Theories of International Relations (Field Seminar)

PSC 651 Theories of International Relations (Field Seminar) Professor Miriam F. Elman Syracuse University Fall 2015 Eggers 100A Thursdays 3:30-6:15

Office Hours: Tuesdays 2:00-4:00 and by appointment Email: [email protected]

This course is a graduate-level introduction to international relations theory. It is intended to serve Ph.D. graduate students currently enrolled in the Political Science Department who are majoring or minoring in International Relations. In the course we undertake a comprehensive review of the subfield’s leading approaches and theories. We will primarily cover literature written over the past 3 decades, but we will also read some earlier works that are widely considered to be classic literatures forming the IR “canon”. The course is designed to provide a broad overview (as opposed to a specialized approach) to IR theory, and the major debates and on-going research agendas in the subfield. The course should therefore be viewed as a “field survey” and graduate-level introduction to international relations theory.

The course also serves as a foundation for the IR comprehensive exam and dissertation research in the IR subfield of political science. However, further preparation for the IR field exam will require taking other graduate level courses in the major areas of international relations, including international security, international organizations, foreign policy decision making, and international political economy. Students majoring in IR should also expect to go beyond their course work in preparing for the IR comprehensive exam.

Course Goals & Learning Outcomes

The course has 3 main aims:

■ To assess the contributions and the shortcomings of various IR theories

■ To consider how theory can be used as ‘road map’, ‘toolkit’, or ‘lens’ by which to examine international events and global developments

■ To review the development of the IR subfield in political science, and how “the international” has evolved as a distinct field of study in the discipline

At the end of the course, students will be able to:

■ Write knowledgeably about, and discuss critically, major theories of international relations

■ Think and write critically about key debates in IR theory

Course Layout

The meetings of the seminar will generally be organized as follows: At the start of each class, I will provide a brief introduction to the week’s topic. We will then move to an open discussion of the readings for that week.

To facilitate our discussion we will follow a set of guiding questions prepared by individual students. These discussion questions should be emailed to me and to the rest of the class by noon on Thursday. Students should also bring hard copies of their questions to class for distribution. During the class discussions, these prepared questions will be supplemented with my own questions, and the queries of other students.

Readings

This syllabus contains only Required readings. Although I will refer you to recommended literature during our discussion, you are only responsible for the required readings.

Most of the journal articles listed on the syllabus are available through the SU library online system via E-journals. Those journal articles and book chapters which are unavailable will be uploaded to the course BlackBoard as pdf files in advance of that particular class.

You should bring the readings to class, in either hardcopy or on your laptop (If using a laptop, please try not to disturb your classmates during use—also, no surfing the web, etc. Only the readings and your notes on them should be open on the screen)

Requirements

Seminar “Co-Leader” (25% of final grade) Questions Due: Thursday, by noon (emailed to Professor Elman and other students; please bring a sufficient number of hard copies to class)

Each student will choose a particular week’s readings and be prepared to “co-lead” the group discussion. As “co-leader” for the week, you will not be required to make any formal oral presentation. However, you should plan on participating heavily in the group discussion, and you should expect to be called upon to move the conversation forward if need be.

As co-leader for a given week, you should prepare a set of questions on the readings (questions should fit on a single page; 3 to 5 questions are appropriate as are questions with several sub- questions). You should try to generate good, thought provoking questions for our discussions. The best questions will be those that compel us to compare and contrast across readings for the week—and even different weeks. Be innovative and creative! Please be prepared to answer your questions in class. Note too that we are often likely to go “off list” to address questions that I and/or other students have about the materials covered.

A careful reading of MOST (and preferably all) of the required materials for each week will put you in good shape for contributing effectively to our discussions. (Please do not attempt to ‘wing it’, as doing so is usually quite painfully obvious).

