78135 - International Politics (LM)

Learning outcomes

The aim of the course is to achieve advanced knowledge of the main contemporary theories of international relations (realism, liberalism, constructivism). At the end of the course, students will command the most important debates within the IR literature, and will have developed the analytical skills necessary to understand the functioning of the contemporary international system.

Course contents

Introductory analysis of the main theories of international relations, such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

The course discusses key concepts of international relations, namely, the balance of power, hegemony, anarchy, cooperation, democratic peace, and the difference between the system and international order.

The course also explores the role of state identities and the narratives they elaborate on, as well as the impact of norms, values, perceptions and other variable ideations on international politics.

Finally, the course introduces critical theories of international relations (race, postcolonial and gender IR).

Readings/Bibliography

Recommended handbooks:

Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press.

Sørensen, G., Møller, J., & Jackson, R. H. (2022). Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press.

(both retrievable from the University library system)

Compulsory readings ( listed by lesson): All compulsory readings will be available on 'Virtuale'.

1.Introduction

What is international relations. What is international relations theory. Historical evolution, main objectives and scholars.

2. The study of international relations theory

Walt, S. M. (1998). International Relations: one world, many theories. Foreign policy, 29-46.

Snyder, Jack 2004, “One World, Rival Theories,” Foreign Policy, Nov., 52-62 

3. Classic Realism and Neorealism 

Sørensen, G., Møller, J., & Jackson, R. H. (2022). Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press, Chapter 3, "Realism"[Excluding section: Schelling and Strategic Realism]

Jervis, R. (1994). Hans Morgenthau, Realism, and The Scientific Study of International Politics. Social Research, 853-876.

Waltz, Kenneth. 1996. International Politics Is Not Foreign Policy. Security Studies, 6(1), 54-57.

Recommended:

Zambernardi, Lorenzo. 2011. The impotence of power: Morgenthau’scritique of American intervention in Vietnam. Review of International Studies, 37(3), 1335–1356.

Helen Milner. 1991. “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: a Critique.” Review of International Studies 17 (1): 67–85.

Zachary Selden. 2013. “Balancing Against or Balancing With? The Spectrum of Alignment and the Endurance of American Hegemony.” Security Studies 22 (2): 330–364.

Guzzini, Stefano 1993. Structural Power: the limits of neorealist power analysis. International Organization, 47(3), 443-478.

4. Competition between great powers

Allison, Graham. 2015. “The Thucydides Trap: Are the US and China Headed for War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015.

Mearsheimer, John. 2006. “China’s Unpeaceful Rise.” Current History 105 (690): 160–62

Recommended:

Friedberg, Aaron L. (2005). The Future of U.S.-China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable? International Security. 30(2): 7-45.

Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. “Is anybody still a realist?” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Fall, 1999): 5-55

 Rose, Gideon. “Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy.” World Politics 51.1 (1998): 144-172.

5.Democratic Peace

Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russett (1999). The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992. World Politics. 52(1): 1- 37

Doyle, Michael W. 1986. “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1151 69.

Recommended:

Joseph M. Grieco. 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42 (3): 485–507

Moravcsik, A (1997) “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics” International Organization 51(4): 513-553.

6.  Neoliberalism

Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. Simon and Schuster: 15-27

Ikenberry, G. John. 2009. “Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the dilemmas of liberal world order.” Perspectives on Politics7.1: 71-87

Recommended:

Jervis, Robert. 1999. “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate.” International Security 24 (1): 42–63.

Ikenberry, G John. 2018. “The End of Liberal International Order?” International Affairs 94 (1): 7–23.

7. Constructivism

Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.

Hopf, Ted. 1998. "The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory". International security, 23(1): 171-200.

Guzzini, S. 2000. "A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations". European Journal of International Relations, 6(2): 147-182.

Recommended:

Guzzini, Stefano. 2005. “The concept of power: a constructivist analysis.” Millennium 33.3: 495-521.

Checkel, Jeffrey T. “The constructive turn in international relations theory.” World politics 50.2 (1998): 324-348.

 

8. The International Society

Bull, Hedley.1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Part 1- Chapters 1-2; 4.

Barry Buzan. 1993. “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School.” International Organization 47 (3): 327–352.

Recommended:

Reus-Smit, Christian. 2007. “International Crises of Legitimacy.” International Politics 44 (2–3): 157–74.

Reus-Smit, Christian .2002. “Imagining Society: Constructivism and the English School.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 4 (3): 487–509.

Buzan, Barry. 2001. “The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR.” Review of International Studies 27 (3): 471–88.

9. Global Order, pt. I: "pluralism vs solidarism"

Weinert, Matthew S. 2011 “Reframing the Pluralist—Solidarist Debate.” Millennium 40.1 : 21-41

Acharya, Amitav. 2017. “After Liberal Hegemony: The advent of a multiplex world order.” Ethics & International Affairs 31.3: 271-285.

Recommended:

Reus-Smit, Christian. 2001. “Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty.” Review of International Studies 27 (4): 519–38.

Acharya, Amitav. 2016. “Advancing global IR: Challenges, contentions, and contributions.” International Studies Review 18.1 (2016): 4-15

10. International Institutions, Organisations and Norms

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.

Deitelhoff, Nicole, and Lisbeth Zimmermann. 2020. “Things we lost in the fire: how different types of contestation affect the robustness of international norms.” International Studies Review 22.1 2020: 51-76

Recommended:

Katzenstein, Peter J., Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner. “International Organization and the Study of World Politics.” International Organization 52.4 (1998): 645-685.

Welsh, Jennifer M. “Norm contestation and the responsibility to protect” Global Responsibility to Protect 5.4 (2013): 365-396.

