EDS374 International Relations Theory

Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Autumn 2016/Spring 2017

Course Convenor: Katharina Glaab

Introduction

The module is a graduate level introduction to International Relations (IR) theory. The course 1)
introduces the students to main theoretical approaches in IR, core texts and their objects of study and 2)
examines their meta-theoretical foundations to evaluate a theoretical lens. The autumn semester
introduces the theories, debates, and major scholarly traditions in IR, which have become mainstream
approaches and established schools of theory. The spring semester focuses on critical and reflectivist
approaches in IR and introduces the students to key thinking, central debates and recent scholarship of
this form of theorizing.

Aims and objectives

The module aims to provide students with knowledge of mainstream and critical approaches in IR, and
an understanding of the importance of theorizing. Students will develop independent and critical
thinking skills and learn to analyse world politics. They will be trained to critically assess IR theories and
discuss global politics from a conceptual perspective.

Teaching

The module spans the autumn and spring parallels. It includes lectures and seminars. In lecture sessions,
the course convenor will provide an overview of this week’s topic, contending perspectives and situate it
within the field of IR. The lectures help to guide you through the topics, but in order to be successful in
this course, you are expected to do the readings and engage in critical discussions in the seminars. Every
lecture will be followed by a seminar session. A seminar will normally consist of a discussion and a short
student presentation.
Discussion
For the discussion you are expected to prepare the ‘essential readings’ for the seminar. For a better
understanding of the lectures, it also makes sense to do the reading before the lecture. The ‘further
readings’ contextualize the topic. The list of readings is by no means exhaustive and serves to give you an
overview of the academic debate and useful resources for your written work.
Prepare questions and points for further debate. In the seminar we will discuss the readings and the
lecture in large and small groups.
Presentation
The student presentation serves to illustrate how a specific theory is constitutive for empirical analysis
and should give a new perspective to the discussion. In those weeks, in which we discuss specific
theoretical perspectives, a small group of students is expected to give a short (10 minutes) presentation
on one of this week’s main readings.
Timetable and list of lectures and seminars

In the fall semester, Thursday lectures 10:00-12:00 are in U224, Thursday seminars 12:00-14:00 are also
in U224, Friday seminars 10:00-12:00 are in U203.
For the specific room-location, please also refer to TimeEdit system at NMBU, which is updated when
rooms change.

Autumn Semester
Theorizing in International Relations and mainstream approaches

15/9/2016 Lecture: Introduction and Organization

22/9/2016 Lecture: What is the International?
29/9/2016 Lecture: Why do we theorize?
6/10/2016 Lecture: Realist approaches (Paul)
13/10/2016 Lecture: Liberalism old and new (Guest lecturer: Andreas Hvisten)
20/10/2016 Lecture: English School (Guest lecturer: Peter Stuart Robinson)
27/10/2016 Seminar: Book review (Paul)
3/11/2016 Lecture: Constructivism I
10/11/2016 Lecture: Constructivism II
17/11/2016 Seminar: Exam preparation
12/12/2016 Written Take-home exam

Spring Semester
Critical and reflectivist approaches to IR

31/01/2017 Lecture: Organization of the course

7/02/2017 Lecture: Marxism (Guest lecturer: Andreas Hvisten)
14/02/2017 Lecture: Critical theory
28/02/2017 Lecture: Sociological Approaches
7/03/2017 Lecture: Post-structuralism (Paul)
14/03/2017 Lecture: Post-colonialism
21/03/2017 Lecture: Feminism
28/03/2017 Lecture: Normative Approaches
4/04/2017 Lecture: Where do we go from here? Diversity and pluralism in IR
EASTERN, no lecture
18/04/2017 Seminar Sessions: Contemporary Puzzles in IR, Answers from the Project Work
25/04/2017 Seminar: Presentation of research paper proposals
12/5/2017 Research paper hand in
Evaluation

The evaluation consists of three parts, which must all be passed in order to get credit for the course.
Exam component I and II take up 40% of the final grade, exam component III takes up 60% of the final
grade. Grades are on a A-F scale:

• Exam part I: Take-home exam on mainstream approaches in IR at the end of autumn parallel
• Exam part II: Project work on critical approaches in IR at the end of spring parallel. Hand in of
2000 word paper per group.
• Exam part III: A research paper on chosen topic of 5000-6000 words.

Mandatory activities:

• A book review (1000 words), which is awarded a pass or fail grade. Books will be assigned in the
first week of classes.
• A seminar presentation in autumn.

Book review

In the first week of classes you will be allotted a book to review. There are two options how to do the
review: 1) review of the allotted book, 2) review of a topic in the literature. The second option would
mean that you review a couple of books on the same topic, as it is usually done in professional journals.
If you chose an interesting discussion, you may want to consider publishing it in a fitting journal. There
will be more information on book reviews in a seminar session.
Project work
A group of 2-3 students define a topic and apply critical IR theories to the analysis. This will train their
ability to apply theory to specific cases as they will have to discern research questions, theoretical
frameworks and address the methodological questions of the presented studies. The results of the
project work will be presented to the class.
The research paper
The research paper is your main assignment for this module. You can choose a topic which relates to
your master thesis, it can address a specific empirical problem in global politics, but it is also possible to
write only a theoretical paper (in this case, not all of the below points are applicable and please consult
the course convenor on how to design your research plan). In any case, you may want to write a research
plan for your paper, on which basis we can discuss your research. Think about the what, why and how of
your research. A research plan should address the following points, but please keep in mind that the
below is only a guide and somewhat flexible:

• Research question: The research question should be interesting and address an empirical or
theoretical problem. Explain why your research question matters.
 • Brief literature review: You usually generate a research question after identifying academic voids
and problems in the literature. Give a brief overview what you have read and organize the
literature according to trends and gaps.
• Theoretical framework: If you have decided on a theoretical perspective already, you can explain
with what kind of concepts you want to address your research question. If you are not decided
yet, reflect on what problems you have faced so far with respect to theoretical literature.
• Empirical case: Describe what you will study and what the relevance is. What do we know so far
about the topic, how has it been approached by the literature and what will you focus on.
Remember that this is a relatively short research paper, thus it is crucial to concentrate on a
certain aspect of the case that you want to study.
• Methodology: Specify how you will realize the objective of your study. What kind of methods will
you apply and how do they relate your theoretical assumptions with your empirical case study.
• Outline of the paper: Give an overview how you plan to organize your paper and your argument.

