View information on Coronavirus (COVID-19).
 

INRL 5008

Methodology and Theory of International Relations

Dr. Georgina Chami

 

Reading List

Core Reading

There are many useful core texts in IR (and in related disciplines such as Political Science and IPE) which provide good overviews of the field. However, textbooks, in particular, can only ever provide an introduction, and you should move quickly beyond these and engage at a deeper level with primary texts and articles. If you avoid grappling with serious IR literature, you will run into trouble quickly.

Textbooks and other important books on IR Theory

  1. Brown, C and K. Ainley. Understanding International Relations (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, 4th Edition). Call number: JZ1305 .B76 2009 (NGL-General)

  2. Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P (Eds). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: OUPR, 4th Edition 2008. Call number: JZ1242 G58 2017 (NGL-General)

  3. Burchill, S and Linklater. A (Eds) Theories of International Relations (London: Macmillan,4th Edition, 2009) Call number: JZ1242 .T48 2013 (NGL-General)

  4. Cerny, P. Rethinking World Politics (Oxford: OUP, 2010). Call number: JZ1310 .C47 2010 (NGL-General)

  5. Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and S Smith (Eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: OUP, 2010, 2nd Edition) Call number: JZ1305 .I565 2016 (NGL-General)

  6. Griffiths, M (Ed) International Relations Theory for the Twenty First Century (New York: Routledge, 2007) Call number: JZ1305 .I5658 2007 (NGL-General; AJL-General)

  7. Heywood, A Global Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011) Call number: JZ1310 .H49 2011 (NGL-General)

  8. Hobson, J M and S Hobden Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: CUP, 2002). On Order

  9. Hobson, J M The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760­‐2010 (Cambridge: CUP, 2012). On Order

  10. Jackson, R and G Sorenson  ​Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (4th Edition, Oxford: OUP, 2010). Call number: JZ1242 .J33 2015 (NGL-General)

  11. Kegley, C & Wittkopf, E. World Politics: Trends and transformations (Thomson Wadsworth, Australia, 2006). Call number: JZ1310 .K45 2017 (NGL-General/Reserve)

  12. Knight, WA and T Keating Global Politics, Oxford: OUP, 2010 Call number: JZ1242 .K64 2010 (NGL-General)

  13. Little, R. & Smith, M  Perspectives on World Politics (London: Routledge, 2005) Call number: JZ1242 .P47 2006 (NGL-Reserve; AJL-General)

  14. Ravenhill, J. (Ed) Tickner, A B and O Waever (Eds) Global Political Economy, 3rd Edition, Oxford: OUP, 2011 International Relations Scholarship Around the World (London: Routledge, 2009) Call number: HF1359 .G577 2014 (NGL-General)

  15. Van Der Pijl, K.  A Survey of Global Political Economy, 2009, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ir/1­‐4­‐7­‐1.html

 

On questions of analysis, methods, ontology, epistemology and the state

  1. Burnham, P (et al)  Research methods in Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, 2nd Edition) Call number: JA86 .R423 2004 (NGL-General)

  2. Campbell, C et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Institutional Analysis (Oxford: OUP, 2009). Available (ask library staff for assistance)

  3. Gowan, P. Research Methods in International Relations (London: Routledge, 2011). On Order

  4. Krasner, S. Power, the State and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations (London: Routledge, 2009) Call number: JZ1480 .K725 2009 (NGL-General)

  5. Hay, C (Ed)  New Directions in Political Science (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) Call number: JA76 .N48 2010 (NGL-General)

  6. Marsh, D and G. Stoker Theory and Methods in Political Science (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 3rd Edition). Call number: JA71 .T497 2010 (NGL-General)

 

Websites and News Sources

You should keep abreast of ‘real­‐world’ events during the course, but newspaper sources should generally not be the main focus of essays and analyses on IR Theory. Empirical analysis is obviously an important backdrop for the things we discuss on the course, but only insofar as it helps us think through different theoretical traditions within IR.

