IEP Bordeaux/Master 1 PI/2014-2015
Problems in International Relations:
Understanding Contemporary International Security
Dario Battistella
Professor of Political Science
d.battistella@sciencespobordeaux.fr
www.dariobattistella.fr
Course Description
In everyday language, 'problems' are questions to be considered, tackled, or answered. In science,
'problems' are conceived of as 'puzzles', identified by Thomas Kuhn as questions likely to receive
solutions within existing paradigms. If we combine these two definitions, “Problems in
International Relations” can be defined as questions to be considered, tackled, or answered thanks
to theories, concepts, and methods used in the discipline of International Relations.
The aim of this course is to address some contemporary international problems by having a look at
them through the scientific lenses provided by IR. As such, this course constitutes the logical
continuation of the course 'International Relations Theories. An Introduction' and it presupposes a
mastery of the general discipline of IR. Students who did not study IR theories in the past,
either in France or elsewhere, are strongly encouraged to read as soon as possible a handbook
on IR theories.
Given the potentially huge domain of international issues at stake, the topics concerned will focus
on international security, rather than international political economy.
The course will be divided into two parts :
 lectures during the first semester,
 a seminar during the second semester.
LECTURES
The lectures will recall the major historical and theoretical backgrounds of the various topics. Oral
interventions – questions, remarks, criticisms – during the lectures are encouraged.
Attendance is HIGHLY recommended. ERASMUS/English Track/U.S. etc. students can take
the lectures and obtain credits.
Syllabus
I. Reassessing the Past
1. The Cold War: State of War and Long Peace?
II. Structures and Powers
2. The Interstate System: Unipolar or Multipolar?
3. The Consequences of China's Rise: Balance or Parity?
4. The European Union : Political Dwarf or Normative Power?
III. Norms and Values
5. The International Society: Pluralist or Solidarist?
6. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Alliance or Community?
7. Powerful Democracies : Democratic Peace or Democratic Crusades?
IV. Conflicts and Crises
8. The Israeli-Arab-Palestinian Conflict: Hobbesian or Lockean Anarchy?
9. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More Will Be Worse or Better?
10. The Ukrainian-Russian Crisis: Old-Fashioned Geopolitics or Timeless Power Politics?
V. Anticipating the Future
11. The Resurgence of Religion: Theoretical Anomaly and Political Challenge?
12. Organization of the Seminar. Attendance compulsory – only Sciences Po students are
concerned.
SEMINAR
The seminar will deepen the various topics dealt with in the lectures of the first semester. Only
Sciences Po students can get enrolled in the seminar. Attendance is compulsory; only 1
absence will be tolerated, whatever its reason.
The requirements are the following ones :




every student has to make an oral presentation of a theoretical issue/debate/controversy
(30 % of the final grade) during the first 20 minutes of the seminar session ; said
presentation must be written down in a Word.doc(x)/odt document, roughly 10 pages,
double-spaced, 12 point font, sent as an attached e-mail file to the teacher and all
the students of the class at the latest 48 hours before the seminar session;
every student has to write a research paper (40 % of the final grade) on one of the topics
enumerated hereafter chosen by herself/himself : Word.doc(x)/odt, maximum 20
pages, double-spaced, 12 point font, sent as an attached e-mail file to the teacher
and all the students of the class at the latest 48 hours before the seminar session;
this paper is orally presented during some 30 to 40 minutes, and the presentation will be
followed by a discussion of roughly 20 minutes based on the critical comments made by
an/other student/s (20 % of the final grade) ;
every student is invited to actively participate in class discussions, by asking questions,
making remarks, putting forward criticisms, proposing alternative analyses (10% of the
final grade).
Outline
1.
Theoretical Issue : Contending Explanations of the (Peaceful) End of the Cold War
Gaddis (John Lewis), “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War”,
International Security, 17 (3), 1992-1993, p. 5-58.