Expectations

Regular attendance will most likely correlate with your success in this course. Learning in this course is
highly dependent on class discussions and activities, and the exam questions tend to be related more to
discussions in class than to set readings. Thus, you are advised to complete the assigned readings prior to
the class session for which they are scheduled. Your active, informed and civil participation in discussion
and class activities is expected. You may want to consider organizing small student-led reading groups, in
which you can further discuss the material, deepen your knowledge, prepare for the exam or even
present the state of your research paper.

Plagiarism

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty in their work. Forgery, cheating and
plagiarism are serious offenses and students found guilty of any form of academic dishonesty are subject
to disciplinary action. Plagiarism is presenting, whether intentional or not, somebody else's words or
ideas without acknowledging it. It includes use of direct quotes or paraphrasing of text without giving
credit, turning in the work of others as your own or reusing your own text from a different seminar.

Plagiarism is a severe offence, and it will be sanctioned accordingly. You should avoid plagiarism and
strive for good academic practices – not only because plagiarism is a serious academic offense, but also
because it is important to learn to develop your own argument and become an independent thinker. You
are responsible for understanding what is considered plagiarism. On this NMBU site, you will find more
information on the correct way to refer and cite academic text:
http://www.umb.no/statisk/sit/skjemaer/engelske/forms_thesis_plagiarism.pdf

When handing in your course work, it is required to submit it with a declaration on plagiarism. We will
always check your work with the Ephorus plagiarism detector, which checks your writing against all
published work and the internet.
Late Work

Work that is not handed in at the time it is due will not be graded, and will thus lead to an automatic fail.
The only exception is if you 1) have an excused absence 2) can present a doctor’s notice 3) have
discussed the situation with the course convenor prior to the assignment’s due date and 4) have gotten a
written verification that a late hand-in will be accepted.

General readings and supporting material:

If you haven’t studied IR before or you need to refresh your knowledge, these textbooks or handbooks
are good resources. You should keep in mind though, that textbooks teach a specific way of thinking
about IR and privilege certain approaches over others e.g. a simplified presentation of theories or
caricatured ‘straw men’ to theoretical perspectives. Hence, you should read them critically and never
rely on them entirely.

Burchill, Scott, and Andrew Linklater, eds. 2009. Theories of International Relations. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, eds. 2008. The Globalization of World Politics. An
Introduction to International Relations. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carlsnaes, Walter, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, eds. 2002. Handbook of International Relations.
London: Routledge.
Drezner, Daniel W. 2014. Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. 2007. International Relations Theories. Discipline and
Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edkins, Jenny, and Maja Zehfuss. 2009. Global Politics. A New Introduction. London, New York:
Routledge.
Reus-Smit, Christian, and Duncan Snidal, eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations.
Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Steve, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, eds. 1996. International Theory. Positivism & Beyond.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, Cynthia. 2013. International Relations Theory. A Critical Introduction. Milton Park: Routledge.

There are also a lot of useful websites that engage with IR theory, which are helpful to familiarize
yourself with current and ongoing debates in the discipline:

E-International Relations: http://www.e-ir.info/

Occupy IR Theory: www.occupyirtheory.info (Nicholas Kiersey’s blog)
The Disorder of Things: www.thedisorderofthings.com
The Duck of Minerva: www. http://duckofminerva.com/
Theory Talks: www.theory-talks.org (features interviews with IR scholars)
Lectures, seminars and readings

Fall Semester
Theorizing in International Relations and mainstream approaches

• Introduction: What is the International? Thursday 22.09. 10:00-12:00

This lecture discusses the history of the study of international relations and what later became
the study of International Relations. It looks at the constitution of the international in the
discipline and discusses some of its founding myths and why scholars seem to need them. In this
session we address the question how the discipline narrates the world and itself and what it
leaves out of these stories.

Essential readings:
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. "An American Social Science: International Relations." Daedalus 106
(3): 41–60.
Wæver, Ole. 2013. "Still a Discipline after all these Debates? " In International Relations Theories:
Discipline and Diversity, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 306-327.
Carvalho, Benjamin de, Halvard Leira, and John M. Hobson. 2011. "The Big Bangs of IR. The
Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919." Millennium - Journal of
International Studies 39 (3): 735–58.
Bell, Duncan. 2009. "Writing the World. Disciplinary History and Beyond." International Affairs 85
(1): 3–22.

Further readings:
Agnew, John. 2007. "Know-Where. Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics." International
Political Sociology 1 (2): 138–48.
Ashworth, Lucian M. 2002. Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist
History of International Relations. International Relations 16 (1): 33-51.
Buzan, Barry, and George Lawson. 2014. "Rethinking Benchmark Dates in International
Relations." European Journal of International Relations 20 (2): 437–62.
Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. 2002. "Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual
Project and What To Do About It." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 30 (1): 19–
39.
Cox, Robert W. 2007. "'The International' in Evolution." Millennium - Journal of International
Studies 35 (3): 513–27.
Ferguson, Yale H., and Richard W. Mansbach. 2007. "Post-internationalism and IR Theory."
Millennium - Journal of International Studies 35 (3): 529–49.
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2008. "The Realist Gambit. Postwar American Political Science and the Birth of
IR Theory." International Political Sociology 2 (4): 281–304.
 Guilhot, Nicolas. 2011. The Invention of International Relations Theory. Realism, the Rockefeller
Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Knutsen, Torbjorn K. 1997. A History of International Relations Theory. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Osiander, Andreas. 2001. "Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth."
International Organization 55 (2): 251–87.
Philpott, Daniel. 2000. "The Religious Roots of Modern International Relations." World Politics 52
(2): 206–45.
Schmidt, Brian C. 2002. "On the History and Historiography of International Relations" In
Handbook of International Relations, eds. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A.
Simmons. London: Routledge, 1–22.
Schmidt, Brian C. 2002. "Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline. American
International Relations, Pluralist Theory and the Myth of Interwar Idealism." International
Relations 16 (1): 9–31.
Smith, Steve. 2000. "The Discipline of International Relations. Still an American Social Science?"
The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2 (3): 374–402.
Wæver, Ole. 1998. "The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline. American and European
Developments in International Relations." International Organization 52 (4): 687–727.
Wilson, Peter. 1998. "The Myth of the 'First Great Debate'." Review of International Studies 24:
1–15.
Forum: The Struggle over the Identity of IR: What is at Stake in the Disciplinary Debate Within
and Beyond Academia? (2015), International Relations 29 (2), read especially the
contributions of Turton and Baron.

