Political Science 5600 Analysis of International Politics

Tuesday, 5:30-7:20pm Room: Dealy 112

Instructor: Dr. Marcus Holmes Office: Faber 671 email: [email protected] Office Hours: Before class on Tuesday and by appointment

Course description: This seminar examines the major theories of international relations (IR). The aim of the course is for students to become conversant in IR theory, be able to critically assess these theories, engage in sophisticated debate regarding contemporary policy implications, and develop the ability to communicate this analysis in a professional manner.

Requirements: As a seminar this course will consist of weekly sessions where we, together, will critically analyze the readings. Students are expected to do all of the readings prior to each class. There will be very little lecture in this course and as such your active and informed participation in class discussions will be critical. In addition you will write two short essays from a selection of questions that will display your mastery of the theories we have studied. Finally, you will write a final paper (~20-25 pages) that will critically apply the theories we have learned to a topic of your choosing. Further details about each of these assignments will be provided in class.

Grades: The course grade will be determined as follows:

Participation: 25% (including attendance, contribution to discussion, and presentations) Short Essays: 25% (12.5% each) Final Paper: 50%

Readings: Most of our readings will be available in digital format on Blackboard or through the library, though there are three books that I highly recommend you purchase (they have been ordered through the bookstore):

• Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics (McGraw-Hill, 1979). • Keohane, Robert. After Hegemony (Princeton, 1984). • Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, 1999). • Deudney, Daniel. Bounding Power (Princeton, 2006).

For each of the readings you should be able to answer the following questions:

• What is the question or puzzle? • What is the argument the author is trying to make? • What, if anything, is this argument responding to? • Why does this argument matter? (i.e. the “so what?” question) • What are the implicit or explicit assumptions? • Are you convinced by the argument? Why or why not? • What are some counter-arguments a skeptic could make? • Does this argument say anything meaningful about agency and structure?

If you have trouble accessing a reading, please let me know ASAP so I can make it available, since it is likely that others are having trouble as well. It is highly recommended that you do the readings in the order they are listed on the syllabus. Many of the readings represent parts of debates that will not make sense if read out of sequence.

Course Policies: You are expected to turn in your assignments on time. Late work will be penalized, and extensions will only be granted for emergency cases. You are expected to use APSA citation format. Papers should be submitted in hard copy on normal letter-sized paper, double-spaced, with normal margins. More will be discussed in class.

Needless to say, all students are expected to arrive to class on time, silence cell phones, iPhones, etc.

All students are responsible for understanding Fordham’s academic integrity rules. These can be reviewed at: http://www.fordham.edu/academics/colleges__graduate_s/undergraduate_colleg/fordham_colleg e_at_l/studying_at_lincoln_/academic_integrity_23682.asp.

Students are required to read the rules by the end of the first week of classes. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse if violations occur. Cheating and plagiarism will not be tolerated. Good research requires combining your own thoughts and analysis with the thoughts and analysis of others. Documenting your sources is critical. When in doubt as to whether you should cite something, cite it! If you use an idea that belongs to someone else without attribution, you are plagiarizing their work. Papers will be automatically submitted to plagiarism detection websites such as turnitin.com. If you have any questions about the guidelines, please see me.

Some students may wish to take part in religious observances that occur during this academic term. If you have a religious observance that conflicts with your participation in the course, please meet with me before the end of the second week of the term to discuss appropriate accommodations.

Any student who feels s/he may need an accommodation based on the impact of a disability should contact me privately to discuss your specific needs.

Please note that the syllabus is subject to change over the course of the semester. Changes will be announced in class or via e-mail.

Course Schedule

Week 1 (9/4): Introductions, Course Expectations, Assignment of Groups

• Peter Vanderwicken, “Why the News is Not the Truth,” HBR, May-June (1995).

• Jack Snyder, “One World, Rival Theories,” Foreign Policy (2004).

• Browse the program at the American Political Science Association annual convention which took place last week in New Orleans here: https://www.apsanet.org/_pdf/2012program.pdf. What panels interest you and why? If you were at the conference which panels would you have gone to (not including Professor Holmes’ of course!). Come to class with one or two panel titles, the papers in the panel, and some thoughts on why you would be interested in them.

Week 2 (9/11): IR as a Discipline: History, Epistemology, and Theory

• Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, “Between Utopia and Reality: The Practical Discourses of International Relations,” in Reus-Smit and Snidal, editors, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 3-40.

• Brian Schmidt, “On the History and Historiography of International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth Simmons, editors, Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), 3-22.

