IR6001 THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

AY 2010 – 2011 Trimester 1 (26 July – 30 Oct 10)

Mondays 2:00pm – 5:00pm, RSIS Seminar Rooms 2 & 3
Instructor: A/P ALAN CHONG
Consultation: Email for appointment, otherwise Fridays 4-6pm
Email: iscschong@ntu.edu.sg

Rioting in Turkey following Israel’s naval raid of an aid flotilla heading towards Gaza, June 2010.

OBJECTIVES

This course introduces students to the advanced study of international relations through an
understanding of competing analytical and normative frameworks, including realist, liberal,
constructivist, and critical methods such as Critical Theory, feminism, and poststructuralism. The
relationship between these perspectives and the global realities they engage with can be rather
complex, which can be viewed in three ways. First, perspectives are templates or tools for analyzing
major developments and transformations in international relations. Second, perspectives are means
of critique not only to assess existing states of affairs, but to censure and expose them as repressive
structures from which people need liberation. Third, perspectives are constitutive practices that

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 1

socially and linguistically produce particular political realities but exclude other possibilities. Students
are exposed to the interplay between power, interest, ideas, identity, discourse, socialization, and
resistance, in explaining continuity and change in international relations. Conceptual and policy
debates surrounding several key sources and mechanisms of stability and change, whether structural,
institutional and/or cultural, are examined.

EVALUATION

Class Participation (20%).

Research Paper (30%): Assess an issue/concern of historical or contemporary relevance
using either a framework or perspective (realism, constructivism, poststructuralism, etc.),
or related concepts and approaches (balance of power, international institutions,
democratic peace, emancipation, etc.) Demonstrate why your chosen issue/concern is
better explained or understood using that particular framework or concept as opposed to,
or in combination with, other frameworks and concepts. Maximum 6000 words.

o Topics/questions 2-7 Due Week 8, 17 September.

o Topics/questions 8-12 Due Week 12, 12 October.

Final Examination (50%): A closed-book, two hours, essay-based examination to be

administered at the end of the course. Answer any TWO questions from a choice of
several split into two sections.

Therefore, it would be helpful to take class participation seriously, along with the research
paper.

CLASS SCHEDULE AND TOPICS (BY WEEK)

1. Studying International Relations (26 Jul)

2. IR as Power Politics: Realism and Neorealism (2 Aug, 3-6pm)
3. NATIONAL DAY – Public Holiday (9 Aug – NO CLASS)
4. Order and International Society (16 Aug)
5. Idealist, Liberal, and Neoliberal Perspectives in International
Relations (23 Aug)
6. Marxist & Neo-Marxist Perspectives in International Relations :
Marxism-Leninism, Structural Imperialism, Gramscian Analysis and
Critical Theory (30 Aug)
7. Normative International Relations (6 Sep)
8. Foreign Policy Analysis (17 Sep)
9. Non-State Actors in International Relations (20 Sep)

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 2

 10. Reflectivism I – Constructivism and Securitisation in International
Relations (27 Sep)
11. Reflectivism II – Postmodernism/Poststructuralism and Feminism in
International Relations (4 Oct)
12. The Possibility of Non-Western Contributions to the Study of IR (11
Oct)
13. Trimester Review (18 Oct)
14. Exam period (25 - 30 Oct)

SOME RECOMMENDED TEXTS:

1. Martin Griffiths, Fifty Key Thinkers in International

Relations (New York: Routledge, 1999).

2. John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens (eds.) The

Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations, 4ed, (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007) [Use any edition of this popular textbook]

3. Richard W. Mansbach and Kirsten L. Rafferty,

Introduction to Global Politics (New York: Routledge,
2008).

4. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith (eds.)

International Relations Theories: Discipline and
Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
[Use any edition]

5. Karen A. Mingst, Essentials of International

Relations, 3ed (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004).

6. Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski

(eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

7. Cynthia Weber, International Relations Theory: a

Critical Introduction (Abingdon: Routledge, 2001).

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 3

 READING LIST ARRANGED BY WEEK
WEEK 1 – STUDYING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (26 JUL)

Key Concepts: Human Nature; Use of Force; The State and Sovereignty;
Nationalism/national identity; Domestic and External/International; Politics and
Economics; Non-State Actors; Directions of the Discipline.

