IR 6 2 1

Current Debates in International Relations Theory

Pınar Bilgin
office: A328B
phone: (290) 2164
e-mail: [email protected]
webpage: http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~pbilgin
office hours: Tuesday 11:00-12:00, Thursday 14:00-15:00
and by appointment

Aims
This course is designed as a post-graduate level introduction to current debates in
International Relations theory. The content and nature of International Relations theory is by
no means fixed. Indeed, International Relations theory has been the subject of intense
academic, intellectual and political debate. The main aim of this course is to introduce
students to some of the major debates in International Relations theory.

Objectives
The objectives of this course are both subject-specific and general. General objectives
include the development of oral, written and research skills as the course requires students
to become able to read, absorb and critically assess a significant amount of complex (and at
times contradictory) material. The subject-specific objectives include developing students’
1) understanding of what is meant by theory and why theorising is an important
enterprise;
2) knowledge and understanding of the key literature in the discipline;
3) knowledge and understanding of International Relations beyond their
immediate area of interest;
4) ability to locate their area of interest within the discipline;
5) ability to analyse practices of world politics from a conceptual perspective;
6) ability to discuss in depth some of the main issues in International Relations
theory.

1
Teaching
Since the course is taught as a post-graduate level seminar, the onus is on you to read
widely around the topics. The seminars on occasions may include mini lectures designed to
introduce and/or contextualise that week’s topic, but you will be doing most of the work. My
role will be to provide a basic overview of that week’s topic, offer you contending
perspectives on the issues concerned, and seek to generate a discussion structured around
a set of questions. The aim is to encourage you to think independently and critically
whilst remaining firmly grounded in the knowledge provided by the readings.
The following list is by no means exhaustive. It should rather be viewed as a representative
sample of theoretical works. In the pages that follow, you will find a list of required and
recommended readings for each week. Our discussions will be based mostly on the required
readings.1 The lists of recommended texts are there to provide a broader context as well as
more detail, which may be useful as a starting point and reference for written assignments or
future studies. You are advised to do your readings in the order they are presented.
What you should remember at all times is that good discussions depend on serious
preparation by students. You are strongly encouraged to read the texts carefully and
prepare written answers to the questions to ensure thorough preparation especially in the
first few weeks of the course when you are less experienced in participating in seminars. It
is critical that you do all your readings and come in ready to take active part in class
discussions. This is critical not only for your own intellectual development but also because
participation is 40% of your overall grade.
Please be reminded that you will only be in a position to do well in your assignments if you
have attended the classes and read the literature (all of the required texts plus some of the
recommended ones). Coming to the classes prepared is necessary not only because this
constitutes a part of your assessment, but also because this will help you understand the
course material much better so that you would be in a very strong position to do well in your
exams/assignments.
You are required to attend all the classes (in accordance with the University regulations). If
you cannot attend please let me know beforehand, or contact me (immediately) afterwards to
provide a ‘legitimate’ excuse for your absence. Attendance will be taken and absences will
be noted.

1
Unless otherwise indicated, all books are available at the reserve desk in the library. All journals are
available on-line. If you have trouble in getting hold of a reading, please let me know a.s.a.p.

2
Assessment

40% of your assessment will be based on in-class participation. This will take the form of
participating in class discussions. You will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having
read and thought about that week’s topic.

30% of your assessment will be based on assignment 2 (due 7.11.2005, 17:30). You are
asked to write a 2000-word essay in response the following question:
After five decades of efforts to develop theories of International Relations, scholars have
produced precious little in the way of useful, high confidence results that would meet the
scientific tests of validity. There is no reason to suppose that another 50 years of
research would result in anything resembling a valid theory that meets scientific
standards. IR scholars should give up trying to create a science of International
Relations. Agree or disagree.