11. Socialization e soft power

Alderson, K. 2001. Making sense of state socialization. Review of international studies, 27(3), 415-433.

Nye, Joseph. 2021. Soft Power: the evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14(1), 196-208.

Recommended:

Callahan, William. 2015. “Identity and Security in China: The Negative Soft Power of the China Dream.” Politics 35 (3–4): 216–29

Roselle, Laura, Alister Miskimmon, and Ben O’loughlin. 2014. “Strategic narrative: A new means to understand soft power.” Media, War & Conflict 7.1: 70-84

12.  Mid-term test only for attending students (November, 16th 2022) - lesson syllabus from 1 to 10

13. State Identity

Greenhill, Brian. 2008. “Recognition and collective identity formation in international politics.” European Journal of International Relations 14.2: 343-368.

Urrestarazu, Ursula Stark. 2015. “Identity in International Relations and Foreign Policy Theory.” In Theorizing Foreign Policy in a Globalized World, edited by Knud Erik Jørgensen and Gunther Hellmann, Springer, 126–49. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Recommended:

Zehfuss, Maja. 2001. “Constructivism and identity: A dangerous liaison.” European Journal of International Relations 7.3: 315-348

Wendt, Alexander. 1994. “Collective identity formation and the international state.” American political science review 88.2: 384-396

Neumann, Iver. 1996. Self and Other in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 2(2), 139-174.

 

14. The narrative turn in IR theory 

Subotić, Jelena. 2015. “Narrative, Ontological Security, and Foreign Policy Change.” Foreign Policy Analysis 12 (4): 610–27.

Hopf, Ted. 2016. “‘Crimea is ours’: A discursive history.” International Relations 30.2: 227-255.

Recommended:

Gries, Peter, and Yiming Jing. 2019. “Are the US and China Fated to Fight? How Narratives of ‘Power Transition’ Shape Great Power War or Peace.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32 (4): 456–82.

Subotić, Jelena. “Stories states tell: Identity, narrative, and human rights in the Balkans.” Slavic Review 72.2 (2013): 306-326.

15. Copenaghen School

McDonald, Matt. 2008. “Securitization and the Construction of Security.” European Journal of International Relations 14.4: 563-587.

The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School

Recommended:

Balzacq, Thierry, and Stefano Guzzini. “Introduction:‘What kind of theory–if any–is securitization?’.” International Relations29.1 (2015): 97-102.

16. Global Order, pt. II: "the struggle for recognition"

Wishnick, Elizabeth. 2016. “In Search of the ‘Other’ in Asia: Russia–China Relations Revisited.” The Pacific Review 30 (1): 114–32

Adler-Nissen, R., & Zarakol, A. 2021. Struggles for Recognition: The liberal international order and the merger of its discontents. International Organization, 75(2), 611-634.

Recommended:

Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2014. “Stigma management in International Relations: Transgressive identities, norms, and order in international society.” International Organization 68.1 (2014): 143-176

Burai, Erna, and Stephanie C Hofmann. 2021. “Constructivism and Peaceful Change.” The Oxford Handbook of Peaceful Change in International Relations, 169–89.

17. Introduction to critical IR theories (race, postcolonial and gender IR)

Andrew S. Rosenberg. 2019. “Measuring Racial Bias in International Migration Flows.” International Studies Quarterly 63 (4): 837–845.

Seth, S. (2011). Postcolonial theory and the critique of international relations. Millennium, 40(1), 167-183.

J. Ann Tickner. 1997. “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (4): 611–632.

Recommended:

Tarak Barkawi and Mark Laffey. 1999. “The Imperial Peace: Democracy, Force and Globalization.” European Journal of International Relations 5 (4): 403–434.

J. Ann Tickner. 1988. “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation.” Millennium 17 (3): 429–440.

Cynthia Weber. 1994. “Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations.” Millennium 23 (2): 337–349.

18. (Trans) Gendering IR

Weber, Cynthia. 2015. Why Is There No Queer International Theory? European Journal of International Relations, 21(1), 27-51.

Sjoberg, L. (2012). Toward Trans-Gendering International Relations?. International Political Sociology, 6(4), 337-354.

19. Conclusion

Zambernardi, Lorenzo. 2016. “Politics is too important to be left to political scientists,” European Journal of International Relations.22(1), 3-23.

Dunne, T., Hansen, L., & Wight, C. 2013. The end of International Relations Theory?. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405-425.

Recommended:

Brown, C. 2016. “Review Article: International Political Theory Today” Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 45(2)

20. Final test (only for attending student) – Dicembre, 14th 2022

Teaching methods

20 Two-hour lessons (twice a week for 10 weeks from October 4th 2022 to December 14th 2022).

Assessment methods

For attending students (who have attended at least 70% of the course):

Written mid-term test (45%) consisting of 4 multiple choice questions (2.5 marks each), 2 short answers (approx. 100 words) (5 marks each), 1 essay (min. 350 max. 450 words) (10 marks). Time available: 75 minutes.

Final written exam (45%) consisting of 4 multiple choice questions  (2.5 marks each), 2 short answers (approx. 100 words) (5 marks each), 1 essay (min. 350 max. 450 words) (10 marks). Time available: 75 minutes.

Attendance and participation (10%)

For non-attending students:

Final written exam (50%) consisting of 4 multiple choice questions (2.5 marks each), 2 short answers (approx. 100 words) (5 marks each), 1 essay (min. 350 max. 450 words) (10 marks). Time available: 75 minutes. 

Oral exam (50%)

Teaching tools

Power point, video clips

Office hours

See the website of Flavia Lucenti