INRL 5008

INRL 5008

Metholodology and Theory of International Relations

Lecturer: Dr. Nand C. Bardouille

 

 

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

Available: NGL- The Norman Girvan Library; AJL- The Alma Jordan Library; and /or Electronically as well

 

  1. Brown, C and K. Ainley Understanding International Relations (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, 4th Edition) View online: Click here; 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, 7th Edition 2017. View (4th Edition) Online: Click here; Call number: JZ1242 G56 2020 (8th edition) (NGL-Reserve) ; other editions are also available.

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

  4. Cerny, P. Rethinking World Politics (Oxford: OUP, 2010). View Online: Click here;  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) View Online: Click here (3rd Edition); Call number: JZ1305 .I565 2016 (NGL-Reserve)

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

  7. Heywood, A Global Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011) View online: Click here

  8. Hobson, J M and S Hobden Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: CUP, 2002) View online: Click here

  9. Hobson, J M The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 17602010 (Cambridge: CUP, 2012) View online: Click here

  10. Jackson, R and G Sorenson Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (6th Edition, Oxford: OUP, 2015) Call number: JZ1242 .J33 2015 (NGL-General)

  11. Kegley, C & Wittkopf, E. World Politics: Trends and transformations (Thomson Wadsworth, Australia, 2006) View online: click here; 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) View online: Click here; Call number: JZ1242 .P47 2006 (NGL-Reserve; AJL-General)

  14. Ravenhill, J. (Ed) Global Political Economy (Oxford: OUP, 2011, 3rd Edition) Call number: HF1359 .G577 2014 (NGL-Reserve)

  15. Tickner, A B and O Waever (Eds) International Relations Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West (London: Routledge, 2009) View online: Click here; Call number: JZ1251 .I58 2009 (NGL-General)

  16. Van Der Pijl, K. A Survey of Global Political Economy, 2009, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ir/1471.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) View Online: Click here

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

  4. Krasner, S. Power, the State and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations (London: Routledge, 2009, 1st Edition) 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) (eBook available: http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&doc_number=...)

  6. Lamont, C. Research Methods in International Relations (London: Sage Publications Inc., 2015) Call number: JZ1234 .L35 2015 (NGL-Reserve)

  7. Marsh, D and Stoker, G Theory and Methods in Political Science (London: Palgr-ave Macmillan, 2010, 3rd Edition) View online: Click here; Call number: JA71 .T497 2010 (NGL-General)

 

Websites and News Sources

You should keep abreast of ‘realworld’ 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.projectsyndicate.org/. EIR is also a very good resource http://www.eir.info/ Also check out: www.theory-talks.org

 

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. *Haber, S H, Kennedy, D M and Krasner, S D ‘Brothers under the Skin: Diplomatic History and International Relations’, International Security, 22, 1, 1997 Click here Available Jstor (ask library staff for assistance)

  2. *Kaplan, M A ‘Is International Relations a Discipline?’ The Journal of Politics, 23, 3, 1961 Click here Available Jstor (ask library staff for assistance)

  3. *Smith, S. ‘Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16, 2, 1987 (Contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

  5. Hurrell, A. ‘Towards the Global Study of International Relations’, Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional, 59, 2, 2016 Click here

  6. Kaufman, S ‘Approaches to Global Politics in the TwentyFirst Century: A Review Essay’, International Studies Review, 1, 2, 1999 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  7. Nicholson, M ‘What’s the use of International Relations?’ Review of International Studies, 26, 2, 2000 Click here

  8. Cello, L ‘Taking History Seriously in IR: Towards a Historicist Approach’, Review of International Studies, 44, 2, 2018 Click here

  9. Bell, D ‘Writing the world: Disciplinary History and Beyond’, Internat-ional Affairs, 85, 1, 2009 Click here

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

  11. Walt, Stephen M ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’, Foreign Policy, 110, 1998 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  12. Holsti, K J ‘Along the Road to International Theory’, International Journal, 39 2, 1984 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  13. Dunn, F S ‘The Scope of International Relations’, World Politics 1, 1, 1948 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

Topic 2 – The Treaty of Westphalia, Sovereignty and the State in IR: A Critical Assessment

In (Western) IR there is a standard tool-kit of concepts and terms that one must be familiar with in order to engage with the subject matter. This lecture reviews some of those foundational concepts and terms, providing a critical view of same. Key questions to think about when reading: What is the Westphalian state system? Has the Westphalian model of state sovereignty come under challenge? If so, how? Explain. Is sovereignty always upheld as sacrosanct? Provide examples.

