Political Science 857

Theories of International Relations

Professor Lisa Martin

Fall 2016

Tuesdays, 1:20-2:15

Ogg Room

1

Lisa Martin

North Hall 417

263-2035

Office hours Mondays, 11:00-1:00

This course offers a graduate-level introductory survey of the field of international relations. The primary purpose is to understand the development of the field, and to understand and be able to evaluate the main theoretical approaches in this sub-discipline. The course covers many of what have come to be known as classic works in the field as well as some more recent theoretical and empirical applications. While it is not designed as a research course, it is useful preparation for more specialized courses of study emphasizing international relations research. Another important purpose of the course is to prepare PhD students to pass the preliminary examination in international relations.

Throughout the course, we will focus primarily on alternative theoretical approaches and perspectives, although we will also explore some empirical work. Our goal will be to engage, discuss, and tackle the following questions: What are the critical concepts? How are cause and effect observed? What kind of research design do the authors use? From what theoretical perspective does the argument originate? With whom are the authors engaged in debate?

Course requirements: All students should come to class having done the readings and be prepared to discuss them in depth each week. I will post discussion questions on learn@uw prior to class to guide your reading and organize class discussion. One-quarter of the course grade will be based on seminar participation.

Each student will also be required to write eight short essays (no more than 2 pages) based on the weekly readings or some subset thereof. A copy of the essay should be e-mailed to me by noon the day before the class (Monday). The papers should not just re-present the arguments, but must analyze, compare, and/or critique the quality of the theory and/or evidence, as appropriate. These papers will count for ½ of your grade for the course.

Finally, each student will turn in a review of a recently-published book in international relations. For examples of book reviews, look at recent issues of Perspectives on Politics. Your review should be between 1200 and 1500 words. It should summarize the major argument(s) of the book you are reviewing, but more importantly should engage in critical analysis, address the strengths and weaknesses of the book, and discuss its contribution to the larger literature. Your review will be due to the dropbox in learn@uw on December 16. Submit the title, author, and publication information for the book you wish to review, or a short list of books you’re interested in, by November 24. This paper will count for ¼ of your grade for the course.

If you are planning to take International Relations as one of your prelim fields in the political science department, you should create a file or drive where you store the materials from your IR classes, including syllabi and papers that you write. This will make it easier to pull together the required materials for prelims at the end of your second year.

Readings: Readings marked with two asterisks (**) are classics in the field that you should consider buying as part of your permanent bookshelf. Readings marked with one asterisk (*) are available on learn@uw. The other readings should be easily accessible on line through the UW library.

.

**********

September 6: Organization

  • Paul C. Avey and Michael C. Desch. 2014. “What Do Policymakers Want From Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Senior National Security Decision Makers.” International Studies Quarterly 58(2): 227-46

September 13: Development of the field

  • ** Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. Book 1, vs. 24-146. (page numbers will depend on the edition you use)
  • * Hans Morgenthau, 1948. Politics Among Nations (New York: Knopf), Chapters 1 and 2. (any edition).
  • John H. Herz. 1950 “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.” World Politics (January)
  • Peter Katzenstein, R. Keohane, and S. Krasner, 1998. "International Organization and the Study of World Politics." International Organization, 52:4, pp. 645-685.
  • Ole Waever, 1998. "The Sociology of a Not so International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations," International Organization, 52:4, pp. 687-727.
  • * Kenneth Waltz, 1959. Man, the State, and War, Ch. 1 (Introduction).
  • * Brian Schmidt, 2002. “On the History and Historiography of International Relations,” in Handbook of International Relations, Walter Carlsnaes, Beth Simmons, and Thomas Risse, eds. London: Sage.