Required:
Andrew Vincent, Theories of the State (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), „Chapter 1: The
Nature of the State‟. Alternatively, read at random chapters in Thomas J. Biersteker and
Cynthia Weber (eds.) State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996).
John A. Hall and G. John Ikenberry, The State (Milton Keynes: Open University Press,
1989), Chapters 1(Introduction) and 2(Origins of the State).
David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), Chapters 1
(Introduction) and 2 (National Identity).
Ian Clark, Globalization and International Relations Theory (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999), „Chapter 1: The Great Divide‟.
Stephen M. Walt, „International Relations: One World, Many Theories‟, Foreign Policy
(Spring 1998), pp. 29-46.
Joseph Lepgold, „Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and the Problem
of Policy Relevance‟, Political Science Quarterly 113, no.1 (1998), pp.43-62.
Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, „Why is there no Non-Western International
Relations Theory: An Introduction‟ in Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (eds.) Non-
Western International Relations Theory – Perspectives on and beyond Asia (Abingdon:
Routledge, 2010), pp.1-25.

Further Readings:
F.H. Hinsley, Sovereignty (London: C.A. Watts, 1966). [This is a classic work on the
study of sovereignty. Read selectively.]
E.H. Carr, „The Beginnings of a Science‟, in John A. Vasquez (ed.) Classics of
International Relations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1986), pp.79-80.
Robert O. Keohane, „International Institutions: Two Approaches‟, International Studies
Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1988), pp.379-396.Jim George, „International Relations and the
Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate‟, International Studies
Quarterly 33, No. 3 (1989), pp. 269-79.
Stephen M. Walt, „The Renaissance of Security Studies‟, International Studies Quarterly
35, No. 2 (1991), pp. 211-239.
Edward Kolodziej, „Renaissance in Security Studies? Caveat Lector!‟, International
Studies Quarterly 36, no. 4 (1992), pp. 421-438.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 4

Steve Smith, “The Increasing Insecurity of Security Studies: Conceptualizing Security in
the last Twenty Years,” Contemporary Security Policy 20, no. 3 (Dec 1999), pp. 72-101.

Questions:
1. Is the state-centrism of mainstream International Relations theory
defensible?
2. How relevant has International Relations been in explaining the non-
western world?
3. What are your impressions of International Relations as a useful input
into policy-making?
4. What sorts of response have the perceived “crisis” of the 3rd debate
evoked? Have the earlier debates already been resolved?

WEEK 2 – INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AS POWER POLITICS: REALISM AND

NEO-REALISM (2 AUG)

Key Concepts: Human Nature; Survival; ‘Realist Foreign Policy’ behaviour;

Balancing; Bandwagoning; Exposing Illusions.

Required:
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace
2ed, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950), „Part One: International Politics – A Dual
Approach‟, and „Part Two: International Politics as a Struggle for Power (Chapters I-
IV)‟.
Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1959), pp. 159-186. [You may wish to read the other chapters on
the First and Third Images.]
John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton,
2001), Chapter 1.
Randall L. Schweller, „Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back
In‟, in Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller (eds.), The Perils
of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security (Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1995), pp.249-284.
Murielle Cozette, „Reclaiming the Critical Dimension of Realism: Hans J. Morgenthau
on the Ethics of Scholarship‟, Review of International Studies 34, no.1 (2008), pp.5-
27. Read also Michael Williams, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International
Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), Chapter 1 – his thesis of
„wilful realism‟.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 5

 Patricia Stein Wrightson, „Morality, Realism and Foreign Affairs: A Normative Realist
Approach‟, Security Studies 5, no.2 „Special Issue: Roots of Realism‟ (1995/6),
pp.354-386.