 

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

  3. *Miller, J.D.B. ‘The Sovereign State and its Future’, International Journal, 39, 2, 1984 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  4. *Paul, D ‘Sovereignty, Survival and the Westphalian Blind Alley in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 25, 2, 1999 Click here

  5. *Ayoob, M ‘Humanitarian Intervention and State Sovereignty’, The International Journal of Human Rights, 6, 1, 2002 Click here

  6. Krasner, S D ‘Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States’, International Security, 29, 2, 2004 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  7. Stahn, C ‘Responsibility to Protect: Political Rhetoric or Emerging Legal Norm?’ American Journal of International Law, 101, 1, 2007 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  8. Ashley, R K ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17, 2,1988.

  9. Linklater, A The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era. (Cambridge: Polity, 1998) View online: Click here

  10. Teschke, B ‘Debating 'The Myth of 1648': State Formation, the Interstate System and the Emergence of Capitalism in Europe — A Rejoinder," International Politics, 43, 5, 2006

  11. Teschke, B ‘Theorising the Westphalian System of States: International Relations from Absolutism to Capitalism," European Journal of International Relations, 8, 1, 2002

  12. McCourt, D M ‘The Inquiry and the Birth of International Relations, 1917-19’, Australian Journal of Politics & History, 63, 3, 2017(Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

Topic 3 – Historiographical Considerations in (Western) IR: The Quest for 'Origins' via Typologies of the Classic Canon of Western Political Thought, and on to an "American Social Science"

It is said that in tracing the intellectual roots of (Western) IR, one must look at “traditions of IR.” In this lecture, we do just that. We are interested in framing (Western) IR’s intellectual currents along the lines of typologies, pinpointing how the discipline has apparently evolved into an "American social science." Key Questions to think about when reading: What are the three “traditions of IR”? What is the significance of scholars connecting this relatively young academic discipline to some of the classic canon of Western political thought? That IR has apparently established itself as an “American social science” does not sit well for many. What is the controversy about? And why should it matter?

 

  1. *Wight, M ‘Why is there no International Theory?’ International Relations, 2, 1, 1960 (Contact Library Staff for assistance)

  2. *Vergerio, C ‘Context, Reception, and the Study of Great Thinkers in International Relations’, International Theory, 11, 1, 2019 Click here

  3. *Kristensen, P M ‘Revisiting the “American Social Science”—Mapping the Geography of International Relations’, International Studies Perspectives, 16, 3, 2015 Click here

  4. Ahrensdorf, P J ‘Thucydides’ Realistic Critique of Realism’, Polity, 30, 2, 1997 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  5. Hurrell, A ‘Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 16, 3, 1990 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  6. Cutler, A C ‘The 'Grotian Tradition' in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 17, 1, 1991 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  7. Little, R ‘Historiography and International Relations’, Review of International Studies 25, 2, 1999 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  8. Smith, S ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2, 3, 2000 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  9. Hoffmann, S ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus, 106, 3, 1977 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  10. Boucher, D Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) Call number: JZ1305 .B68 1998 (AJL-General)

  11. Johnson, L M Thucydides, Hobbes, and the Interpretation of Realism (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993)

  12. Parry, J T ‘What is the Grotian Tradition in International Law?’ University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 35, 2, 2014 Click here

  13. Dunne, T Inventing International Society: A History of the English School (Houndmills: Palgrave, 1998) Click here

  14. Buzan, B ‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR’, Review of International Studies, 27, 3, 2001 Click here

  15. Hoffmann, S ‘International Relations: The Long Road to Theory’, World Politics, 11, 3, 1959 Click here

 

Topic 4 – Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology in IR; Research Methods; Paradigm; Levels of Analysis; Structure and Agency; the Great Debates: A Snapshot

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? In what way is the concept of ‘paradigm shift’ helpful to you as a student of IR, namely, in framing its study?

 

  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

  2. *Wight, C ‘Inside the Epistemological Cave all Bets are Off’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 10, 1, 2007 (Contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

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

 

Debate: which comes first, ontology or epistemology?