Midterm and Final Exam (50% of final grade)

Due Dates: Thursday October 15 in class and Friday December 18

The midterm and final exams will be take-home essays. Each exam will consist of at least three essay questions. You will need to answer one question. Each essay should be approximately 12- 15 double spaced pages in length.

The midterm will be based on the readings and class discussions from weeks 1-8. The final will be based primarily on the material from the remaining weeks, although you should also draw on earlier readings where appropriate.

The midterm will be handed out in class on October 1 and will also be emailed to students. It will be collected in class on October 15.

The final will be handed out in class and emailed on December 3. The Final should be turned in to the Department of Political Science, 100 Eggers Hall by Friday December 18 at 4:30pm. Please make sure to have the office staff sign and date your paper before leaving it in my mailbox. (Please do not slip papers under my office door!). If you cannot come to campus on December 18 please make an effort to turn in the Final Exam ahead of time.

Late papers will only be accepted in the event of an emergency or illness. In the interest of fairness, I will need to see documentation of the emergency/illness. For my policy regarding Incompletes please see below.

Note: I prefer not to receive the Exam papers via email as attachments. I will only accept emailed papers in the event of an emergency or illness.

Participation (25% of final grade)

It is expected that you will have read, and be prepared to discuss, the readings for each week. All students must actively participate in our weekly discussion of the readings. Participation will count as an integral part of the final grade, and attendance will be monitored.

Students should read the material with the following in mind: (a) evaluate the central theoretical and empirical contributions of the readings; (b) compare/contrast the arguments made with the theories, themes, and approaches discussed on other weeks; and, (c) discuss the flaws, if any, in the logic of the arguments made, and in the evidence used to support the arguments

Note for Students Auditing the Course: Students who have previously taken this course for a grade may sit in on this class, especially if they plan to take IR comprehensive exams in 2015- 2016. However, students who have already taken PSC 651 for credit should be aware that they are guests in the class. Advanced graduate students are welcome to participate in the class discussions, but they are discouraged from monopolizing the conversation, or relating to literatures outside of the assigned readings. In no way should this course act as a substitute for comprehensive exam preparations. The course should merely supplement these preparations. Advanced graduate students are encouraged to form study groups where they can further discuss the material on the syllabus. Students auditing the course will not need to fulfill any formal requirements.

Cheating

Cheating on any of the assignments for the course will not be tolerated. The Syracuse University Academic Integrity Policy holds students accountable for the integrity of the work they submit. Students should be familiar with the Policy and know that it is their responsibility to learn about general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of sources in written work. The Policy also governs the integrity of work submitted in exams and assignments and other verifications of participation in class activities. Serious sanctions can result from academic dishonesty of any sort. For more information, see the Academic Integrity Office at http://academicintegrity.syr.edu

Incompletes & Make-Ups

An incomplete will only be given in exceptional circumstances (a documented illness or other documented circumstance beyond the student’s control). Students will only be given an incomplete if they have been doing passing worked during the semester.

Students with Special Needs

In my courses I make every effort to accommodate students with special needs. Students who are in need of such disability-related academic accommodations must register with the Office of Disability Services (ODS). Students with authorized disability-related accommodations should provide a current Accommodation Authorization Letter from ODS for me to keep on file. For more information, see the Office of Disability Resources at http://disabilityservices.syr.edu

Religious Observance

In my courses I work with students in order to accommodate their religious observances. Students who need to miss class due to a religious holiday should register via MySlice within the first two weeks of the semester. Please also notify me in advance if you will be absent from class due to a religious holiday.

