School of International Service
American University
SIS-686-001
Proseminar I: International Affairs
Fall 2015
Tuesday, 5.30 – 8.00 p.m.
HRST 104
Instructor: Dr. Claudia Hofmann
Office: SIS 248
E-Mail: hofmann@american.edu
Phone: (202) 885-6728
Office Hours:
Tuesday, 1.00 – 5.00 p.m.;
and by appointment
Course Description and Objectives:
This course is a core course designed especially for Master of International Service (MIS) degree
candidates. It provides a graduate-level introduction to the fundamental theories, concepts, and
controversies in the contemporary study of international relations. The course establishes a
foundation for advanced study and understanding as well as for building a bridge between theory
and practice in today’s world. The course will prepare students to participate in scholarly
discourse on international relations at a high professional level. It emphasizes the ability to think
about international relations from a variety of theoretical and conceptual perspectives and
understand the resulting implications for policy making. By the end of the course, students
should be able to think about international relations more systematically and with greater
sophistication in professional settings and in daily life.
Learning Outcomes:
Through this course students will be able to master basic facts, concepts, and central theoretical
debates in the field of international relations. Students will learn to critically engage with
theoretical debates and form their own approach to the study of international relations.
!1
Requirements and Evaluation:
We all learn in different ways; some by reading, others by participating interactively, others by
discussing, etc. or some combination of these. You will have a variety of ways to demonstrate
and participate in your own learning. These activities help us achieve the learning outcomes:
Participation in Class Discussion (20 percent) - The topics examined in this course are timely
and of high political relevance. Students are given room to explore topics by brainstorming and
analyzing ideas, viewpoints, scenarios, potentials, and risks and limitations. They are encouraged
to ask questions and draw their own conclusions based on facts and intellectual debate.
Completing the reading assignments before class is paramount for an informed, valuable, and
enjoyable debate. Performance is evaluated on a weekly basis.
Students will be evaluated on their contributions to discussions, defined as: observations that
advance or enhance the discussion, insightful commentaries that raise learning points or apply
the discussion to the student’s own experiences, questions that challenge and clarify the course
material, and analyses that clarify and amplify facts about the material. Class attendance is a
prerequisite for class contribution, therefore, students will earn no points on days they do not
attend class, except in the case of an excused absence.
Class Participation will be graded according to the following subjective criteria, and the
professor may assign intermediate values:
•
•
•
•
•
•
A - Able to answer or ask questions with good examples from the readings and makes
several excellent points that reveals thought about the issue(s), and understanding of the
readings and cases. Raises the level of discourse. This score is rare.
A-/B+ - Raises a number of good points from the cases and readings, less inspired than
an A, but reveals a clear understanding of the material, with the ability to apply it.
B - Raises one or two good points and shows a rudimentary grasp of course material and
cases. Essentially, attempts to draw some linkage with the concepts used in the class.
B- - Makes one or two points but does not attempt to apply what is learned in the
readings or lectures (i.e., superficial common sense-type answers to questions that
required more insight).
C - Shows up for class but does not participate.
D - Did not attend class.
Presentation (20 percent) - Each student will be asked to present one of the course’s topics to the
class. The presentations should not exceed 20 minutes and will have three components. The first
is a brief analytical overview of the week’s readings. This includes a succinct summary and
analysis of the readings and issues. The analysis will make note of the different angles,
arguments, and viewpoints involved in the topic, pulling out the central argument, discussing the
methodology, and evaluating the logic, evidence, strengths and weaknesses. The second
component is using case studies and examples to illustrate the issues, make them accessible, and
!2
establish a connection with current developments and issues through contemporary sources.
Thirdly, the presentation will close with a hypothesis or central question, resulting from the
readings and the case studies, which will feed the following class debate.
“Bridge-Building” Essay (20 percent) - For this assignment, students will find a policy article
and write a 4-5 page essay to show how well it fits into a particular school of thought covered in
the syllabus. Which assumptions does the policy author share with the theory? Are these
assumptions explicit or implicit? What exactly is it about the policy argument that shows it
somehow fits into a school of thought? Acceptable “policy articles” include editorials in major
newspapers (for example, New York Times, Washington Post), policy papers of respected think
tanks (for example Brookings, Carnegie, Woodrow Wilson), and appropriate articles (i.e.,
commentaries) in news magazines (for example Economist, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs).
This essay is due on October 27. Please choose a topic of theory that does not overlap with your
research paper.