In terms of broader IR debates, you should also regularly check the Project Syndicate website which has articles from leading commentators (which are then syndicated to major global newspapers such as Le Monde, The Guardian, The New York Times and so on). In particular, Dani Rodrik, Robert Skidelsky, Jeffrey Sachs, Naomi Wolf, Joseph Nye and Joseph Stiglitz offer excellent commentary on global issues: http://www.project­‐syndicate.org/. E­‐IR is also a very good resource ­‐ http://www.e­‐ir.info/

 

Topic 1 What is International Relations?

Before the discipline of International Relations, there was the study of international relations i.e. the influence of ‘external’ practices, ideas and institutions on societies around the world. This lecture provides an overview of the ‘deep roots’ of international relations. Its main point is that ‘international relations’ has a longer, deeper and broader history than that of modern Europe. Key questions to think about when reading: What is IR, and what is IR Theory? At all times, questions asked during the term: What different theories are there in IR, and why do we have so many of them? What kinds of issues do they tend to be interested in, and how is the knowledge created in IR generally constructed? How close are the links between the concepts and issues we use to understand/explain/describe the world, and actual events and processes in world politics?

 

  1. *Hobson, J M, Carvalho, B and H Leira ‘The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39, 3, 2011 . Click here

  2. *Kratochwil, F and J Ruggie ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’, International Organization, 40,4, 1986. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  3. *Moloney, P ‘Hobbes, Savagery and International Anarchy’, American Political Science Review, 105, 1, 2011. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  4. *Wight, M   ‘Why is there no International Theory?’ International Relations, 2, 1, 1960

  5. Buzan, B and R Little  ‘Why International Relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 30, 1, 2001

  6. Dunne T, Hansen L and C Wight ‘The End of International Relations Theory?’, European Journal of International Relations, 19, 3, 2013. Click here

  7. Kaufman, S ‘Approaches to Global Politics in the Twenty­‐First Century: a Review Essay’, International Studies Review, 1, 2, 1999. Click here

  8. Nicholson, M  ‘What’s the use of International Relations?’ Review of International Studies, 26, 2, 2000. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  9. Smith, S ‘The Development of International Relations as a Social Science’, Millennium, 16, 2, 1987

  10. Snyder, J ‘One World, Rival Theories’, Foreign Policy, 140, November/December 2004. Click here

  11. Strange, S. ‘The Westfailure System’, Review of International Studies, 25, 3, 1999. Click here

  12. Walt, Stephen M. ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’, Foreign Policy, No. 110, 1998. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

 

Topic 2 Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology in IR

Key Questions to think about when reading: What are ontology and epistemology? Which comes first? To what extent do we need to think about them when engaging in the analysis of IR? Are they just philosophical issues which should not concern us? What are the implications of ontology and epistemology for IR Theory? What implications do they have for the methodologies we employ?

  1. *Friedrichs, J and Kratochwil, F ‘On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology’, International Organization, 63, 4, 2009. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  2. *Wight, C ‘Inside the epistemological cave all bets are off’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 10, 1, 2007

  3. Hollis, M and S Smith ​‘Beware of Gurus: Structure and Agency in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17, 4, 1991. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  4. Lake, D ‘Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 19, 3, 2013 Click here

  5. Mearsheimer, J and S Walt ‘Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is Bad for International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 19, 3, 2013 Click here

  6. Wight, C ‘They Shoot Dead Horses Don’t They? Locating Agency in the Agent­‐Structure Problématique’, European Journal of International Relations, 51, 1, 1999

Debate: which comes first, ontology or epistemology?

