Introduction to International Relations Theory for Ph.D. Students

Introduction to International Relations Theory for Ph.D. Students

Fall 2014

David C. Kang

Office hours: Thursday 1-3 or by appointment

Office: AHN 100

The primary objective of this course is to introduce Ph.D. students to theoretical and empirical issues related to the study of international relations. The topics covered will require a fair amount of methodological and theoretical training. This course is considered a gateway course for all other international relations classes and a fundamental element of Ph.D. training. We will cover a range of topics – some mainstream, others that directly challenge the mainstream. The readings are both exemplary and cautionary – and the goal is to develop analytical and empirical puzzles and theorize and explain important aspects of world politics. The aim is for students to begin to learn the literature in the field, the intellectual issues and debates, and most importantly, how to evaluate and ultimately formulate research in international relations.It’s easy to criticize the theory and empirics of others; it is far harder to formulate a positive research agenda. This class will begin to help students teach themselves: How can we formulate interesting questions? How do we assess the empirical and theoretical content of the literature? What gaps or oversights are there?

The key component to this class will be student preparation of the readings before class.

REQUIREMENTS: All members of the seminar will be expected to do two major things beyond the writing assignment:

Complete the assigned readings prior to the seminar meeting and come prepared to discuss the readings, their relationship to one another, and their links to earlier readings and seminar discussions.

Be one of two primary discussants for two different weeks’ readings (each session will begin with two discussants circulating a short 1-page ‘think piece’ and then taking 5-10 minutes to recap the key themes in the week’s readings and raising one or two key issues for subsequent discussion. (These assignments will be made in the second class.)

All seminar participants must complete a 15-20 page research design on some theoretically and empirically interesting aspect of international relations. Students may write on any topic, so long as that topic falls within the discipline of international relations. Students may utilize any appropriate qualitative or quantitative methods. I will accept papers only papers that explore conceptual or theoretical debates in international-relations scholarship. These papers are due at the beginning of the last day of the class. A 4-5 page preliminary paper (with bibliography) is due at the beginning of class, October 28.

READINGS: All required readings should be done prior to the seminar. All efforts have been made to make these available electronically and through library reserve.

Think of the following questions as you read.

What’s the puzzle? What do the authors want to explain?
What is the argument?
What is the evidence?
What are the critical concepts? How are they defined?
From what theoretical perspective does the argument originate?
Who is the author engaging in debate?
What is the methodology?

Week 1 (August 26): Introductions

“What got you here won’t get you there.” How graduate school is unlike anything you have experienced in the past, and the requirements for success are in many ways completely unrelated to the skills that got you admitted.

Booth, Colomb, and Williams. The Craft of Research (3rd edition): University of Chicago Press, 2008), chapters 3 and 4 (“From Topics to Questions” and “From Questions to a Problem”).

Week 2 (September 2): Assessing scholarship in international relations

How do we formulate and evaluate a positive research agenda in international relations? What are the standards we should have for assessing scholarship? What is falsification? Testing? What’s the difference between a methodological and theoretical approach or critique?

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, "Toward a Scientific Understanding of International Conflict: A Personal View (in Symposium: Methodological Foundations of the Study of International Conflict) International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Jun., 1985), pp. 121-136.
Ron Rogowski, “The role of Theory and Anomaly in Social-Scientific Inference,” American Political Science Review 89, no. 2 (June 1995), pp. 467-470.
Stephen Krasner, "Toward Understanding in International Relations," (in Symposium: Methodological Foundations of the Study of International Conflict) International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Jun., 1985), pp. 137-144.
Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman (2002), “How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research,” International Studies Quarterly 46(2): 231-62
Fearon, James D. 1991. Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science. World Politics 43: 169-195.
Kahler, Miles. 1997. Inventing international relations: international relations theory since 1945. In New thinking in international relations theory , edited by Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry, 20-53. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Suggested:

Patrick Jackson, “Foregrounding ontology: dualism, monism, and IR theory,” Review of International Studies 34 (2008), pp. 129–153.
Robert Jervis, "Pluralistic Rigor: A Comment on Bueno de Mesquita ," (in Symposium: Methodological Foundations of the Study of International Conflict) International Studies Quarterly Vol. 29, No.3 (Jun, 1985). pp. 145-149.

