International Relations Theory (POLS 540)

2021 Spring
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Political Science(POLS)
3
10.00
Meltem Müftüler-Baç muftuler@sabanciuniv.edu,
Click here to view.
English
Doctoral, Master
--
Interactive lecture,Seminar
Interactive,Learner centered,Task based learning
Click here to view.
Programs\Type Required Core Elective Area Elective
MA-Conf.Analys.&Resol-Non Thes
MA-Conflict Analys.&Resolution
MA-Cultural Studies
MA-Cultural Studies-Non Thesis
MA-European Studies *
MA-European Studies-Non Thesis *
MA-International Relations-NT *
MA-Political Science *
MA-Political Science-Non Thes *
MA-Turkish Studies
MA-Turkish Studies-Non Thesis
MA-Visual Arts&Vis. Com Des-NT
MA-Visual Arts&Visual Com Des
MS-Bio. Sci. & Bioeng. LFI
MS-Bio. Sci. & Bioeng. LFI-ENG
MS-Industrial Eng. LFI-ENG
MS-Industrial Engineering LFI
MS-Materials Sci. & Eng. LFI
MS-Materials Sci.&Eng. LFI-ENG
MS-Mechatronics LFI
MS-Mechatronics LFI-ENG
MS-Psychology
MS-Psychology-Non Thesis
PHD-Computer Science and Eng. *
PHD-Experimental Psychology
PHD-Gender Studies
PHD-Management
PHD-Political Sciences *
PHD-Social Psychology
PHDEPSY after UG
PHDMAN after UG
PHDMAN after UG-Finance
PHDMAN after UG-Man. and Org.
PHDMAN after UG-Op.&Sup. Cha.
PHDMAN-Finance Area
PHDMAN-Man. and Org. Area
PHDMAN-Op. & Supp. Chain Area
PHDPS after UG *
PHDSPSY after UG

CONTENT

This course aims at providing the political science graduate students with a thorough analysis of international relations theory. The course will do so first, by analyzing the emergence of the modern state system and the evolution of the international relations as a discipline. Second, the course will focus on major approaches and paradigms in international relations theory, namely realism, neorealism,liberalism, neoliberal institutionalism. and contructivisim. By differentiating between rationalist and sociological approaches to international relations, the course will expose the students to the major current debates in IR theory. The course aims to furnish the students with advanced theoretical skills on international relations that would enable them to further their studies on international relations.

OBJECTIVE

This course investigates the international relations theory, focusing on the realist/neorealist, liberal/neoliberal paradigms. The course touches upon the constructivist logic as well. The course is aimed to provide graduate students with a clear comprehension on the IR theory as a field of inquiry. The course aims to furnish the students with advanced theoretical skills on international relations that would enable them to further their studies on international relations

LEARNING OUTCOME

* List the main theories of international relations
* Distinguish between different IR theory paradigms
* Grasp the basic assumptions of international relations theories
* Identify the main theories of international relations
* Apply these theories to international events
* Accept the methodological and theoretical variety

ASSESSMENT METHODS and CRITERIA

  Percentage (%)
Final 40
Midterm 20
Term-Paper 30
Participation 10

RECOMENDED or REQUIRED READINGS

Textbook

1.Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, International Relations Theory, Pearson 2012
2.Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Macgraw Hill, 1948.
3.E.H.Carr, The Twenty Years? crisis, New York: Harper, 1964.
4.James Dougherty and Robert Pfaltgraff, Contending Theories of International Relations, NY, Longman, 2001.
Readings

