Universidad De La Sabana Facultad De Derecho Y Ciencias Políticas Theory

UNIVERSIDAD DE LA SABANA FACULTAD DE DERECHO Y CIENCIAS POLÍTICAS

Introduction to International Relations 1. ASIGNATURAS

PRE-REQUISITOS:

2. INTENSIDAD HORARIA: 192 hours per semester 2.1. Horas de trabajo presencial: 64 hours per semester 2.2. Horas de trabajo independiente: 128 hours per semester

3. VALOR EN 2 CREDITOS:

4. PROFESOR:

PhD Candidate in Political Science (emphasis in International Relations). University of Quebec in MARIO IVÁN Montreal (UQAM), Canada. M.A. in Geopolitics and URUEÑA SÁNCHEZ Global Security. University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy. B.A. in Political Science. National University of

Colombia.

1. COURSE OUTLINE

The course covers the entire development of the International Relations theory, from the rationalist theories (realisms, liberalisms, structuralism and structural constructivism) to the reflectivist ones (critical constructivism, critical, postmodern and feminist). The key concepts of the IR approaches will be also discussed in the classes: power, war, peace, diplomacy, identity, interest, rational actor, cooperation, security, social construction, hegemonic cycles, discourse, gender, etc.

2. GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE COURSE

2.1. General objective

The main purpose of this course is to explore the most studied theories in International Relations. By the end of it, the students will be able to explain, understand and criticize the most relevant issues in world politics using analytical and conceptual tools.

2.2. Specific objectives:

i. To explore the ontology of every theory, analyzing its material/idealist, holist/individualist and structural/agent components. ii. To study the epistemology of every theory, examining its explicative/constitutive, foundationalism/ antifoundationalism, 1st/2nd/3rd image and methodological components. iii. To evaluate the normativity of every theory, assessing its implicit/explicit, status quo/reformism/changing nature.

3. CORE SUBJECTS

3.1. The three debates. 3.2. Realisms (Political, Neorealism and Neoclassical). 3.3. Liberalisms (institutionalism, republicanism, liberal internationalism, commercial pacifism, transnationalism, functionalism, democratic peace and scientific liberalism). 3.4. Neoliberal institutionalism and the Neo-Neo debate. 3.5. Structuralism and neo-gramscian theories. 3.6. Constructivism (structural, rules-oriented, critical). 3.7. Reflectivist theories (critical, postmodern/poststructuralist, feminism).

4. COURSE STRATEGY 4.1. Class sessions

4.1.1. Oral presentation by selected students (2 per class). 4.1.2. Discussion between the students and the Professor. 4.1.3. Presentation of the main theoretical arguments by the Professor. 4.1.4. Conclusions.

4.2. Independent work

4.2.1. Students are expected to do all the required readings in the class schedule prior to each session. 4.2.2. They might be able to produce questions and reflections about the required texts. 4.2.3. They could address their questions or suggestions to the e-mail: [email protected]

4.3. Research skills enforcement

For the final assessment students will write a research paper (5-7 pages). The topic of this paper is chosen by the students and must be related to the historical facts or processes that took place during the pax Americana (1945 to our days). This topic must be previously approved by the professor. Thereafter, students will pick one IR’s theory and discuss its strengths and weaknesses relating to explain the topic. Final papers should be printed in letter-sized paper, double-spaced, with normal margins, using a size 12 Times New Roman font.

5. REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING

The assessment requirements for the course are:

5.1. Theoretical and analytical understanding of the required readings. 5.2. Class participation through assigned presentations, spontaneous discussion or questions formulation. 5.3. Internal consistency and argumentation skills in the writing exams. 5.4. Writing skills (accurate use of the language).

Learning assessments

Exam 1: 25%

Exam 2: 25% Final paper: 40% Oral presentations: 10%

Oral presentations: Every week there will be two required readings which all students must read and prepare for the class. Nevertheless, once a week two selected students will organise an oral presentation of one reading each (about 10 minutes). They will expose the main hypotheses of the reading, showing understanding and mastering the author’s arguments. These presentations will represent a 10% of the final grade.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 6.1. REQUIRED TEXTS

