FUNDAMENTALS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
FALL 2012
Thr. 6.30-9.30 pm
Evren Balta Paker
evrenbalta@gmail.com
Office Hours: Thursday 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 three sections. In the first section, we will be focusing on the basic concepts of
IR such as state, nation, anarchy, power, and regimes. In the second section of the course, 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 third 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.
c. Lead class discussion three times (perhaps more or less often depending on size of class).
Discussion leaders will kick off class with 5-7 minutes of prepared commentary addressing one
or more of the questions he or she has proposed.
2. Three Short Essays (≤ 5 pp;, double-spaced; 12-point font; min. 1 inch margins).
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
1
simply summarize the assigned texts. A copy of the essay must be e-mailed to me as an attachment
(.doc, .docx, or .pdf) by 8:30 am on the day of the relevant class meeting. Short essays submitted late
(after 8:30 am on Thursday) will be penalized one-third of a letter grade per hour.
3. Take-home final.
Students will write on one out of two questions (which will not be made available in advance); 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 the take-home final instead, if they so choose. 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 the instructor
by the end of the eighth class meeting; 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 (incl. 3 presentations and memos) 20%
Short Essays (3) 40%
In-class Final (or Optional Final Paper) 40%
COURSE PLAN
Week I (September 27)
Introduction and Overview
No assigned readings.
Week 2 (October 4)
Contextualizing the Field
How the IR as a discipline has evolved? What is the current status of IR? What are the main concepts
of IR?

Brian C. Schmidt, “On the History and Historiography of IR,” in Walter Carlsnaes et al., eds.,
Handbook of International Relations (Sage, 2002), 3-22.
 Halliday, Fred (2000) “International Relations Theory and the Post-Cold War period”. METU
Studies in Development”, 27 (3/4). pp. 235-263
 Michael Nicholson (2000), ‘What is the Use of International Relations?’ Review of
International Studies 26:4 pp: 183-198.
 J. David Singer (1961) “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations,” WP 14:1
(October 1961): 77-92. Classic statement.
 Steve Chan, (2002) “On Different Types of International Relations Scholarship” Journal of
Peace Research, Vol. 39, No. 6., pp. 747-756.
Backgrounder:
 Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State, and War (Columbia UP, 1954). Pages: TBA
 Steve Smith,, “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory”,
Tim Dunne et al (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 2. Edition,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp.1-13
2
Week 3 (October 11)
Power and Realism (Classical and Neorealism)
Is there a classical realist tradition? Can one identify its principal elements? If so, how does it relate to
power, ethics, the sources of war and peace, the relationship between domestic and international
politics? What is structural realism? How offensive and defensive eralism differs?
 Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 7th ed., rev.
By Kenneth W. Thompson and W. David Clinton (McGraw Hill, 2006 [1948]), esp. chaps. 13, 8-14,16.
 Kenneth Waltz, ‘Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory,’ in Controversies in International
Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1995)
67-81
 Mearsheimer, John (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 1-54
 Robert Jervis, "Realism, Game Theory, and Cooperation," WP 40 (April 1988): 317-349.
 Ido Oren, “The Unrealism of Contemporary Realism: The Tension Between Realist Theory
and Realists' Practice,” PoP 7:2 (June 2009): 283-301.
Backgrounder
 Lebow, Richard Ned, “Classical Realism”, Tim Dunne et al (eds.) International Relations
Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 2. Edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 58-76.
 Mearsheimer, John J. “Structural Realism”, Tim Dunne et al (eds.) International Relations
Theories: Discipline and Diversity, pp.77-94
Week 4 (October 18)
Interests, Institutions, and (Neo)Liberalism
 Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International
Politics,’ International Organization, 51(4), 1997, pp. 513-553.
 Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin, “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory,” IS 20:1
(Summer 1995): 39-51.
 Robert Powell, “Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal
Debate,” IO 48:2 (Spring 1994): 313-44.
 Ole Waever, “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate,” in Steve Smith et al eds.,
International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge UP, 1996).
 Christian Reus-Smit, “The Strange Death of Liberal International Relations Theory,” EJIL
12:3 (2001): 573-593. How the scientific turn has gutted liberal IR theory.
.
Backgrounder
 Russett, Bruce “Liberalism”, Tim Dunne et al (eds.) International Relations Theories:
Discipline and Diversity, pp. 95-115
 Sterling-Folker, Jennifer, “Neoliberalism”, Tim Dunne et al (eds.) International Relations
Theories: Discipline and Diversity, pp.116-135.
Week 5 (October 25)
No class
Week 6 (November 1)
Imperialism, Marxist and Neo Gramscian Views
 Deudney, Daniel (2000) ‘Geopolitics as Theory: Historical Security Materialism,’ European
Journal of International Relations 6(1): 77-107
 David Harvey, New Imperialism, pp: TBA
 Hobden, Stephen and Wyn Jones, Richard (2001) ‘Marxist Theories of International
Relations,’ in The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations,
2nd ed., John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 200-223.
3


