FUNDAMENTALS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
FALL 2015
MON. 6.30-9.30 pm
Evren Balta
evrenbalta@gmail.com
Office Hours: MONDAYS 5.30-6.30 pm (or by app.)
What is the international system? What are the main units of it? With what mechanisms and
by who are the rules of the international environment, if there are any, determined and
implemented? What concepts have been useful in understanding this environment within
which all states are located? What are states, and how were they created? Why did they
become the major actors in international systems, and is this likely to continue? What is the
relationship between domestic and international? What is global? Why is it conceptually
different from international? Is “war” a constant feature of the international relations? What
are the different types of war-making? How do states establish and maintain “peace”? By
asking analytical questions of this sort, this course introduces students to “social” theorizing
about international relations (IR).
The course will have two main sections. In the first section, we will focus on the major
theories of IR. But please note that this not an IR Theory class, so we will only have a quick
look at to the major IR theories and their assumptions. All theories of IR are based on certain
assumptions, and many of the current debates in IR scholarship that seem to be about the
substance of world politics are in fact in important part about these underlying assumptions.
Therefore, we will critically discuss the underlying assumptions of these major IR theories by
making concrete references to their historical foundations.
In the second section, we will move on to issues in IR. We will cover important global issues
that are likely to be important in the next few decades, such as human rights, humanitarian
interventions, global warming, and economic interdependence. For each issue, we will ask
whether the current state system responds to them appropriately.
The objectives of this course are; a) to understand the main IR theories and concepts; b) to
explore the intimate linkages between what are usually thought of as separate: "domestic" and
"international" politics; c) to have a basic background in various areas of international
relations, and d) to provide a foundation to understand and critically evaluate current
international events and processes.
Requirements:
1. Readings and Participation.
a. Read everything every week. Students are expected to come to seminar prepared to
discuss the required readings for that week. A large portion of your grade is based on
class participation: if you fail to do the readings or fail to speak up in class, you will do
poorly. Moreover, students are strongly encouraged to start with “internal” critiques of
the readings for each week (i.e., analyses that take the readings seriously and operate
within their approach to theory) before moving on to “external” critiques.
b. Submit every week at least four discussion questions based on the reading.
2. Three Short Essays (≤ 5 pp;, double-spaced; 12-point font; min. 1 inch margins).
1
The essays should critically examine a hypothesis, theory, question, concept, or controversy
contained in the readings a single week. The essay may address only a subset of the readings,
but it should not simply summarize the assigned texts. A copy of the essay must either be emailed to me as an attachment (.doc, .docx, or .pdf) by 8:30 am on the day of the relevant
class meeting OR brought to the class meeting. Short essays submitted late will be penalized
one-third of a letter grade per day.
3. Take-home final.
The exam is open book and open notes; final essays may not exceed 5000 words. Rather than
a week, students will have four days to write their answer (no need to prolong the agony!).
The final will be distributed via email on the Thursday of the last week of classes, by 12 pm,
and will be due back via email on the following Tuesday by 12 pm (or earlier).
4. Optional: Final Paper. (15-20 double spaced pages)
Students are welcome to write a final paper instead of take-home. The paper may take any
number of forms, but it must engage creatively with several schools of thought in
international relations. Students who wish to pursue this option must submit a 1 p. paper
proposal to me by NOVEMBER 6th; students are encouraged to meet with the instructor
before that date to discuss preliminary ideas. Only papers based on approved proposals will
be accepted.
GRADING

Class Participation (+ weekly memos) 20%

Short Essays (3) 40%

Take-home Final (or Optional Final Paper) 40%
READINGS
A course-pack will be available for the students to purchase.
Majority of the course readings will be available online as well (check with the program
assistant).
If you have not taken any IR course when you were an undergraduate student, below
textbooks are recommended.
Tim Dunne et al (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 2010
John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations, 2nd ed
Evren Balta (eds) Küresel Siyasete Giriş: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Kavramlar, Teoriler,
Süreçler, İletişim Yayınları, 2014
2
COURSE PLAN
Week I
Introduction and Overview
No assigned readings.
Week 2
Contextualizing the Field

Brian C. Schmidt, “On the History and Historiography of IR,” in Walter Carlsnaes et
al., eds., Handbook of International Relations (Sage, 2002), 3-22.

Acharya, A. ve B. Buzan (2007), “Why is There No Non-Western International
Relations Theory? An Introduction”, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific,
7/3:287-312

Singer, D. (1961), “The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations” World
Politics, 14/1: 77-92.

Kahler, Miles. “Inventing International Relations,” in Michael Doyle and John
Ikenberry, eds., New Thinking in International Relations (Boulder: Westview Press,
1997): 20-53
Week 3
Material Approaches
 Feng L. ve Z. Ruizhuang (2006), ‘The Typologies of Realism’ Chinese Journal of
International Politics, 1:109-134.
 Mearsheimer, J. J. (2009). Reckless states and realism. International relations,23(2),
241-256.
 Mearsheimer, John J. Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neoconservatism. Vol. 18. OpenDemocracy, 2005.
 Lake, David. “Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety Of International Relations,”
International Organization Vol. 50, No. 1 (Winter 1996): 1-34
Week 4
Rational Approaches

Milner, Helen, “Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International,
American and Comparative Politics”, International Organization, Cilt 52, Sayı 4,
1998, s. 759-786.