Algosaibi, Ghazi A. R. 1965, “The Theory of International Relations: Hans Morgenthau and His Critics”, en Background, Vol. 8, No. 4, February: 221-256. Ashley, Richard K. 1990. “Conclusion: Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies”, International Security Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 34, September: 367-416. Davis, Reed. 2008. “An Uncertain Trumpet: Reason, Anarchy and Cold War Diplomacy in the Thought of Raymond Aron”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4, October: 645-668. Der Derian, James. 1990. “The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3, September: 295-310. Doyle, Michael W. 1986. “Liberalism and World Politics”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 4: 1151-1169. Jervis, Robert. 1999. “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate”, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1, summer: 42-63. Herz, John. 1950. “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2, January: 157-180. Hoffman, Stanley. 1985. “Raymond Aron and the Theory of International Relations”, International Studies Quaterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, March: 13-27. Keohane, Robert. 1988. “International Institutions: Two Approaches “, International Studies Quarterly, 32, 4, December: 379-396. Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph. 2000. “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What)”, Foreign Policy, No. 118, spring: 104-119. Lapid, Yosef. 1989. « The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-positivist Era », International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, s September: 235-254. Layne, Cristopher. 2006 “The Unipolar Illusion Revisited “, International Security, No. 31, September: 7-41. Linklater, Andrew. 1990. “The Problem of Community in International Relations”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 15, No. 2, spring: 135-153.

Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997, “Taking Preference Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization, Vo. 51, No. 4, September: 513-553. Morgenthau, Hans. 1952. “Another ‘Great Debate’: The National Interest of the United States”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 46, No 4, December: 961-988. Murphy, Craig N. 1998. “Understanding IR: Understanding Gramsci”, Review of International, Vol. 24, No. 3, July: 417-425. Neufeld, Mark. 1993. “Interpretation and the ‘Science’ of International Relations”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1, January: 39-61. Onuf, Nicholas and Klink, Frank K. 1989. “Anarchy, Authority, Rule”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2, June: 149-173. Snyder, Glenn. 2002. “Mearsheimer’s World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: a Review”, International Security, Vol. 27, No. 1, summer: 149-173. Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. 2000-2001. “Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited”, International Security, Vol. 25, No.3, winter: 128-161. Tickner, J. Ann. 2005. “What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 1, March: 1-21. Topper, Keith. 1998, “The Theory of International Politics? An Analysis of Neorealist Theory”, Human Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2, April: 157-186. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1993. “The World-System after the Cold War”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, February: 1-6. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1988. “The origins of War in Neorealist Theory”, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vo. 18, No. 4, Spring: 615-628. Went, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2, spring: 391-425. Youngs, Gillian. 2004. “Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in”, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 1, January: 75-87.

6.2. OTHER SOURCES

Aron, Raymond. 1984, Paix et guerre entre les nations, 8e édition, Paris, Calman-Lévy. Baldwin, David A. (dir.). 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, New York : Columbia University Press. Brown, Michael E., Sean M. Lynn-Jones et Steven E. Miller (dir.). 1996. Debating the Democratic Peace, Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press Carr, E. H. 1946, The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939 : An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 2e édition, Londres, Macmillan and Company. Cox, R. W et Sinclair, T.J. 1996, Approaches to World Order, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Elman, Colin et Elman, Miriam F. (dir.). 2003, Progress in International Theory :Appraising the Field, Cambridge, Massachussetts et Londres, MIT Press. Enloe, Cynthia. 2000. Bananas, Bases, and Beaches : Making Feminist Sense of Interntional Relations, 2e édition Londres : Pandora.

Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society, Ithaca et Londres : Cornell University Press. Frankel, Benjamin (dir.). 1996. Realism : Restatements and Renewal, Londres et Portland OR: Frank Cass. George, Jim. 1994. Discourses of Global Politics : A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder : Lynne Rienner Publishers. Gill, Stephen (dir.). 1993. Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Gilpin, Robert G. 1981, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge et New York, Cambridge University Press. Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice : Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, Londres : Routledge. Hollis, Martin et Steve Smith. 1990. Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford : Clarendon Press. Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony : Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, New York : Columbia University Press. Keohane, Robert O. (dir.). 1986. Neorealism and Its Critics. New York : Columbia University Press. Keohane, Robert O. et Joseph S. Nye Jr., 2001, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, 3e édition, Boston: Little Brown. Krasner, Stephen D. (dir.). 1983. International Regimes, Ithaca et Londres : Cornell University. McSweeney, Bill. 2000. Security, Identity and Interests. A Sociology of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgenthau, H. J. 1985, Politics among Nations : The Struggle for Power and Peace, 6e édition, New York : Alfred A. Knopf Publisher. Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York : W. W. Norton & Company. Rosecrance, Richard. 1986. The Rise of the Trading State. Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World, New York : Basic Books. Smith, Steve, Ken Booth et Marysia Zalewski (dir.). 1996. International theory: positivism and beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University. Tickner, J. Ann. 2001. Gendering World Politics : Issues and Approaches in the Post- Cold War Period, New York : Columbia University Press. Vasquez, John A. 1998. The Power of Power Politics : From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Walker, R. J. B. 1993. Inside/Outside : International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Walt, Stephen. 1987. The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca : Cornell University Press. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979, Theory of International Politics, Reading (Mass.) : Addison- Wesley. Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Williams, Michael C. 2005, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations : Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Wyn Jones, R. 1999, Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory, Boulder et Londres : Lynne Rienner Publishers.

