International Relations Theory II
David Lorenzo
Office: 271305
Phone: 2939-3091 x51305
lorenzo@nccu.edu.tw; lorenzodav@gmail.com
Course Description:
This is the second part of a two part course sequence in IR theory for doctoral students.
It will review the spectrum of IR theory and investigate directions for various theoretical
approaches.
Course Objectives:
 To review the scope of contemporary IR theory
 To deepen students’ understanding of various IR theories
 To increase students’ awareness of debates within the IR field
 To increase students’ abilities to use various theoretical approaches in IR to
conduct research
Assignments:
Readings will cover several examples of a genre of IR theory each week. Students should
read as many of these examples as is practical for them to get through.
Papers:
 A small review paper (3-4 pages) in which the student sets out the major features
of a particular approach in IR theory (e.g., constructivism, Offensive Realism).
 A somewhat larger paper (4-5 pages) in which the student concisely and
persuasively sets out the differences between two approaches in IR theory (e.g., a
comparison of constructivism and Offensive Realism).
 A final term paper (13-15 pages) in which the student engages in a discussion of
an approach or approaches. This could take the form of a criticism of an approach,
an outline of a research project in which a particular approach would be used, or a
larger scale practical comparison of approaches in which the strengths and
weaknesses of approaches are assessed.
Grades:
 Attendance and participation: 20%
 Small review paper: 20%
 Medium review paper: 25%
 Final paper: 35%
Course Schedule
1. Overview: The State of the “Discipline”
Hellmann, Gunther, et al. “Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International
Relations?” International Studies Review 5 (March 2003): 123-153.
Hermann, Margaret G. “One Field, Many Perspectives: Building the Foundations for
Dialogue.” International Studies Quarterly 42 (December l998): 605-624.
Lapid, Yosef. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a PostPositivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33 (September 1989): 235-254.
Synder, Jack. “One World, Rival theories.” Foreign Policy, no. 145
(November/December 2004): 52-62.
2. Neorealism and Neoliberalism
*Jervis, Robert. “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate.”
International Security 24 (Summer 1999): 42-63.
Mearshiemer, John J. “E.H. Carr vs. Idealism: The Battle Rages On.” International
Relations 19 (2005): 139-152.
Niou, Emerson, and Peter Ordeshook. “Less Filling, Tastes Great: The Realist/Neoliberal
Debate.” WorldPolitics 46 (January 1994): 209-234.
*Nye, Joseph S., Jr. “Neorealism and Neoliberalism.” World Politics 40 (January 1998):
235-251.
*Powell, Robert. “Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal
Debate.” International Organization 48 (Spring 1994): 313-344.
3. Offensive Realism and Defensive Realism
*Brooks, Stephen G. “Dueling Realism.” International Organization 51 (Summer 1997):
445-477.
*Glaser, Charles L. “The Security Dilemma Revisited.” World Politics 50 (October 1997):
171-201.
*Snyder, Glenn H. “Mearsheimer’s World: Offensive Realism and the Struggle for
Security.” International Security 27 (Summer 2002): 149-173.
*Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. “Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited.”
International Security 25 (Winter 2000/01): 128-161.
*Van Evera, Stephen. “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War.” International Security
22 (Spring 1998):5-43.
4. Neoclassical Realism and Critiques of Neorealism
*Brooks, Stephen. “Dueling Realisms.” International Organization 51 (Summer 1997):
445-79.
*Feaver, Peter D., Gunther Hellman, Randall L. Schweller, Jefffery W. Taliaferro,
William C. Wohlforth, Jeffery W. Legro, and Andrew Moravcsik, “Correspondence:
Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm?” International Security 25 (Summer 2000): 165-193,
*Jervis, Robert. “Realism in the Study of World Politics.” International Organization 52
(Autumn 1998): 971-991.
*Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International
Security 24 (Fall 1999): 5-55
*Rose, Gideon. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics
51 (October1998): 144-172.
*Schweller, Randall, and David Priess. “A Tale of Two Realisms: The Institutions
Debate.” Mershon International Studies Review 41 (May 1997): 1-32.
5. Rationalism and Constructivism
Barkin, J. Samuel. “Realist Constructivism.” International Studies Review 5 (September
2003): 325–342.
*Jackson, Patrick Thasseus, et al. “The Forum: Bridging the Gap: Toward A RealistConstructivist Dialogue.” International Studies Review 6 (June 2004): 337–352.