30% of your assessment will be based on assignment 3 (due 30.12.2005, 17:30). You are
asked to write a 2000-word essay in response to the following question:
Has International Relations progressed from Kal Holsti’s 1985 characterization of the field
as a “divided discipline”? Identify some of the field’s divisions regarding framework of
analysis, methodology and subject matter. Which theoretical/conceptual framework and
which methodology has generated the most robust findings, on what substantive aspects
of International Relations?

3
Please try to follow the requirements listed below when preparing your assignments:

Be careful not to copy out great chunks from the assigned text or other articles/books. This is
at best weak and at worst plagiarism. Plagiarism consists of any form of passing off, or
attempting to pass off, the knowledge or work of other people as one's own. It is a form of
cheating and is considered an academic offence. The following are simple guidelines to help
you avoid such problems:2

• Surround all direct quotations with inverted commas and cite the precise source
(including page numbers) in a footnote.

• Use quotations sparingly and make sure that the bulk of the essay is in your own words.

• Remember that it is 'what you say' that gives an essay merit.

• Make sure you give references to your source(s) throughout the text, not just when you
give direct quotations but also when you paraphrase or give your version.

Essay presentation

• Each essay should be typed.

• State the number of words used at the end. The word limit is there to make you decide
what is or is not important to say. The ability to say what you want in a limited number of
words is also a skill you need to gain. Essays that are over length will be penalised.

• Appropriate footnotes and/or bibliography should be supplied.

• Do not use single-spacing and leave a sufficient margin for comments.

• Pay attention to how you write the essay (your style) as well as its content. It is important
to develop your 'writing skills' as a student of International Relations.

2
See also Ben Rosamund, ‘Plagiarism, Academic Norms and the Governance of the Profession,’
Politics 22:3 (2002) 167-174.

4
Week 1
Introduction

Week 2
Current Debates in International Relations Theory: an Overview

Required
• Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International
Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) 1-138.

Recommended
• Barry Buzan and Richard Little, ‘Why International Relations Has Failed as an
Academic Project and What to do about it,’ Millennium: Journal of International
Studies 30:1 (2001) 19-39.
• Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, ‘The Benefits of a Social-Scientific Approach to Studying
International Affairs,’ in Explaining International Relations Since 1945, Ngaire Woods,
ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 49-76.
• Colin Elman and Miriam F. Elman, eds., Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political
Scientists and the Study of International Relations, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2001) 39-83.
• James N. Rosenau, ‘Thinking Theory Thoroughly,’ in International Relations Theory:
Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond, Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi (Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 29-37.
• John Lewis Gaddis, ‘History, Science, and the Study of International Relations,’ in
Explaining International Relations Since 1945, Ngaire Woods, ed. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999) 32-48.
• Ken Booth, ‘Dare not to Know: International Relations Theory versus the Future,’ in
International Relations Theory Today, Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds. (Cambridge:
Polity, 1995) 329-350.
• Mark Neufeld The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995).
• Marysia Zalewski, ‘“All These Theories, Yet Bodies Keep Piling up”: Theory,
Theorists, Theorising,’ in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith,
Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996) 340-353.
• Miles Kahler, ‘Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after
1945,’ in New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Michael Doyle and John
Ikenberry, eds. (Boulder, CO: Westview press, 1997) 20-53.
• Ngaire Woods, ‘The Uses of Theory in the Study of International Relations,’ in
Explaining International Relations Since 1945, Ngaire Woods, ed. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999) 9-31.
• Ole Waever, ‘The Sociology of Not So International a Discipline: American and
European Developments in International Relations,’ International Organization 52:4
(1998) 687-727.
• Scott Burchill, ‘Introduction,’ in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al
(London: Macmillan, 1996) 1-27.
Week 3
Explaining or Understanding International Relations?

Required
• Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1990).
• Alexander Wendt, ‘On Constitution and Causation in International Relations,’ Review
of International Studies 24: special issue (1998) 101-117.