  1. *Bates, S R and Jenkins,L ‘Teaching and Learning Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science’, Politics, 27, 1, 2007 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  2. *Hay, C ‘Does Ontology Trump Epistemology? Notes on the Directional Dependence of Ontology and Epistemology in Political Analysis’, Politics, 27, 2, 2007 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  3. *Marsh, D and P Furlong ‘On Ontological and Epistemological Gatekeeping: A Reply to Bates and Jenkins’, Politics, 27, 3 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  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 Click here

On Ontology and Epistemology more generally

  1. Borjana, A “Epistemological challenges of globalization to the Westphalian thinking within International Relations. JANUS.NET e-journal of International Relations, 9, 1, May-October 2018. Click here

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

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

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

 

Research Methods

  1. *Lamont, C (to be subjected to selective reading) Research Methods in International Relations (London: Sage Public-ations Inc., 2015) Call number: JZ1234 .L35 2015 (NGL-Reserve)

 

Paradigm

  1. *Lombrozo, T What is a Paradigm Shift, Anyway? npr. July 18, 2016. Click here

  2. Kuhn, T The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2012, 50th Anniversary Edition) View online: Click here

 

Levels of Analysis

  1. *Singer, J. D ‘The level-of-analysis problem in international relations’, World Politics, 14, 1, 1961 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  2. Buzan, B ‘The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations Reconsidered’ in Booth, K and Smith, S (Ed.) International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge, Polity Press: 1995) View online: Click here

 

Structure and Agency

  1. *Wight, C ‘They Shoot Dead Horses Don’t They? Locating Agency in the AgentStructure Problématique’, European Journal of International Relations, 51, 1, 1999 (Contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

The Great Debates: A Snapshot

  1. *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

 

Topic 5 – The Beginnings of a Discipline? Idealism as the precursor for Liberalism, and more

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. *Jones, C ‘The Trouble with Carr’, in Jones, C. E.H. Carr and International Relations. A Duty to Lie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)

  2. *Doyle, M ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80, 4, 1986 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  3. *Doyle, M ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12, 34, 1983 Click here

  4. Herz, J H ‘Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma’, World Politics, 2, 2, 1950 Click here

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

  6. Steele, BJ ‘LiberalIdealism: A Constructivist Critique’, International Studies Review, 9, 1, 2007 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  7. Wilson, P ‘The Myth of the First Great Debate’, in T. Dunne, M Cox and K. Booth, The Eighty Years Crisis 19191999 (Cambridge: CUP) View Online: Click here;

  8. Tucker, R W ‘The Triumph of Wilsonianism’, World Policy Journal, 10, 4, 1993/1994 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

Topic 6 – Classical Realism and Structural 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? According to Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr, what are the shortcomings of the ‘liberal project’?

 

  1. *Dunne, T International Relations Theories (Oxford University Press, 2016,(to be subjected to selective reading) 4th edition) Call number : JZ1305 .I565 2016 (NGL-Reserve)

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

  3. *Milner, H ‘The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory’, Review of International Studies, 17, 1, 1991 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

  5. *Ruggie, J. ‘The False Premise of Realism’, International Security, Vol. 20, 1995. Click here

  6. Mann, M ‘The First Failed Empire of the 21st Century’, Review of International Studies, 30, 4, 2004 Click here

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

  8. Morgenthau, H, J Politics Among Nations (New York: Alfred A. Knopf., 1948) View Online: Click here Call number: JZ1242 .M68 2006 (AJL-General)

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 neorealism differ to classical realism? How well do realist approaches explain contemporary IR? Why does neorealism 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 on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

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

  5. Foulon, M ‘Neoclassical Realism: Challengers and Bridging Identities’, International Studies Review, 17, 4, 2015 Click here

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

  7. Katzenstein, P, Keohane, R, ‘International Organization and the Study of World Politics’, International Organization, 52, 4, 1998 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

Topic 7 – Neoliberal Institutionalism and Cosmopolitanism; the 'NeoNeo' Debate

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? At its core, what is the ‘inter-paradigm’ debate about?

 

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

  2. *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

  3. *Gamble, A ‘The Western Ideology’, Government and Opposition, 44, 1, 2009. Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  4. *Ruggie, J G ‘International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order’, International Organization, 36, 2, 1982. Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  5. Guerrero, M G “Theoretically Thinking and Rethinking the international order: the new emerging international institutions through neo-institutionalist lenses.” JANUS.NET e-journal of International Relations, Vol.9, no2, November 2018 – April 2019. Click here

  6. Fukuyama, F ‘The End of History?’ The National Interest, 16, 1989 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  7. Harvey, D A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: OUP, 2005). View online: Click here; Call number: HD87 .H374 2005 (NGL-General)

  8. Harvey, D ‘Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610, 1, 2007 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

  10. Keohane, R and L Martin ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’, International Security, 20, 1, 1995 Click here

  11. Keohane, R and J Nye Power and Interdependence (London: Longman, 2001, 2nd Ed) Click hereCall number: JX1395 .K428 2001 (AJL-General)

  12. Mearsheimer, J ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, 19, 3, 1994/5 Click here(Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  13. Richardson, J ‘Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present’, European Journal of IR, 3, 1, 1997

