Syllabus

Seminar Goals:

• Survey the range of theoretical approaches and models in the study of international politics;
• Develop an ability to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of competing approaches and theories, and develop a methodology for choosing between competing explanations (or synthesizing them);
• Examine the range of recent contributions to the literature and evaluate the direction(s) the field is moving;
• Locate your own research interests within the range of theoretical, methodological, and subject matter choices contending in the field;
• Survey the nature of the work being conducted by our own faculty and how that work relates to your own interests;
• Provide a first step toward preparing for prelims;
• Assist you in thinking about teaching (at the graduate and undergraduate levels) this field.

Requirements and Expectations (Some of you have extensive experience with the graduate program; some of you have none. For the former, my apologies…I don’t mean to insult. For the latter, it is important that we set out these expectations so that you are not surprised at the end when “loaves and fishes” are distributed):

• Students are expected to attend every seminar, period. Only under extraordinary circumstances is this requirement waived (death in family; feeling like you are dying, etc.). Missing a class is a near-mortal sin.
• Students are expected to come to each session, well prepared: reading all the materials assigned, understanding clearly each of the readings (and if necessary rereading everything), and making connections across the readings to construct a larger picture from the week’s assignment.
• Note: keep in mind that readings are cumulative; once we have gone through a set of readings, it is assumed that you will keep those readings in mind as we progress onto the next set, and you can relate the previous materials to the new ones.
• There are typically two sets of readings listed for each week. You are expected to read all of the “required” readings; in addition, I’ve listed a number of others under “additional” that are important to know, although we will not specifically cover them in the seminar. Where appropriate, I’ve indicated one or more chapters from Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s book, Principles of International Politics…these are optional but you should read them some time soon.
• All the required readings are directly available to you, and I will either e-mail them or you can copy them from my flash drive.
• This is a seminar, meaning that much of the learning process occurs through an intensive exchange of ideas, questions, and critical perspectives in the classroom, including peer-to-peer learning. Thus, much of the focus will be on class discussions and you are expected, based on your preparation coming into the seminar, to engage the material in the class. The responsibility for such learning is as much with the student as it is with the faculty member. Participation is not about how many times you speak or ask questions during a seminar but the quality of the contribution you make (either by questioning or by helping to synthesize and/or critique the materials) each week to the effort.
• Pet peeves: I have some, but the one related specifically to the seminar is about tardiness. Please do not come late…ever! It is incredibly disruptive to the class and a bit insulting. I would rather not have you show than walk in late. I’ll be in class early for the same reason.
• When you are teaching in the classroom, you will be informing your undergraduates about policies regarding plagiarism (and explaining to them what it is). I’m assuming you understand thoroughly the concept and its consequences. If you don’t, feel free to contact me about it, or to consult the appropriate web page (ISA[1] has one for instance, plagiarized from Harvard).

Assignments, Grades, Etc.

• Each of you is expected to produce a final paper (requirements are noted in the appendix). It is due during finals week, and is designed as an exercise to have you synthesize and apply the work from the seminar. CAUTION: you will want to make progress on this as the seminar unfolds. Leaving it to the end of the semester can be hazardous to your mental health.
• There will be an optional final exam (it will be a half-hour oral exam, along the lines of the oral examination for PhD prelims, but covering only the contents of the course). It is optional, but designed for two objectives: one is to give you some working experience with oral exams before you have to take one; second, it allows you to compensate for a less than stellar performance during seminar discussions.
• In order to help organize seminar discussions, each of you will be asked to organize or co-organize two sessions of the seminar. When it is your turn, your responsibility will be to lead the discussion on the topic at hand, and to fill in the gaps when the rest of us are unresponsive.

As you are reading the required materials for each week, you should think about (and be able to discuss in the seminar) at least the following points:

For each reading:

What is the author’s argument? 

How are key concepts defined?

In what theoretical tradition does this fit?

(when appropriate) How are the propositions operationalized/tested? Do they meet standards for validity and reliability?

Why did Volgy have us read this?

And for the section, taken as a whole:

What is the main theoretical issue that all authors discuss?  What key puzzle(s) are they interested in explaining?

Do they define it similarly or different?

            Are their arguments complementary or competing?

            Do their methods of investigation differ?

            How do the selections fit together ?

Are they theoretically and logically consistent as well as interesting?

• Seminar grades will be based on the following: seminar discussion/class participation = 50%; final paper= 50%. If you choose to take the final, oral exam, it will supplement your class participation.

Calendar and Reading Assignments

Week 1                       Introduction to Nature of the Seminar/Requirements

(August 27)    

            READINGS:  (optional) Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Principles, Chapter 1

Week 2                       What is IR? How to Study IR: Theoretical/Conceptual/ Level of Analysis and  (Sept. 3)     “Evidence” Issues

READINGS:

Russett, 2003. “Reintegrating the Subdisciplines of International and Comparative Politics,” International Studies Review 5:9-12

Fettweiss, 2004. “Evaluating IR’s Crystal Balls: How Predictions of the Future Have Withstood Fourteen Years of Unipolarity.” International Studies Review 6:79-104.