Oye, Kenneth. “Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy,” World Politics, Vol. 38, No.
1 (1985): 1-24

Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane ve Stephen Krasner, “International Organization
and The Study of World Politics”, International Organization, Cilt 52, 1998, s.645–68

Keohane, Robert, and Lisa Martin, “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory,”
International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (1995): 39-51
3
Week 5
Ideas and Ideational Approaches

Emanuel Adler “Constructivism and International Relations” in Walter Carlsnaes et al.
eds., Handbook of International Relations (Sage, 2002)

Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of
Power Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Spring, 1992): 391-425

Weldes, Jutta. “Constructing National Interests,” European Journal of International
Relations, Vol. 2, No. 3, (1996): 275-318

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink (1998): “International Norm Dynamics and
Political Change,” International Organization 52 (4): 887-917.
Week 6
Cognitive and Bureaucratic Approaches
 Allison, Graham T. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep., 1969): 689-718
 (rec) Bendor, Jonathan and Thomas H. Hammond, “Rethinking Allison's Models,”
The American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Jun., 1992): 301-322
 Byman, Daniel L. and Kenneth M. Pollack, “Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing
the Statesman Back In,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4, (March 2001): 107-146
 Saunders, Elizabeth. “Transformative Choices: Leaders and the Origins of
Intervention Strategy.” International Security, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Fall 2009): 119-161.
 Jervis, Robert. “Hypotheses on Misperception,” World Politics, Vol. 20, No. 3 (April
1968): 454-479
Week 7
Domestic Institutions and Preferences

Moravcsik, A (2008), “The New Liberalism”, C. Reus-Smit ve D. Snidal, The Oxford
Handbook of International Relations, Oxford Handbooks Online.

Frieden, Jeffry A. “Actors and Preferences in International Relations,” in Strategic
Choice and International Relations, ed. David A. Lake and Robert Powell (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 39-76

Fearon, James D. “Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International
Relations,” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 1 (1998): 289-313

Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,”
International Organization (Summer 1988), 427-460.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (2006) “The Israeli Lobby: Does it have too
much influence on U.S. foreign policy?” London Review of Books, Vol. 28 No. 6
dated 23 March 2006
4
Week 8
Gender in IR

Cynthia Enloe, “Wartime Politics in a Beauty Parlor,” in Nimo’s War, Emma’s War:
Making Feminist Sense of the Iraq War (Berkeley CA: University of California Press,
2010) pp.19-44.

Joshua S. Goldstein, “A Puzzle: the Cross-Cultural Consistency of Gender Roles in
War,” in War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 1-34

Katharine Moon, “Partners in Prostitution,” in Sex Among Allies, (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1998), pp.17-47

Valerie M. Hudson, “The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the
Security of States,” International Security 33, 3 (Winter 2008/09), pp. 7-45.
Week 9
War and Conflict in IR

Jack Levy. “The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace,” Annual Review of
Political Science (1998), volume 1: 139-165.

Robert Gilpin, War & Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1981. Chap. 5., pp:186-211

Jack Snyder, Robert Y. Shapiro and Yaeli Bloch-Elkon (2009). Free Hand Abroad,
Divide and Rule at Home. World Politics, 61, pp 155-187.

Owen, John M. “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” International Security,
Vol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn 1994): 87-125
Week 10
War, Peace and Domestic Politics
 Mansfield, Edward and Jack L. Snyder. “Democratic Transitions, Institutional
Strength, and War,” International Organization, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Spring 2002): 297-337
 Narang, Vipin and Rebecca Nelson. “Who are these Belligerent Democratizers?
Reassessing the Impact of Democratization on War,” International Organization, vol.
63, No. 2 (April 2009): 357-379 (Plus Mansfield/Snyder Response in same issue: 381390).
 Fearon, James D. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International
Disputes,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (September, 1994):
577-592
 Fravel, M. Taylor. “The Limits of Diversion: Rethinking Internal and External
Conflict,” Security Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (May 2010): 307-341.
 Jack Snyder and Erica D. Borghar, “The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a
Pound,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 105, No. 2 (August 2011): 1-20
5
Week 11
Issues in Conflict Studies: Civil War, Humanitarian Intervention and Conflict
Resolution

Richard Betts.1994. “The Delusion of Impartial Intervention,” Foreign Affairs 73(6),
pp. 20-33.

Bellamy, A (2010), “The Responsibility to Protect: Five Years On”, Ethics &
International Affairs, 24/2:143-169.

Pollack, K. M., & Walter, B. F. (2015). Escaping the Civil War Trap in the Middle
East. The Washington Quarterly, 38(2), 29-46.
Week 12 (November 27)
Issues in Conflict Studies: Nuclear Proliferation and Deterrence
 Narang, Vipin. “What does it take to Deter?: Regional Nuclear Postures and
International Conflict,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 57, No. 3 (July 2013):
478-508.
 Powell, Robert. “The Theoretical Foundations of Strategic Nuclear Deterrence,”
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 100, No. 1 (Spring 1985): 75-96
 Tannenwald, Nina. “Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo,”
International Security, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005): 5-49
 Jervis, Robert. "Getting to Yes with Iran: The Challenges of Coercive Diplomacy."
Foreign Aff. 92 (2013): 105.
Week 13 Assessing the World Order
(further readings TBA)
 Gause, F. G., & Lustick, I. S. (2012). America and the Regional powers in a
transforming Middle East. Middle East Policy, 19(2), 1-9.
 Posen, Barry R. “Emerging Multipolarity: Why Should We Care?” Current History
(November 2009): 347-352
 Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, William C. Wohlforth, “Don't Come Home,
America: The Case against Retrenchment,” International Security (Winter 2012/13),
Vol. 37, No. 3: 7–51.
Week 14 (December 25)
 Wrapping up
6