Carleton University Fall 2007 Department of Political Science

PSCI 6600F Theory and Research in International Politics I Wednesday 11:35-2:25 C665 Loeb

Instructor: Dr. Brian C. Schmidt E-mail: [email protected] Office: D698 Loeb Office Hours: Tues. 10-12, Wens. 2:30-4:30 Phone: 520-2600 ext. 1062

I. Aims and Objectives

This seminar and its counterpart in the winter term, PSCI 6601, constitute the core of the 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” and “reflectivist” 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 the remainder 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.

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 19 to October 17. The assignment is due in class on October 24. 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.

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.

2 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 November 28, 2007.

Final Exam………………50%

If you forego the literature review assignment, you will be required to complete a take- home final exam. The approximate length of the take-home final is 15 pages. The final exam will be distributed in class on November 28 and will be due on December 5 at 12:00 p.m.

III. Course Topics

1. IR: An Overview 2. Liberalism and Realism: the Antecedents 3. Liberalism and the Interwar Period 4. Realism 5. English School 6. Normative IR Theory 7. Neorealism 8. Neoliberal Institutionalism 9. Democratic Peace 10. Offensive and 11. 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.

Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, Revised Edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). , The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 3rd ed. (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2002). E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001). Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons eds., Handbook of International

3 Relations (London: Sage , 2002). Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997). Peter Katzenstein, , and Stephen Krasner eds., Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000). Robert O. Keohane, After : 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 : A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998). Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (McGrawHill, 1979).

V. Course Schedule

Week 1 (Sept 12) Course Introduction

Week 2 (Sept 19) IR: An Overview

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? • How has the recent wave of revisionist disciplinary history challenged the conventional wisdom regarding the development of IR? • What do the great debates tell us about the history of the field? • How has the commitment to science impacted the development of the field?

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) Miles Kahler, “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory After 1945,” in Doyle and Ikenberry eds., New Thinking in International Relations

4 Theory (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997): 20-53. (R) Colin Wight, “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations,” in Carlsnaes, Risse and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), ch. 2 (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 Hans- Dieter Klingemann eds., A New Handbook of Political Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996): 401-27. 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. Gerald Holden, "Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers? Disciplinary History and IR Discourse," Review of International Studies 28 (2002): 253-270. Kal Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1985). 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 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. 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)

5

Week 3 (Sept 26) Liberalism and Realism: the Antecedents

This seminar examines the relationship between political theory and international relations theory; especially with respect to the liberal and realist tradition. We are interested in ascertaining the contribution that political theory has made to international relations theory. We are also interested in the question of whether liberalism and realism are authentic traditions that underpin contemporary approaches in the field.

Key Questions: • What is the relationship between political theory and IR theory? • Is Martin Wight correct to argue that there is no international theory? • Are either liberalism or realism coherent traditions of thought?

Essential Reading

Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997), Intro., Part I and II. 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)

Recommended

David Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Chris Brown, T. Nardin, and N.J. Rengger eds., International Relations in Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Michael Donelan, Elements of International Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). Stephen Forde, “Classical Realism,” in Terry Nardin and David R. Mapel eds., Traditions of (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Edward Keene, International Political Thought: A Historical Introduction (Cambridge: Polity, 2005). Torbjorn L. Knutsen, A History of International Relations Theory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992). Andrew Moravcsik, "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, 51, 4, Autumn 1997, 513-54. (R) Hans Reiss ed., Kant: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Thucydides (trans. R. Warner), The Peloponnesian War ( New York: Penguin, 1954). R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State and War (Columbia: Columbia University Press,1959).

6 Michael C. Williams, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Howard Williams, International Relations and the Limits of Political Theory (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996).

Week 4 (October 3) 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): 127- 134.

7 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.

Week 5 (October 10) 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: , 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). 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). 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)

8 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 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 6 (Oct 17) 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.

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, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 3rd ed. (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2002). 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) Richard Little, “The English School's Contribution to the Study of International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 6 (September 2001): 395-422. (R)

9

Recommended

Hedley Bull and Adam Watson eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984). Barry Buzan, “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and 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). Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). (R) 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 7 (October 24) Normative IR Theory

This seminar examines the relationship between political theory and international relations theory and, more specifically, focuses on normative international relations theory. Normative IR theory addresses a number of issues such as the ethics of violence

10 and international distributive justice. In this seminar we examine some of the obstacles to normative IR theory as well as the possibility of developing a normative, cosmopolitan theory of IR.

Key Questions:

• What is “normative” international theory? • What have been the main obstacles to a normative theory of IR? • Is it possible to utilize principles of justice when analyzing international politics?