Gaddis, 1992/93. “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War.” International Security   17:5-58.

Singer, 1961. “The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations.” World Politics 14: 77-92.

Levy, 2007. “International Sources of Interstate and Intrastate War,” in Crocker et al., Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World. Washington: US Institute of Peace.

Most and Starr, 1984. “International Relations Theory, Foreign Policy Substitutability, and ‘Nice’ Laws,” World Politics 36:383-406

Bueno de Mesquita, 1985. “Toward a Scientific Understanding of International Conflict.” International Studies Quarterly 29:121-136; and then Krasner’s reply: “Toward Understanding in International Relations,” International Studies Quarterly, and then Jervis, 1985 “Pluralistic Rigor…” International Studies Quarterly; and finally BDM’s reply: Bueno de Mesquita, 1985. Reply to  Stephen Krasner and Robert Jervis,” International Studies Quarterly.

Vasquez, 1997. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs.”  American Political Science Review 91: 899-912.

(optional) Bueno de Mesquita, Principles, Chapter 2

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

Levy, Jack S. 2008. Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25:1-9.

Chan, Steve. 2002. On Different Types of International Relations Scholarship.” Journal of Peace Research 39: 747-756.

Gerring, John. 2004.  “ What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98: 341-354 and Mahoney and Goertz, “The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 98: 653-669.

            Frederich Kratochwil. 2007.  “Promises and good bets: a plea for a pragmatic approach to theory building (the Tartu lecture).”  Journal of International Relations and Development 10: 1-15;  and  see responses by Lebow, Suganami, Wight, and Kratochwil.

Lapid, Yosef. 1989. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33:235-54.

Peterson, V. Spike. 1992. “Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender

and International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21:183-206.

Smith, Kille, Scholl and Grove, 2003.  “How Do Textbooks Represent the Field of International Studies?” International Studies Review 5:421-441.

White, Gregory W. 2007. “International Political Economy and the Persistent Scare Quotes around ‘Development.’” Perspectives on Politics 5: 105-110.

Ferguson, Yale H. and Richard W. Mansbach. 1991. “Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for Future International Relations Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 35:363-86.

_{++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++}

Week 3                       Realist and Neorealist (Structural) Approaches to IR

(September 10)

            READINGS:

Fearon, 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War,” International Organization 49: 379-414.

Huth et al., 1993. “The Escalation of Great Power Militarized Disputes: Testing Rational Deterrence Theory and Structural Realism.”American Political Science Review 87:609-623.

Mansfield, 1993. “Concentration, Polarity, and the Distribution of Power.” International Studies Quarterly 37: 105-128.

Volgy and Imwalle, 1995. “Hegemonic and Bipolar Perspectives on the New World Order.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 819-834.

Waltz, 1993. “The Emerging Structure of International Politics.” International Security 18: 44-79.

Wohlforth, 1994/95. “Realism and the End of the Cold War.” International Security 19: 91-129.

Fordham. 2006. “What Makes a Major Power?” Paper prepared for Delivery at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association (Chicago).

(optional) Bueno de Mesquita, Principles…, Chapters 7,8, 4

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

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

            Fritz, Paul and Kevin Sweeney. 2004. “The Delimitations of Balance of Power Theory.” International Interactions 30: 285-308.

            Kadera, Kelly M., and Gerald L Sorokin. 2004. “Measuring National Power.” International Interactions 30: 211-230.

Kaplan, Morton A. 1957. System and Process in International Politics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War.” International Security 15: 5-56.

Moul, William. 2003. Power Parity, Preponderance, and War Between Great Powers: 1816-1989.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 47: 468-489.

Morgenthau, Hans J. 1967. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Pollins, 1996. “Global Political Order, Economic Change, and Armed Conflict: Coevolving Systems and the Use of Force.” American Political Science Review 90: 103-117.

Russett, Bruce. 1985. “The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony.” International Organization 39: 207-231.

Schweller, Randall. 1992. “Bandwagoning For Profit.” International Security 19: 72-107.

Vasquez, 2004. “The Probability of War, 1816-1992.” International Studies Quarterly 48: 1-27.

            Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Relations. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Wohlforth, William C., Richard Little, Stuart J. Kaufman, David Kang, Charles A. Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, and William L. Brenner.  2007. “Testing Balance-of-Power Theory in World History.”  European Journal of International Relations 13: 155-185

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++     

Week 4                       ALBERT BERGESEN:   GEOPOLITICS

(September 17)

            READINGS:  Absolutely mandatory readings (*)

*(Mackinder, Sir Halford J.  1969 [1904]. “The Geographical Pivot of History.” Geographical Journal.