Recommended
• Colin Elman & Miriam Fendius Elman, eds. Bridges and Boundaries: Historians,
Political Scientists and the Study of International Relations (Cambridge: MIT Press,
2001).
• Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International
Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994).
• Mark Neufeld The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995).
• Morton Kaplan, ‘The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International
Relations,’ World Politics (October 1966).
• Raymond Aron, ‘Introduction,’ Peace and War: A Theory of International Politics
(Florida: Krieger, 1966).
• Robert W. Cox, ‘Realism, Positivism and Historicism,’ in Approaches to World Order,
Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)
49-59 [first appeared in Neorealism and its Critics, Robert O. Keohane, ed. as a
postscript to the article ‘Social Forces…’ in 1985].

6
Week 4
Realism

Required
• E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of
International Relations (London: Papermac, 1981 [1939]).
• Peter Wilson, ‘The Myth of the “First Great Debate,”’ Review of International Studies
24: special issue (1998) 1-15.

Recommended
• If lost, read: Tim Dunne and Brian C. Schmidt, ‘Realism,’ in The Globalization of
World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and
Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 141-161.
• Or read: Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism,
Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 55-99.
• Andreas Osiander, ‘Reading early 20th century IR theory: Idealism Revisited,’ in
International Studies Quarterly 42:3 (1998) 409-432.
• Barry Buzan, ‘The Timeless Wisdom of Realism?’ in International Theory: Positivism
and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996) 47-65.
• Brian Schmidt, ‘Lessons from the Past: Reassessing the Interwar Disciplinary History
of International Relations,’ in International Studies Quarterly 42:3 (1998) 433-460.
• Charles W. Kegley, Jr. ‘The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies? Realist
Myths and the New International Realities,’ International Studies Quarterly 37 (1993)
131-146.
• Hans J. Morgenthau, ‘A Realist Theory of International Politics,’ Politics Among
Nations (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985).
• Jim George, ‘The Positivist-Realist Phase: Morgenthau, Behaviouralism, and the
Quest for Certainty,’ Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to
International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) 91-110.
• Ken Booth, ‘Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice,’
International Affairs 67:3 (1991) 527-545.
• Lucian M. Ashworth, ‘Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A
Revisionist History of International Relations,’ International Relations 16:1 (2002) 33-
51.
• Michael Cox, ‘Introduction,’ in The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction
to the Study of International Relations/ with a new Introduction by Michael Cox, editor
(Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001) ix-lviii. (xerox)
• Peter Wilson, ‘Introduction: The Twenty Years’ Crisis and the Category of Idealism in
International Relations,’ in Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: Inter-war Idealism
Reassessed (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) 1-24.
• Robert L. Rothstein, ‘On the Costs of Realism,’ in Political Science Quarterly 87:3
(1972) 347-362.
• Scott Burchill, ‘Realism and Neorealism,’ Theories of International Relations, Scott
Burchill et al (London: Macmillan, 1996) 67-92.

7
Week 5
Neorealism

Required
• Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979).
• Paul Schroeder, ‘Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory,’ International Security 19:1
(1994): 108-148.