Research Paper (40 percent) - Each student is expected to formulate and answer a research
question in an essay of 15-20 pages. Students are encouraged to tackle a policy relevant question
and make use of DC’s rich environment and the expertise of policy makers, academics,
consultants, military experts, and various types of organizations. Research questions need the
final approval of the instructor. The goal of the research paper is to combine analytical concepts
discussed in class with empirical research and policy relevant conclusions. In their research
paper, students will a) briefly describe the issue and why it is important, b) use at least one of the
three schools of thought covered in the syllabus (i.e., realism, liberalism, constructivism) or
concepts introduced during the course to analyze why an organization, nation, or group of
nations has adopted particular policies on this issue, and c) evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of the approach. In their analysis, students should avoid excessive advocacy on what
they think a policy “should” be. Aspects may be raised in the conclusion but the main focus
should be on explaining the behavior of the international actors in question. This essay must also
use at least five articles and books that are not in the course syllabus. This assignment is due on
the last day of class, on December 1. A one-page outline is due October 13. The outline will
contain mention of the international problem you will address, your research question, and a
preliminary bibliography of your outside sources.
Assignments will be graded for quality and usefulness, with more weight placed on quality:
“Quality” refers to: (1) the analytic coherence of the conclusions, and (2) the clear demonstration
of a command of course concepts (for example, application of theories and analytical
frameworks). The demonstration of course concepts should span material covered over multiple
class sessions. Optional readings will be useful when delving deeply into topics covered within a
limited set of class sessions. “Usefulness” will be reflected in the practicality of your
conclusions, and their demonstrated relevance to the targeted context of application.
Assignments should be submitted by email directly to the instructor before the beginning of class
on the due date.
!3
Late assignments are not accepted without a note from the proper authority. The note must be
attained prior to the assignment’s deadline.
Written assignments must be typed double-spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font and
one inch margins on all sides.
You must cite outside work when appropriate. You may use any citation style as long as you use it
correctly and consistently.
You are expected to attend all class meetings. Unexcused absences will negatively impact your
participation grade. The instructor needs to be informed of any absences prior to the class in
question.
Grading:
Percentage
Mark
Quality
Points
Description
95-100
A
4
90-94
A-
3.67
87-89
B+
3.33
83-86
B
3
80-82
B-
2.67
77-79
C+
2.33
73-76
C
2
70-72
C-
1.67
67-69
D
1
Poor. Assigned work is unsatisfactory or not
completed.
x-66
F
0
Fail. Inadequate work or substantial amounts of
uncompleted work.
Excellent. Demonstration of superior work in
fulfilment of course requirements.
Good. Good work in fulfilment of course
requirements.
Satisfactory. Satisfactory work in fulfilment of
course requirements.
!4
General Reading:
- Robert Art and Robert Jervis, eds., International Politics (Pearson, 2012).
- Richard K. Betts, Conflict after the Cold War. Arguments on Causes of War and Peace
(Pearson, 2012).
- Daniel Drezner, Theories of International Politics and Zombies (Princeton, 2011).
- Peter Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security (Columbia, 1996).
- Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders (Cornell, 1998).
- Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton, 1994).
- Karen Mingst and Jack Snyder, eds., Essential Readings in World Politics (Norton, 2010).
- Joseph Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation (Pearson, 2012).
- Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (McGraw Hill, 1979).
Required readings will be assigned for each class. Copies of the readings can be found at
http://bit.ly/1hLrG9a.
Writing Center:
The Writing Center provides writing consultants to assist students with their writing projects.
This is an excellent resource for students, even those with stronger writing skills. Call
202-885-2991 to set up a free appointment. For more information, see: http://www.american.edu/
cas/writing/index.cfm.
Writing Lab:
Experienced counselors evaluate drafts, identify areas for improvement, and explain strategies
for effective essay structure. While they do not offer proofreading or editing services, they
do offer advice on time management and project management techniques and also provide
encouragement to help students become better writers. Appointments can be made from any
computer with internet access through the online appointment scheduler (https://
american.mywconline.com/index.php). First time users must register and create an online
password before scheduling an appointment.
Green Teaching:
This is a Certified Green Course. This means, for example, that I will not hand out any printed
materials, but I will use Blackboard and email extensively to post handouts, collect assignments,
and provide you with feedback on assignments.
To help make our class as green as possible, I encourage you to buy used books, minimize paper
use by submitting assignments electronically as instructed, and read course readings online rather
than printing copies. If you choose to print, please print double-sided, and recycle the paper after
the end of the semester.
!5
Academic Integrity:
Standards of academic conduct are set forth in the University’s Academic Integrity Code
(www.american.edu/academics/integrity/code.cfm). By registering, you have acknowledged your
awareness of the Academic Integrity Code, and you are obliged to become familiar with your
rights and responsibilities as defined by the Code. Violations of the Academic Integrity Code will
not be treated lightly, and disciplinary actions will be taken should such violations occur. Please
see me if your have any questions about the academic violations described in the Code in general
or as they relate to particular requirements for this course.