Spykman, Nicholas.  1969 [1944]. “Heartland and Rimland.”  Pp. 170-177 in Roger E. Kasperson, Julian V. Minghi (eds.) The Structure of Political Geography.  Chicago:  Aldine Publishing Company.

A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783.  Start with: “Introduction,” “Discussion of the Elements of Sea Power.”       

Kennedy, Paul.  1983.  Strategy and Diplomacy 1870-1945.  London:  George Allen and Unwin.  (Ch. 2: “Mahan versus Mackinder:  Two Interpretations of British Sea Power.”  Pp. 43-85).

*Diamond, Jared.  1997.  “Spacious Skies and Tilted Axes.”  Pp. 176-191 in Guns, Germs, and Steel:  The Fate of Human Societies.New York:  Norton.

*Turchin, Peter, Jonathan M. Adams and Thomas D. Hall.  2006.  “East-West Orientation of Historical  Empires and Modern States.” Journal of World-Systems Research 12(2).

Kissinger, Henry.  1994. “Foreign Policy as Geopolitics:  Nixon’s    Triangular Diplomacy”. Pp. 603-732 in Diplomacy. New York:  Touchstone.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 5             No Seminar: I’m at the RISA conference in Moscow.

(September 24 )          

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 6           Structural Realism (continued as) Cycles: Power Transition and Long Cycles 

(Oct. 1)                                                 

            READINGS:

DiCicco and Levy, 1999. “Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of Power Transition   Research Program.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 43: 675-704.

Gilpin, 1988. “The Theory of Hegemonic War.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18: 591-613.

Kugler and Tammen, 2007. “Implications of China’s Rise To Global Status, “ Bloomington Transitions Conference

Lemke and Werner, 1996. “Power Parity, Commitment to Change and War.” International Studies Quarterly 40: 235-260.

Rapkin and Thompson, 2003. “Power Transition, Challenge and the (Re)emergence of China.”  International Interaction 29: 315-342.

Thompson, 2006. “Systemic Leadership, Evolutionary Processes, and International Relations Theory: The  Unipolarity Question.” International Studies Review 8:1-22.

Vasquez, 2007. “Whether and How Global Leadership Transitions Will Result in War: Some Long- Term Predictions from the Steps-to-War Explanation.” Bloomington Conference on Transition.

(optional) Bueno de Mesquita, Principles, Chapter 16, 15

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

            Arbetman, Marina and Jacek Kugler  1989, “Choosing Among Measures of Power: A Review of the

Empirical Record,” in Ward and Stoll (ed),  Power in World Politics, Lynne Rienner.

             Margit Bussmann, John R. Oneal. 2007 . “Do Hegemons Distribute Private Goods? A Test of Power-Transition Theory.”  Journal of Conflict Resolution, Volume 51:  88-111.

Kerr, David. 2005. “The Sino–Russian Partnership and U.S.Policy Toward North Korea: From

Hegemony to Concert in Northeast Asia.” International Studies Quarterly 49: 411-437.

            Lemke, Douglas. 2002. Regions of War and Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.

           Organski A.F.K. and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

            Strange, Susan. 1989 “Toward a Theory of Transnational Empire,” in Czempiel and Rosenau (eds.), Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s. Lexington: Lexington Books.

Rasler, Karen and William R. Thompson. 2005. “War, Trade and the Mediation of Systemic Leadership.” Journal of Peace Research 42: 251-269.

           Rasler, Karen and William R. Thompson (1994) The Great Powers and Global Struggle, 1490-1990.  Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

         Modelski, George (1987) Long Cycles in World Politics.  London: Macmillan.

         Modelski, George and William R. Thompson (1988) Sea Power and Global Politics, 1494-1993.  London: Macmillan. 

         Modelski, George and William R. Thompson (1996) Leading Sectors and World Powers: The Coevolution of Global  Economics  and Politics.  Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

           Tammen, Ronald, L, Jacek Kugler, Douglas Lemke, Allan Stam, Mark Abdollahian , Carole Alsharabati,

 Brian Efird, and A.F.K. Organski. 2000. Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21^st Century. Chatham House.

Wilkinson, David. 1999. “Unipolarity Without Hegemony.” International Studies Review 1: 141-172.      

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++          

Week 7                      

(Oct 8)             Liberal/Neoliberal Institutionalist Perspectives

            READINGS:

Mearsheimer,  1995. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security 19: 5-49.

Keohane and Martin, 1995. “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory.” International Security 20: 39-51.

Abbott and Snidal, 1998. “Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations.” Journal of  Conflict Resolution 52:3-32.

Koremmenos et al., 2001. “The Rational Design of International Institutions.” International  Organization 55(4):761-799.