Recommended
• If lost, read: Steven L. Lamy, ‘Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-realism
and Neo-liberalism,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001) 182-199.
• ‘Interview with Ken Waltz,’ by Fred Halliday and Justin Rosenberg, Review of
International Studies 24:3 (1998) 371-386.
• Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of
Power Politics,’ International Organization 46:2 (1992) 391-425.
• Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999).
• Andrew Linklater, ‘Neorealism in Theory and Practice,’ in International Relations
Theory Today, Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds. (Cambridge: Polity, 1995) 241-262.
• Barry Buzan and Richard Little, ‘The Idea of “International System,”’ in International
Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Andrew Linklater, ed. (London:
Routledge, 2000) 1274-1303.
• Daniel H. Deudney, ‘Regrounding Realism: Anarchy, Security, and Changing Material
Contexts, Security Studies 10:1 (2000) 1-42.
• David Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
• Isabelle Grunberg, ‘Exploring the “Myth” of Hegemonic Stability,’ International
Organization 44:4 (1990) 431-477.
• Jim George, ‘The Backward Discipline Revisited: The Closed World of Neo-realism,’
Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations
(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) 111-138.
• John Mearsheimer, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,’
International Security 15:1 (1990) 5-56.
• Kenneth Waltz, ‘Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory,’ in Controversies in
International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St
Martin’s Press, 1995) 67-81.
• Kenneth Waltz, ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War,’ International Security 25: 1
(2000) 5-41.
• Kenneth Waltz, ‘The New World Order,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies
22:2 (1993) 187-196.
• Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1959).
• Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, ‘The International System,’ Explaining and
Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 92-118.
• Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen, eds., International Relations Theory
and the End of the Cold War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995).
• Robert O. Keohane, ‘Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond,’ in
International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond, Paul Viotti
and Mark Kauppi (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 153-183.

8
• Robert W. Cox, ‘Realism, Positivism and Historicism,’ in Approaches to World Order,
Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)
49-59 [first appeared in Neorealism and its Critics, Robert O. Keohane, ed. as a
postscript to the article ‘Social Forces…’ in 1985].
• Robert W. Cox, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory,’ in Approaches to World Order, Robert W. Cox with Timothy
Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 85-123 [first appeared in the
Millennium in 1981 and re-published in Neorealism and its Critics, Robert O.
Keohane, ed., in 1985]
• Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).
• William C. Wohlforth, ‘The Russian-Soviet Empire: a Test of Neorealism,’ Review of
International Studies 27 (2001) 213-235.

9
Week 6
The English School

Required
• Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 2nd ed.
(London: Macmillan, 1995).
• Paul Sharp, ‘Taliban Diplomacy and the English School,’ Review of International
Studies 29: 4 (2003) 481-498.

Recommended
• Andrew Linklater, ‘The problem of Harm in World Politics: Implications for the
Sociology of States-systems,’ International Affairs 78:2 (2002) 319-338.
• Barry Buzan, ‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR,’ Review of
International Studies 27:3 (2001) 471-488.
• Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International Society (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1985).
• James Mayall, Nationalism and International Society (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990).
• Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, ed. Gabriele Wight and
Brian Porter (London: Leicester University Press, 1991).
• Nick Wheeler, ‘Guardian Angel or Global Gangster: A Review of the Ethical Claims of
International Society,’ Political Studies 44 (1996) 123-135.
• Robert Jackson, ‘The Political Theory of International Society,’ in International Theory
Today, Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Polity, 1995) 110-128,
• Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third
World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
• Roger Epp, ‘The English School on the Frontiers of International Society; A
Hermeneutic Recollection,’ Review of International Studies 24: special issue (1998)
47-63.
• Tim Dunne, ‘Sociological Investigations: Instrumental, Legitimist and Coercive
Interpretations of International Society,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies
30:1 (2001) 67-91.
• Tim Dunne, ‘The Social Construction of International Society,’ European Journal of
International Relations 1:3 (1995) 367-389.
• Tim Dunne, Inventing International Society: A History of the English School (New
York: St Martin’s Press, 1998).

10
Week 7
Liberalism and Neo-liberalism

Required
• Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International
Politics,’ International Organization 51:4 (1997) 513-553.
• Joseph Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public
Affairs, 2004).