Seminar:

Key questions:
• What are international relations as a subject of study? And what are International
Relations as an academic pursuit/science?
• Does IR need myths?
• Is IR an international discipline? What are the consequences?

• Lecture: Why do we theorize International Relations? Thursday 29.09. 10:00-12:00

This lecture argues that theories are important to understand how specific knowledge shapes
how we think about the world. It discusses on a meta-theoretical level what theory is, what
theories do and how epistemology, ontology and methodology interact. It illustrates the
importance of theorizing by introducing the major theoretical debates in IR such as
understanding-explaining, agency-structure or material-ideational, which will further be
discussed in the following sessions.
Essential readings:
Guzzini, Stefano. 2001. "The Significance and Roles of Teaching Theory in International
Relations." Journal of International Relations and Development 4 (2): 98–117. (read 98-
102)
Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. 1991. "Introduction: Two Traditions" In Explaining and
Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1-15.
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2007. "What Can We Know? How Do We Know?" In Theory and Evidence in
Comparative Politics and International Relations, eds. Richard Ned Lebow, and Mark Irving
Lichbach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1–24.
Büger, Christian, and Frank Gadinger. 2007. "Reassembling and Dissecting: International
Relations Practice from a Science Studies Perspective." International Studies Perspectives
8: 90-110.

Further readings:
Agathangelou, Anna M., and L.H.M. Ling. 2004. "The House of IR. From Family Power Politics to
the Poisies of Worldism." International Studies Review 6 (4): 21–49.
Booth, Ken. 1995. "Dare not to Know: International Relations Theory versus the Future." In
International Relations Theory Today, eds. Ken Booth, und Steve Smith. Cambridge: Polity,
329–50.
Doty, Roxanne L. 1997. "Aporia. A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in
International Relations Theory." European Journal of International Relations 3 (3): 365–92.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. Philosophy of
Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London, New York: Routledge.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2015. "Must International Studies Be a Science?" Millennium - Journal
of International Studies 43 (3): 942–65.
Kurki, Milja. 2006. "Causes of a Divided Discipline. Rethinking the Concept of Cause in
International Relations Theory." Review of International Studies 32 (02): 189–216.
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2007. "Evidence, Inference, and Truth as Problems of Theory Building in
the Social Sciences" In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International
Relations, eds. Richard Ned Lebow, and Mark Irving Lichbach. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 25–54.
Neumann, Iver B. 2014. "International Relations as a Social Science." Millennium - Journal of
International Studies 43 (1): 330–50.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2012. "International Relations, Irrelevant? Don't Blame Theory." Millennium
- Journal of International Studies 40 (3): 525–40.
Rosenau, James N. 1980. The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. London: Frances Pinter, 19-31.
Smith, Steve. 2004. "Singing Our World into Existence. International Relations Theory and
September 11." International Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 499–515.
Weber, Cynthia. 2000. "Why IR Needs Theory/Practice Debates. Or, From Enlightenment to
Romanticism to Enlightened Romanticism." Cambridge Review of International Affairs 14
(1): 296–308.
 Wendt, Alexander. 1998. "On Constitution and Causation in International Relations." Review of
International Studies 24 (05): 101–18.
Yosef, Lapid. 1989. "The Third Debate. On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-
Positivist World." International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 235–54.
Zalewski, Marysia. 1996. "All These Theories, Yet Bodies Keep Piling Up" In International Theory.
Positivism & Beyond, eds. Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 340–53.

Seminar:

Key questions:

• Why do we need a meta-theoretical discussion of IR theories?

• What are the main points of contention in IR theory debates and why does it matter?
• Does theory need to be practically relevant?

(3) Realism and Neorealism Thursday 06.10. 10:00-12:00

Lecturer: Paul Beaumont

This week focuses on the realist tradition in IR and its key concepts of anarchy, interest, and
materialist understanding of power. It introduces classical realism and its key thinkers and
variations of structural realist thought and the criticism against it.

Essential readings:
Feng, Liu, and Zhang Ruizhuang. 2006. "The Typologies of Realism. " The Chinese Journal of
International Politics 1 (1): 109–34.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2000. "Structural Realism after the Cold War." International Security 25 (1): 5–
41.
Mearsheimer, John J. 1994. "The False Promise of International Institutions." International
Security 19 (3): 5–49.
Rose, Gideon. 1998. "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. " World Politics 51
(01): 144–72.

Further readings:
Ashley, Richard K. 1984. "The Poverty of Neorealism." International Organization 38 (2): 225–86.
Brown, Chris. 2012. "Realism: Rational or Reasonable?" International Affairs 88 (4): 857–66.
Carr, Edward Hallett. 2001. The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939. An Introduction to the Study of
International Relations. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Glaser, Charles L. 2010. Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and
Cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Guzzini, Stefano. 2004. "The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in International Relations." European
Journal of International Relations 10 (4): 533–68.
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1993. "The Embarrassment of Changes. Neo-Realism as the Science of
Realpolitik without Politics." Review of International Studies 19 (1): 63–80.
Lake, David A. 2007. "Escape from the State of Nature. Authority and Hierarchy in World
Politics." International Security 32 (1): 47–79.
Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. 1999. "Is Anybody Still a Realist?" International
Security 24 (2): 5–55.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2010. "The Gathering Storm. China's Challenge to US Power in Asia." The
Chinese Journal of International Politics 3 (4): 381–96.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1985. Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. 2013 [1932]. Moral Man and Immoral Society. A Study in Ethics and Politics.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Oren, Ido. 2009. "The Unrealism of Contemporary Realism. The Tension between Realist Theory
and Realists' Practice." Perspectives on Politics 7 (02): 283–301.
Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. 2014. "Waltz, Mearsheimer and the Post-Cold War World. The
Rise of America and the Fall of Structural Realism." International Politics 51 (3): 295–315.
Schmidt, Brian C. 2004. "Realism as Tragedy." Review of International Studies 30 (03): 427–41.
Schroeder, Paul. 1994. "Historical Reality vs. Neo-Realist Theory." International Security 19 (1):
108–48.
Shilliam, Robbie. 2007. "Morgenthau in Context. German Backwardness, German Intellectual,
and the rise and Fall of a Liberal Project." European Journal of International Relations 13
(3): 299–327.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2002. "Realism and the Constructivist Challenge: Rejecting,
Reconstructing, or Rereading. " International Studies Review 4 (1), 73-97.
van Evera, Stephen. 1998. "Offense, Defense, and the Causes of War." International Security 22
(4): 5–43.
Williams, Michael C. 2004. "Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau,
Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics." International
Organization 58 (04): 633–65.