September 20: War and power I: structure and conflict

  • ** Robert O. Keohane, 1986. Neorealism and its Criticschps. 2-7
  • * Robert Gilpin, 1981. War and Change in International Politics, pp. 9-44, 85-105
  • *Alexander Wendt, 1999. Social Theory of International Politics, chps. 4, 6
  • *Dale C. Copeland. 2000. The Origins of Great Power War, chps. 2 and 3
  • Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall. 2005. “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59: 1 (Winter), pp. 39-75

September 27: War and power II: agents, ideas, preferences

  • Andrew Moravcsik, 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, vol. 51 #4, pp. 513-553
  • James D. Fearon, 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War,” International Organization, vol. 49, #3, pp. 379-414
  • Jennifer Mitzen. 2005. “Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 401-17
  • Stacy Goddard. 2006. “Uncommon Ground: Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy.” International Organization 60: 1 (Winter), pp. 35-68
  • Mark L. Haas. 2007. “The United States and the End of the Cold War: Reactions to Shifts in Soviet Power, Policies, or Domestic Politics?” International Organization 61(1): 145-79
  • Thomas Risse. 2000. “Let’s Argue! Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54(1): 1-30
  • Nina Tannenwald. 1999. “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use.” International Organization 53: 433-46

October 4: Psychological approaches (Guest instructor, Jonathan Renshon)

  • *Philip E. Tetlock,. 1998. “Social Psychology and World Politics.” In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill): 868-912.
  • Alexander George. 1969. “The ‘Operational Code’: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making.” International Studies Quarterly 13(2): 190-222
  • Rose McDermott. 1992. “Prospect Theory in International Relations: The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission.” Political Psychology 13(2): 237-63
  • Rose McDermott et. al. 2009. “Monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA) predicts behavioral aggression following provocation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(7): 2118-23
  • Joshua D. Kertzer and Brian C. Rathbun. 2015. “Fair is Fair: Social Preferences and Reciprocity in International Politics.” World Politics 67(4): 613-55
  • Jonathan Mercer. 2010. “Emotional Beliefs.” International Organization 64(1): 1-31
  • Jonathan Renshon. 2015. “Losing Face and Sinking Costs: Experimental Evidence on the Judgment of Political and Military Leaders.” International Organization 69(3): 659-95

October 11: Cooperation and interdependence

  • * Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye. 1989. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, 2d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co.) Parts I and V
  • ** Robert Axelrod, 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books), Chs. 1-4, pp. 3-87
  • Peter Gourevitch. 1978. “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics.” International Organization 32 (Autumn): 881-912
  • * Hedley Bull, 1977. The Anarchical Society, chps. 1-3
  • George Downs, David Rocke, and Peter Barsoom. 1996. “Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation?” International Organization 50(3): 379-406

October 18: Institutions and Organizations

  • ** Robert O. Keohane, 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton University Press), chs. 1-7 (pp. 5-132)
  • Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2001. "Treating International Institutions as Social Environments." International Studies Quarterly 45 (4):487-516
  • Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2005. "Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression." International Organization 59 (3): 593-629.
  • Jana von Stein. 2005. “Do Treaties Constrain or Screen? Selection Bias and Treaty Compliance.” American Political Science Review 99 (4): 611-22
  • Edward D. Mansfield and Jon C. Pevehouse. 2006. “Democratization and International Organizations.” International Organization 60 (1): 137-67
  • *Beth A. Simmons. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics, chps. 3-4

October 25: Conflict and cooperation as bargaining processes

  • Robert Powell. 1996. “Uncertainty, Shifting Power, and Appeasement.” American Political Science Review 90:4 (December), pp. 749-64
  • James D. Fearon. 1998. “Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation.” International Organization 52:2 (Spring 1998), pp. 269-306
  • * David A. Lake and Robert Powell (eds.), 1999. Strategic Choice and International Relations, chs. 1-2
  • Andrew Kydd. 2001. “Trust Building, Trust Breaking: The Dilemma of NATO Enlargement.” International Organization 55(4): 801-28
  • Suzanne Werner and Amy Yuen. 2005. “Making and Keeping Peace.”International Organization 59: 2 (Spring), pp. 261-92
  • Dustin H. Tingley and Stephanie W. Wang. 2010. “Belief Updating in Sequential Games of Two-Sided Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study of a Crisis Bargaining Model.” QJPS 5(3): 243-55