COURSE OUTLINE

I. The Study of International Relations Week 1 (9/3) Introductions Week 2 (9/10) IR as a Social Science Week 3 (9/17) Critics of “Mainstream” IR Theory

II. Realism, Neorealism and their Critics

Week 4 (9/24) Classical Realism & Neorealism Week 5 (10/1) Realism’s Critics

III. Key Concepts in the Study of International Relations

Week 6 (10/8) Anarchy Week 7 (10/15) The Balance of Power vs. Hegemony & Empire Week 8 (10/22) Norms

IV. Theories of the International System

Week 9 (10/29) Neoliberal Institutionalism Week 10 (11/5) Constructivism

V. Theories of the State Week 11 (11/12) Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (I) Week 12 (11/19) Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (II) VI. Theories of the Individual Week 13 (11/26) No class—Happy Thanksgiving! Week 14 (12/3) Rational Choice and its Critics Week 15 (12/10) Political Psychology: Learning & Decision Making

I. The Study of International Relations

Week #1: Introductions

Week #2: IR as a Social Science

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, chapter 1 (BlackBoard)

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is Bad for International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 3 (2013): 427-457

James Lee Ray, “Case Studies, Covering Laws, and Causality,” in Ray, Democracy and International Conflict, chapter (BlackBoard)

Alexander Wendt, “On Constitution and Causation in International Relations,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 24 (December 1998): 101-117

Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, “Negotiating International History and Politics,” in Elman and Elman, eds., Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Relations (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000) (BlackBoard)

Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 46 (June 2002): 231-262

Ole Weaver, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn 1998)

Henry Nau, “No Alternative to ‘isms’,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55 (2011): 487-491

Week #3: Critics of “Mainstream” IR Theory

Almond and Genco, “Clouds, Clocks and the Study of World Politics,” World Politics, Vol. 29, No. 4 (July 1977): 489-522

Thomas C. Walker, “The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 2010) 433-451

Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Daniel H. Nexon, “Paradigmatic Faults in IR Theory,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 4 (2009): 907-930

J. Ann Tickner, “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4 (December 1997)

J. Ann Ticker, “What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49 (2005): 1-21

Richard N. Lebow, et al., “God Gave Physics the Easy Problems: Adapting Social Science to an Unpredictable World,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2000): 43-76

Richard Ned Lebow, “Contingency, Catalysts, and International System Change,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 115, No. 4 (2000-2001)

Rudra Sil and Peter J. Katzenstein, “Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 2010): 411-431

Barry Buzan and Richard Little, “Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to do About It,” Millennium, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2002): 19-39

II: Realism, Neorealism, and Their Critics

Week #4: Classical Realism & Neorealism

(A) Classical Realism

Michael Williams, “Why Ideas Matter in IR: Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 58, No. 4 (2004): 633-665

John Vasquez, “The Role of the Realist Paradigm in the Development of a Scientific Study of International Relations,” in Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) (BlackBoard)

Colin Grey, “Clausewitz Rules, OK? The Future is the Past—with GPS,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 25 (December 1999): 161-182

Randall Schweller, “Unanswered Threats: a Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing,” International Security, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2004): 159-201

(B) Neorealism

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, chapters 2, 3, 5 (BlackBoard)

John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001), pp. 1-28 (BlackBoard)

Stephen Walt, “The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition,” in Ira Katznelson and Helen Milner, eds., Political Science: State of the Discipline (APSA, 2002) (BlackBoard)

Colin Elman, “Horses for Courses: Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy?” Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Autumn 1996): 7-53

Marc Trachtenberg, “The Question of Realism: a Historian’s View,” Security Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Autumn 2003): 156-194

Week #5: Realism’s Critics

Robert Jervis, “Theories of War in an Era of Leading-Power Peace,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 96, No. 1 (March 2002): 1-14

Paul Schroeder, “Why Realism Does Not Work Well for International History (Whether or Not it Represents a Degenerate IR Research Strategy)” in Elman and Vasquez, Realism and the Balancing of Power: a New Debate (BlackBoard)

Robert Gilpin, “No One Loves a Political Realist,” in Realism: Restatements and Renewal, special issue of Security Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Spring 1996): 3-26

Miriam Fendius Elman, “The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging Neorealism In Its Own Backyard,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 2 (April 1995): 171-217

Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall 1999): 5-55, and exchange between Legro and Moravcsik and their critics