Seminar:

Key questions:
• How does neo-realism depart from classical realism?
• Are states rational actors? What can account for the disagreement between offensive
and defensive realists?
• Is realist thinking still applicable in the 21st century?
(4) Liberalisms old and new Thursday 13.10. 10:00-12:00

This lecture introduces the classical intellectual roots of liberalism and the modern academic
focus of neoliberal institutionalism on cooperation through international institutions. It discusses
liberalisms underlying normative assumptions of the world and the liberal critique of the realist
school of thought.

Essential readings:
Keohane, Robert O., and Lisa L. Martin. 1995. "The Promise of Institutionalist Theory."
International Security 20 (1): 39-51.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2001. "The Strange Death of Liberal International Theory." European
Journal of International Law 12 (3): 573–93.
Ikenberry, G. John. 2009. "Liberal Internationalism 3.0. America and the Dilemmas of Liberal
World Order." Perspectives on Politics 7 (01): 71–87.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously. A Liberal Theory of International
Politics." International Organization 51 (4): 513–53.

Further readings:
Axelrod, Robert, and Robert O. Keohane. 1985. "Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy.
Strategies and Institutions." World Politics 38 (01): 226–54.
Deudney, Daniel, and John G. Ikenberry. 1999. "The Nature and Sources of Liberal International
Order." Review of International Studies 25 (2): 179–96. (for a recent standpoint see their
essay in Foreign Affairs. 2009. "The Myth of Autocratic Revival. Why Liberal Democracy
Will Prevail.")
Doyle, Michael W. 1986. "Liberalism and World Politics." American Political Science Review 80
(04): 1151–69.
Doyle, Michael W. 2000. "A More Perfect Union? The Liberal Peace and the Challenge of
Globalization." Review of International Studies 26 (05): 081–094.
Gehring, Thomas, and Benjamin Faude. 2013. "The Dynamics of Regime Complexes.
Microfoundations and Systemic Effects." Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism
and International Organizations 19 (1): 119–30.
Jahn, Beate. 2005. "Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs." International
Organization 59 (01): 177–207.
Jahn, Beate. 2009. "Liberal Internationalism. From Ideology to Empirical Theory - and Back
Again." International Theory 1 (03): 409–38.
Keohane, Robert O. 2005 [1984]. After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political
Economy. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye. 1987. "Review: Power and Interdependence Revisited."
International Organization 41 (4): 725–53.
Keohane, Robert O., Stephen Macedo, and Andrew Moravcsik. 2009. "Democracy-Enhancing
Multilateralism." International Organization 63 (01): 1–31.
Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
 Kupchan, Charles A., and Peter L. Trubowitz. 2007. "Dead Center. The Demise of Liberal
Internationalism in the United States." International Security 32 (2): 7–44.
Levy, Marc A., Oran R. Young, and Michael Zürn. 1995. "The Study of International Regimes."
European Journal of International Relations 1 (3): 267–330.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2013. "The International Order Reconsidered" In After Liberalism? The
Future of Liberalism in International Relations, eds. Rebekka Friedman, Kevork Oskanian,
and Ramon Pacheco Pardo. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 167–86.
van de Haar, Edwin. 2009. Classical Liberalism and International Relations Theory. Hume, Smith,
Mises, and Hayek. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Young, Oran R. 1991. "Political Leadership and Regime Formation. On the Development of
Institutions in International Society." International Organization 45 (3): 281–308.

Seminar:

Key questions:
• Is cooperation among states possible? Can international institutions foster cooperation
against the background of rising powers?
• How do liberal and neoliberal perspectives relate and how do they diverge?
• Can we speak of a liberal world order? Can democracy lead to peace?

(5) English School Thursday 20.10. 10:00-12:00

Guest lecturer: Peter Stuart Robinson, University of Tromsø

The English School’s idea of an international society of states claims to take a middle ground
between realist and idealist thinking in IR. The lecture introduces its normative assumptions,
especially the different solidarist and pluralist conceptions of international society.

Essential readings:
Buzan, Barry. 2010. "Culture and International Society." International Affairs 86 (1): 1–25.
Dunne, Tim. 2003. "Society and Hierarchy in International Relations." International Relations 17
(3): 303–20.
Little, Richard. 2000. "The English School's Contribution to the Study of International Relations."
European Journal of International Relations 6 (3): 395–422.

Further readings:
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, Chris. 2001. "World Society and the English School. An `International Society' Perspective
on World Society." European Journal of International Relations 7 (4): 423–41.
 Buzan, Barry. 2001. "The English School. An Underexploited Resource in IR." Review of
International Studies 27 (03): 471–88.Clark, Ian. 2009. "Towards an English School Theory
of Hegemony." European Journal of International Relations 15 (2): 203–28.
Dunne, Timothy. 1998. Inventing International Society. A History of the English School. London:
MacMillan.
Dunne, Tim. 2001. "New Thinking on International Society." The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations 3 (2): 223–44.
Jones, Roy E. 1981. "The English School of International Relations. A Case for Closure." Review of
International Studies 7 (1): 1–13.
Linklater, Andrew, and Hidemi Suganami. 2006. The English School of International Relations. A
Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 1997. "The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature
of Fundamental Institutions." International Organization 51 (04): 555–89.
Wheeler, Nicholas J. 1992. "Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society. Bull and
Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 21
(3): 463–87.
Website of the English School: http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/research/international-relations-
security/english-school

Seminar:

Key questions:
• How does society challenge the anarchic order of the international state system?
• Have states formed an ‘anarchical society’?
• Can a more solidarist international society with basic rights be achieved?

(6) Constructivism I: Conventional Constructivism Thursday 3.11. 10:00-12:00

This lecture introduces the students to the social construction of international relations and the
constructivist focus on ideas, culture and identities. It presents the different schools of
constructivism and their critique of and connection to positivist approaches.

Essential readings:
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. "Anarchy is What States Make of It. The Social Construction of Power
Politics." International Organization 45 (2): 391–426.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. "International Norm Dynamics and Political
Change." International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.
Adler, Emanuel. 1997. "Seizing the Middle Ground. Constructivism in World Politics." European
Journal of International Relations 3 (3): 319–64.