*Checkel, Jeffrey. “International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the RationalistConstructivist Divide.”European Journal of International Relations 3 (December 1997):
473–495.
Steele, Brent J. “Liberal-Idealism: A Constructivist Critique.” International Studies
Review 9 (Spring 2007):23-52.
*Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. “Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism
and Neoliberalism
Compared.” International Studies Quarterly 44 (March 2000): 97-120.
6. Rational Choice and Foreign Policy
Bendor; Jonathan, and Thomas H. Hammond. “Rethinking Allison's Models.” American
Political Science Review 86 (June 1992): 301-322.
Brams, Steven J. “Game Theory: Pitfalls and Opportunities in Applying It to
International Relations.”International Studies Perspectives 1 (December 2000): 221-232.
Fearon, James. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49
(Summer 1995): 379-414.
Hart, Paul. “Irving L. Janis' Victims of Groupthink.” Political Psychology 12 (June 1991):
247-278.
Kahler, Miles. “Rationality in International Relations.” International Organization 52
(Autumn 1998): 919-941.
*Levy, Jack S. “Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations.”
International Studies Quarterly 41 (March 1997): 87-112.
*Walt, Stephen M. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies.”
International Security 23 (Spring 1999): 5-48.
7. Anarchy and Cooperation
*Axelrod, Robert, and Robert O. Keohane, “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy:
Strategies and Institutions.” World Politics 38 (October 1985): 226-254.
*Grieco, Joseph M. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the
Newest Liberal Internationalism.” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988): 485507.
*Jervis, Robert. “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate.”
International Security 24 (Summer 1999): 42-63.
*Milner, Helen. “International Theories of Cooperation among Nations: A Review of
Essay.” World Politics 44 (July 1992): 466-496.
Powell, Robert “Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neo-Realist-NeoLiberal Debate.” International Organization 48 (Spring 1994): 313-344.
8. International Institution/International Regime
Duffield, John. “What Are International Institutions?” International Studies Review 9
(Spring 2007): 1-22.
Hansenclever, Andreas, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger. “Interests, Power,
Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes.” Mershon International Studies Review
40 (October 1996): 177-2287
*Krasner, Stephen D. “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as
Intervening Variables.”International Organization 36 (Spring 1982): 185-205..
*Martin, Lisa L., and Robert O. Keohane. “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory.”
International Security 20 (Summer 1995): 39-51.����
*Martin, Lisa L., and Beth A. Simmons. “Theories and Empirical Studies of International
Institutions.” International Organization 52 (Autumn 1998): 729-757.
*Mearsheimer, John J. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International
Security 19 (Winter 1994/95): 5-49.
9. New Institutionalism
*Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C. R. Taylor. “Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44 (December 1996): 936-957
*Aspinwall, Mark D., and Gerald Schneider. “Same menu, Separate Tables: The
Institutionalist Turn in Political Science and the Study of European Integration.”
European Journal of Political Research 38 (August
2000): 1-36.
Vivian Scmidt, “Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through
discursive institutionalismas the fourth ‘new institutionalism,” European Political Science
Review (2010), 2:1, 1–25
Vivien A. Schmidt, “Putting the Political Back into Political Economy by Bringing the
State Back in Yet Again,” World Politics July 2009
10. Domestic Politics and International Relations
*Checkel, Jeffrey. “International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the RationalistConstructivist Divide.” European Journal of International Relations 3 (December 1997):
473–495.
*Fearon, James D. “Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International
Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1998): 298-313.
*Gourevitch, Peter. “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic
Politics.” International Organization 32 (Autumn 1978): 881-912.
Kapstein, Ethan B. “Is Realism Dead? The Domestic Sources of International Politics.”
International Organization 49 (Autumn 1995): 751-774.
*Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International
Politics.” International Organization 51 (Autumn 1997): 513-553.
*Putnam, Robert D. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.”
International Organization 42 (Summer 1988): 426-460.
11. Democratic Peace
*Chan, Steve. “In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise.” Mershon
International Studies Review 41 (May 1997): 59-91..
*Doyle, Michael. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” Parts I and II.”
Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (Summer/Fall 1983): 205-235, 323-353
Oneal, John R., and Bruce M. Russett. “The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of
Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992.” World
Politics 52 (October 1999): 1-37.
*Rosato, Sebastian. “The Flawed logic of Democratic Peace.” American Political science
Review 97 (November 2003): 585-602.
Van Belle, Douglas A. “Dinosaurs and the Democratic Peace: Paleontological Lessons
for Avoiding the Extinction of theory in Political Science.” International Studies
Perspectives 7 (August 2006): 287-306.