Further Readings:
Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis, edited by Michael Cox (New York: Palgrave,
2001).
Hans. J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace
(Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2005). [Use any edition from 1948 onwards.]
Alan Chong, „Classical Realism and the Tension between Sovereignty and Intervention:
Constructions of Expediency from Machiavelli, Hobbes and Bodin‟, Journal of
International Relations and Development 8, no.3 (2005), pp. 257-286.
Michael Joseph Smith, Realist thought from Weber to Kissinger (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, 1986).
Robert Keohane, ed., Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press,
1986), Introduction, and chapters by Keohane, Ruggie, Ashley, and Waltz‟s “Response
to my Critics.”
Stephen G. Brooks, “Dueling Realisms,” International Organization 51 (1997), pp. 445-
477.
Hartmut Behr and Amelia Heath, „Misreading in IR Theory and Ideology Critique‟,
Review of International Studies 35, no.2 (2009), pp.327-350.
Scott Burchill, “Realism and Neo-Realism”, in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater (eds),
Theories of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1996), Chapter 3.
John Mearsheimer, „Realism, the Real World, and the Academy‟, in Michael Breecher
and Frank P. Harvey (eds.), Realism and Institutionalism in International Studies (Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2002).
Joseph M. Grieco, „Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics‟, in
Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations
Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 163-201.
Ken Booth, „Security and Self: Confessions of a Fallen Realist‟, in Keith Krause and
Michael C. Williams (ed.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (London:
Routledge,1997), pp.83-120.

Questions:
1. How do Realists and Neorealists explain the balance of power to be
inevitable?
2. Is Realism a context-dependent approach to international politics? If so,
is it ideological like its competitors, such as Liberalism and Marxism?
3. Realism is eternally relevant to the study of international relations
because it draws attention to the centrality of power considerations. Is

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 6

 this valid today in a world where poverty and economic contagion jostle
with nuclear politics for attention?
4. Is there a case for moral justification of Realist international politics?

WEEK 3 – NATIONAL DAY – PUBLIC HOLIDAY – NO CLASS (9 AUG).

WEEK 4 – ORDER AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY (16 AUG)

Key Concepts: Why embrace Order as a Goal?; Balancing for Order; Society
among States; Society beyond Nation and State.

Required:
David Hume, „Of the Balance of Power‟ in Hans J. Morgenthau (ed.) Principles and
Problems of International Politics – Selected Readings (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1950), pp.104-109.
Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: a Study of Order in World Politics, 3ed,
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), Chapters 1, 2 and 5. Alternatively, read
R.J. Vincent, „Hedley Bull and Order in International Politics‟, Millennium: Journal of
International Studies 17, no.2 (1988) pp. 195-213.
Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions edited by Gabriele Wight
and Brian Porter, (London: Leicester University Press and Cassell, 1996) „Chapter 3:
Theory of International Society.‟
Norberto Bobbio, „Peace Versus War: Means Institutions, Men‟ in Luigi Bonanate
(ed.) Norberto Bobbio – Peace, War and International Politics (Torino: Centro Studi di
Scienza Politica „Paolo Farneti‟, 2007), pp.55-59.
Peter Waterman, Globalization, Social Movements and the New Internationalisms
(London: Mansell Publishing, 1998), „Chapter 7 – Conclusion: Globalization, Civil
Society, Solidarity‟.

Further Reading:
David Armstrong, „The Evolution of International Society‟, in John Baylis, Steve Smith
and Patricia Owens (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to
International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 36-53.
Ernst B. Haas, „The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept or Propaganda‟, in Robert
L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. (ed), Politics and the International System (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott
Company, 1969).
Stephen M. Walt, „Why Alliances Endure or Collapse‟, Survival 39, no. 1 (1997), pp.156-
79.
Barak Mendelsohn, „Sovereignty under Attack: the International Society meets the Al
Qaeda Network‟, Review of International Studies 31, no.1 (2005), pp.45-68.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 7

Alan Chong, „The Post-International Challenge to Foreign Policy: Signposting “Plus
Non-State” Politics‟, Review of International Studies 28, no.4 (2002), pp.783-795.

Questions:
1. Is the balance of power obsolete as a mechanism of international order?
2. Is „society‟ being manifested in organizations as diverse as the United
Nations, ASEAN and the International Committee of the Red Cross?
3. Can the International Convention against Genocide be treated as a
manifestation of thick international society?
4. Is nationalism disruptive of state-centric international society?
5. Do social movements and non-state actorness strengthen „international
society‟?

WEEK 5 – IDEALIST, LIBERAL AND NEO-LIBERAL PERSPECTIVES ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (23 AUG)

Key Concepts: Liberal political thought; Idealism; minimalist State; democratic

peace/Kantian ‘perpetual peace’; role of public opinion; complex
interdependence; neoliberalism; liberal international order.