Further readings:
 Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1998. "The Constructive Turn in International Relations Theory." World Politics
50 (02): 324–48.
Dunne, Timothy. 1995. "The Social Construction of International Society." European Journal of
International Relations 1 (3): 367–89.
Guzzini, Stefano, and Anna Leander, eds. 2006. Constructivism and International Relations.
Alexander Wendt and His Critics. London: Routledge.
Hopf, Ted. 1998. "The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory." International
Security 23 (1): 171–200.
Klotz, Audie. 1995. "Norms Reconstituting Interests: Global Racial Equality and U.S. Sanctions
Against South Africa." International Organization 49 (3): 451–78.
Kratochwil, Friedrich, and John G. Ruggie. 1986. "International Organization: A State of the Art on
an Art of the State." International Organization 40 (04): 753–75.
Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. A World of Our Making. Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International
Relations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Price, Richard. 1998. "Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines."
International Organization 52 (03): 613–44.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2000. "Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism and
Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared." International Studies Quarterly 44 (1): 97–119.
Weldes, Jutta. 1996. "Constructing National Interests." European Journal of International Relations
2 (3): 275–318.
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wendt, Alexander. 1987. "The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory".
International Organization 41 (3):335–370.

Seminar:

Key questions:
• What is the contribution of the constructivist perspective?
• How are constructivist concepts of norms and identity used to understand global
politics?
• Can constructivism build bridges to rationalist understandings of world politics?

(7) Lecture: Constructivism II: Critical constructivism and beyond Thursday 10.11. 10:00-12:00

This lecture deals with the more critical strand of constructivism. It addresses the
methodological discussions among constructivists and the question what role context and
language play in constructivist theorizing.

Essential readings:
Fierke, Karin M. 2001. "Critical Methodology and Constructivism." In Constructing International
Relations: The next Generation, eds. Karin M. Fierke and Knud E. Jørgensen. Armonk, N.Y.,
London: M.E. Sharpe, 115–35.
Epstein, Charlotte. 2013. "Constructivism or the Eternal Return of Universals in International
Relations. Why Returning to Language is Vital for Prolonging the Owl's Flight." European
Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 499–519.
Barkin, J. Samuel. 2003. "Realist Constructivism." International Studies Review 5 (3): 325–42.

Further readings:
Engelkamp, Stephan, Katharina Glaab, and Judith Renner. 2014. "Office Hours: How (Critical)
Norm Research Can Regain Its Voice." World Political Science Review 10 (1): 33–61.
Engelkamp, Stephan, and Katharina Glaab. 2015. "Writing Norms: Constructivist Norm Research
and the Politics of Ambiguity." Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 40 (3-4): 201–18.
Epstein, Charlotte. 2012. "Stop Telling Us How to Behave: Socialization or Infantilization?."
International Studies Perspectives 13 (2): 135–45.
Fierke, Karin M., and Knud E. Jørgensen, eds. 2001. Constructing International Relations: The Next
Generation. Armonk, N.Y., London: M.E. Sharpe.
Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. "A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations." European
Journal of International Relations 6 (2): 147–82.
Hansen, Lene. 2011. "Theorizing the Image for Security Studies:: Visual Securitization and the
Muhammad Cartoon Crisis." European Journal of International Relations 17 (1): 51–74.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2006. Civilizing the Enemy. German Reconstruction and the Invention
of the West. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jackson, Patrick T., and Daniel H. Nexon. 2004. "Constructivist Realism or Realist-Constructivism?"
International Studies Review 6 (2): 337–41.
Kurki, Milja, and Adriana Sinclair. 2010. "Hidden in Plain Sight. Constructivist Treatment of Social
Context and its Limitations." International Politics 47 (1): 1–25.
Onuf, Nicholas. 1998. "Constructivism: A User’s Manual" In International Relations in a
Constructed World, eds V. Kubalkova, L. Onuf, and P. Kowert. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe,
58–78.
Widmaier, Wesley W., and Susan Park. 2012. "Differences Beyond Theory: Structural, Strategic,
and Sentimental Approaches to Normative Change." International Studies Perspectives 13
(2): 123–34.
Zehfuss, Maja. 2001. "Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison. " European Journal of
International Relations 7 (3): 315–48.
Zehfuss, Maja. 2002. Constructivism in International Relations. The Politics of Reality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Seminar:
 Key questions:
• How does critical constructivist thinking differ from conventional constructivist thinking?
• What does realist constructivism offer to the debate on the rationalist-constructivist
divide?
• What is the criticism of constructivist norm research?

Spring Term
Critical and reflectivist approaches to IR

(1) Marxism Tuesday, 7.2. 10.00-12:00

Guest lecturer. Andreas Hvisten, (University of Oslo)

This session examines Marxism as a distinct theoretical approach in International Relations.

Based on Marx and marcuse thinking, this lecture introduces Marxist thought and its main
assumptions that are the base for most critical and reflectivist approaches this term.

Essential readings:
Marx, Karl. 1974. The German Ideology. London: Lawrence & Wishart. (read
Marcuse, Herbert. 1941. Reason and Revolution. Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul LTD. [read chapters ‘Introduction’ (3-16), the introduction to part
II (251-8), ‘The negation of philosophy’ (258-262), and ‘The Marxian Dialectic’ (312- 322)]
Cox, Robert. 1981. "Social Forces, States and World Orders. Beyond International Relations
Theory." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 10 (2): 126–55.

(2) Critical Theory Tuesday, 14.2. 10:00-12:00

This session examines approaches, which are informed by Marxist thinking and the Frankfurt
school. It introduces their critique of positivist thinking and its self-understanding as an
emancipatory project. This lecture focuses on the discussion of scholarship, which engages with
Gramsci and Habermas.

Essential readings:
Cox, Robert. 1983. " Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations : An Essay in Method."
Millennium - Journal of International Studies 12 (2): 162–75.
Linklater, Andrew. 1992. "The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory. A
Critical-Theoretical Point of View." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 21 (1): 77–
98.
Risse, Thomas. 2000. "'Let's Argue!'. Communicative Action in World Politics." International
Organization 54 (1): 1–39.