Week 3 (September 9): Equality in international relations

Are nations identical? Are relations most peaceful when they are equally sized? The view that equality is both an enduring fact and a normative goal of international relations is most clearly articulated in the research program of realism. As the name implies, realism claims to speak the truth about the grim realities of power politics in a dangerous world. Concerns about power, security and national interests dominate. The other works in this list highlight themes and criticisms taken up by other paradigms, such as the prospect of cooperation under anarchy, the role of domestic politics and the importance of ideas and morality in world politics. All of these will be of continuing concern as we move through the semester.

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley Publishers, Reading: MA, (1979). Chapters 4-5.
John Mearsheimer, “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power,” in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: WW Norton, 2001), pp. 29-54.
John A. Vasquez, "The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition" The American Political Science Review , Vol. 91, No. 4. (Dec., 1997), pp. 899-912.

Kenneth Waltz, "Evaluating Theories," The American Political Science Review , Vol. 91, No. 4. (Dec., 1997), pp. 913-917.
Legro, Jeffrey, and Andrew Moravsick. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security 24.2 (1999): 5-56.

Suggested:

Pape, Robert A. "Soft Balancing Against the United States." International Security 30,1 (2005): 7-45.
Schweller, Randall L. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In,” International Security 19,1 (1994): 72-107.
Schweller, Randal L. "Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing." International Security 29,2 (2004): 159-201.
Wohlforth and Brooks, “Hard Times for Soft Balancing,” International Security (Summer 2005), Vol. 30, No. 1, Pages 72-108

Week 4 (September 16): Inequality in international relations

What is hegemony? What is hierarchy? How is it different from balance of power? In contrast to realists, there exist a number of theoretical arguments in the literature that emphasize both the enduring inequality of international politics, and the various ways in which it manifests itself. This has led to sharp disagreements about what constitutes anarchy, and whether hierarchy can exist within anarchy.

Lake, David A. “Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics,” International Security 32,1 (2007): 47-79.
Keene, Edward. “A Case Study of the Construction of International Hierarchy: British Treaty-Making Against the Slave Trade in the Early Nineteenth Century,” International Organization 61,2 (2007): 311-319.
David C. Kang, “Hierarchy and Legitimacy in International Systems: the tribute system in early modern East Asia,” Security Studies 19, no. 4 (December 2010), pp. 591-622.
Ikenberry, G. John and Charles Kupchan. “Socialization and Hegemonic Power,” International Organization 44,3 (1990): 283-315.
Mastanduno, Michael, "Incomplete Hegemony: The United States and Security Order in Asia" in Alagappa (ed.) Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features (Stanford: Stanford University Press: 2003): 141-170.
Wohlforth, William. “The Stability of a Unipolar World.” International Security 24.1 (Summer 1999): 5-41.

Suggested:

Donnelly, Jack. “Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Security,” European Journal of International Relations 12,2 (2006): 139-170.
Galtung, Johan. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research 8,2 (1971): 81-117.
Gortzak, Yoav. “How Great Powers Rule: Coercion and Positive Inducements in International Order Enforcement,” Security Studies 14,4 (2005): 663-697.
Evelyn Goh, “Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies,” International Security, 32, no. 3, (Winter 2007/2008): 113-157.
Lake, David A. “The New Sovereignty in International Relations,” International Studies Review 5,3 (2003): 303-324.
Chase, Ivan D. “Social Processes and Hierarchy Formation in Small Groups: A Comparative Perspective,” American Sociological Review 45,6 (1980): 905-924.
Dan Nexon and Thomas Wright, “What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate,” American Political Science Review 101 (2007), pp. 253-271

Week 5 (September 23): Formal theories

Much current political science emphasizes rationalist or constructivist approaches to international relations: models derived from economics, or models that fundamentally challenge those insights. Today we will work through the logic of models derived from rational-choice theory. Rationalism is defined more by its ontological focus and its methodology than assumptions about the nature of the international system: utilitarian and strategic interaction under conditions of uncertainty. Drawing primarily from microeconomics, it bypasses debates about whether domestic or systemic factors are more significant, or whether cooperation and conflict or more prevalent. Instead it directs its attention to how outcomes arise when self-interested actors pursue conflicting interests under a set of institutional and informational constraints.