  1. *Bates, S R and L Jenkins ‘Teaching and Learning Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science’, Politics, 27, 1 Click here

  2. *Hay, C ‘Does Ontology Trump Epistemology? Notes on the Directional Dependence of Ontology and Epistemology in Political Analysis’, Politics, 27, 2, 2007 Click here

  3. *Marsh, D and P Furlong ‘On Ontological and Epistemological Gatekeeping: A Reply to Bates and Jenkins’, Politics, 27, 3 Click here

  4. *Bates, S R and L Jenkins ‘In Defence of Pluralism in the Teaching and Learning of Ontology and Epistemology: A Reply to Hay, Marsh and Furlong’, Politics, 27, 3 

On Ontology and Epistemology more generally

  1. Gowan, P  Research Methods in International Relations (London: Routledge, 2011)

  2. Burnham, P (et al) Research Methods in Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, 2nd Edition) Call number: JA86 .R423 2004 (NGL-General)

  3. Hay, C Political Analysis (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) Call number: JA71 .H348 2002 (NGL-Reserve)

  4. Leftwich, A What is Politics? (Cambridge: Polity, 2004) Call number:JA66 .W45 1984  ( AJL-General)

  5. Marsh, D and G Stoker (Eds) Theory and Methods in Political Science (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 3rd Edition) Various chapters Call number: JA71 .T497 2010 (NGL-General)

 

Topic 3 Classical Realism

The roots of realism can be found in texts by Thucydides, Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau and many others, but as a fully-fledged theory of international relations it is a twentieth century product. In the 1930s and 1940s, realism took the form of a critique of idealism/utopianism, and came to be the dominant approach in IR. Key questions to think about when reading: What is realism, and where does it come from? What different variants of realism have there been over time, when did they emerge, and for what reasons?

  1. *Hamati­‐Ataya, I ‘Knowing and Judging in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Reflexive Challenge’, Review of International Studies, 36, 4, 2010 Click here

  2. *Lake, D ‘Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 19, 3, 2013. Click here

  3. *Milner, H ‘The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory’, Review of International Studies, 17, 1, 1991 Click here

  4. *Rosenberg, J ‘What’s the Matter with Realism?’ Review of International Studies, 16, 4, 1990 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  5. *Ruggie, J. ‘The False Premise of Realism’, International Security, Vol. 20, 1995. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  6. Mann, M ‘The First Failed Empire of the 21st Century’, Review of International Studies, 30, 4, 2004 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  7. Moloney, P  ‘Hobbes, Savagery and International Anarchy’, American Political Science Review, 105, 1, 2011 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

 

Topic 3 ­‐ Structural Realism and Neo­‐Realism

In the 1970s, Kenneth Waltz became the (reluctant?) progenitor of neo- or structural realism, re-orienting realism around the notion of ‘anarchy’. Structural realism divides into ‘offensive realism’, ‘defensive realism’ and ‘neo-classical realism’. Key questions to think about when reading:    Which strains of realism are most influential today? How does structural or neo­‐realism differ to classical realism? How well do realist approaches explain contemporary IR? Why does Neo­‐Realism generally remain dominant in, especially, American International Relations? How plausible is the idea of hegemonic stability? Is IR fundamentally a realist social science?

  1. *Ashley, R. ‘The Poverty of Neo-­‐Realism’, International Organization, 38,2, 1984. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  2. *Krasner, S. ‘Abiding Discord’, Review of International Political Economy,1, 1, 1994  Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  3. *Strange, S. ‘Wake up Krasner! The World Has Changed’, Review of International Political Economy,1,2, 1994. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  4. * Waltz, K. ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War’, International Security, 25, 1, 2000. Click here

  5. Grieco, J. ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation’: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’, International Organization, 42, 3, 1988. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  6. Katzenstein, P, Keohane, R, & S Krasner  ‘International Organization and the Study of World Politics’, International Organization, 52, 4, 1998. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

 

Topic 4 The Beginnings of a Discipline? Idealism and Liberalism

Classical liberalism rests on a variety of sources, Kant, Wilson and Mill being particularly important. Contrary to most of the tenets of realism, international behaviour is linked to regime-type, and republics/liberal democracies are taken to be less warlike than monarchies/authoritarian regimes.  In the 20th century liberalism has been associated with the promotion of international institutions; the modern version of liberalism (‘neoliberal institutionalism’ or ‘neoliberalism’ for short). Key Questions to think about when reading: Why were the ‘idealists’ called as such, and how did they view the world? In what ways has idealism shaped contemporary liberalism? How plausible is an idealist approach for managing global politics? Is liberalism in IR truly liberal?