Further readings:
Bieler, Andreas, and Adam David Morton. 2004. "A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World
Order and Historical Change. Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations."
Capital & Class 28 (1): 85–113.
Booth, Ken. 1991. "Security and Emancipation." Review of International Studies 17 (4): 313–26.
Brincat, Shannon. 2012. "On the Methods of Critical Theory. Advancing the Project of
Emancipation beyond the Early Frankfurt School." International Relations 26 (2): 218–45.
Cox, Robert W. 1983. "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations. An Essay in Method."
Millennium - Journal of International Studies 12 (2): 162–75.
Duvall, Raymond, and Latha Varadarajan. 2003. "On the Practical Significance of Critical
International Relations Theory." Asian Journal of Political Science 11 (2): 75–88.
Haacke, Jürgen. 1996. "Theory and Praxis in International Relations. Habermas, Self-Reflection,
Rational Argumentation." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 25 (2): 255–89.
Hoffman, Mark. 1991. "Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation. Four Voices
in Critical International Theory." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 20 (2): 169–
85.
Jahn, Beate. 1998. "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of
Liberal Idealism." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 27 (3): 613–41.
Koddenbrock, Kai J. 2015. "Strategies of Critique in International Relations. From Foucault and
Latour towards Marx." European Journal of International Relations 21 (2): 243–66.
Rengger, Nicholas, and Ben Thirkell-White. 2007. "Still Critical After All These Years? The Past,
Present and Future of Critical Theory in International Relations." Review of International
Studies 33: 3–24.
van Apeldoorn, Bastiaan. 2004. "Theorizing the Transnational. A Historical Materialist Approach."
Journal of International Relations and Development 7 (2): 142–76.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1996. "The Inter-state Structure of the Modern World System" In
International Theory. Positivism & Beyond, eds. Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia
Zalewski. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 87–107.
Worth, Owen. 2008. "The Poverty and Potential of Gramscian Thought in International
Relations." International Politics 45 (6): 633–49.
Forum: A Useful Dialogue? Habermas and International Relations (2005), Review of International
Studies 35 (02), with contributions by Martin Weber, Jürgen Haacke, Nicole
Deitelhoff/Harald Müller, Kimberley Hutchings, Andrew Linklater and Thomas Diez/Jill
Steans.

Seminar:

Key questions:
 • What is ‘critical’ about critical theory?
• How does critical theory differ from ‘problem-solving-theory’?
• What does emancipation mean in the context of critical scholarship and is it probable?

(3) International Political Sociology Tuesday, 28.2. 10:00-12:00

This lecture deals with the more recent sociological turn in IR. It will introduce some key
sociologists, which have been (re-)discovered by IR scholars and discuss their application and
contribution to the discipline, focusing on practice and pragmatist scholarship in IR.

Essential readings:
Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. 2011. "International Practices." International Theory 3 (31):
1–35.
Joseph, Joseph. 2010. "The Limits of Governmentality. Social Theory and the International."
European Journal of International Relations 16 (2): 223–46.
Lawson, George, and Robbie Shilliam. 2010. "Sociology and International Relations. Legacies and
Prospects." Cambridge Journal of International Affairs 23 (1): 69–86.
Neumann, Iver B. 2002. "Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn. The Case of Diplomacy."
Millennium - Journal of International Studies 31 (3): 627–52.

Further readings:
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2013. "Introduction" In Bourdieu in International Relations. Rethinking
Key Concepts in IR, ed. Rebecca Adler-Nissen. London: Routledge, 1–23.
Bigo, Didier, and R.B.J. Walker. 2007. "International, Political, Sociology." International Political
Sociology 1 (1): 1–5.
Bueger, Christian. 2014. "Pathways to Practice. Praxiography and International Politics."
European Political Science Review 6 (03): 383–406.
Friedrichs, Jörg, and Friedrich Kratochwil. 2009. "On Acting and Knowing. How Pragmatism Can
Advance International Relations Research and Methodology." International Organization
63 (04): 701–31.
Hellmann, Gunther. 2014 (Online First). "Linking Foreign Policy and Systemic Transformation in
Global Politics. Methodized Inquiry in a Deweyan Tradition." Foreign Policy Analysis.
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2007. "Of False Promises and Good Bets. A Plea for a Pragmatic Approach
to Theory Building (The Tartu Lecture)." Journal of International Relations and
Development 10 (1): 1–15.
Jackson, Peter. 2008. "Pierre Bourdieu, the Cultural Turn and the Practice of International
History." Review of International Studies 34 (1): 155–81.
Leander, Anna. 2011. "The Promises, Problems and Potentials of a Bourdieu Inspired Approach
to International Relations." International Political Sociology 5 (3): 294–313.
Pouliot, Vincent. 2008. "The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities. "
International Organization 62 (02): 257–88.
 Rosenow, Doerthe. 2009. "Decentering Global Power. The Merits of a Foucauldian Approach to
International Relations." Global Society 23 (4): 497–517.
Forum: Pragmatism and International Relations (2009), International Studies Review 11 (03),
with contributions by Gunther Hellmann, Jörg Friedrichs, Patrick T. Jackson, Markus
Kornprobst, Helena Rytövuori-Apunen and Rudra Sil.

Seminar:

Key questions:
• Why does IR borrow from sociology?
• What can we learn from the everyday about world politics?
• sHow do practice and pragmatist approaches address some major theoretical problems
(agency/structure, material/ideational)?

(4) Post-Structuralism Tuesday, 7.3. 10:00-12:00

Lecturer: Paul Beaumont

This lecture introduces the post-structural perspective and how world politics is a matter of
representation and interpretation. It focuses on the relationship of knowledge and power and
the post-structural destabilization of dominant understandings of world politics. In particular, it
looks at the linguistic construction of world politics, how meaning is created in discourse and the
post-structural ethic of critique.

Essential readings:
Diez, Thomas. 1999. "Speaking 'Europe'. The Politics of Integration Discourse." Journal of
European Public Policy 6 (4): 598–613.
Milliken, Jennifer. 1999. "The Study of Discourse in International Relations. A Critique of
Research and Methods." European Journal of International Relations 5 (2): 225–54.
Ashley, Richard K., and R. B. J. Walker. 1990. "Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile.
Dissident Thought in International Studies." International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 259–68.

Further readings:
Ashley, Richard K. 1996. "The Achievements of Post-Structuralism" In International Theory.
Positivism & Beyond, eds. Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 240–53.
Brown, Chris. 1994. "Turtles All the Way Down. Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and
International Relations." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 23 (2): 213–36.
Campbell, David. 1998. National Deconstruction. Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, Chapter 1.
 Der Derian, James. 2008. "Critical Encounters in International Relations." International Social
Science Journal 59 (191): 69–73.
Edkins, Jenny. 1999. Poststructuralism and International Relations. Bringing the Political Back In.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice. Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. New York:
Routledge.
Herschinger, Eva. 2012. "'Hell Is the Other'. Conceptualising Hegemony and Identity through
Discourse Theory." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 41 (1): 65–90.
Neumann, Iver B. 1996. "Self and Other in International Relations." European Journal of
International Relations 2 (2): 139–74.
Neumann, Iver B., and Ole Jacob Sending. 2007. "'The International' as Governmentality."
Millennium - Journal of International Studies 35 (3): 677–701.
Selby, Jan. 2007. "Engaging Foucault. Discourse, Liberal Governance, and the Limits of
Foucauldian IR." International Relations 21 (3): 324–45.
Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seminar:

Key questions:
• How does the post-structural focus on the knowledge/power nexus challenge mainstream
theories?
• What is the role of language and what does ‘deconstruction’ do?
• How does post-structural thinking depart from constructivist thinking?