Laura Sjoberg, “Gender, Structure and War: What Waltz Couldn’t See,” International Theory, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2012): 1-38

Robert Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1981): 126-155

III. Key Concepts in the Study of IR

Week #6: Anarchy

Helen Milner, “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory,” in David Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: the Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993) (BlackBoard)

Brian Schmidt, “Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline,” International Relations, Vol. 16, No. 1 (2002): 9-31

Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, Vol. 30 (January 1978): 164-214

Kenneth Oye, ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), chap. 1 (BlackBoard)

Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46 (Spring 1992): 391-425

Hendrik Spruyt, “Institutional Selection in International Relations: State Anarchy as Order,” International Organization, Vol. 48 (Autumn 1994): 527-57

Jonathan Mercer, “Anarchy and Identity,” International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring 1995): 229-52

Jeffrey Taliaferro, “Security Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Winter 2000/2001): 128-161

Week #7: The Balance of Power vs. Hegemony & Empire

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, chapters 6, 7, 8, 9 (BlackBoard)

Thomas Christensen and Jack Snyder, “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity,” International Organization, Vol. 44 (Spring 1990): 137-168

John Vasquez, “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs,” in Realism and the Balancing of Power: a New Debate and skim replies pages 49-86 (BlackBoard)

Isabelle Grunberg, “Exploring the ‘Myth’ of Hegemonic Stability,” International Organization (Autumn 1990): 431-478

David Lake, “Leadership, Hegemony, and the International Economy: Naked Emperor or Tattered Monarch with Potential?” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 37 (December 1993): 459-89

Colin Elman, “Extending Offensive Realism: the Louisiana Purchase and America’s Rise to Regional Hegemony,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (November 2004)

Robert Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony, and IR,” Millennium, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1983): 162-175

G. John Ikenberry, “Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 30 (2004): 609-630

Week #8: Norms

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (1998): 887-917

David Lake, “Rightful Rules: Authority, Order, and the Foundation of Global Governance,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3 (2010): 587-613

Andrew P. Cortell and James W. Davis, Jr., “Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms,” International Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2000): 65-87

Renee De Nevers, “Imposing International Norms: Great Powers and Norm Enforcement,” International Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2007): 53-80

James Lee Ray, “Abolition of Slavery and the End of International War,” International Organization, Vol. 43, No. 3 (1989): 405-439

Audie Klotz, “Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and US Sanctions Against South Africa,” International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 3 (1995): 451-478

Charli Carpenter, “Women and Children First: Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans 1991-1995,” International Organization, Vol. 57, No. 4 (2003): 661-694

Christian Reus-Smit, “Struggles for Individual Rights and the Expansion of the International System,” International Organization, Vol. 65, No. 2 (2011): 207-242

IV. Theories of the International System

Week #9: Neoliberal Institutionalism

David Baldwin, “Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis,” International Organization, Vol. 34 (Autumn 1980): 471-506

David Baldwin, “Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics,” in Neorealism and Neoliberalism: the Contemporary Debate, ed. David Baldwin (1993), pp. 3-25 (Blackboard)

Robert O. Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32 (1988)

John Gerard Ruggie, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 2 (1982): 379-415

Dan Lindley, “Avoiding Tragedy in Power Politics: The Concert of Europe, Transparency, and Crisis Management,” Security Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Winter 2003/4): 195-229

John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994/95): 5-49, and skim replies from his critics in the Vol. 20, No. 1, Summer 1995 issue

Joseph M. Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization, Vol. 42 (Summer 1988)

Week #10: Constructivism

Alexander Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations,” International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 2 (1987): 335-370

Christian Reus-Smit, “The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions,” International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4 (1997): 555-589

David Dessler, “Constructivism Within a Positivist Social Science,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (January 1999): 123-137

Samuel Barkin, “Realist Constructivism and Realist-Constructivism,” International Studies Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2004): 337-352

Felix Berenskoetter, “Reclaiming the Vision Thing: Constructivists as Students of the Future,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3 (2011): 647-668