  1. Doyle, M “Liberalism and World Politics,” American Political Science Review, 80, 4, 1986 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  2. Doyle, M ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12, 3­‐4, 1983 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  3. Herz, J H ‘Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma’, World Politics, 2, 2, 1950 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  4. Long, D ‘J.A. Hobson and Idealism in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17, 3, 1991 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  5. Steele, B­‐J ‘Liberal­‐Idealism: A Constructivist Critique’, International Studies Review, 9, 1, 2007 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  6. Wilson, P ‘The Myth of the First Great Debate’, in T. Dunne, M Cox and K. Booth, The Eighty Years Crisis 1919­‐1999 (Cambridge: CUP) Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

 

Topic 4 Contemporary Neoliberal Institutionalism and Cosmopolitanism

The events of the last two decades, and especially of the two terms of George W. Bush’s presidency, have raised questions for the liberal conception of international relations. The charge often made is that the ‘neo-conservative’ vision of the world is, in effect, a modern version of Wilsonian liberal internationalism. Key Questions to think about when reading: What different variants of liberalism have there been over time, when did they emerge, and for what reasons? Which strains of liberalism are most influential today? How well do liberal approaches explain contemporary IR? To what extent is a liberal world order the best way of arranging international affairs?

  1. *Cerny, P Embedding Neoliberalism: The Evolution of a Hegemonic Paradigm’, The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy, 2, 1, pp.1-46, 2008. Click here

  2. *Gamble, A ‘The Western Ideology’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp.1-19, 2009.Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  3. *Ruggie, John G ‘International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order’, International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.379-415, 1982. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  4. Harvey, D A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: OUP, 2005). Call number: HD87 .H374 2005 (NGL-General)

  5. Harvey, D ‘Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610, 1, 2007 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  6. Keohane, R After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984) Call number: HF1411 .K442 2005 (NGL-General) ; Call number: HF1411 .K442 1984 (AJL-General)

  7. Keohane, R and L Martin  ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security, 20, 1, 1995 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  8. Keohane, R and J Nye Power and Interdependence (London: Longman, 2001 2nd Ed) Call number: JX1395 .K428 1977 (NGL-General) ; Call number: JX1395 .K428 2001 (AJL-General)

  9. Mearsheimer, J ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, 19, 3, 1994/5 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  10. Richardson, J ‘Contenting Liberalisms: Past and Present’, European Journal of IR, 3, 1, 1997 Click here

On Cosmopolitanism

  1. *Held, D. ‘Cosmopolitanism: Globalization Tamed?’, Review of International Studies, 29, 4, 2003 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  2. *Held, D. ‘Violence, Law and Justice in a Global Age’, Constellations, 1, 9, 2002 Click here Available Wiley online (ask Library staff for assistance)

  3. Appiah, K A. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, London: Penguin, 2007

  4. Beck, U. Power in the Global Age: A New Global Political Economy, Cambridge: Polity, 2005

  5. Beck, U and Cronin, C. Cosmopolitan Vision, Cambridge: Polity, 2006 Click here

  6. Brown, G W. ‘Sovereignty, Federation and Kantian Cosmopolitanism’, European Journal of International Relations, 11, 4, 2005

  7. Brown, G and D Held The Cosmopolitanism Reader (Oxford: Polity Press, 2004) Click here

  8. Lu, C ‘The One and Many Faces of Cosmopolitanism’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 8, 2, 2002 Click here

 