James Fearon, “Rationalist Explanations for War,” International Organization 49 (1995): 379-414
Powell, Robert. “War as a Commitment Problem,” International Organization 60,1 (2006): 169-203.
Erik Gartzke, “War is in the Error Term,” International Organization 53, no. 3 (Summer 1999): 567-587.
James Morrow, “Arms Versus Allies: Trade-Offs in the Search for Security,” International Organization 47, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 207-233
Todd Sechser, “Goliath’s Curse: Coercive Threats and Asymmetric Power,” International Organization 64, no. 4 (2010): 627-660.

David Lake, “Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War,” International Security 35, no. 3 (Winter 2010/11), pp. 7-52

Alex Debs and Nuno Monteiro, ““Known Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War,” International Organization (July 31, 2013)

Suggested:

David Lake and Robert Powell, Strategic Choice and International Relations (Princeton, 1999).
Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan Stam. The Behavioral Origins of War (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).
Fearon, James D. 1998. Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. International Organization 52: 269-305
Robert Powell, “Bargaining Theory and International Conflict,”Annual Review of Political Science 5 (2002), pp. 1-30.
Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Robert Powell, In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Relations (Princeton, 1999).

Week 6 (September 30): Constructivism

Constructivism is a school of thought that stresses that the reality of international politics is not given, but rather is a construction of the social processes of international relations. Drawing from sociology, it argues that norms, culture, and ideas play a significant role in international relations autonomous from and often prior to power. It defines itself in opposition to the materialist and asocial approaches of neorealism and neoliberalism.

Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of international politics,” International Organization 46 (March 1992), pp. 391-425.

Vincent Pouliot, “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities,” International Organization 62, no. 02 (April 2008), pp. 257-288.

Abdelal, Rawi et al. “Identity as a Variable” Perspectives on Politics 4,4 (2006): 695-711.
Acharya, Amitav, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism” International Organization 58, 2 (spring 2004): 239-275.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International norm dynamics and political change,” International Organization 52: 887-917
Maja Zehfuss (2001), “Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison?” European Journal ofInternational Relations 7(3): 315-348

Suggested:

Fearon and Wendt, “Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View,” Handbook of International Relations, eds Walter E. (Emmanuel) Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A Simmons (Sage, 2002), pp. 52-72.

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4 (1998), pp. 887-917.
Ian Hurd, “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 2 (1999), pp. 379-408.
Ted Hopf, Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002), pp. 1-38.

Week 7 (October 7): Domestic politics and international security

How do domestic incentives and constraints affect states’ security strategies? Are nationalism, domestic politics, and other internal concerns formative or definitive for states’ interactions? What systematic and consistent hypotheses can we make about how domestic politics shapes foreign policy?

Etel Solingen, “Pax Asiatica versus Bella Levantina: The Foundations of War and Peace in East Asia and the Middle East,” American Political Science Review 101, no. 4 (2007): 757-780
Michael Tomz. 2007. “Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organization 61 (4): 821-840.
Jessica Chen Weiss. 2013. “Authoritarian Signaling, Mass Audiences, and Nationalist Protest in China.” International Organization 67 (1): 1-35. James Fearon and David Laitin. 2003. Ethnicity, Insurgency, and War. American Political Science Review 97 (1): 75-90
Branislav Slantchev, “Politicians, the Media, and Domestic Audience Costs,” International Studies Quarterly50, no. 2, (June 2006), pp. 445–477.
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alastair Smith, “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 93, No. 4 (1999), pp. 791-807.

Sebastian Rosato, “The Flawed Logic of the Democratic Peace,” American Political Science Review (2003), 97: pp 585-602.