(5) Postcolonialism Tuesday, 14.3. 10:00-12:00

This lecture will introduce essential thinkers of a postcolonial perspective and how their
thoughts have been used in IR. It focuses on the influence of historical experience of colonialism
and post-colonialism on global politics and how it changes our perspectives on theories and
concepts. Furthermore, it addresses the question in which way IR is a ‘Western’ discipline.

Essential readings:
Darby, Phillip, and Paolini, A. J. 1994. "Bridging International Relations and Postcolonialism."
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 19 (3): 371–97.
Chowdhry, Geeta, and Sheila Nair. 2002. "Introduction: Power in a Postcolonial World. Race,
Gender and Class in International Relations" In Power, Postcolonialism and International
Relations. Reading Race, Gender and Class, eds. Geeta Chowdhry, and Sheila Nair. New
York: Routledge.
Sabaratnam, Meera. 2011. "IR in Dialogue…But Can We Change the Subjects? A Typology of
Decolonising Strategies for the Study of World Politics." Millennium - Journal of
International Studies 39 (3): 781–803.
 Gusterson, Hugh. 2006. "A Double Standard on Nuclear Weapons?. " MIT Center for International
Studies Audit of the Conventional Wisdom, 06-08.

Further readings:
Bhabha, Homi. 2004. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Blaney, David L., and Naeem Inayatullah. 2012. "The Dark Heart of Kindness. The Social
Construction of Deflection." International Studies Perspectives 13 (2): 164–75.
Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. "Thinking past ‘Western’ IR?" Third World Quarterly 29 (1): 5–23.
Bleiker, Roland. 2008. "Traversing Patagonia. New Writings on Postcolonial International
Relations." Political Theory 36 (2): 313–20.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chowdhry, Geeta. 2007. "Edward Said and Contrapuntal Reading. Implications for Critical
Interventions in International Relations." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 36
(1): 101–16.
Fanon, Frantz. 1952. Black Skin White Masks. London: Pluto Press.
Hobson, John M. 2007. "Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western
Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR." Review of
International Studies 33: 91–116.
Hobson, John M. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Matin, Kamran. 2013. "Redeeming the Universal. Postcolonialism and the Inner Life of
Eurocentrism." European Journal of International Relations 19 (2): 353–77.
Muppidi, Himadeep. 2005. "Colonial and Postcolonial Global Governance" In Power in Global
Governance, eds. Michael Barnett, and Raymond Duvall. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sajed, Alina. 2012. "The Post Always Rings Twice? The Algerian War, Poststructuralism, and the
Postcolonial in IR Theory." Review of International Studies 38: 141–63.
Shilliam, Robbie, ed. 2011. International Relations and Non-Western Thought. Imperialism,
Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity. London, New York: Routledge.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In Marxism and the Interpretation
of Culture, eds. Cary Nelson, and Lawrence Grossberg. London: MacMillan, 271–313.
Forum: Interrogating the Use of Norms in International Relations (2014), International Theory 6
(02), with contributions by Charlotte Epstein, Vivienne Jabri, Julia Gallagher, Ayse Zarakol
and Robbie Shilliam.

Seminar:

Key questions:

• What is the post-colonial critique of IR theories and concepts?

• How can postcolonial thought be integrated into IR research?
 • How does the post-colonial perspective criticize processes of knowledge production in IR?

(6) Feminism Tuesday, 21.3. 10:00-12:00

This week deals with feminist scholarship and introduces the concept of ‘gender’ as a distinctive
perspective in IR. It discusses the feminist critique of IR and how this perspectives changes our
understanding of central concepts in IR.

Essential readings:
Ackerly, Brooke, and Jacqui True. 2008. " Reflexivity in Practice. Power and Ethics in Feminist
Research on International Relations." International Studies Review 10 (4): 693–707.
Peterson, Spike V. 2004. "Feminist Theories Within, Invisible To, and Beyond IR." Brown Journal
of World Affairs 10 (2): 35–46.
Tickner, Ann J. 2005. "What is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International
Relations Methodological Questions." International Studies Quarterly 49 (1): 1–21.

Further readings:
Butler, Judith. 2006. Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London:
Routledge.
Carpenter, Charli. 2002. "Gender Theory in World Politics. Contributions to a Nonfeminist
Standpoint." International Studies Review 4 (3): 152–65.
Cohn, Carol. 1987. "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals." Signs 12 (4):
687–718.
Enloe, Cynthia. 1990. Bananas, Beaches and Bases. Making a Feminist Sense of International
Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Evangelista, Matthew. 2003. "Rough-and Tumble World. Men Writing About Gender and War."
Perspectives on Politics 1 (2): 327–34.
Hutchings, Kimberley. 2000. "Towards a Feminist International Ethics." Review of International
Studies 26: 111–30.
Keohane, Robert O. 1998. "Beyond Dichotomy. Conversations Between International Relations
and Feminist Theory." International Studies Quarterly 42 (2): 193–7.
Kronsell, Annica. 2006. "Methods for Studying Silences: Gender Analysis in Institutions of
Hegemonic Masculinity." In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, eds.
Brooke A. Ackerly, Maria Stern and Jacqui True. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
108–28.
Sjoberg, Laura. 2006. "Gendered Realities and the Immunity Principle. Why Gendered Analysis
Needs Feminism." International Studies Quarterly 50 (4): 889–910.
Sylvester, Christine. 2013. "Experiencing the End and Afterlives of IR." European Journal of
International Relations 19 (3): 599–616.
 Tickner, Ann J. 2011. "Retelling IR's Foundational Stories. Some Feminist and Postcolonial
Perspectives." Global Change, Peace & Security 23 (1): 5–13.
Weber, Cynthia. 2015. "Why is there no Queer International Theory?" European Journal of
International Relations 21 (1): 27–51.
Zalewski, Marysia. 2007. "Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters
Within International Relations." British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (2):
302–12.
Zalewski, Marysia, Ann J. Tickner, Christine Sylvester, Margot Light, Vivienne Jabri, Kimberley
Hutchings, and Fred Halliday. 2008. "Roundtable Discussion. Reflections on the Past
Prospects for the Future in Gender and International Relations." Millennium - Journal of
International Studies 37 (1): 153–79.