  14. Long, D ‘J.A. Hobson and Idealism in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17, 3, 1991 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  15. Ikenberry, J ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order’, Perspectives on Politics, 7, 1, 2009 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  16. Deudney, D and Ikenberry, J G ‘The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order’, Review of International Studies, 25, 2, 1999 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  17. Linklater, A ‘Liberal Democracy, Constitutionalism and the New World Order’, in Leaver, R L and Richardson, J L (eds.), Charting the Post-Cold War Order (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1993)

 

On Cosmopolitanism

 

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

  2. *Held, D ‘Violence, Law and Justice in a Global Age’, Constellations, 1, 9, 2002 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  3. Appiah, K A Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, London: Penguin, 2007 View online: Click here;

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

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

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

  7. Carpenter, T ‘Realism vs. Idealism: Both Are Needed, but National Interest Should Come First’, American Conservative 17, 4, 2018 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  8. Gizatova, G K “Cosmopolitanism as a Concept and a Social Phenomenon’, Journal of History, Culture & Art Research, 6, 5, 2017 Click here

  9. Lu, C ‘The One and Many Faces of Cosmopolitanism’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 8, 2, 2002 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

The 'NeoNeo' Debate

  1. *Bell, D S A ‘Political Theory and the Functions of Intellectual History: A Response to Emmanuel Navon’, Review of International Studies, 29, 1, 2003 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  2. *Dunne T, Hansen L and Wight C. ‘The end of International Relations theory?’, European Journal of International Relations, 19, 3, 2013 (Contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

Topic 8 – 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?

  1. * Baele, S J and Bettiza, G ‘‘Turning’ everywhere in IR: on the sociological underpinnings of the field’s proliferating turns’, International Theory, First View Click here

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

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

  4. *Wendt, A ‘Anarchy is what States make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2,1992 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

  6. Guzzini, S ‘The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis’, Millennium: Journal of International Relations, 33, 3, 2004 Click here

  7. Marsh, D ‘Keeping Ideas in their Place: In Praise of Thin Constructivism’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 4, 4, 2009 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  8. Hopf, T ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, 23, 1, 1998 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  9. Wendt, A ‘Bridging the Theory/Meta Theory Gap in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17, 4, 1991 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

Topic 9 – Marxism, Dependency Theory and NeoGramscianism

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, coreperiphery 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, JulyAugust, 1972 View online: Click here;

  2. *Cox, R. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium: Journal 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) Click here

  3. *Gamble, A ‘Marxism after Communism: Beyond Realism and Historicism’, Review of International Studies, 25, 5, 1999 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

  5. *Maclean, J. ‘Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17, 2, 1988 (Contact Library Staff for assistance)

  6. *Van Der Pijl, K. A Survey of Global Political Economy, 2009, Chapter 9, ‘Hegemony’.View online: Click here

 

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 on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  2. Callinicos, A ‘The Crisis of Our Time’, International Socialism, 132, 2011

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

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

  5. Lenin, V I Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (Various editions – originally published 1917) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imphsc/ View Online: Click here Call number: JC359.L566 I3 1965p (AJL-General)

  6. Marx, K Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Vols 13 (Various editions – originally published 1867) View online: Click here Call number: HB501 M392 C2 1977 (AJL-General)

  7. Marx, K and Engels, F Manifesto of the Communist Party (Various editions – originally published 1848) http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html View online: Click here Call number: HX39.5 .A5213 1983 (AJL-General)

 

On Dependency and World Systems Theory

  1. Cardoso, F and Faletto, E Dependency and Development in Latin America (London: University of California Press, 1979) View Online: Click here

  2. Frank, A G and Gills, B The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? (London: Routledge, 1996, 2nd Edition) View Online: Click here

  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 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact 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 (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  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) View Online:Click here Call number: HC51 .W27 1979(NGL-Reserve; AJL-General)

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

  11. Wallerstein, I The Modern World System, Volumes 14 (San Francisco: University of California Press, 2011 – Four revised editions) Call number: HC45 W198 M6 (NGL-Reserve; AJL-General) View Online : Click here

 

On Gramsci and NeoGramscian Thought

  1. Burnham, P ‘NeoGramscian 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) View online: Click here Call number: HD6971 .C78 1987 (NGL-General)

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

  4. Gramsci, A Selections from Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971) View online: Click here

  5. Gill, S (ed) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: CUP, 1993) View online : Click here; 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 on Jstor, contact 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

  8. Morton, A ‘Historicizing Gramsci: Situating Ideas in and Beyond their Context’, Review of International Political Economy, 9, 2, 2002 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  9. Ayers, A J (ed) Political Economy and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperors (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2008) Various chapters View online: Click here

  10. Budd, A Robert Cox and NeoGramscian 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) View online: Click here

  12. Shields, S et al Critical International Political Economy: Dialogue, Debate and Dissensus (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011) View online: Click here

 

Topic 10 – Whither Critical Theory?: The Case of Feminist IR Theory

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 “problemsolving” theory? is this a problem? 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? What generally distinguishes feminist theories of IR? How can we draw parallels to critical theory, in particular, the latter’s pushback on “problemsolving” theory?