Colin Kahl, “Constructing a Separate Peace: Constructivism, Collective Liberal Identity and Democratic Peace,” Security Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2/3 (Winter 98/99-Spring 1999): 94-144

Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in IR Theory,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer 1998): 171-200

Charlotte Epstein, “Constructivism or the Eternal Return of Universals in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 3 (2013): 499-519

V. Theories of the State

Week #11: Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (Part I)

Andrew Moravcsik, “Liberal International Relations Theory: A Scientific Assessment,” in Elman and Elman, Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, pp. 159-204 (BlackBoard)

Stephen Van Evera, “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War,” International Security, Vol. 9 (Summer 1984): 58-108

Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two Level Games,” International Organization, Vol. 42 (Summer 1988): 427-61

Thomas Risse-Kappen, “Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War,” International Organization, Vol. 48 (Spring 1994): 185-214

James Fearon, “Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations,” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 1 (1998): 289-313

Kurt Taylor Gaubatz, “Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations,” International Organization, Vol. 50, No. 1 (1996): 109-139

Peter Gourevitch, “The Second Image Reversed: the International Sources of Domestic Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 32, No. 4 (1978): 881-912

Week #12: Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy (Part II)

John Owen, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994): 87-125

Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett, “Normative and Structural Causes of the Democratic Peace, 1946-1986,” APSR, Vol. 87, No. 3 (1993): 624-638

Daniel Deudney, “Publius before Kant: Federal-Republican Security and Democratic Peace,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, No. 3 (2004): 315-356

Christopher Layne, “Kant or Cant: the Myth of Democratic Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994)

Miriam Fendius Elman, “Unpacking Democracy: Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Theories of Democratic Peace,” Security Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Summer 2000)

Ido Oren and Jude Hays, “Democracies May Rarely Fight One Another, But Developed Socialist States Rarely Fight At All,” Alternatives, Vol. 22, No. 4 (1997): 493-521

Charles Kegley and Margaret Hermann, “How Democracies Use Intervention: a Neglected Dimension in Studies of Democratic Peace,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 33, No. 3 (1996): 309-322

Sebastian Rosato, “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (November 2003): 585-602

VI. Theories of the Individual

Week #14: Rational Choice and Its Critics

James Fearon, “Rationalist Explanations for War,” International Organization, Vol. 49 (Summer 1995): 379-414

BC Rathburn, “Papa Don’t Preach: Rationalism as an ism,” The Duck of Minerva, 2011 (http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com)

Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, “Sabotaging the Peace: the Politics of Extreme Violence,” International Organization, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Spring 2002): 263-296

Suzanne Werner, “The Precarious Nature of Peace: Resolving the Issues, Enforcing Settlement, and Renegotiating the Terms,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 43, No. 3 (1999): 912-934

Neta Crawford, “The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships,” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Spring 2000): 116-156

Christine Sylvester, “Experiencing the End and Afterlives of International Relations/Theory,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 3 (2013): 609-626

Stephen M. Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring 1999): 5-48

Week #15: Political Psychology: Learning & Decision Making

Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976) (BlackBoard)

Jack Levy, “Learning and Foreign Policy,” International Organization, Vol. 48 (Spring 1994): 279-312

Margaret Hermann and Charles Kegley, “Rethinking Democracy and International Peace: Perspectives from Political Psychology,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39 (1995): 511- 533

Janis Gross Stein, “Political Learning By Doing: Gorbachev as Uncommitted Thinker and Motivated Learner,” International Organization, Vol. 48 (Spring 1994): 155-84

Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack, “Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Spring 2001): 107-146

Keren Yarhi-Milo, “In the Eye of the Beholder: How Leaders and Intelligence Communities Assess the Intentions of Adversaries,” International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Summer 2013): 7- 51

Barbara Farnham, “The Theory of Democratic Peace and Threat Perception,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 47 (2003): 395-415