Seminar:

Key questions:
• What is the feminist critique of IR theories and how does feminism add to our understanding of
the nexus knowledge/power in world politics?
• Does a gendered perspective in IR need feminism?
• How do feminist research strategies help us as scholars to understand world politics?

(7) Normative Approaches Tuesday, 28.3. 10:00-12:00

This session deals with the ethical dimension of IR and the moral problems of global politics. This
session will introduce different theoretical perspectives on international ethics and the moral
obligations that arise according to cosmopolitan and communitarian thinkers. It will look at
underlying normative discourses of global politics and the ethical challenges for research and
researcher.

Essential readings:
Frost, Mervyn. 2009. "Ethical Competence in International Relations." Ethics & International
Affairs 23 (2): 91–100.
Hutchings, Kimberly. 1992. "The Possibility of Judgement. Moralizing and Theorizing in
International Relations." Review of International Studies 18 (01): 51–62.
O'Neill, Onora. 2000. "Bounded and Cosmopolitan Justice." Review of International Studies 26
(05): 45–60.

Further Readings:
Campbell, David, and Michael Shapiro, eds. 1999. Moral Spaces. Rethinking Ethics and World
Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
 Edkins, Jenny. 2003. "Humanitarianism, Humanity, Human." Journal of Human Rights 2 (2): 253–
8.
Erskine, Toni. 2012. "Whose Progress, Which Morals? Constructivism, Normative IR Theory and
the Limits and Possibilities of Studying Ethics in World Politics." International Theory 4
(03): 449–68.
Evans, Tony. 2005. "International Human Rights Law as Power/Knowledge." Human Rights
Quarterly 27 (3): 1046–68.
Fraser, Nancy. 2009. Scales of Justice. Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Frost, Mervyn. 1998. "A Turn Not Taken. Ethics in IR at the Millenium." Review of International
Studies 24 (5): 119–32.
Kurki, Milja. 2012. "Locating the Normative Within Economic Science. Towards the Analysis of
Hidden Discourses of Democracy in International Politics." Journal of International
Relations and Development 16 (1): 55–81.
Nagel, Thomas. 2005. "The Problem of Global Justice." Philosophy & Public Affairs 33 (2): 113–
47.
Pogge, Thomas. 2005. "World Poverty and Human Rights." Ethics & International Affairs 19 (01):
1–7.
Price, Richard, ed. 2008. Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Walzer, Michael. 2002. "The Triumph of Just War Theory (and the Dangers of Success)." Social
Research: An International Quarterly 69 (4): 925–44.
Walzer, Michael. 2006. Arguing about War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Williams, John. 2003. "Territorial Borders, International Ethics and Geography. Do Good Fences
Still Make Good Neighbours?" Geopolitics 8 (2): 25–46.

Seminar:

Key questions:
• Does normativity have a place in international relations? What is the difference between
communitarian and cosmopolitan perspectives?
• What are the implications of normativity in International Relations?
• Is there a moral responsibility of IR scholarship for global politics?

(8) Lecture: Where do we go from here? Diversity and pluralism in IR Tuesday, 4.4. 10:00-12:00

This lecture deals with the question how we scholars can make use of theories in light of a
growing fragmentation of the discipline. It discusses how to achieve conversation among the
different theoretical schools. It introduces analytical eclecticism and critical and scientific realism
as ways to approach problems of world politics and establish a more pluralist IR.
Essential readings:
Lake, David A. 2011. "Why “Isms” Are Evil. Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as
Impediments to Understanding and Progress." International Studies Quarterly 55 (2): 465–
80.
Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. 2013. "The End of International Relations Theory?"
European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 405–25.
Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2010. "Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics.
Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions." Perspectives on
Politics 8 (2): 411–31.

Further readings:
Barkin, J. Samuel, and Laura Sjoberg. 2015. "Calculating Critique. Thinking Outside the Methods
Matching Game." Millennium - Journal of International Studies 43 (3): 852–71.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Daniel H. Nexon. 2009. "Paradigmatic Faults in International-
Relations Theory." International Studies Quarterly 53 (4): 907–30.
Kohli, Atul, Peter Evans, Peter J. Katzenstein, Adam Przeworski, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, James
C. Scott, and Theda Skocpol. 1995. "The Role of Theory in Comparative Politics: A
Symposium." World Politics 48 (01): 1–49. (Earlier and different take of Katzenstein on the
use of theory)
Monteiro, Nuno P., and Keven G. Ruby. 2009. "IR and the False Promise of Philosophical
Foundations." International Theory 1 (01): 15–48. See also the answers in the Symposium:
Who needs Philosophy of Science, anyway? (2009) International Theory 1 (3), with
contributions by Milja Kurki, Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, Fred Chernoff, Raymond Mercado,
James Bohmann.
Patomäki, Heikki, and Colin Wight. 2000. "After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical
Realism." International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 213–37.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2013. "Beyond Metatheory?" European Journal of International Relations
19 (3): 589–608.
van der Ree, Gerard. 2014. "Saving the Discipline. Plurality, Social Capital, and the Sociology of IR
Theorizing." International Political Sociology 8 (2): 218–33.
Wight, Colin. 2007. "A Manifesto for Scientific Realism in IR. Assuming the Can-Opener Won't
Work!" Millennium - Journal of International Studies 35 (2): 379–98. See also the other
contributions in the Forum: Scientific and Critical Realism in International Relations (2007),
Millennium - Journal of International Studies 35 (02), with contributions by Jonathan
Joseph, Milja Kurki, Fred Chernoff, and Chris Brown.
Forum: Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations? (2003), International
Studies Review 5, with contributions by Gunther Hellmann, Friedrich Kratochwil, Yosef
Lapid, Andrew Moravcik, Iver B. Neumann, Steve Smith, Frank Harvey/Joel Cobb,

Seminar:
 Key questions:
• Has IR settled into a period of ‘theoretical peace’?
• How can a more pluralist science of IR be achieved?
• Can conversations between the different camps be achieved? Are these discussions self-
referential or useful at all?

(8) Conclusion: Contemporary Puzzles in IR (Theory) Tuesday, 18.4. 10.00-16:00

This session concludes this module and addresses the big puzzles and grand questions in
contemporary IR. Based on the former lectures, it discusses the research agendas of the
different theoretical perspectives. The students will present the results of their project work and
how different reflectivist approaches give a better understanding of these puzzles.