  1. *Cox, R ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10, 2, 1981 Click here

  2. *Ashley, R ‘The Eye of Power: The Politics of World Modelling’, International Organization, 37, 3, 1983 View online: (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

  4. *Ferguson, Y H and Mansbach, R W ‘Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for Future International Theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 35, 4, 1991 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  5. *Hoffmann, M ‘Critical Theory and the interparadigm Debate’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16, 2, 1987 (Contact Library Staff for assistance)

  6. *Hobson, J M ‘Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and For Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a postracist Critical IR’, Review of International Studies, 33, Special Issue on Critical IR Theory, 2007 Click here: (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  7. *Kurki, M ‘The Limitations of the Critical Edge: Reflections on Critical and Philosophical IR Scholarship Today’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40, 1, 2011 Click here

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

  9. *Tickner, J A ‘You Just Don’t Understand: The Troubled Engagement between Feminists and IR Theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, 41, 4, 1997 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

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

  12. Holsti, K J ‘Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, which are the Fairest Theories of all?’ International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, 1989 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  13. Biersteker, T ‘Critical Reflections on postPositivism in International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, 1989 Click here(Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  14. George, G ‘International Relations and the search for Thinking Space: Another view of the Third Debate’, International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3, 1989 Click here (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  15. Ruggie, J G ‘Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations’, International Organization, 47, 1, 1993 Click here; (Available on Jstor, contact Library Staff for assistance)

 

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) View online: Click here; Call number: HQ1236 .E55 2000x (AJL-Reserve)

  2. ParkKang, S ‘Utmost Listening: Feminist IR as a Foreign Language’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39, 3, 2011 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

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

  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 on Ebscohost, contact 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 Click here

  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

 

Topic 11 – Global International Relations in the Making

IR has come under increasing and sustained scrutiny for its, inter alia, Western-centric/Eurocentric outlook, including for the nature of its mainstream historicizing, intellectual traditions and debates. For critics, the discipline has locked-in a ‘circumscribed view’, not least with regard to how “international” its study really is, or how “encompassing” it really is. A diverse community of scholars has long pushed back on the “mainstream,” and the advent of ‘Global IR’ could be a turning point. Key Questions to think about when reading: Does (Western) IR perpetuate certain civilizational, gendered, racial and other dominant narratives? What are the implications for multi-pronged (including Global South) perspectives in the discipline? Against this backdrop, what is the promise of ‘Global IR’? What are its limitations?

  1. *Acharya, A ‘Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 58, 4, 2014 (Available on Ebscohost, contact Library Staff for assistance)

  2. *Hurrell, A ‘Towards the Global Study of International Relations’, Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 59, 2, 2016 Click here

  3. *Snidal, D and Wendt, A ‘Why There is International Theory Now," International Theory, 1, 1, 2009 Click here

  4. *Seth, S ‘Postcolonial Theory and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40, 1, 2011 Click here

  5. Acharya, A and Buzan, B The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019)

  6. Seth, S (ed.) Postcolonial Theory and International Relations: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2012) ebook available: Click here

  7. Thomas C and Wilkin P. ‘Still Waiting after all these Years: The ‘Third World’ on the Periphery of International Relations’, British Journal of International Political Relations, 6, 2, 2004 View online: Click here

  8. Chowdhry G and Ling L H M ‘Race(ing) International Relations: A Critical Overview of Post-Colo-nial Feminism in International Relations’, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, March 2010. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.413

  9. Shilliam R. (ed.) International Relations and Non-Western Thought. Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity (London: Routledge, 2011) View online: Click here

  10. Kristensen P M ‘Discipline Admonished: On International Relations Fragmentation and the Disciplinary Politics of Stocktaking’, European Journal of International Relations, 22, 2, 2016 Click here

  11. Tickner J A ‘Dealing with Difference: Problems and Possibilities for Dialogue in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39, 3, 2011 (Available -Ebscohost, ask the Library Staff how to access it)

Top of Page