Martin and Simmons, 1998. “Theories And Empirical Studies Of International Institutions.” International Organizations 52(4).

Moravchik, 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51: 39-51.

Snidal, 1991.  “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation.” American Political Science Review 85:701-26.

Rapkin and Thompson, 2007. “Kantian Dynamics and Their Problems in the Transitional Context,”  Bloomington Conference (May)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

            Axelrod, Robert & Keohane, Robert. 1985. Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics 38: 226-254.

            Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review 80: 1151-1169.

            Baldwin, David. 1993. ed. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. NY: Columbia University Press. Ch. 1,5, 12

Barnett Michael, and Martha Finemore. 1999. “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations.” International Organization 53:699-732.

Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca : Cornell University Press.

Botcheva, Liliana, and Lisa L. Martin, 2001. “Institutional Effects on State Behavior: Convergence and Divergence.” International Studies Quarterly 45: 1-26.

Caporaso, James. 1992. International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: The Search for Foundations.” International Organization 46:599-632.

Gartzke, Erik, Quan Li, and Charles Boehmer. 2001. “Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict.” International Organization 55:391-438.

Gartzke, Erik. 2007. “The Capitalist Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 51: 166-191

Grieco, Joseph M. 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42: 485-507.

Hasenclever, Andreas, Peter Mayer and Volker Rittberger. 1997. Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Ikenberry, John. 2001. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of  Order After Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

            Keohane, Robert O. After Hegemony. Princeton , Princeton University Press: ch.1-2

            Maoz,Zev, Ranan D. Kuperman, Lesley Terris, Ilan Talmud . 2006. “Structural Equivalence and International Conflict: A Social Networks Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50: 664-689.

Maoz, Zev, Lesley G. Terris, Ranan D. Kuperman, and Ilan Talmud. 2007. “What is the Enemy of My Enemy? Causes and Consequences of Imbalanced International Relations, 1816-2001.” Journal of Politics 69: 100-116.

            Powell, Robert. 1994. Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate. International Organization 48: 313-344.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 8                       Gary Goertz   International Institutions

(October 15)

            READINGS:

Powers, K., and G. Goertz. 2007. The evolution of international institutions: the extinction of realist multilateral alliances and the transformation of Regional Economic Institutions into security    institutions

Goertz, G., Powers, K., and Ussery, A. 2008. A methodology for the analysis of permissive and obligatory norms.

Goertz, G., Gibler, D., and Powers, K. 2007. Reconceptualizing alliances: military alliances as conflict management tools. University of Arizona.

Finnemore, M., and   K. Sikkink.  1998. International norm dynamics and political change.  International Organization  52:887--918.

Bearce, David H., and Stacey Bondanella. 2007. “Integovernmental Organizations, Socialization, and Member State Interest Convergence.” International Organization 61: 703-733.

+++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

von Stein. 2005. “Do Treaties Constrain or Screen? 2005. Selection Bias and Treaty Compliance.”  99: 611-622 .
Hathaway. 2002. “Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?”  111: 1935-2042.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 9                       SPIKE PETERSON  Critical, Feminist and Poststructuralist Approaches

(October 22)

            READINGS: (Again, I do recommend reading in the order presented):

    Smith, Steve and Patricia Owens. 2005. Alternative Approaches to International Theory. In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, ed. John Baylis and Steve Smith. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 271-293.
    Butler, Judith. 1992. Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of 'Postmodernism.' In Feminists Theorize the Political, ed. Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott. New York: Routledge. Pp. 3-21.
    Peterson, V. Spike. 1992. Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21, 2: 183-206.
    Edkins, Jenny. 1999. Poststructuralism & International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Chap 1.
    De Goede, Marieke. 2006. Introduction: International Political Economy and the Promises of Poststructuralism. In International Political Economy and Poststructural Politics, ed. Marieke de Goede. London: Palgrave International Political Economy Series. Pp. 1-20.
    Peterson, V. Spike. 2006. Getting Real: The Necessity of Poststructuralism in Global Political Economy. In International Political Economy and Poststructural Politics, ed. Marieke de Goede. London: Palgrave International Political Economy Series. Pp. 119-138.
    Deuchars, Robert. 2004. Governance and Risk. Chapter 3. In The International Political Economy of Risk: Rationalism, Calculation and Power. Hampshire: Ashgate. Pp. 55-81.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 10                     Lane Kenworthy   Globalization and Inequality

(October 29)

            READINGS:

Kenworthy, Lane. 2007. "Inequality and Sociology." American Behavioral Scientist 50: 584-602.

 Baccaro, Lucio. 2008. "Labour Institutions, Globalization, and Inequality." Unpublished. International Labour Organization (ILO).

 Krugman, Paul. 2008. "Trade and Wages, Reconsidered." Unpublished. Princeton University.