Suggested:

Eric Gartzke, “War is in the Error Term,” International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 3 (1999), pp. 567-588.
Marc Trachtenberg, “Audience Costs: An historical analysis,” Security Studies 21 (2012): 3-42. (read the rest of the issue for responses)
Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett, “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986,” The American Political Science Review 87, No. 3 (September 1993), pp. 624-638.
Branislav Slantchev, “audience cost theory and its audiences,” Security Studies 21 (2012): 376-382.

Week 8 (October 14): Institutions

International organizations are efforts by states to create a governance structure in their anarchic environment. But scholars disagree not only about whether institutions matter, but also how they matter. This session will be devoted to those different conceptions of international organizations, as well as their functions, design and autonomous effect on world politics. What are institutions? Why are they created? What do they do? Who drives them forward? Are they independent players on the world stage? Are they rational solutions to collective problems of asymmetrical information? Independent sources of moral authority or technical expertise? Vessels and cloaks of state power?

Robert Keohane, After Hegemony, chapter 1
Beth A. Simmons, “Rules over Real Estate: Trade, Territorial Conflict, and International Borders as Institutions,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49, No. 6 (2005), pp. 823-848, p. 827.
Hassner, Ron. “To Halve and to Hold: Conflicts over Sacred Space and the Problem of Indivisibility,” Security Studies 12,4 (2003):1-33.
Douglass North and Barry Weingast, “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England,” Journal of Economic History 49 (1989), pp. 803-832.
Wayne Sandholtz and John Zysman, “1992: Recasting the European Bargain,” World Politics 42, No. 1 (October 1989), pp. 95-128.
Thompson, Alexander. “Coercion Through IOs: The Security Council and the Logic of Information Transmission,” International Organization 60,1 (2006): 1-34.
Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson and Duncan Snidal (2001), “The Rational Design ofInternational Institutions,” International Organization 55(4): 761-800

Suggested:

Toft, Monica. “Indivisible Territory, Geographic Concentration, and Ethnic War,” Security Studies 12,2 (2002):82-119.
Olson, Mancur, Jr., and Richard Zeckhauser. 1966. An economic theory of alliances. The Review of Economics and Statistics 48: 266-79.
Walter, Barbara. “Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict,” International Studies Review 5,4 (2003): 137-153.
Alastair Iain Johnston, “Is China a Status Quo power?” International Security 27, no. 4 (Spring 2003), pp. 5-56
Von Stein, Jana. 2005. Do treaties constrain or screen? Selection bias and treaty compliance. American Political Science Review 99: 611-622.

Week 9 (October 21): Alternative approaches to power and interests

Many of the interests, ideas, and stylized facts that we take for granted in the international relations literature may not be as solidly conceptualized and theorized as we think. Although the discipline prides itself on its positive, scientific approach, it is worth considering that what is common sense today may not have been common sense a generation, century, or millennium ago.

J. Ann Tickner (1997), “‘You Just Don’t Understand’: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,” International Studies Quarterly 41(4): 611-632
Richard Ned Lebow, Cultural Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, 2007), chapter 1.
Toft, Monica. 2007. Getting Religion? The Puzzling Case of Islam and Civil War. International Security 31 (4): 97-131.
Nukhet Sandal and Patrick James, “Religion and International Relations theory: Towards a mutual understanding,” European Journal of International Relations 17 no. 1 (March 2011), pp. 3-25.

Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall. “Power in International Politics,” International Organization 59,1 (2005): 39-75.
Jack Snyder, “Anarchy and Culture: Insights from the Anthropology of War,” International Organization 56 (2002), pp. 7-45.

Suggested:

Jonathan Mercer, “Anarchy and Identity,“ International Organization, Vol. 49, No. 2 (1995), pp. 229-252
Philip Tetlock, “Social Psychology and World Politics,” in D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (New York, McGraw Hill, 1998), pp. 870-882
Jacques Hymans, The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Tarak Barwaki and Mark Laffey, “The Postcolonial Movement in Security Studies,” Review ofInternational Studies 32/2 (April 2006), 329-352

Week 10 (October28):Historical international relations

**Preliminary paper and question due at beginning of class**