IEP Bordeaux/Master 1/2015-2016
Problems in International Relations:
Understanding 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 scientific 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 Undergraduate 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 for ‘PI’ students
LECTURES
The lectures purport to present the historical backgrounds and theoretical controversies of the
various topics proposed.
IR being a social science characterized by contending approaches, such presentations are unlikely to
be objective. They inevitably imply the teacher’s personal, but not arbitrary, viewpoint. Therefore
students are encouraged to ask questions, make remarks, and raise criticisms during the lectures, in
order to trigger debates.
Attendance is HIGHLY recommended. English Track/U.S. etc. students can take the lectures and
obtain credits.
Syllabus
I. Systems and Structures
1. The Cold War: State of War or Long Peace?
2. The Contemporary 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. Institutions and Norms
5. The International Society: Pluralist or Solidarist?
6. The UN: Sovereign Equality or Legalized Hegemony?
7. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Alliance or Community?
8. Western Democracies in Action: Democratic Peace or Democratic Militarism?
IV. Conflicts and Crises
9. The Israeli-Arab-Palestinian Conflict: Hobbesian Enmity or Lockean Rivalry?
10. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More Will Be Worse or Better?
11. Russia in its Near Abroad: Old-Fashioned Geopolitics or Timeless Power Politics?
12. Global Terrorism and Asymmetric Wars: Clash of Civilizations or Haves vs. Have-Nots?
SEMINAR
The seminar deepens the various topics dealt with in the lectures of the first semester. Its aims are to
go into the details of theoretical debates on the one hand, and to undertake researches on empirical
case studies on the other. Attendance is compulsory; only 1 absence will be tolerated, whatever
the reason.
The requirements are the following ones:
− every student has to make an oral presentation of a theoretical controversy (20 % 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 – RATHER THAN READ – during 30 minutes, and the
presentation will be followed by a discussion of roughly 30 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 the various class discussions described
above, by asking questions, making remarks, putting forward criticisms, proposing
alternative analyses (20% of the final grade).
Outline
1.
Theoretical Debate: Explaining 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: Bipolar System or Bipolar Society?
2.
Theoretical Debate: 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 Debate: 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.
Johnston (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 Debate: The Concept of Normative Power - Promises and Pitfalls
Bull (Hedley), “Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?”, Journal of Common
Market Studies, 21 (2), 1982, p. 149-170.
Manners (Ian), “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?”, Journal of Common
Market Studies, 40 (2), 2002, p. 235-258.
Hyde-Price (Adrien), “'Normative' Power Europe: A Realist Critique”, Journal of
European Public Policy, 13 (2), 2006, p. 217-234.
Keene (Edward), “Social Status, Social Closure, and the Idea of Europe as a Normative
Power”, European Journal of International Relations, 19 (4), 2012, p. 939-956.
Research Paper: The Franco-German Leadership within the EU: A Contradiction in Terms?
5.
Theoretical Debate: 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 Debate: Challenges to Sovereignty
Vernon (Raymond), “Sovereignty at Bay”, Foreign Affairs, 47 (1), 1968, p. 110-122.
Jackson (Robert), “Negative Sovereignty in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Review of International
Studies, 12 (4), 1986, p. 247-264.
Lauterpacht (Eli), “Sovereignty: Myth or Reality?”, International Affairs, 73 (1), 1997, p.
137-150.
Krasner (Stephen), “Sovereignty: Think Again”, Foreign Policy, 122, 2001, p. 20-29.
Research Paper: The Reform of the UN Security Council: Desirable Yet Infeasible?
7.
Theoretical Debate: Rival 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: NATO and UN: Competing or Complementary Organizations?
8.
Theoretical Debate: 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: Operations 'Enduring Freedom' and 'Iraqi Freedom': Victories or Defeats?
9.
Theoretical Debate - Criticizing Wendt's Typology
Copeland (Dale), “The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism”, International
Security, 25 (2), 2000, p. 187-212.
Keohane (Robert), “Ideas Part Way Down”, Review of International Studies, 26 (1), 2000, p.
125-130.
Smith (Steve), “Wendt’s World”, Review of International Studies, 26 (1), 2000, p. 151-163.
Guzzini (Stefano) & Leander (Anna), “Wendt’s Constructivism: A Relentless Quest for
Synthesis”, in S. Guzzini & A. Leander (eds.), Constructivism and International Relations:
Alexander Wendt and his Critics, London, Routledge, 2006, p. 73-92.
Research Paper: Explaining America's Policy in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
10.
Theoretical Debate: Causes of Nuclear (Non-)Proliferation
Sagan (Sagan), “The Causes of Nuclear Proliferation”, Annual Review of Political Science,
14, 2011, p. 225-244.
Monteiro (Nuno) & Debs (Alexander), “The Strategic Logic of Nuclear Proliferation”,
International Security, 39 (2), 2014, p. 7-51.
Kroenig (Matthew), “Force or Friendship? Explaining Great Power Non-Proliferation
Policy”, Security Studies, 23 (1), 2014, p. 1-32.
Lieber (Keir) & Press (Daryl), “Why States Won’t Give Nuclear Weapons to
Terrorists”, International Security, 38 (1), 2013, p. 80-104.
Research Paper: The Impact of Nuclear Weapons upon the India-Pakistan Conflict
11.
Theoretical Debate: Realist, NeoRealist, and 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 as an International Actor: Re-Emerging Power or Poor Power?
12.
Theoretical Debate: 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: Using Drones: Virtuous or Vicious Warfare?