 Milanovic, Branko. 2006. "Global Income Inequality: What It Is and Why It Matters." World Economics 7: 131-157.

 International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2007. "Globalization and Inequality." Chapter 4 in World Economic Outlook.

------------------------------

Additional Readings:

Sharma, Shalendra D. 2008. “The Many Faces of Today’s Globalization: A Survey of Recent Literature.” New Global Studies 2: http://www.bepress.com/ngs/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 11                     Shifting Levels: Foreign Policy Analysis

(November 5)

            READINGS:

Allison, 1969. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” American Political Science Review 63: 689-718.

Bendor and Hammond, 1992. “Rethinking Allison’s Models.” American Political Science Review 86: 301-322.

Bueno de Mesquita et al, 2004. “Testing Novel Implications from the Selectorate of War Theory.”  World Politics 56: 363-388.

Crescenzi, 2007. “Reputation and Interstate Conflict.” American Journal of Political Science 51: 382-  397.

Gartzke, 2000. “Preferences and the Democratic Peace, “ International Studies Quarterly 44: 191-212.

McKeown, 2001. “Plans and Routines, Bureaucratic Bargaining, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The Journal of Politics 63: 1163–1190.

Morgan and Palmer, 2000. “A Model of Foreign Policy Substitutability.” Journal of Conflict Resolution   44: 11-32.

Volgy et al., 2004. “The G7, International Terrorism, and Domestic Politics: Modeling Policy Cohesion   in Response to Systemic Disturbance,”  International Interactions 30: 191-209

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

David Brulé . 2006. “Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000.”  Journal of Conflict Resolution 50: 463-483

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Alastair Smith. 2007. “Foreign Aid and Policy Concessions.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 51: 251-284.

Gartzke, Erik. 1998. “Kant We All Just Get Along? Opportunity, Willingness, and the Origins of the Democratic Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 1-27.

Jacobs, Lawrence and Benjamin I. Page. 2005. “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review 99: 107-123

Lemke, Douglas. 2003. “African Lessons For International Relations Research.” World Politics

56: 114-138.

            Mitchell, Sara M. and Will H. Moore. 2002. “Presidential Use of Force During the Cold War.” American Journal of Political Science  46: 438-452.

            Palmer, Glenn, Scot B. Wholander, and T. Clifton Morgan. 2002. “Give Or Take: Foreign Aid and Foreign Policy Substitutability.” Journal of Peace Research 39: 5-26.

Pollins and Schweller, 1999 “Linking the Levels: The Long Wave and Shifts in U.S. Foreign Policy,  1790-1993.” American Journal of Political Science 43: 431-464.

Schuster, Jurgen and Herbert Maier. 2006. “The Rift: Explaining Europe’s Divergent Iraq Policies in the  Run-Up of the American Led War on Iraq.” Foreign Policy Analysis 2: 223-234.

Schafer, Mark and Stephen G. Walker. 2006. “Democratic Leaders and the Democratic Peace: The Operational Codes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.” International Studies Quarterly 50: 585-606.

            Hagan, 2004.  “Oppositions, Ruling Strategies and the Domestic Road to War…”  paper prepared for annual meeting of the International Studies Association (Montreal).

            Ostrom and Job, 1986. “The President and the Political Use of Force,” American Political Science Review 80: 541-566 (see Mitchell and Moore, 2002 under additional readings).

Garrison, Jean 2003. “Foreign Policymaking and Group Dynamics: Where We've Been and Where We're Going.” International Studies Review 5:  155-202.

Giacomo Chiozza and Ajin Choi, 2003. “Guess Who Did What: Political Leaders and the Management of Territorial Disputes.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 47: 251-278.

Fordham, Benjamin O. 2002. “Domestic Politics, International Pressure, and the Allocation of American Cold War Military Spending.” The Journal of Politics 64:  63–88.

Houghton, David Patrick. 2007. “Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Toward a Constructivist Approach.” Foreign Policy Analysis 3: 24-39.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 12     PAT WILLERTON    Russian Foreign Policy in Post-Communist Space and Beyond

(November 12)

READINGS:

Willerton, Powers, and Goertz, 2008, “Treaty Nestedness and Interstate Cooperation…” Paper presented for delivery, WISC, July (Ljubljana)

"Russia's Eurasian Power Interests and the CIS," in Katlijn Malfiet, Lien Verpoest, and Evgeny   Vinokurov, eds., Russian and the Evolving CIS, London: Macmillan, 2007, pp. 47-70 (with Mikhail Beznosov).

"Russia, the CIS, and Eurasian Interconnections," in James Sperling, Sean Kay, and S. Victor Papacosma, eds., Limiting institutions?  The challenge of Eurasian security governance, Manchester Press, 2003, pp. 185-207 (with Geof Cockerham).