*Williams, Michael. “The Discipline of Democratic Peace: Kant, Liberalism and the
Social construction of Security Communities.” European Journal of International
Relations 7 (December 2001): 525-554.
12. Level of Analysis and Agent-Structure
*Singer, J. David. “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations.” World
Politics 14 (October 1961): 77-92.
Clark, William Roberts. “Agents and Structures: Two Views of Preferences, Two Views
of Institutions.” International Studies Quarterly 42 (June 1998): 245-70.
*Dessler, David. “What’s at Stake in Agent-Structure Debate?” International
Organization 43 (Summer1989): 441-473.
Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. “Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International
Relations.” Review of International Studies 17 (October 1991): 393-410.
Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. “Structure and Action: Further Comment.” Review of
International Studies 18 (April 1992): 187-8.
Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. “Two Stories about Structure and Agency.” Review of
International Studies 20 (July 1994): 241-251.
Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. “A Response: Why Epistemology Matters in
International Theory.” Review of International Studies 22 (January 1996): 111-116.
Jabri, Vivienne, and Stephen Chan. “The Ontologist Always Rings Twice: Two More
Stories about Structure and Agency in Reply to Hollis and Smith.” Review of
International Studies 22 (January 1996): 107-110.
*Wendt, Alexander. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.”
International Organization 41 (Summer 1987): 335-370.
*Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (Summer 1992): 391-425.
13. Balance of Power, Polarity, and Alliance
*Haas, Ernst. “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept or Propaganda?” World
Politics 5 (July 1953):442-477.��������
*Pape, Robert A. “Soft Balancing against the United States.” International Security 30
(Summer 2005): 7-45.
*Schweller, Randall L. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back
In.” International Security 19 (Summer 1994): 72-107.
*Walt, Stephen M. “Testing Theories of Alliance Formation: The Case of Southwest
Asia.” InternationalOrganization 42 (1988): 275-316.
Wohforth, William C. “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War.” 61
World Politics (October 2009): 28-57.
Layne, Christopher. “The Waning of U.S. Hegemony- Myth or Reality? A Review Essay.”
International Security 34 (Summer 2009): 147–172.
*Olson, Mancur, Jr., and Richard Zeckhauser. “An Economic Theory of Alliances.”
Review of Economics and Statistics 48 (August 1966): 266-279.
14. International Relations: An American Social Science
*Hoffmann, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Dædalus 3
(Summer 1977): 41-60.
Holsti, K.J. “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Which Are the Faiest Theories of all?”
International Studies Quarterly 33 (1989): 255-261.
Smith, Steve. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social
Science?” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2 (October 2000): 374402.
*Smith, Steve. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations:
‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline’.” International Studies Review 4 (Summer
2002): 67–85.
15. Methods of International Relations: Case Study
Bennett, Andrew. “Case Study Methods: Design, Use, and Comparative
Advantages.” In Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying International
Relations, ed. Deltef F. Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, 19-55. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Odell, John S. “Case Study Methods in International Political Economy.” In Models,
Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, ed. Deltef F. Sprinz
and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, 56-80. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Mitchell, Ronald, and Thomas Bernauer. “Beyond Story-Telling: Designing Case Study
Research in International Environmental Policy.” In Models, Numbers and Cases:
Methods for Studying International Relations, ed. Deltef F. Sprinz and Yael WolinskyNahmias, 81-106. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress, 2004.
Kacowicz, Arie M. “Case Study Methods in International Security Studies.” In Models,
Numbers and Cases:Methods for Studying International Relations, ed. Deltef F. Sprinz
and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, 107-125.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
16. Methods of International Relations: Quantitative Methods
Braumoeller, Bear F., and Anne E. Sartori. “The Promise and Perils of Statistics in
International Relations.”In Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying
International Relations, ed. Deltef F. Sprinz and Yael
Wolinsky-Nahmias, 129-151. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Mansfield, Edward D. “Quantitative Approaches to the International Political Economy.”
In Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, ed. Deltef
F. Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias,152-176. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 2004.
Sprin, Detlef F. “Environment Meets Statistics: Quantitative Analysis of International
Environmental Policy.” In Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying
International Relations, ed. Deltef F. Sprinz and Yael
Wolinsky-Nahmias, 177-192. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Huth, Paul, and Todd Allee “Research Design in Testing Theories of International
Conflict.” In Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations,
ed. Deltef F. Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias, 193-223. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2004.
����