Topic 5 Marxism, Dependency Theory and Neo­‐Gramscianism

Critical theorists draw on a long line of scholarship that extends from Marx and Gramsci via the Frankfurt School to modern day theorists such as Immanuel Wallerstein and, in IR, Robert Cox and Justin Rosenberg. For ‘critical’ scholars, world politics is marked by historically constituted inequalities between core and periphery, north and south, developed and underdeveloped. Key Questions to think about when reading: What is Marxism and where does it come from? What is the importance of concepts such as capital, class, hegemony, order, dependency, core­‐periphery and world system or world order in the Marxist tradition? How do they tend to understand the state? Do such approaches offer a plausible critique of IR? What do they lack? Do Marxian approaches have any continued relevance to IR Theory today?

  1. * Cardoso, F. ‘Dependency and Development in Latin America’, New Left Review, 74, July­‐August, 1972. Call number: HC125 .C34153 (NGL-General / Reserve)

  2. *Cox, R. ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1981.Click here

  3. *Cox, R. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, MillenniumJournal of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983. ALSO AVAILABLE IN Gill, S (ed) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993). Call number: HX289.7 .G73 1993 (NGL-General)

  4. *Gamble, A ‘Marxism after Communism: Beyond Realism and Historicism’, Review of International Studies, 25, 5, 1999 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  5. *Germain, R and M Kenny ‘Engaging Gramsci: IR Theory and the New Gramscians’, Review of International Studies, 24, 1, 1998 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  6. *Maclean, J. ‘Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1988.

  7. *Van Der Pijl, K. A Survey of Global Political Economy, 2009, Chapter 9, ‘Hegemony’. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ir/1­‐4­‐7­‐1.html

 

On Classical Marxism in IR and the Marxist tradition more broadly

  1. Burnham, P “Open Marxism and Vulgar Political Economy,” Review of International Political Economy, 1, 2, 1994. Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  2. Callinicos, A “The Crisis of Our Time,” International Socialism, 132, 2011. Click here

  3. Harvey, D The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism (London: Profile, 2010)

  4. Harvey, D A Companion to Marx’s Capital (London: Verso, 2010)

  5. Lenin, V I Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism (Various editions –  originally published 1917) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp­‐hsc/

  6. Marx, K Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Vols 1­‐3 (Various editions – originally published 1867) Call number: HB501 M392 C2 1970 (AJL-General)

  7. Marx, K and F Engels  Manifesto of the Communist Party (Various editions – originally published 1848) http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

On Dependency and World System Theory

  1. Cardoso, F and E Faletto Dependency and Development in Latin America (London: University of California Press, 1979) Call number: HC125 .C34153 (NGL-General/ Reserve)

  2. Frank, A G and B Gills The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? (London: Routledge, 1996, 2nd Edition) Call number: HC26 .W67 1993 (NGL-General)

  3. Frank, A G ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’ Monthly Review, 18, 4, 1966 Click here

  4. Gills, B K ‘World System Analysis, Historical Sociology and International Relations: The Difference a Hyphen Makes’, in Hobden and Hobson (eds) Historical Sociology of International Relations, 2002.

  5. Gills, B K ‘In Memoriam: Andre Gunder Frank 24 February 1929 to 24 April 2005’, Globalizations, 2, 1, 2005 Available Ebscohost (ask Library staff for assistance)

  6. Girvan, N ‘The Development of Dependency Economics in the Caribbean and Latin America: Review and Comparison’, Social and Economic Studies, 22, 1, 1973 Click here

  7. Hills, J. ​‘Dependency Theory and its Relevance Today’ Review of International Studies, 20, 2, 1994 Click here

  8. Palma, G ‘Dependency: A Formal Theory of Underdevelopment of a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment’, World Development, 6, 1, 1978 Click here

  9. Wallerstein, I The Capitalist World Economy (Cambridge: CUP, 1979) Call number: HC51 .W27 1979 (NGL-Reserve); (AJL-General)