"Baltic Diversity and Russian Power Interests:  Policy Differentiation in an Era of Change," Soviet and Post-Soviet Review, 25, 3, 1998 (published Summer 2000), pp. 245-64 (with Piret Ehin).

"Regional Cooperation and the C.I.S.:  West European Lessons and Post-Soviet Experience," International Politics, I, 1, March 1997, pp. 33-61 (with Helga A. Welsh).

Additional Readings:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 13                     WILLIAM DIXON   Democracy and Its Effects on International Relations

(November 19)

            READINGS:

Dixon, 1994. “Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict,” American Political  Science Review 88 (March 1994), 14-32.

Dixon and Corbetta. 2002. “Multilateralism, Major Powers and Militarized Disputes,” Political Research Quarterly 57 (March 2004).

Dixon and Corbetta, 2005.

Dixon and Frazier

Dixon, 1996. “Third-Party Techniques for Preventing Conflict Escalation and Promoting Peaceful Settlement,” International Organization 50 (Autumn 1996), 653-681.

Dixon and Senese. 2002. “Democracy, Disputes and Negotiated Settlements,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (August 2002): 547-71.

+++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

Clark, David H., and Timothy Nordstrom. 2005. “Democratic Variants and Democratic Variance: How Domestic Constraints Shape Interstate Conflict.” The Journal of Politics 67: 250-270.

Gartzke, Erik. 2007. “The Capitalist Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 51: 166-191.

Gartzke, Erik. 2000.  “Preferences and the Democratic Peace.” International Studies Quarterly 44: 191-212.

Gibler, Douglas M. 2007. Bordering on Peace: Democracy, Territorial Issues and Conflict.” International Studies Quarterly 51: 509-532.

Peceny, Mark, Caroline C. Beer, and Shannon Sanchez-Terry. 2002. “Dictatorial Peace?” American Political Science Review 96: 15-26.

Ward, Michael D., Randolph M. Siverson and Xun Cao 2007 “Disputes, Democracies and Dependencies: A Re-examination of the Kantian Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 51

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 14                     CHRIS DEMCHEK  Approaches to International Security Issues

(November 26)               

            READINGS:            

Demchak 1999 Watersheds in Perception and Knowledge (note rise in legitimacy as constraint on action)

Demchak 2002 Security Militaries Complexity MidRange Theory (note surprise and security viz   national security organizations)

Demchak 1999 New Security Cyberspace (note implications of globalizing nets for knowledge and need for collaborative solutions)

Demchak 2005 page proofs Inf and Terr Age Milis (note problems an ATRIUM model is meant to address)

Russett 1992 Democracies Fight Each Other question (note problems if ,in an “anarchic” world, most “states” are putatively democracies)

Demchak 2006 Theory of Action Iraq (note theory of action elements)

Berent 2000 War Violence Stateless Polis (note city-state commonalities with today)

++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

            Constantin, Christian. 2007. “Understanding China’s Energy Security.” World Political Science Review 3: 3: 1-29 (article two).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 15                     FATEN GHOSN  Conflict Management

(December 3)             

            READINGS:

Fearon, 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of Disputes.” American Political Science Review 88: 577-592.

Fearon, 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49: 379-417.

Fortna, 2003. “Scraps of Paper? Agreements and the Durability of Peace.” International Organization  57: 337-372.

Ghosn, 2007. “Influence of Domestic Politics on the Decision to Negotiate.” To be presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Chicago).

Greig, 2005. “Stepping into the Fray: When Do Mediators Mediate?” American Journal of Political Science 49: 249-266.

Maoz, 2004. “Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution: A Conceptual and Methodological Introduction.” Chapter 1 of Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations.

Putnam, 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics.” International Organization 42: 427-460.

Walter, 2997. “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement.” International Organization 51: 335-364.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 16                     Wrap-Up and Everything you ever wanted to know about IR

(December 10)

                                    (We will meet at my house)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IF WE HAD A 17^th and 18^th and 19^th week in the semester:

Week 17                     THOMAS VOLGY   IOs, IGOs, FIGOs and Post Cold War Orders

(November 26)           

            READINGS:

Katzenstein,  et al, 1998. “International Organization and the Study of World Politics.” International Organization. 52:645-685.

Leeds, and Anac, 2005. “ Alliance Institutionalization and Alliance Performance.” International Interaction

Mansfield and Pevehouse, 2006. “Democratization and International Organizations.” International Organization 60:137-167.

McCall Smith, 2000. “The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts.” International Organization 54:137-180.

Russett, et al., 1998. “The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950-85.” International Organization 52:441-467.

Shanks,  et al., 1996. “Inertia and Change in the Constellation of International Governmental Organizations, 1981-1992 .” International Organization 50(4):593-627.

Bueno de Mesquita, Principles, Chapter 14

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

Cupitt, Richard, Rodney Whitlock, and Lynn Williams Whitlock. 1996. “The [Im]mortality of  Intergovernmental Organizations.” International Interactions 21:389-404.