5.Steve Smith, "The USA and Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic discipline", International Studies Review, vol.4, no.2, Summer 2002, pp. 67-87. (Blackwell online)
6.Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, "Popes, Kings and Endogenous Institutions: The Concordat of worms and the origins of Sovereignty", International Studies Review, special issue on the Westphalian order, 2000, pp.93-118. (Blackwell online)
7.James Caporaso, "Changes in the Westphalian order: Territory, Public authority and Sovereignty" International Studies Review, special issue on the Westphalian order, 2000, pp.1-28. (Blackwell online
8.David Blaney & Naeem Inayatullah, "The Westphalian Deferral", International Studies Review, special issue on the Westphalian order, 2000, pp.28-64. (Blackwell online)
9. Joseph Nye, "Neorealism and neoliberalism", World Politics, vol.40, no.2, 1988, pp.235-51
10. Bruce Russett, "Reintegrating the subdisciplines of international and comparative politics", International Studies Review, vol.5, no.4, December 2003, pp.9-13.(Blackwell)
11.Andrew Moravcsik, "Taking preferences seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics", International Organization, vol.51, no.4, 1997, pp.513-553.
12. Stephen Krasner, "Regimes and limits of realism: regimes as autonomous variables", International Organization, 1982, vol.36, no.2, pp.497-510. (JSTOR)
13. Joseph Grieco, "Anarchy and the limits of Cooperation: A Realist critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism", International Organization, vol.42, no.3, 1988, pp.485-507. (JSTOR)
14. Vaugnn Shannon, "Norms are what states make of them: The Political Psychology of norm violation", International Studies Quarterly, vol.44, 2000, pp.293-316
15.A.Cortell and J.Davis, "Understanding the Domestic impact of International Norms", International Studies review, vol.2, no.1, Spring 2000, pp.65-87. (Blackwell)
16. Robert Keohane, "International Institutions: Two Approaches", International Studies Quarterly, vol. 32, no.4, 1988, pp.379-96.
17. Robert Jervis, "Realism, Neoliberalism and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate", International Security, vol.24, no.1, 1999, pp.42-63.
18. William Thompson and Richard Tucker, "A Tale of Two: Democratic Peace Critiques", Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol.41, no.3, 1997, pp.428-454.
19.Emilian Kavalski, ?Waking IR up from its Deep Newtonian Slumber?, Millenium, vol.41, no.1, September 2012, pp.137-150.
20. Christian Reus-Smith, ?International relations Irrelevant: Don?t Blame the Theory?, Millenium, vol.40, no.3, June 2012, pp.525-540.
21. Andrew Moravscik, ?Are Dialogue and Synthesis possible in International relations?, International Studies Review, vol.5, no.1, 2003, pp.123-153.
22. Joanne Gowa, "Democratic states and international disputes", International Organization, vol. 49, no.3, 1995, pp.511-22. (JSTOR)
23.Harrison Wagner, ?Peace, War and the Balance of Power?, American Political Science Review, vol.88, no.3, 1994, pp.593-607.
24. Russell Leng. ?Escalation: Competing perspectives and Empirical evidence?, International Studies Review, vol.6, no.4, 2004, pp.51-64.
25. Jack S. Levy and William Mabe, ?Politically Motivated Opposition to War?, International Studies Review, vol.6, no.4, 2004, pp.65
26.James Fearon, ?Rationalist explanations for war?, International Organization, vol.49, no.3, 1995, pp.379-414.
27. Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics, the logic of two-level games", International Organization, vol.42, no.3, 1988, pp.427-660.
28. James Fearon, ?Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes?, American Political Science Review, vol.88, no.3, 1994, pp.577-592.
29. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Randolph Silverson, ?War and the Survival of the Political Leaders: A Comparative study of regime types and political accountability?, American Political Science Review, vol.89, no.4, 1995, pp.841-855
30.Alexander Wendt, ?Anarchy is what states make of it: Social Construction of Power Politics?, International Organization, vol.46, no.2, 1992, pp.391-425,
31. John Gerard Ruggie, ?What makes the world hang together: Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge?, International Organization, vol.52, no.4, 1998, pp.855-885.
32.Robert Keohane, ?International Institutions: Two Approaches?, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 32, no.4, 1988, pp.379-96.
33. John Mearsheimer, ?The False Promise of International Institutions?, International Security, vol.19, no.3, 1994, pp.5-49.