Required:
Norman Angell, „Germany and the Rhineland II‟, International Affairs 15, no.6 (1936),
pp.21-44.
Lucian Ashworth, Creating International Studies: Angell, Mitrany and the Liberal
Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), „Chapter 2 - Precursors to Angell and Mitrany:
Nineteenth Century Liberal Roads to Peace‟.
Christopher Brewin, „The Duties of Liberal States‟, in Cornelia Navari (ed.) The
Condition of States: A Study in International Political Theory (Buckingham: Open
University Press, 1991), pp.197-215.
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence, 2ed, (New
York: Harper Collins, 1989), „Chapter 2 – Realism and Complex Interdependence‟.
[Use any edition including the latest in 2001]
Michael Doyle, „Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs‟, in Robert J. Art and
Robert Jervis (eds.), International Politics (New York: HarperCollins College
Publishers, 1996/2005), pp. 95-107.
David A. Baldwin, „Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics‟ in David A. Baldwin
(ed.) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1993), pp.3-25.
G. John Ikenberry, „The Liberal International Order and its Discontents‟, Millennium -
Journal of International Studies 38, no.3 (2010), pp.509-521. Read up also in this
SPECIAL ISSUE articles by Cox, Dunne and Lipschutz.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 8

Further Readings:
Martin Griffiths, Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations (New York: Routledge,
1999) – look up the authors surveyed under the section titled „Liberalism‟.
Michael N. Barnett, „Bringing in the New World Order: Liberalism, Legitimacy, and the
United Nations‟, World Politics 49, no.4 (1997), pp.526-551.
Kjell Goldmann, The Logic of Internationalism: Coercion and Accommodation (London:
Routledge, 1994).
Robert O. Keohane, „International Institutions: Can Interdependence Work?‟, Foreign
Policy 110, (1998), 82-95.
Joseph S. Nye Jr., Power in the Global Information Age: from realism to globalization
(New York: Routledge, 2004).
Helen V. Milner and Andrew Moravcsik (eds.) Power, interdependence, and Non-state
actors in world politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).
Emanuel Adler and Patricia Greve, „When Security Community meets Balance of
Power: Overlapping Regional Mechanisms of Security Governance‟, Review of
International Studies 35, Special Issue (2009), pp.59-84.

Questions:
1. To what extent are Liberal and Neoliberal IR theories unalterably in
opposition to Realist beliefs?
2. How are international institutions effective building blocks of
interstate peace?
3. How is democratic peace to be understood in the context of the
interdependence between state and non-state actors?
4. Do the United Nations and European Union manifest serious attempts
at erecting a liberal international order?

WEEK 6 – MARXIST & NEO-MARXIST PERSPECTIVES IN INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS : MARXISM-LENINISM, STRUCTURAL IMPERIALISM, GRAMSCIAN
ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL THEORY (30 AUG)

Key Concepts: The Meaning of Class Warfare; ‘Laws’ of Historical Materialism;

Overthrowing Capitalism in due course; Imperialism; Class/Society prior to
Nation and State; development and the critique of economic globalization;
violence in the name of economic efficiency.

Required:
Vendulka Kubalkova and A.A. Cruickshank, Marxism and International Relations,
2ed, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), „Chapter 1 – Introduction‟.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 9

 Johan Galtung „A Structural Theory of Imperialism‟, Journal of Peace Research 8,
No. 2 (1971), pp.81-117.
Peter Worsley, The Three Worlds: Culture and World Development (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984), „Chapter V – One World or Three?‟.
Frank Webster, Theories of the Information Society (London: Routledge, 1995),
„Chapter 5 – Information and Advanced Capitalism: Herbert Schiller‟.
Robert W. Cox, „Social Forces, States and World Orders‟, Millennium: Journal of
International Studies 10, no.2 (1981), pp.126-155.
Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations Of
The Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), „Chapter 2 –
Universality, Difference and the Emancipatory Project‟. For those intending to
research Critical IR theory, it is important to look up all the articles in the „Special
Issue: Critical International Relations Theory after 25 Years‟, Review of International
Studies 33, Special Issue, (2007).