Recommended
• If lost, read: Steven L. Lamy, ‘Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-realism
and Neo-liberalism,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001) 182-199.
• Bruce Russet, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).
• Charles W. Kegley, Jr, ‘The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World
Politics: An Introduction,’ in in Controversies in International Relations Theory:
Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, Charles W. Kegley, ed. (New York: St Martin’s
Press, 1995) 1-24.
• Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, ‘The Nature and Sources of Liberal
International Order,’ Review of International Studies 25:2 (1999) 179-196.
• David Baldwin, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1993).
• James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, eds. Governance without Government:
Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
• John Gerard Ruggie, ‘Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution,’ in Paul Viotti
and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and
Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 331-339.
• Joseph M. Grieco, ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the
Newest Liberal Institutionalism,’ in Controversies in International Relations Theory:
Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, Charles W. Kegley, ed. (New York: St Martin’s
Press, 1995) 151-171.
• Joseph S. Nye, Jr. ‘Limits of American Power,’ Political Science Quarterly 117:4
(2002-3) 545-559.
• Karl Deutsch et al, Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1957).
• Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew, ‘Liberal International Theory: Common
Threads, Divergent Strands,’ in in Controversies in International Relations Theory:
Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, Charles W. Kegley, ed. (New York: St Martin’s
Press, 1995) 107-150.
• Michael Doyle, ‘A More Perfect Union? The Liberal Peace and the Challenge of
Globalization,’ Review of International Studies 26:special issue (2000) 81-94.
• Michael W. Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics Revisited,’ in Controversies in
International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St
Martin’s Press, 1995) 67-67-81.
• Michael W. Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics,’ in American Political Science
Review 80:4 (1986) 1151-1169. [re-published in International Relations Theory, Viotti
and Kauppi, eds., 233-245]
• Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism,
Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 199-232.

11
• Raymond Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory that Democracies do
not go to War with Each Other,’ Review of International Studies 20:3 (1994) 207-223.
• Robert O. Keohane and Joesph S. Nye, Jr, ‘Realism and Complex Interdependence,’
in Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism,
Globalism and Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 307-318.
• Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. ‘Power and Interdependence revisited,’
International Organization 41:4 (Autumn 1987) 725-753.
• Steven Weber, ‘Institutions and Change,’ in New Thinking in International Relations
Theory, Michael Doyle and John Ikenberry, eds. (Boulder, CO: Westview press,
1997) 229-265.
• Tim Dunne, ‘Liberalism,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001) 163-181.

12
Week 8
Marxist-inspired Theories of World Politics

Required
• Fred Halliday, ‘A Necessary Encounter: Historical Materialism and International
Relations,’ in Rethinking International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1994).
• Fernando Henrique Cardoso, ‘The Consumption of Depdendency Theory in the
United States,’ Latin American Research Review 12:3 (1977): 7-24.
• Robert W. Cox, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory,’ in Approaches to World Order, Robert W. Cox with Timothy
Sinclair (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 85-123.

Recommended
• If lost, read: Stephen Hobden and Richard Wyn Jones, ‘Marxist Theories of
International Relations,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations, 2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001) 200-223.
• Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton, ‘The Gordion Knot of Agency-Structure in
International Relations: A Neo-Gramscian Perspective,’ European Journal of
International Relations 7:1 (2001) 5-35.
• Andrew Linklater, ‘Marxism,’ in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al
(London: Macmillan, 1996) 119-144.
• Daniel Deudney, ‘Geopolitics as Theory: Historical Security Materialism,’ European
Journal of International Relations 6:1 (2000) 77-107.
• Hazel Smith, ‘The Silence of the Academics: International Social Theory, Historical
Materialism and Political Values,’ Review of International Studies 22:2 (1996) 191-
212.
• Immanuel Wallerstein, ‘The Inter-state Structure of the Modern World System,’ in
International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia
Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 87-107.
• Mark Rupert, ‘Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (re-)vision of the
politics of governance/resistance,’ Review of International Studies 29: special issue
(2003) 181-198.
• Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, ‘Globalism: Dependency and the Capitalist World-
System,’ in International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and
Beyond (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 341-364.
• Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair, Approaches to World Order, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996).
• Robert W. Cox, ‘Civil Society at the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an
Alternative World Order,’ Review of International Studies 25:1 (1999) 3-28.
• Robert W. Cox, ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An essay on
Method,’ in Approaches to World Order, Robert W. Cox with Timothy Sinclair
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 124-143.
• Robert W. Cox, Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of
History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987).
• Theda Skocpol, ‘Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical
Critique,’ American Journal of Sociology 82:5 (1977) 1075-1090.
• William Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and
Hegemony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

13
Week 9
Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)

Required
• Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International
Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) 139-190.
• Richard Wyn Jones, Security, Strategy and Critical Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner, 1999).

