations’, International Organization, 46, 2 (1992) Barkin, J. Samuel and Bruce Cronin, ‘The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the Rules of in International Relations’, International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 1 (1994) Checkel, Jeffrey, ‘The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory’, World Politics, Vol. 50 (1998) Finnemore, Martha, National Interests and International Society (1996) Kratochwil, F., ‘Constructing a New Orthodoxy: Wendt’s “Social Theory of International Politics” and the Constructivist Challenge’, Millennium, Vol. 29, No. 1 (2000) Palan, Ronen, ‘A World of their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 26, No. 4 (2000) Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (1999), esp. Introduction, chs. 3 and 6

Question 2 Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52, 4 (1998) Kratochwil, F., ‘How Do Norms Matter?’ in Michael Byers, ed., The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and (2000), ch. 3 Tannenwald, Nina, The Nuclear Taboo: The and the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945 (2007), Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2

6 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18 Betts, A. and Orchard, P., Implementation and World Politics: How International Norms Change Pracie, 2014, Introduction. (Consult other case study chapters according to your interests) Katzenstein, Peter (ed.), The of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (1996) Price, Richard, ‘Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Targets Land Mines’, International Organization 52, 3 (1998) Sikkink, Kathryn (2011) The Justice Cascade: How Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics, esp. Ch.s 1 and 8 Wiener, Antje, ‘Enacting Meaning in Use: Qualitative Research on Norms in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 35, 1 (2009)

Session 6: Thursday, November 16th International Society

This seminar will introduce the concept of “international society” (its foundations, its membership, and its primary institutions). It will also examine whether/how “English School” theorizing about international society has contributed to historical understanding of the evolution of international society. 1. In what ways do international society approaches represent a challenge to realism?

2. Does English School theorizing help us understand the evolution and expansion of international society?

Question 1 Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (Second edition, 1995), pp. 23-50 and pp. 74-94 Cochran, Molly, ‘The Ethics of the English School.’ OHIR, Chapter 16 Dunne, Tim, ‘The English School.’ OHIR, Chapter 15 Little, Richard, ‘The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, 3 (2000) Alderson, Kai and Hurrell, Andrew (eds.), and International Society (2000) Bellamy, Alex J. (ed.), The English School and its Critics (Oxford, OUP, 2004) Brown, Chris, ‘International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the Middle Way?’, Review of International Studies, vol. 21 (1995) Buzan, Barry, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization (2004) Hurrell, Andrew, On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society, (2007) Linklater, Andrew and Hidemi Suganami, The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment (2006), Part I

Question 2 Bull, Hedley and Adam Watson (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (1985), Introduction Keene, Edward, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, and Order in World Politics (2002), Chapter 4

7 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18 Dunne, T. and Reus-Smit, C., (eds.), The Globalization of International Society, especially Chapters 1, 3, 8 and 10. Rosenberg, Justin, The Empire of Civil Society (1999), chapters 2, 5 & 6 Bell, Duncan (ed.), Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth- Century Political Thought (2012), especially chapters 1, 3 & 4 Horowitz, Richard S., 'International Law and State Transformation in , Siam and the Ottoman Empire during the Nineteenth Century', Journal of World (Vol. 15, No. 4, 2004), pp. 445-86 Krasner, Stephen, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (1999), especially chapters 1 & 6 Strang, David, 'Anomaly and Commonplace in European Political Expansion: Realist and Institutionalist Accounts', International Organization (Vol. 45, No. 2, 1991), pp. 143-62 Suzuki, Shogo, Civilization and Empire: China and 's Encounter with European International Society (2009) Watson, Adam, The Evolution of International Society (1992)

Session 7: Thursday, November 23rd Domestic Politics and International Relations

1. What is the primary challenge to Realism from ‘domestic politics’ approaches?

Kapstein, E.B., “Is Realism Dead? The Domestic Sources of International Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 49 (4), 1995. Gourevitch, Peter, “Domestic Politics and International Relations”, in The Sage Handbook of International Relations, 2002, Chapter 16. Fearon, James, “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 88 (3), 1994, pp. 577-592. Simmons, Beth, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics, 2009, Chapter 4. Alter, Karen, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights, 2014, Chapter 2. Putnam, Robert. “ and Domestic Politics: The logic of Two-Level Games”, International Organization, Vol. 42 (1), 1988, pp. 15-32. Farrell, Henry and Newman, Abraham, “Review Article: Domestic Institutions Beyond the ”, World Politics, Vol. 66 (2), 2014, pp. 331-63. Solingen, Etel. Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the , 2007, Conclusion.

Session 8: Thursday, November 30th Post-structuralism and Feminism

1. How can poststructuralism’s concern with subjectivity, identity, power, and discourse connect to the more traditional categories and concerns of IR?