Stephen Gill, “Globalization, Market Civilization, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism,”
Millennium24:2 (summer 1995). Gramsci-inspired critical theory.
Mark Rupert, “Globalizing Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian Revision of the Politics
ofGovernance/Resistance,” RIS (December 2003): 181-198.
Backgrounder
 Rupert, Mark, “Marxism and Critical Theory”, Tim Dunne et al (eds.) International Relations
Theories: Discipline and Diversity, pp. 157-176.
Week 7 (November 8)
Ideas, Ethics, and Constructivism
 Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Daniel H. Nexon, “Relations Before States: Substance, Process
and the Study of World Politics,” EJIR 5:3 (1999): 291-332. (agency and structure debate).
 Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (2001) “Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research
Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics” Annual Review of Political
Science 4:391-416 (constructivist world view)
 Wendt, Alexander, “Anarchy is What State Make of It: Social Construction of Power
Politics”, International Organizations, Cilt 46, No.2, 1992, ss.391-425.
 Ted Hopf, “The Logic of Habit in International Relations,” EJIR 16:4 (2010), 539-561. Have
constructivists overemphasized change?
Backgrounder
 Fierke, K.M. “Constructivism”, Tim Dunne et al (eds.) International Relations Theories:
Discipline and Diversity, pp. 177-194. (overview)
Week 8 (November 15)
Gender in IR
 Robert O. Keohane, “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and
Feminist Theory,” ISQ 42 (1998): 193-198. How feminist IR should become “serious”—i.e.
what it needs to do if it wants the discipline to take it “seriously.”
 J. Ann Tickner, “What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International
Relations Methodological Questions,” ISQ 49:1 (March 2005): 1-22. Why feminists have not
embraced, and will not embrace, Keohane’s research agenda, but why they still have a lot to
say to the field.
 R. Charli Carpenter, "Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist
Standpoint?" ISR 4 (fall 2002): 153-165. Why one can—and the field should—study gender
without a commitment to feminism and to feminist methodologies.
 Laura Sjoberg, "Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle: Why Gender Analysis Needs
Feminism,” ISQ 50 (December 2006): 889-910. A rebuttal of Carpenter.
Backgrounder
 J. Ann Tickner and Luara Sjoberg. “Feminism” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith,
eds.,International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford UP, 2007), 203-228.
Week 9 (November 22)
Subaltern Studies
 Slater, David, ‘Postcolonial Questions for Global Times,’ Review of International Political
Economy, Vol. 5, No.4, 1998, ss. 647-678.
 Thomas C.; Wilkin P., 2004, ‘Still Waiting after all these Years: ‘The Third World’ on the
Periphery of International Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6
(2): 241-258.
 Steve Smith, “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic
Country, Hegemonic Discipline,’” ISR 4:2 (summer 2002): 67-86.
Backgrounder
4

Siba N. Grovogui. “Postcolonialism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds.,
International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford UP, 2007), 238-257
Week 10 (November 29)
War 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
 Charles L. Glaser, "The Security Dilemma Revisited." World Politics, 50,1 (October
1997):171-201
 Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey (1999), ‘The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and
Globalisation,’ European Journal of International Relations 5:4 (1999) 403-434.
 James Der Derian. “The War of Networks” Theory and Event 5(4)
Backgrounder
 Jervis, Robert (2002) “Theories of War in an Era of Leading-Power Peace,” Presidential
Address, American Political Science Association, 2001, American Political Science Review 96
(1): 1-14.
Week 11 (December 6)
“Cosmopolitan Order” and Humanitarian Interventions
 Doyle, Michael, “A More Perfect Union: The Liberal Peace and The Challenge of
Globalization”, Review of International Studies, 26, 2000, pp.81-94.
 Ian Hurd, “The Strategic Use of Liberal Internationalism: Libya and the UN Sanctions, 19922003,” IO 59:3 (summer 2005): 495-526
 Barkin, Samuel and Bruce Cronin (1994) The State and the Nation: Changing Norms and the
Rules of Sovereignty in International Relations International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 1. pp.
107-130
 Richard Betts.1994. “The Delusion of Impartial Intervention,” Foreign Affairs 73(6), pp. 2033.
 Erik Voeten, “The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s Ability to Legitimize the
Use of Force,” IO 59:3 (summer 2005): 527-557.
 Ayça Çubukçu. Killing in the Name of: Libya, Sovereignty and Humanity
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/870/killing-in-the-name-of_libya-sovereigntyhumanity
Backgrounder
 Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs About the Use of Force
(Cornell UP, 2003).
Week 12 (December 13)
International Law, Order and Norms
 Deudney, Daniel and G. John Ikenberry (1999), ‘The Nature and Sources of Liberal
International Order,’ Review of International Studies 25:2 (1999) 179-196.
 Schweller, Randall L.(2001) The Problem of International Order Revisited International
Security 26(1) :161-186
 Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink (1998): “International Norm Dynamics and Political
Change,” International Organization 52 (4): 887-917.
 Lutz, Ellen L., and Kathryn Sikkink (2000): “International Human Rights Law and Practice in
Latin America,” International Organization 54 (3): 633-659.
Week 13 (December 20)
International Political Economy
5



Polanyi, Karl (1944, 2001) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of
Our Time Beacon pp: 3-32
Milner, Helen V. (1998) International Political Economy: Beyond Hegemonic Stability
Foreign Policy, 110, p112- 124
Jeffy Frieden and Lisa L. Martin. (2002) “International Political Economy: Global and
Domestic Interactions” in in Katznelson and Milner (eds) Political Science: The State of the
Discipline New York: Norton
Week 14 (December 27)
Globalisation, Governance and IR
 Ian Clark, ‘Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of International Relations,’
Review of International Studies 24: 4 (1998) 479-498.
 Michael Barnett and Kathryn Sikkink, “From International Relations to Global Society,” in
Oxford Handbook of IR, chap. 3 (62-83). How the field has broadened.
 Daniel W. Drezner, “Night of the Living Wonks: Towards an International Relations Theory
of Zombies”, Foreign Policy, (July/August 2010).
 David Campbell. “Time is Borken: The Return of the Past in the Response tp September 11”
Theory and Event 5(4).
 Rudra Sil and Peter J. Katzenstein, “Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics:
Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions,” PoP 8:2 (June 2010):
411-431.
6