Wohlforth (William), “No One Loves A Realist Explanation”, International Politics, 48 (45), 2011, special issue on “The End of the Cold War After Twenty Years: Reconsiderations,
Retrospectives and Revisions”, p. 441-459.
Nau (Henry), “Ideas Have Consequences. The Cold War and Today”, International Politics,
48 (4-5), 2011, special issue on “The End of the Cold War After Twenty Years:
Reconsiderations, Retrospectives and Revisions”, p. 460-481.
Snyder (Jack), “The Domestic Political Logic of Gorbachev's New Thinking in Foreign
Policy”, International Politics, 48 (4-5), 2011, special issue on “The End of the Cold War
After Twenty Years: Reconsiderations, Retrospectives and Revisions”, p. 562-574.
Research Paper: The Cold War in the Third World - Proxy Wars or Superpower Co-Direction?
2.
Theoretical Issue: Revisiting the 'Unipolarity Equals Stability'-Thesis
Gilpin (Robert), “The Theory of Hegemonic War”, in R. Rotberg & T. Rabb (eds.), The
Origin and Prevention of Major Wars, Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 1989, p. 15-37.
Wohlforth (William), “The Stability of a Unipolar World”, International Security, 24 (1),
1999, p. 5-41.
Ikenberry (John, Mastanduno (Michael) & Wohlforth (William), “Unipolarity, State
Behaviour, and Systemic Consequences”, World Politics, 61 (1), 2009, p. 1-27.
Monteiro (Nuno), “Unrest Assured. Why Unipolarity is Not Peaceful”, International
Security, 35 (1), 2011-12, p. 9-40.
Research Paper: Is the Post-CW World Non-Polar?
3.
Theoretical Issue: Interpreting China's Ambitions
Friedberg (Aaron), “The Future of US-China Relations. Is Conflict Inevitable?”,
International Security, 30 (2), 2005, p. 7-45.
Mearsheimer (John), “The Gathering Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia,”
Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3 (4), p. 381–396.
Schweller (Randall) & Pu (Xiayu), “After Unipolarity. China's Visions of International
Order in an Era of US Decline”, International Security, 36 (1), 2011, p. 41-72.
Johnstone (Iain), “How New and Assertive is China's New Assertiveness?”, International
Security, 37 (4), 2013, p. 7-48.
Research Paper : America's Future Peer Competitor: Beyond China, India?
4.
Theoretical Issue: The Concept of Normative Power - Promises and Pitfalls
Manners (Ian), “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?”, Journal of Common
Market Studies, 40 (2), 2002, p. 235-258.
Manners (Ian), « The Normative Ethics of the European Union », International Affairs, 84
(1), 2008, p. 65-80.
Hyde-Price (Adrien), “'Normative' Power Europe: A Realist Critique”, Journal of
European Public Policy, 13 (2), 2006, p. 217-234.
Scheipers (Sibylle) & Sicurelli (Daniela), “Normative Power Europe: A Credible Utopia?”,
Journal of Common Market Studies, 45 (2), 2007, p. 435-457.
Research Paper : European Germany or German Europe?
5.
Theoretical Issue: English School's Concepts – “International System, International Society, World
Society”
Bull (Hedley), “Society and Anarchy in International Relations”, in H. Butterfield &
M. Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigations, London, Allen & Unwin, 1966, p. 35-60.
Bull (Hedley), The Anarchical Society, Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan, 3rd edition, 2002,
Chapter 1.
Watson (Adam) & Bull (Hedley) (eds), The Expansion of International Society, Oxford,
Oxford UP, 1984, Introduction.
Buzan (Barry), From International to World Society. English School Theory and the Social
Structure of Globalization, Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2004.
Research Paper: Western NGO's and State-Building : Democracy Makers or Neo-Orientalists?
6.
Theoretical Issue: Contending Explanations of NATO's post-Cold War Survival
Risse-Kappen (Thomas), “Collective Identity in a Democratic Community. The Case of
NATO”, in P. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security. Norms and Identity in
World Politics, New York, Columbia UP, 1996, p. 357-399.