2. How does a feminist perspective challenge conventional theoretical and methodological approaches to IR?

8 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18

Question 1 Ashley, Richard and RBJ Walker, “Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34 (1990) Brown, Chris, ‘Turtles all the Way Down: Anti-, Critical Theory and International Relations’, Millennium, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1994) Burke, Anthony, ‘Postmodernism’, OHIR Lawler, Peter, ‘The Ethics of Postmodernism’, OHIR Booth, Ken, Steve Smith and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (1996), Part IV Ashley, Richard, ‘Untying the : A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’, Millennium, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1988) Linklater, Andrew, ‘Dialogic politics and the civilizing process’, Review of International Studies 31 (2005) Reus-Smit, Chris and Price, Richard. ‘Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Relations Theory and Constructivism’, European Journal of International Relations 4, 3 (1998) Special issue of Review of International Studies, April 2007 ('Critical International Relations Theory after 25 Years')

Question 2 Tickner, J. Ann, “Feminist Perspectives on International Relations”, in The Sage Handbook of International Relations, 2002, Chapter 14. Hudson, Valerie et al, “The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States”, International Security, Vol. 33 (3), 2008/9, pp. 129-144. Brooks, Deborah Jordan and Valentino, Benjamin, “A War of One’s Own: Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for War”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 75 (2), 2011, pp. 270-286. Pratt, Nicola, “The Queen Boat Case in Egypt: Sexuality, National Security and State Sovereignty”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 33, 2007, pp. 129-144. Goldstein, Joshua, War and Gender: how gender shapes the war system and vice versa, 2001, Especially chapter 1, 4 and 5. Tickner, J. Ann, Gendering World Politics, 2001, Chapters 1 and 2. Enloe, Cynthia, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, 2001. Caprioli, Mary, “Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative Methodology: A Critical Analysis”, International Studies Review, Vol. 6 (2), 2004, pp. 253-269. Special section on “The State of Feminist ”, Politics and Gender, Vol. 7 (4), 2001, pp. 573-604.

Session 9: Thursday, December 7th Normative Theory and International Ethics This seminar will address ethical approaches to understanding international relations. The discussion will focus on two issues that have been central to normative theorizing: how justice claims are grounded; and the right and/or duty of humanitarian intervention.

9 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18 1. How can claims about international justice be grounded?

2. Is humanitarian intervention a legitimate exception to the general prohibition on the use of force in international relations?

Question 1 Beitz, Charles, Political Theory and International Relations (1999, with a new afterword) Bell, Duncan, ed., Ethics and World Politics (2010), chapters 1, 4 and 8 Nardin, Terry, ‘International Ethics.’ OHIR, Chapter 34 Hurrell, Andrew, On Global Order (2007), Chapter 12 Bull, Hedley, ‘The Hagey Lectures’, in Kai Alderson and Andrew Hurrell (eds.), Hedley Bull and International Society (2000) Brown, Chris, Sovereignty, Rights and Justice (2002) Buchanan, Allen, Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations of International Law (2004), Introduction and Part I Caney, Simon, Justice beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory (OUP, 2006), Chapters 1-4 Miller, David, National Responsibility and (2007), Chapters 1, 2 and 9 Rawls, John, The Law of Peoples (1999)

Question 2 Holzgrefe, J.L., and Keohane, R.O., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas (2003), esp. chs 1, 3, 7, and 8 Pattison, James, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (2010), Chapter 1, 2, 3 and 7 Tan, Kok-Chor, ‘The Duty to Protect’, in Terry Nardin and Melissa Williams, NOMOS XLVII: Humanitarian Intervention (2006), p. 84-116 Welsh, Jennifer (ed.), Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations (2004). Especially Introduction and Part One Buchanan, Allen, ‘The Internal Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention’, The Journal of , Vol. 7, No. 1 (1999) Chandler, David, From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond: Human Rights and International Intervention (2006) Chesterman, Simon, Just War or Just Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law (2001) Finnemore, Martha, ‘Paradoxes in humanitarian intervention’, in Richard Price, Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics (2008) Scheid, Don (ed.), The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention (2014). International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (2001). Morgenthau, Hans, ‘To Intervene or Not to Intervene’, , Vol. 45 (1967) Walzer, Michael, ‘The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1980); see also response by David Luban, ‘Just War and Human Rights’ (same volume) Wheeler, Nicholas J., Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention and International Society (2000)

10 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18

Session 10: Thursday, December 14th The Crisis in Ukraine: IR Theories in Action

Mearsheimer, John. “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault”, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct. 2014. Lukin, Alexander. “What the Kremlin is Thinking: Putin’s Vision for Eurasia”, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2014. Ikenberry, John. “The Illusion of : The Enduring Power of the Liberal Order”, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014. (See also Patrick, Stewart. “Russia Assaults Ukraine - and the Liberal , Council on Foreign Relations Available at https://www.cfr.org/blog/russia-assaults-ukraine-and-liberal-world-order ) Barkanov, Boris. “How Putin’s domestic audience explains Russia’s behavior”, The Monkey Cage, The Washington Post, 13 March 2014. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey- cage/wp/2014/03/13/how-putins-domestic-audience-explains-russias-behavior/?utm_term=.b624b3621708 Snyder, Tim. “The Battle in Ukraine Means Everything. Fascism returns to the continent it once destroyed”, The New , 12 May 2014. Available at https://newrepublic.com/article/117692/fascism-returns-ukraine (See also his piece “Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda”, The New York Review of Books, March 2014 http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/03/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/ )

Last updated 21.09.2017

11 ■ Foundations of International Relations Theory, 1st term 2017-18