• Colin Wight, “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations,” in Carlsnaes, Risse, and Simmons, editors, Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), 23-51.

• James Fearon and Alexander Wendt, “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View,” in Carlsnaes, Risse, and Simmons, editors, Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), 52-72.

Week 3 (9/18): Classical and Structural Realism

• Thucydides. The Melian Dialogue, in The History of the Peloponnesian War (481 BC).

• Hans Morgenthau, "Six Principles of Political Realism" in Politics Among Nations (1948).

• Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, chapters 4-6.

• Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, Vol. 30 (1978): 167- 214.

Week 4 (9/25): Effects of Power and Structure

• John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (WW Norton, 2001), chapters 1- 2.

• Stephen Walt. “Alliance Formation and the Balance of Power,” International Security 9(4) (1985).

• Charles Glaser, “Realists as Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help,” International Security, Vol. 19 (1994/95): 50-90.

• Randall Schweller, “Neorealism's status-quo bias: What security dilemma?” Security Studies, Vol. 5 (1996 ): 90 - 121.

Week 5 (10/2): Neoliberal Institutionalism

• Kenneth Oye. “Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies,” World Politics 38 (1985): 1-24.

• Robert Keohane. After Hegemony, chapters. 3-6.

Week 6 (10/9): The Constructivist Challenge

• Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46 (1992): 391-425.

• Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics chapters 3-4.

Week 7 (10/16): Constructivist Applications (I)

• Ian Hurd, “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics,” International Organization ̧ Vol. 53 (1999): 379-408.

• Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics chapter 6.

• Finnemore & Sikkink. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, International Organization Vol. 52 (1998).

• Nina Tannenwald, “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-use,” International Organization, Vol. 53 (1999): 433-46.

Week 8 (10/23): Constructivist Applications (II)

• Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, “Power in International Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 59 (2005): 39-75;

• Thomas Risse. “Let’s Argue: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54 (2000): 1-39.

• Ronald Krebs and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, “Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric,” European Journal of International Relations (2007): 35-66.

• Jennifer Mitzen. Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres. American Political Science Review Vol. 99 (2005): 401-17.

Week 9 (10/30): International Practices

• Erving Goffman, “Performances,” in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959).

• Robert Jervis, “Signals and Indices” in The Logic of Images in International Relations (Columbia, 1989).

• Vincent Pouliot, “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities,” International Organization Vol. 62 (2008): 257-288.

• Ted Hopf, “The Logic of Habit in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations (2010).

Week 10 (11/6): NO CLASS (ELECTION DAY)

Week 11 (11/13): Critical Theory (I)

• Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1971), selections.

• Robert Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium 10:2 (1981), 126-55.

• Craig N. Murphy, “Understanding IR: Understanding Gramsci,” Review of International Studies, 24 (1998): 417-425.

Week 12 (11/20): Critical Theory (II)

• Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1996/1932), selections.

• Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (1985/1922), selections.

• Carl Schmitt, “Theory of the Partisan,” Telos (1963) selections.

• J. Huysmans, “International Politics of Exception: Competing Visions of International Political Order between Law and Politics,” Alternatives 31 (2006).

• J. Friedrichs, “Defining the International Public Enemy: The Political Struggle behind the Legal Debate on International Terrorism” Leiden Journal of International Law 19 (2006): 69-91.

Week 13 (11/27): Republicanism

• Daniel Deudney, Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village (Princeton, 2007).

Week 14 (12/4): Change

• Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press (1981). Ch.1.

• Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Simon & Schuster, 1996).

• Benjamin Barber, “Jihad vs. McWorld,” in The Atlantic (March 1992).

Week 15 (12/11): Psychology

• Jack S. Levy, “Prospect Theory and international Relations: Theoretical Applications and Analytical Problems,” Political Psychology 13 (1992): 171-186.

• Jonathan Mercer, “Emotional Beliefs,” International Organization, 64 (Winter 2010): 1- 31.

• Brian Rathbun, “It Takes All Types: Social Psychology, Trust and the International Relations Paradigm in Our Minds. International Theory 1(3): 345-380 (2009).

• Marcus Holmes, “The Force of Face-to-Face Diplomacy: Mirror Neurons and the Problem of Intentions,” International Organization (Forthcoming).

Week 16 (12/18): The Future - World State?

• Robert W. Cox, “The Point Is not Just to Explain the World but to Change It,” in Reus- Smit and Snidal, editors, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 84-93.

• Alexander Wendt, “Why a World State is Inevitable,” European Journal of International Relations 9(4): 491-542.