Recommended
• If lost, read: Richard Devetak, ‘Critical Theory,’ in Theories of International Relations,
2nd ed. Scott Burchill et al, (London: Palgrave, 2001) 155-180.
• Andrew Linklater, ‘The Achievements of Critical Theory,’ in International Theory:
Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 279-298.
• Andrew Linklater, ‘The Transformation of Political Community: E.H. Carr, Critical
Theory and International Relations,’ Review of International Studies 23:3 (1997) 321-
338.
• Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International
Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990).
• Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London:
Macmillan, 1990).
• Beate Jahn, ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest
Edition of Liberal Idealism,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27: 3 (1998)
613-641.
• Chris Brown, ‘“Turtles All the Way Down”: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and
International Relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23 (1994) 213-
236.
• Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International
Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) esp. pp. 139-231.
• Mark Hoffman, ‘Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation: Four
Voices in Critical International Theory,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies
20:2 (1991) 169-185.

14
Week 10
Post-structuralism

Required
• Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International
Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) 191-219.
• David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity, rvs. ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998).

Recommended
• If lost, read: Richard Devetak, ‘Postmodernism,’ in Theories of International
Relations, 2nd ed. Scott Burchill et al, (London: Palgrave, 2001) 181-208.
• Bradley S. Klein, Strategic Studies and World Order: The Global Politics of
Deterrence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
• Chris Brown, ‘“Turtles All the Way Down”: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and
International Relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23 (1994) 213-
236.
• Cynthia Weber, ‘IR: The Resurrection or New Frontiers of Incorporation,’ European
Journal of International Relations 5:4 (1999) 435-450.
• David Campbell, Politics Without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics and the Narratives of
the Gulf War (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1993).
• Jenny Edkins, Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political
Back in (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999).
• Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International
Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994) esp. pp. 139-231.
• Kimberly Hutchins, ‘Foucault and International Relations Theory,’ in The Impact of
Michel Foucault on the Social Sciences and Humanities, Moya Lloyd and Andrew
Thacker, eds. (London: Macmillan, 1997) 102-127.
• Mark Hoffman, ‘Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation: Four
Voices in Critical International Theory,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies
20:2 (1991) 169-185.
• R.B.J. Walker, Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993).
• Richard Ashley and R.B.J. Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis
and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies,’ International Studies
Quarterly 34 (1990) 367-416.
• Richard Ashley, ‘The Achievements of Post-Structuralism,’ in International Theory:
Positivism and Beyond. Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 240-253.
• Roxanne Lynn Doty, Imperial Encounters (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 2002) 1-72, 163-171.

15
Week 11
Constructivism

Required
• Ted Hopf, Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies,
Moscow, 1955 & 1999 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002) 1-151. (photocopy on
reserve in the library).