  10. Wallerstein, I World Systems Analysis: An Introduction (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004) Call number: HN13 .W35 2004 (NGL-Reserve); (AJL-General)

  11. Wallerstein, I The Modern World System, Volumes 1­‐4 (San Francisco: University of California Press, 2011 – Four revised editions) Call number: HC45 W198 M6 (NGL-Reserve); (AJL-General)

On Gramsci and Neo­‐Gramscian Thought

  1. Burnham, P ‘Neo­‐Gramscian Hegemony and International Order’, Capital and Class, 15, 3, 1991 Click here

  2. Cox, R Production, Power and World Order (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987) Call number: HD6971 .C78 1987 (NGL-General)

  3. Cox, R and T Sinclair (eds) Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: CUP, 1996) Various Chapters Click here

  4. Gramsci, A Selections from Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971) Call number: HX288.G7 G73 1971 (AJL-General)

  5. Gill, S (ed) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: CUP, 1993) Call number: HX289.7 .G73 1993 (NGL-General)

  6. Murphy, C ‘Understanding IR, Understanding Gramsci’, Review of International Studies, 24, 2, 1998 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  7. Rupert, M ‘(Re­‐)Engaging Gramsci: A Response to Germain and Kenny’, Review of International Studies, 24, 2, 1998 Click here Available Jstor (ask Library staff for assistance)

  8. Morton, A ‘Historicising Gramsci: Situating Ideas in and Beyond their Context’, Review of International Political Economy, 9, 2, 2002  Click here

  9. Ayers, A J (ed) Gramsci, Political Economy and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperors (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008) Various chapters Call number: JZ1305 .G72 2008 (NGL-General)

  10. Budd, A Robert Cox and Neo­‐Gramscian International Relations Theory: A Critical Appraisal (London: Routledge, 2012)

  11. Leysens, A The Critical Theory of Robert W Cox: Fugitive or Guru? (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008) Call number: JZ1305 .L49 2008 (NGL-General)

  12. Shields, S et al Critical International Political Economy: Dialogue, Debate and Dissensus (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011) Call number: HF1359 .C737 2011 (NGL-General)

 

Topic 5 The Constructivist Turn in IR

The meaning and nature of constructivism are contested. The most prominent constructivist from the perspective of mainstream IR theory is Alexander Wendt. Key Questions to think about when reading: What role do ideas play in constructivism? When and why did this body of thought emerge? What is its relationship with other theories of IR? What different flavours of constructivism exist? Does it overplay the role of ideas in international politics? Why has constructivism apparently had greater success than Marxist IR, particularly within the US?

  1. *Adler, E  ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’,European Journal of International Relations, 3, 3, 1997 Click here

  2. *Dessler, D  ‘Constructivism within a positivist Social Science’, Review of International Studies, 25, 1, 1999 Click here

  3. *Wendt, A  ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2,1992. Click here

  4. *Wendt, A  ‘Constructing International Politics’, International Security, 20, 1, 1995 Click here

  5. Guzzini, S ‘The Concept of Power: a Constructivist Analysis’, MillenniumJournal of International Relations, 33, 3, 2004 Click here

  6. Marsh, D ‘Keeping Ideas in their Place:in Praise of Thin Constructivism’, Australian Journal of Political Science,4, 4, 2009 Available Ebscohost (ask Library staff for assistance)

  7. Hollis, M and S Smith  ‘Beware of Gurus: Structure and Agency in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17, 4, 1991 Click here

  8. Hopf, T  ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, 23, 1, 1998 Click here

  9. Wendt, A ‘Bridging the Theory/Meta Theory Gap in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17, 4, 1991 Click here

 

Topic 6– Critical Theory, Feminism and Post­‐Structuralism

Key Questions to think about when reading: What, if anything, is “critical about critical theory? Which different bodies of thought can be placed in the critical theory camp? How does it differ to positivist, or “problem­‐solving” theory? is this a problem? Or, does post­‐modernism presuppose the end of social science and with it IR? Is critical theory just about unquestioned answers, rather than unanswered questions? Or, to put it another way, is critical theory hindered by its weak scientific method and lack of a positivist ontology?