November 1: Democracy and peace

  • Michael Doyle. 1983. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part I.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12: 3 (Summer), pp. 205-35.
  • Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alastair Smith, 1993. “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace,” American Political Science Review, vol. 93 #4, pp. 791-807
  • Kenneth Schultz. 1999. “Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War.” International Organization 53: 2, pp. 233-66
  • Lars-Erik Cederman. 2001. “Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace as a Macrohistorical Learning Process.” American Political Science Review 95: 1, pp. 15-31
  • Sebastian Rosato. 2003. “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory.” American Political Science Review 97: 585-602
  • Erik Gartzke. 2007. “The Capitalist Peace.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 166-91
  • Jessica Weeks. 2012. “Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict.” APSR 106: 326-47
  • Michael Tomz and Jessica Weeks. 2013. “Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace.” American Political Science Review 107(4): 849-65

November 8: Domestic institutions and interests

  • Putnam, Robert D. 1988. "Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games." International Organization 42 (3):427-60.
  • ** Helen Milner, 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations, (Princeton University Press), Ch. 1-4; (pp. 3-128).
  • Gaubatz, Kurt Taylor. 1996. "Democratic States and Commitments in International Relations." International Organization 50 (1):109-39.
  • Frieden, Jeffry A. 1988. "Sectoral Conflict and Foreign Economic Policy, 1914-1940." International Organization 42 (1): 59-90
  • James Fearon. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review 88:3 (September), oo, 577-92.
  • * Lisa L. Martin. 2000. Democratic Commitments: Legislatures and International Cooperation (Princeton University Press), chps. 2 and 7.

November 15: Gender and International Relations

  • Helen Kinsella. 2006. “Gendering Grotius: Sex and Sex Difference in the Laws of War.” Political Theory 34(2): 161-91
  • Valerie M. Hudson et al. 2008/09. “The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of State.” International Security 33(3): 7-45.
  • Ann Towns. 2009. “The Status of Women as a Standard of Civilization.” European Journal of International Relations 15(4): 681-706
  • Deborah Jordan Brooks and Benjamin A. Valentino. 2011. “A War of One’s Own: Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for War.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75(2): 270-286
  • Rose McDermott. 2015. “Sex and Death: Gender Differences in Aggression and Motivations for War.” International Organization 69(3): 753-75
  • Dan Reiter. 2015. “The Positivist Study of Gender and International Relations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 59(7): 1301-26

November 22: No class. Submit book(s) you are interested in reviewing.

November 29: Trade and Globalization

  • Ronald Rogowski. 1987. “Political Cleavages and Changing Exposure to Trade.” American Political Science Review 81: 4 (December), pp. 1121-38.
  • Joanne S. Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield. 1993. “Power Politics and International Trade.” American Political Science Review 87: 2, pp. 408-20.
  • Weingast, Barry R, Judith Goldstein, and Michael A Bailey. 1997. "The Institutional Roots of American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade." World Politics 49 (3):309-38.
  • Edward D. Mansfield, Helen V. Milner, and B. Peter Rosendorff. 2000. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade.” APSR 94(2): 305-21
  • Judith Goldstein, Doug Rivers, and Michael Tomz. 2007. “Institutions in International Relations: Understanding the Effects of the GATT and the WTO on World Trade.” International Organization 61: 1 (Winter), pp. 37-68
  • Edward D. Mansfield and Diana C. Mutz. 2009. “Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety.” International Organization 63(3): 425-57
  • Helen V. Milner and Dustin H. Tingley. 2011. “Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy.” International Organization 65(1): 37-68

December 6: Civil war

  • Barbara Walter. 1997. “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlements.” International Organization 51: 3, pp. 335-64
  • James Fearon and David Laitin, 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97(1): 75-90.
  • Lars-Erik Cederman and Luc Girardin, 2007. "Beyond Fractionalization: Mapping Ethnicity onto Nationalist Insurgencies," American Political Science Review 101 (1): 173-85.
  • Kenneth Schultz. 2010. “The Enforcement Problem in Coercive Bargaining: Interstate Conflict over Rebel Support in Civil Wars.” International Organization 64 (2): 281-312
  • Virginia Page Fortna. 2004. “Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace? International Intervention and the Duration of Peace After Civil War.” ISQ 48(2): 262-92
  • StathisKalyvas and LaiaBalcells. 2013. “International System and Technologies of Rebellion: How the End of the Cold War Shaped Internal Conflict.” APSR 104(3): 415-429

December 13: No class. Work on book review.

December 16: Book review due to the dropbox.

1