Duffield, John S. 2007. “What Are International Institutions?” International Studies Review 9: 1-22.

Fearon, James D. 1998. “Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation.” International Organization 52:269-305.

Gartzke, Erik. 2000.  “Preferences and the Democratic Peace.” International Studies Quarterly 44: 191-212.

Ingram, Paul, Jeffrey Robinson, and Marc L. Busch. 2005. “The Intergovernmental Network of World Trade: IGO Connectedness, Governance, and Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 111:824-58.

Volgy, Thomas J., Elizabeth Fausett, Keith A. Grant, and  Stuart Rodgers. 2008. “A New Database for Identifying Formal Intergovernmental Organizations.” Journal of Peace Research (forthcoming)

Week 18                     Actors: States, Non-States and International Politics

            READINGS:

Gurr, 1990. “The Transformation of the Western State: the Growth of Democracy, Autocracy and State Power since 1800.”  Studies in Comparative International Development 25: 73-108.

Evans, 1997. “The Eclipse of the State? Reflection on Stateness in an Era of Globalization.” World

            Politics 50: 62-87.

Lemke,  2003. “African Lessons For International Relations Research.” World Politics 56: 114-138.

Enders and Sandler, 2002. “Patterns of Transnational Terrorism, 1970-1999, Alternative Time Series Estimates.” International Studies Quarterly 46: 147-165.

Boli and Thomas,  2001. “INGOs and the Organization of World Culture,” in Diehl (ed.), The Politics of Global Governance (2^nd Edition).
Polillo and Guillen, 2005. “Globalization Pressures and the State: The World-wide Spread of Central      

            Bank Independence.” American Journal of Sociology 110: 764-802.

Tsutsui and Wotipka, 2004. “Global Society and the International Human Rights Movement…” Social    Forces 83: 587-620

Van Creveld, 1996. “The Fate of the State.”

Tsygankov, Andrei. 2007. “Modern at Last? Variety of Weak States in the Post Soviet World.”      Communist and Post Communist Studies 20:1-17.

Additional Readings:

Aaron Clauset, Maxwell Young, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch . 2007. “ On the Frequency of Severe Terrorist Events.”  Journal of Conflict Resolution 51: 58-87

Krasner, Stephen D. 2004. “Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States.”  International Security 29.

Lake, David A. 2003 “The New Sovereignty in International Relations.” International Studies Review 5: 303-323.

Price, Richard. 2003. “Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics.”  World Politics 55: 579–606

Robert Rohrschneider, Robert, and Russell J Dalton. 2002. “A Global Network? Transnational Cooperation among Environmental Groups.” The Journal of Politics 64: 510–533.

Ruggie,  John Gerard. 2004. Reconstituting the Global Public Domain—Issues, Actors, and Practices.”  European Journal of International Relations 10: 499-531.

Wendt, Alexander 2003. “Why a World State is Inevitable.” European Journal of International Relations 9:491-542

Sending, Ole Jacob and Iver B. Nemann. 2006. “governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power.” International Studies Quarterly 50: 651-672.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Week 19         Is There an International Politics of ( in and/or between) Regions?

            READINGS:

Sbragia, Alberta. 2008. “Review Article: Compartive Regionalism: What Might It Be?” Journal of  Common Market Studies 46:29-49.

Haftel, 2007. “Designing for Peace: Regional Integration Arrangements, Institutional Variation, and Militarized Interstate Disputes.” International Organization 61: 217-237.

Hemmer, J. Katzenstein. 2002. “Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism.”  International Organization  56: 575-607.

Soderbaum, Fredrik. 2004. “Modes of Regional Governance in Africa: Neoliberalism, Sovereignty Boosting,      and Shadow Networks.” Global Governance 10:419-36.

Vayrynen, Raimo. 2003. “Regionalism: Old and New.” International Studies Review 5: 25-51.

Rapkin, David. 2001. “The United States, Japan, and the Power to Block: the APEC and AMF Case.” Pacific Review 14: 373-410.

Kelly, Robert E. 2007. “Security Theory in the ‘New Regionalism’.” International Studies Review 9:197-229.

Solingen, Etel. 2007. “Pax Asiatica versus Bellan Levantina: The Foundation of War and Peace in East Asia and the Middle East.” American Political Science Review 101:757-780.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional Readings:

Beeson, Mark. 2006. “American Hegemony and Regionalism: The Rise of East Africa and the end of the Asia-Pacific.” Geopolitics 11:541-560

Acharya, Amitav. 2004. “Will Asia's Past Be Its Future?” International Security 28.

Buzan, Barry and Ole Waever. 2004. Regions and Powers: The Structures of International Security. Cambridge :   Cambridge University Press.