CLASS SCHEDULE

WEEK SUBJECT READINGS 1 INTRODUCTION COURSE SYLLABI

2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Keohane, Robert. 1988. “International THE THREE DEBATES Institutions : Two Approaches”, International Studies Quarterly, 32, 4, December: 379-396. Lapid, Yosef. 1989. « The Third Debate : On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-positivist Era », International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, s September: 235-254. 3 POLITICAL REALISM Morgenthau, Hans. 1952. “Another ‘Great HANS MORGENTHAU Debate’: The National Interest of the United States”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 46, No 4, December: 961-988. Algosaibi, Ghazi A. R. 1965, “The Theory of International Relations: Hans Morgenthau and His Critics”, en Background, Vol. 8, No. 4, February: 221- 256. 4 POLITICAL REALISM Hoffman, Stanley. 1985. “Raymond Aron RAYMOND ARON and the Theory of International Relations”, International Studies Quaterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, march: 13-27. Davis, Reed. 2008. “An Uncertain Trumpet: Reason, Anarchy and Cold War Diplomacy in the Thought of Raymond Aron”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 34, No. 4, October: 645-668. 5 EXAM 1 6 THE SECURITY DILEMMA Herz, John. 1950. “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, Vol. 2, No. 2, January: 157-180. Layne, Cristopher. 2006 “The Unipolar Illusion Revisited “, International Security, No. 31, September: 7-41. 7 NEOREALISM Waltz, Kenneth N. 1988. “The origins of War in Neorealist Theory”, The Journal of

Interdisciplinary History, Vo. 18, No. 4, Spring: 615-628. Topper, Keith. 1998, “The Theory of International Politics? An Analysis of Neorealist Theory”, Human Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2, April: 157-186. 8 NEOCLASSICAL REALISM Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. 2000-2001. “Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited”, International Security, Vol. 25, No.3, winter: 128-161. Snyder, Glenn. 2002. “Mearsheimer’s World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: a Review”, International Security, Vol. 27, No. 1, summer: 149-173. 9 LIBERALISM Doyle, Michael W. 1986. “Liberalism and World Politics”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 4: 1151-1169. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997, “Taking Preference Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization, Vo. 51, No. 4, September: 513-553. 10 INSTITUTIONAL NEOLIBERALISM Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph. 2000. AND THE NEO-NEO DEBATE “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What)”, Foreign Policy, No. 118, spring: 104-119. Jervis, Robert. 1999. “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate”, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1, summer: 42-63. 11 STRUCTURALISM AND Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1993. “The World- NEOGRAMSCIAN System after the Cold War”, Journal of APPROCHES Peace Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, February:

1-6. Murphy, Craig N. 1998. “Understanding IR: Understanding Gramsci”, Review of International, Vol. 24, No. 3, July: 417- 425. 12 EXAM 2 13 CONSTRUCTIVISM Went, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2, spring: 391- 425. Onuf, Nicholas and Klink, Frank K. 1989.

“Anarchy, Authority, Rule”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2, June: 149-173. 14 REFLECTIVISTS THEORIES Linklater, Andrew. 1990. “The Problem of CRITICAL THEORY Community in International Relations”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 15, No. 2, spring: 135-153. Neufeld, Mark. 1993. “Interpretation and the ‘Science’ of International Relations”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1, January: 39-61. 15 REFLECTIVISTS THEORIES Ashley, Richard K. 1990. “Conclusion: POSTMODERN AND Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: POSTSTRUCTURALIST Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in APPROACHES International Studies”, International Security Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 34, September: 367-416. Der Derian, James. 1990. “The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3, September: 295-310. 16 REFLECTIVISTS THEORIES Tickner, J. Ann. 2005. “What Is Your Feminism Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 1, March: 1-21. Youngs, Gillian. 2004. “Feminist International Relations: A Contradiction in Terms? Or: Why Women and Gender Are Essential to Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in”, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 1, January: 75-87. 17 FINAL PAPER