Recommended
• If lost, read: Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Constructivism,’ in Theories of International
Relations, 2nd ed. Scott Burchill et al, (London: Palgrave, 2001) 209-230.
• Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of
Power Politics,’ International Organization 46:2 (1992) 391-425.
• Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999).
• Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International
Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
• Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms and Decision: On the Conditions of Practical and
Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989).
• Jutta Weldes and Diana Saco, ‘Making State Action Possible: The United States and
the Discursive Construction of “The Cuban Problem”, 1960-1994,’ Millennium: Journal
of International Studies 25:2 (1996) 361-395. Alexander Wendt, ‘Collective Identity
Formation and the International State,’ American Political Science Review 88:2
(1994) 384-396.
• Jutta Weldes et al, eds. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the
Production of Danger (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999).
• Jutta Weldes, ‘Constructing National Interests,’ European Journal of International
Relations 2:3 (1996) 275-318.
• Karin Fierke, ‘Multiple Identities, Interfacing Games: The Social Construction of
Western Action in Bosnia,’ European Journal of International Relations 2:4 (1996)
467-497.
• Marc Lynch, ‘Jordan’s Identity and Interests’, in Identity and Foreign Policy in the
Middle East, Shibley Telhami & Michael Barnett, eds. (Ithaca: Cornell University
press, 2002) 26-57.
• Michael Barnett, ‘The Israeli Identity and The Peace Process: Re/creating the
Un/thinkable’, Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East, Shibley Telhami &
Michael Barnett, eds. (Ithaca: Cornell University press, 2002) 58-87.
• Michael Barnett, Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1998).
• Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International
Theory and Constructivism,’ European Journal of International Relations 4:3 (1998)
259-294.
• Ted Hopf, ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,’
International Security 23:1 (1998) 171-200.
• Vendulka Kubálková, ed. Foreign Policy in a Constructed World (New York: M.E.
Sharpe, 2001).
• Vendulka Kubálková, Nicholas Onuf and Paul Kowert, eds., International Relations in
a Constructed World (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1998).

16
Week 12 (15.12.2004)
Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations

Required
• Mohammed Ayoob, ‘Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case
for Subaltern Realism’, International Studies Review 4:2 (2002) 27-48.
• Michael Barnett, ‘Radical Chic? Subaltern Realism: A Rejoinder’, International
Studies Review 4:3 (2002) 49-62.
• Sankaran Krishna, ‘Race, Amnesia and the Education of International Relations,’
Alternatives 26 (2001): 401-424.
• David C. Kang, ‘Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks,’
International Security 27:4 (2003) 57-85.

Recommended
• Cynthia Enloe, ‘Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the
Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations’, in International
Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 186-202.
• K.J. Holsti, ‘International Theory and War in the Third World’, in The Insecurity
Dilemma: National Security of Third World States, Brian L. Job, ed. (Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner, 1992) 37-60.
• Ken Booth, ’75 Years on: Rewriting the Subject’s Past—reinventing its future’ in
International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia
Zalewski, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 328-39.
• Mohammed Ayoob, ‘Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective’, in Critical
Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (London: UCL Press, 1997) 121-46.
• R.B.J. Walker, ‘International/Inequality’ International Studies Review 4:2 (2002) 7-24.
• Robert Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third
World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
• Stephanie G. Neuman, ‘International Relations Theory and the Third World: an
Oxymoron?’ in International Relations Theory and the Third World, Stephanie G.
Neuman, ed. (London: Macmillan, 1998) 1-29.
• Steve Smith, ‘The United States and the Discipline of International Relations:
“Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline,”’ International Studies Review 4:2
(2002) 67-85.

17
Week 13
International Relations: ‘Not so International a Discipline’?

Required
• Ole Waever, ‘The Sociology of Not So International a Discipline: American and
European Developments in International Relations,’ International Organization 52:4
(1998) 687-727.
• Stephen M. Walt, ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories,’ Foreign Policy
(Spring 1998) 29-46.
• Arlene Tickner, ‘Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World’ Millennium:
Journal of International Studies 32:2 (2003) 295-325.

Recommended
• Cynthia Enloe, ‘Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the
Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations’, in International
Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 186-
202.
• Ken Booth, ’75 Years on: Rewriting the Subject’s Past—reinventing its future’ in
International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996) 328-39.
• Robert M. A. Crawford & Darryl S. L. Jarvis, eds. International Relations—Still and
American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought (New York:
SNUY, 2001).
• Stanley Hoffmann, ‘An American Social Science: International Relations,’ in
International Theory: Critical Investigations, James Der Derian, ed. (London:
Macmillan, 1995) 212-241.
• Steve Smith, ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still and American Social
Science?’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2:3 (2000) 374-402.

18