  1. *Ashley, R  ‘The Eye of Power: The Politics of World Modelling’, International Organization, 37, 3, 1983 Click here

  2. *Carver, T ‘Men in the Feminist Gaze: What does this mean in IR?’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies,37, 1, 2008 Click here

  3. *Ferguson, Y H and R W Mansbach ‘Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for     Future     International     Theory’,     International     Studies Quarterly, 35, 4, 1991 Click here

  4. *Hoffmann, M ‘Critical Theory and the inter­‐paradigm Debate’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16, 2, 1987

  5. *Hobson, J M ‘Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and For Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a post­‐racist Critical IR’, Review of International Studies, 33, Special Issue on Critical IR Theory, 2007 Click here

  6. *Kurki, M ‘The Limitations of the Critical Edge: Reflections on Critical and Philosophical IR Scholarship Today’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40, 1, 2011 Available-Ebscohost (ask Library Staff for assistance)

  7. *Peterson, V S ‘Feminist Theories within, invisible to, and beyond IR’, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10, 2, 2004 Click here

  8. *Tickner, J A ‘You just don’t understand: the troubled engagement between Feminists and IR Theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, 41, 4, 1997 Click here

  9. *VARIOUS Special issue of Review of International Studies on Critical Theory in IR, 33, Supp. Special Issue 1, 2007, with articles by Rengger and Thirkell­‐White, Kratochwil, Hutchings, Palan, Hobson, Murphy, Linklater and Devetak

  10. Lapid, Y ‘The Third Debate: on the Prospects of International Theory in a post­‐Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, 1989 Click here

  11. Holsti, K J ‘Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, which are the Fairest Theories of all?’ International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, 1989 Click here

  12. Biersteker, T ‘Critical Reflections on post­‐Positivism in International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, 1989 Click here

  13. George, G  ‘International Relations and the search for thinking space: another view of the Third Debate’, International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, 1989 Click here

  14. Ruggie, J G ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations’, International Organization, 47, 1, 1993 Click here

 

On Feminist Approaches Specifically...

  1. Enloe, C Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (San Francisco: University of California Press, 2001 – 2nd Edition) Call number: HQ1236 .E55 2000x (AJL-Reserve)

  2. Park­‐Kang, S ‘Utmost Listening: Feminist IR as a Foreign Language’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39, 3, 2011 Click here

  3. Parpart, J L and M Zalewski (eds) Rethinking the Man Question: Sex, Gender and Violence in International Relations (London: Zed Books, 2008) Click here

  4. Peterson, V S ‘How the (meaning of) gender matters in political economy’, New Political Economy, 10, 4, 2005 Click here

  5. Peterson, V S and Runyan, A S Global Gender Issues in the new Millennium (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009 – 3rd Edition) AJL- On Order

  6. Robinson, F ‘Stop Talking and Listen: Discourse Ethics and Feminist Care Ethics in International Political Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39, 3, 2011 Click here

  7. Steans, J ‘Engaging from the Margins: Feminist Encounter with the “Mainstream” of International Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5, 3, 2003 Available-EbscoHost (ask Library staff for assistance)

  8. Steans, J Gender and International Relations: An Introduction (Oxford: Polity, 2006 – 2nd Edition) Call number: JZ1253.2 .S74 1998 (NGL-General)

  9. VARIOUS Roundtable discussion: ‘Reflections on the Past, Prospects for the Future in Gender and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies,37, 1, 2008 Available-EbscoHost (ask Library staff for assistance)

  10. Waylen, G ‘You still don’t understand: why troubled engagements continue between feminists and (critical) IPE’, Review of International Studies, 32, 1, 2006 Click here

 
Top of Page