Collier, Paul and Anke Hoeffler. 2002. “On the Incidence of Civil War in Africa.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46: 3-12.

            Genna, Gaspare M., and Taeko Hiroi. 2004. “Power Preponderance and Domestic Politics: Explaining Regional Economic Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1960-1997.” International Interactions 30: 143-164.

            Goldsmith, Benjamin E. 2007 “A Liberal Peace in Asia?” Journal of Peace Research 44: 5-27.

Lemke, Douglas. 2002. Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

            Katsenstein, Peter J. 2005.  A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Lebovic, James H. 2004. “Unity in Action: Explaining Alignment Behavior in the Middle East.” Journal of Peace Research 41: 167-189.

Lemke, Douglas. 2002.  Regions of War and Peace.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shambaugh, David L. 2004/05. “China Engages Asia: Reshaping the Regional Order.” International Security 29.

Soderbaum, Fredrik. 2003. Theories of New Regionalism. London : Palgrave Macmillan.

Solingen, Etel. 1988. Regional Orders at Century’s Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Solingen, Etel. 2005. “East Asian Regional Institutions: Characteristics, Sources, Distinctiveness.” In T.J. Pempel, Remapping East Asia: The Construction of a Region. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Young, Crawford. 2002. “Deciphering Disorder in Africa: Is Identity the Key?” World Politics 54:532-537.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some additional of what we haven’t covered that’s out there:

• International Political Economy

o   International Trade and International Politics

o   International Finance and International Politics

• Psychological Approaches to International Politics
• International Political Sociology
• Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis
• The nature of nuclear power and deterrence
• Global Development
• The Study of Rivalry
• Environmental Studies
• International Inequality and Issues of Justice (see for example issue 2, volume 4 (2002) International Studies Review)
• World Systems Theory
• Global Governance Studies

Some of the Journals of Relevance for International Politics

*American Political Science Review

*American Journal of Political Science

*Conflict Management and Peace Science

*European Journal of International Relations

*Foreign Policy Analysis

*Geopolitics

*Global Governance

*International Interactions

*International Organization

*International Relations

*International Security

*International Studies Quarterly

*International Studies Review

*Journal of Conflict Resolution

*Journal of Peace Research

*Journal of Politics

*New Global Studies (http://www.bepress.com/ngs/)

*Political Geography

*World Politics

APPENDIX:              Final Paper Outline                                                              

Objective(s):  The final paper for this course acts in lieu of a final exam, and is meant to synthesize and apply the contents of the course. It is a mechanism whereby you can use the requirements of the paper to integrate approaches and findings by applying them to a specific problem at hand, forcing you to consider the process by which you select (or discard) various analytical tools provided in the literature and in the class discussions.

Hook:              The “hook” for this exercise is the research question you had submitted to me at the beginning of the semester. If you choose another, that’s ok, provided that you offer an analytical justification for why you have altered your research question (these are issues about what are salient puzzles to address in IR).

The steps:       The following steps should be included in your paper--

·         Identification of a central research question you are pursuing (keep in mind that a research question is exactly that: a research QUESTION…not a paragraph, a phrase, or a chapter). The question itself should be followed by:

·         A theoretical justification (why is it an interesting/salient puzzle) of the research question;  or you can justify it on the basis of your assessment of the literature that indicates that the question is a) salient to our understanding of IR phenomena; and b) is inadequately addressed by previous research;

·         Identification and elaboration of a theoretical/conceptual answer to the research question….this is the tough one. Here, you need to take on a theoretical perspective which means that you have chosen some theoretical tools from the toolbox and abandoned others. You may be integrating two or more perspectives, or you may be focusing on a single perspective. In either case, you need to make explicit the choices you had, and why you chose the option you did. Critical: keep in mind our discussions about how to evaluate theories and theoretical perspectives, and the strengths, limitations, and potential for integration of the perspectives we discussed through the semester.

·         Flesh out “your” theory in answering the research question and make sure that you include at least one or more salient, testable hypothesis flowing from your theory (“Testable” does not necessarily mean quantitative).  This section in essence provides a preliminary answer to your research question and allows for some process through which you may be able to test its value with observations.

·         Given the theory and testable hypothesis (es), identify a research design that may allow you to test empirically the relationships noted in your prediction(s). This research design is likely to be dictated in part by the nature of your theory (assessing its applicability across time and space; level and unit of analysis; etc.) and practical trade-offs in conducting research.

Then:        you are done. I don’t need or want you to execute the research design…all I need you to demonstrate is that the design flows from the explanation you have created. Length: no longer than 20 pages (maximum, not a minimum). Otherwise, the length obviously depends on the nature of the research question, how you have answered it, your writing style, etc.

DUE: the last week of final exams (earlier the better). Caution: progress with this as the seminar continues so that all of it doesn’t fall on your head at the end of the semester.