McCalla (Robert), “NATO’s Persistence after the Cold War”, International Organization, 50
(3), 1996, p. 445-475.
Walt (Stephen), “Why Alliances Endure or Collapse”, Survival, 39 (1), 1997, p. 156-179.
Haine (Jean-Yves), Les Etats-Unis ont-ils besoin d'alliés?, Paris, Plon, 2004.
Research Paper : France and NATO: je t'aime, moi non plus?
7.
Theoretical Issue: The Controversy about the 'Democratic Victory'-Thesis
Hanson (Victor Davis), Carnage and Culture. Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western
Power, New York, Doubleday, 2001.
Reiter (Dan) & Stam (Allan), Democracies at War, Princeton, Princeton UP, 2002.
Desch (Michael), “Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters”,
International Security, 27 (2), 2002, p. 5-47.
Downes (Alexander), “How Smart and Tough Are Democracies? Reassessing Theories of
Democratic Victory in War”, International Security, 33 (4), Spring 2009, p. 9-51.
Research Paper : Comparing Operations 'Enduring Freedom' and 'Iraqi Freedom'
8.
Theoretical Issue: Wendt's Typology and its Critics
Wendt (Alexander), “Anarchy Is what States Make of It. The Social Construction of Power
Politics”, International Organization, 46 (2), 1992, p. 391-425.
Wendt (Alexander), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge UP,
1999, Chapter 6.
Keohane (Robert) et al., “Forum on Alexander Wendt”, Review of International Studies, 26
(1), 2000, p. 123-180.
Guzzini (Stefano) & Leander (Anna) (eds), Constructivism and International Relations.
Alexander Wendt and his Critics, London, Routledge, 2005.
Research Paper : Explaining America's Policy in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
9.
Theoretical Issue: The Offense-Defense Balance Model and its Limits
Jervis (Robert), “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, 30 (2),
1978, p. 167-214.
Evera (Stephen van), “Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War”, International Security,
22 (4), 1998, p. 5-43.
Glaser (Charles) & Kaufmann (Chaim), “What Is the Offense-Defense Balance And How
Can We Measure It?”, International Security, 22 (4), 1998, p. 44-82.
Lieber (Keir), “Grasping the Technological Peace: The Offense-Defense Balance and
International Security”, International Security, 25 (1), 2000, p. 71-104.
Research Paper : The Impact of the Nuclear Bomb Upon the India-Pakistan Rivalry
10.
Theoretical Issue: Realist, NeoRealist, NeoClassical Realist Approaches to Foreign Policy
Morgenthau (Hans), Politics Among Nations, New York, McGraw-Hill, 7th revised edition,
2005, Chapter 1.
Aron (Raymond), Paix et guerre entre les nations, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 8th edition,
1984, Chapter 3.
Rose (Gideon), “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy”, World Politics, 51
(1), 1998, p. 144-172.
Wivel (Andreas), “Explaining Why State X Made a Certain Move Last Tuesday: the
Promise and Limitations of Realist Foreign Policy Analysis”, Journal of International
Relations and Development, 8 (4), 2005, p. 355-380.
Research Paper: Putin's Russia on the International Scene - Re-Emerging Power or Poor Power?
11.
Theoretical Issue: Understanding IR's Neglect of Religion
Fox (Jonathan), “Religion as an Overlooked Element of International Relations”,
International Studies Review, 3 (3), 2001, p. 53-73.
Philpott (Daniel), « The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International
Relations », World Politics, 55 (1), 2002, p. 66-95.
Barnett (Michael), “Another Great Awakening? International Relations Theories and
Religion”, in J. Snyder (ed.), Religion and International Relations Theory, New York,
Columbia UP, 2011, p. 91-114.
Sheikh (Mona), “How Does Religion Matter? Pathways to Religion in International
Relations”, Review of International Studies, 38 (3), 2012, p. 365-392.
Research Paper: The Islamist Revival – Huntington or/and Fukuyama Corroborated?