Emergency Preparedness for Disruption of Classes:
In the event of an emergency, American University will implement a plan for meeting the needs
of all members of the university community. Should the university be required to close for a
period of time, we are committed to ensuring that all aspects of our educational programs will be
delivered to our students. These may include altering and extending the duration of the
traditional term schedule to complete essential instruction in the traditional format and/or use of
distance instructional methods. Specific strategies will vary from class to class, depending on the
format of the course and the timing of the emergency. Faculty will communicate class-specific
information to students via AU e-mail and Blackboard, while students must inform their faculty
immediately of any absence. Students are responsible for checking their AU e-mail regularly and
keeping themselves informed of emergencies. In the event of an emergency, students should refer
to the AU Student Portal, the AU Web site (www.prepared.american.edu) and the AU
information line at (202) 885-1100 for general university-wide information, as well as contact
their faculty and/or respective dean’s office for course and school/college-specific information.
!6
Class Schedule:
September 1, 2015
1. Introduction to Course: Setting the Scene
Reading:
- Stephen M. Walt, “International Relations: One World, Many
Theories,” Foreign Policy (Spring 1998), 29-32, 34-46.
- Jack Snyder, “One World, Rival Theories,” Foreign Policy
(November-December 2004), 52-62.
- Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State, and War (Columbia
University Press, 1959), 1-15, 224-238.
- J. David Singer. “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International
Relations,” World Politics (October 1961), 77-92.
September 8, 2015
2. Realism and Neo-Realism
Reading:
- Thomas Hobbes, “The State of Nature and the State of War,”
Betts.
- Niccolo Machiavelli, “Doing Evil in Order to Do Good,” Betts.
- Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace (Knopf, 1954), chapters 1, 3.
- Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (AddisonWesley, 1979), chapters 1, 4-6, 9.
- Robert Keohane, Neorealism and Its Critics (Columbia, 1986).
Recommended:
- Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (The Melian Dialogue:
Book V, paragraphs 84-116), Betts.
- E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis (McMillan, 1946), Chapters
1, 2, 5-8.
- John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
(Norton, 2001), chapters 1-2.
!7
September 15, 2015
3. Conflict, War and the Use of Force
Reading:
- Jack S. Levy, “The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace,”
Annual Review of Political Science (1998), 139-65.
- V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,”
Betts, 242-48.
- Stephen M. Walt, “Alliance Formation and the Balance of World
Power,” International Security (Spring 1985), 3-43.
- Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,”
World Politics 30 (January 1978), 167-214.
- Joseph Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict
and Cooperation (Pearson, 2012), 157-175.
September 22, 2015
4. Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism
Reading:
- Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, A Philosophical Essay (1795),
Betts, 103-09.
- Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, “Power and
Interdependence,” Betts, 121-27.
- Andrew Moravscik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal
Theory of International Politics,” International Organization
(Autumn 1997), 513-53.
- Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics,” American
Political Science Review (December 1986), 1151-69, Betts,
308-17.
- David Spiro, “The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace,”
International Security (Fall 1994), 50-86.
Recommended:
- Woodrow Wilson, “Fourteen Points,” address to joint session of
Congress, January 8, 1918.
!8
September 29, 2015
5. Rationality and its Limits
Reading:
- Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (BasicBooks,
1984), chapters 1, 9.
- Stephen M. Walt, “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and
Security Studies,” International Security (Spring 1999), 5-48.
- Frank C. Zagare. “All Mortis, No Rigor,” International Security
(Fall 1999), 107-114.
- Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods
and the Theory of Groups (Harvard University Press, 1971),
5-65.
- James Fearon, “Rationalist Explanations for War,” International
Organization (Summer 1995), 379-414.
October 6, 2015
6. Governance, Multilateralism, and International Law
Reading:
- John Ruggie, Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of
an International Forum (Columbia University Press, 1993),
chapter 1.
- John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint,
and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars (Princeton
University Press, 2001), chapters 1, 3, 7.
- John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International
Institutions,” International Security (Winter 1994/95), 5-49.
- Joseph Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict
and Cooperation (Pearson, 2012), chapters 1 and 7.
- Martin J. Rochester, Between Peril and Promise: The Politics of
International Law (CQ Press College, 2011), chapter 3.
Deadline (October 13, 2015): One Page Research Paper Outline
!9
October 13, 2015
7. Constructivism
Reading:
- Hedley Bull, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations,”
Betts, 110-120.
- Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The
Social Construction of Power Politics” International
Organization (Spring 1992), Betts, 170-90.
- John G. Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity: Essays on
International Institutionalization (Routledge, 1998), 11-39.
- Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society
(Cornell University Press,1996), chapter 3.
- Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “Taking Stock: The
Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and
Comparative Politics,” Annual Review of Political Science
(2001), 391-416.
Recommended:
- Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond
Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Cornell
University Press, 1998), chapters 1, 3.
- James Fearon and Alexander Wendt, “Rationalism v.
Constructivism: A Skeptical View,” Handbook of International
Relations, eds. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A.
Simmons (Sage, 2002), chapter 3.
October 20, 2015
8. State-Level Theories
Reading:
- Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of
Two-Level Games,” International Organization (Summer 1988),
427-460.
- Peter Gourevitch, “The Second Image Reversed: International
Sources of Domestic Politics,” International Organization
(Autumn, 1978), 881-912.
- Matthew Evangelista, “Domestic Structure and International
Change,” Michael Doyle and G. John Ikenberry, eds., New
Thinking in International Relations Theory, pp. 202- 228.
- Adam Watson, The Evolution of International Society
(Routledge, 2009), chapters 17 and 22
Deadline (October 27, 2015): “Bridge-Building” Essay
!10
October 27, 2015
9. Organizations, Bureaucracy, Cognitive Psychology, and Foreign
Policy
Reading:
- Graham Allison, “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile
Crisis,” American Political Science Review (September 1969),
689-718.
- Robert Jervis, “Hypotheses on Misperception,” World Politics
(April 1968), 454-479.
- Daniel Drezner, Theories of International Politics and Zombies
(Princeton, 2011), 87-107.
- Robert Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,”
International Security Quarterly (1988), 379-396.
- Priscilla Clapp, Morton Halperin, with Arnold Kanter,
Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Brookings, 2006), Part
I.
November 3, 2015
10. Critical Approaches: Feminist, Postmodern, Neo-Marxist
Reading:
- J. Ann Tickner, “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled
Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,”
International Studies Quarterly (December 1997), 611-32.
- Keohane response, “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between
International Relations and Feminist Theory”, International
Studies Quarterly (March 1998), 193–197.
- Tickner response, “What is Your Research Program? Some
Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological
Questions,” International Studies Quarterly (2005), 1-21.
- Richard Devetak, “Critical Theory,” Scott Burchill and Andrew
Linklater, eds., Theories of International Relations (St. Martin’s
Press, 1996), 145-73.
- Robert Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond
International Relations Theory,” Keohane, Neorealism and Its
Critics (Columbia University Press, 1986), chapter 8.
Recommended:
- Richard K. Ashley, “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International
Organization (Spring 1984), 225-86.
- Gilpin response, “The Richness of the Tradition of Political
Realism,” International Organization (Spring 1984), 287-304.
!11
November 10, 2015
11. Power and Bargaining
Reading:
- Joseph Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict
and Cooperation (Pearson, 2012), 59-69.
- Thomas C. Schelling, “The Diplomacy of Violence”, in Karen
Mingst and Jack Snyder, Essential Readings in World Politics
(Norton, 2010).
- James Fearon, “Bargaining, Enforcement, and International
Cooperation,” International Organization (Spring 1998),
269-306.
- Jacob Bercovitch, Richard Jackson, Conflict Resolution in the
Twenty-first Century (Michigan, 2009), 137-150.
- Robert Powell, “War as a Commitment Problem,” International
Organization (Winter 2006), 169-203.
November 17, 2015
12. International Political Economy
Reading:
- Robert Gilpin, Global Political Economy, Chapters 2, 4, 8.
- Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of
Two-Level Games,” International Organization (Summer 1998),
426-460.
- David Andrew Singer, “Capital Rules: The Domestic Politics of
International Regulatory Harmonization,” International
Organization (Summer 2004), 531-565.
- Barry Eichengreen, Capital Flows and Crises (MIT Press, 2004),
chapters 2, 9.
- A. Claire Cutler, Virginia Haufler, and Tony Porter, Private
Authority and International Affairs (Suny, 1999), chapters 1, 8.
November 24, 2015
13. Thanksgiving holiday. No class.
Deadline (December 1, 2015): Research Paper
!12
December 1, 2015
14. Rethinking Sovereignty: Pressures from Above (International
Institutions), Below (Non-state Actors) and All Over
(Globalization)
Reading:
- John Gerard Ruggie, “Territoriality and Beyond,” International
Organization (Winter 1993), 139-174.
- Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?,” Foreign
Affairs (Summer 1993), 22-49.
- Francis Fukuyama, State-Building: Governance and World Order
in the 21st Century (Cornell, 2005), chapters 1, 3.
- J. Samuel Barkin and Bruce Cronin, “The State and the Nation:
Changing Norms and the Rules of Sovereignty in International
Relations,” International Organization (Winter 1994), 107-130.
!13