Essential Reading

Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, Revised Edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). (R) Steve Smith, “The Forty Years’ Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21 (1989): 489-506. (R) Michael Desch, “Its Kind to be Cruel: The Humanity of American Realism,” Review of International Studies 29 (July 2003): 415-426. Andrew Hurrell, “Norms and Ethics in International Relations,” in Carlsnaes, Risse and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations, ch. 7 (R)

Recommended

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). Richard Falk, Explorations at the Edge of Time: The Prospects for World Order (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992). Forum on Charles Beitz, Review of International Studies 31 (April 2005). Mervyn Frost, Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Andrew Hurrell, “Norms and Ethics in International Relations,” in Carlsnaes, Risse and Simmons eds., Handbook of International Relations, ch. 7 (R) Kimberly Hutchings, International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era (London: Sage, 1999). 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).

11 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. Kenneth W. Thompson ed., Ethics and International Relations (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1985). Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977).

Week 8 (October 31) 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 neo- realism, with particular attention to the benefits that might be gained from a more self- conscious “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? • 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). , War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the ,” 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

12 (Spring 1992): 281-301. , “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: Addison- Wesley, 1975). Kenneth N. Waltz, "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory," Journal of International Affairs, 1990, 44(1): 21-37. . 1995. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” in Michael Brown, et al., eds. The Perils of Anarchy, 42-77.

Week 9 (Nov 7) 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 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, : 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.

13 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. 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

14 (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). 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. and David Priess, “A Tale of Two Realisms: Expanding The Institutions Debate,” Mershon International Studies Review, 41 (May 1997): 1-32. Oran Young, International Governance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994).

Week 10 (Nov 14) 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).

15

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. 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 11 (Nov 21) 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

16 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. 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).

17 Week 12 (Nov 28) 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 , "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) Ole Waever, “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1996) 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). 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) 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) 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

18 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 academic accommodations in this course are encouraged to contact the Paul Menton Centre (PMC) for Students with Disabilities (500 University Centre) to complete the necessary forms. After registering with the PMC, make an appointment to meet with the instructor in order to discuss your needs at least two weeks before the first in-class test or CUTV midterm exam. This will allow for sufficient time to process your request. Please note the following deadlines for submitting completed forms to the PMC for formally scheduled exam accommodations: November 9th, 2007 for December examinations, and March 14th, 2008 for April examinations.

For Religious Observance: Students requesting accommodation for religious observances should apply in writing to their instructor for alternate dates and/or means of satisfying academic requirements. Such requests should be made during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist, but no later than two weeks before the compulsory academic event. Accommodation is to be worked out directly and on an individual basis between the student and the instructor(s) involved. Instructors will make accommodations in a way that avoids academic disadvantage to the student. Instructors and students may contact an Equity Services Advisor for assistance (www.carleton.ca/equity).

For Pregnancy: Pregnant students requiring academic accommodations are encouraged to contact an Equity Advisor in Equity Services to complete a letter of accommodation. Then, make an appointment to discuss your needs with the instructor at least two weeks prior to the first academic event in which it is anticipated the accommodation will be required.

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 acknowledgment; or (b) closely paraphrases the equivalent of a short paragraph or more without acknowledgment; or (c) borrows, without acknowledgment, 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 merit of his or her own work. Instructors who suspect plagiarism are required to submit the paper and supporting documentation to the Departmental Chair who will refer the case to the Dean. It is not permitted to hand in the same assignment to two or more courses. The Department's Style Guide is available at: http://www.carleton.ca/polisci/undergrad/Essay%20Style%20Guide.html

Oral Examination: At the discretion of the instructor, students may be required to pass a brief oral examination on research papers and essays.

Submission and Return of Term Work: Papers must be handed directly to the instructor and will not be date-stamped in the departmental office. Late assignments may be submitted to the drop box in the corridor outside B640 Loeb. Assignments will be retrieved every business day at 4 p.m., stamped 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 assignment returned by mail. Please note that assignments sent via fax or email will not be accepted. Final exams are intended solely for the purpose of evaluation and will not be returned.

19 Approval of final grades: Standing in a course is determined by the course instructor subject to the approval of the Faculty Dean. This means that grades submitted by an instructor may be subject to revision. No grades are final until they have been approved by the Dean.

Course Requirements: Students must fulfill all course requirements in order to achieve a passing grade. Failure to hand in any assignment will result in a grade of F. Failure to write the final exam will result in a grade of ABS. FND (Failure No Deferred) is assigned when a student's performance is so poor during the term that they cannot pass the course even with 100% on the final examination. In such cases, instructors may 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 permitted access to a deferral of the examination. Deferred final exams are available ONLY if the student is in good standing in the course.

Connect Email Accounts: The Department of Political Science strongly encourages students to sign up for a campus email account. Important course and University information will be distributed via the Connect email system. See http://connect.carleton.ca for instructions on how to set up your account.

20