Further Reading:
Fred Halliday, Rethinking International Relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994),
„Chapter 6 – “The Sixth Great Power”: Revolutions and the International System‟.
Barry K. Gills, „Introduction : Globalization and the politics of resistance‟, in Barry K.
Gills (ed.) Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press,
2000), pp.3-11.
Cyril I. Obi, „Globalization and Local Resistance: The Case of Shell versus the Ogoni‟ in
Barry K. Gills (ed.) Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (Basingstoke: Macmillan
Press, 2000), pp.280-294. Within the same volume you might alo wish to read Adam
David Morton‟s chapter titled „Mexico, Neoliberal Restructuing and the EZLN: a Neo-
Gramscian Analysis‟, pp.255-279. Further case studies from Africa, Southeast Asia and
the Middle East may be found in this volume.
Richard Wyn Jones, Critical Theory and World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Publishers, 2001).
Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and
Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 279-98.
Stephen Gill, Power and resistance in the new world order (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003). Plenty of critical theory case studies & empirical critiques in this
volume.

Questions:
1. Why are Marxist and Neo-Marxist Perspectives important in Critical
Analyses of States and their relations with one another?
2. Do Marxist and Neo-Marxist Perspectives fill a lacuna in understanding
the development-oriented dimensions of IR?

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 10

 3. In analyzing the Cold War (1945-1991), how might Marxist and neo-
Marxist analyses supplement Liberal and Realist ones?
4. To what extent do the writings of Andrew Linklater adapt Marxism for
theorizing about cosmopolitan peace?
5. Does critical theory provide a framework for analyzing the persistence of
racism in international politics?

WEEK 7 – NORMATIVE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (6 SEP)

Key Concepts: Meaning of normative IR; international politics as resource

allocation and pursuit of the good life; what are the sources of material
obligation? Do both liberal and non-liberal states have duties beyond borders?

Required:
Onora O‟Neill, „Lifeboat Earth‟, in Charles Beitz, et al. (eds.) International Ethics
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), pp. 262-281.
Michael Walzer, „The Rights of Political Communities‟ in Charles Beitz, et al. (eds.)
International Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), pp.165-194.
Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and
for All (Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 2008), Chapters 1-2.
Louise Arbour, „The Responsibility to Protect as a Duty of Care in International Law
and Practice‟, Review of International Studies 34, no.3 (2008), pp. 445-458.
David Held, „The Changing Contours of Political Community – Rethinking Democracy
in the Context of Globalization‟ in Barry Holden (ed.) Global Democracy – Key
Debates (London: Routledge, 2000), pp.17-31. Look also at Boutros Boutros-Ghali‟s,
„An Agenda for Democratization: Democratization at the International Level‟, pp.105-
125 in the same volume.

Further Reading:
Charles R. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1979). Read „Part One – IR as a State of Nature‟ and „Part Three –
International Distributive Justice‟.
Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press,
1992). [Alternatively, read the journal article version]
Ruth Blakeley, „Why Torture?‟, Review of International Studies 33, no.3 (2007), 373-
394.
Roberto Belloni, „The Trouble with Humanitarianism‟, Review of International Studies
33, no.3 (2007), 451-474.
Joel H. Rosenthal (ed.) Ethics & International Affairs: a reader (Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press, 1995).

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 11

David R. Mapel and Terry Nardin (ed.) International Society: diverse ethical
perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998). Read Brian Barry‟s
„International Society from a Cosmopolitan Perspective‟ and John Charvet‟s
„International Society from a Contractarian Perspective‟ in this volume.

Questions:
1. The debate over humanitarian intervention exemplifies the urgent
need for ethics to be placed on the UN Security Council‟s agenda. Do
you agree?
2. Is the „duty of care‟ in the international society an excuse for some
form of imperialism?
3. Are there any cogent arguments for a cosmopolitan world democracy?
4. On what bases can wealth redistribution across borders be justified?
5. Can the practices of extra-judicial renditions of terrorist detainees be
ever justified?

WEEK 8 – FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS (17 SEP)

Key Concepts: Stakes in foreign policy; the environment for making foreign policy;
organizational process model; bureaucratic politics model; foreign policy and
public opinion; public diplomacy/foreign policy in global information space.

Required:
Christopher Hill, The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003), „Chapter 1 – Foreign Policy in International Relations‟.
Hill, Changing Politics of Foreign Policy, „Chapter 7 – Living in the Anarchical
Society.‟ [Read also books by Sprout and Sprout below.]
Graham Allison, Essence of Decision – Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (New
York: Harper Collins, 1971), Chapters 1, 3 and 5 covering the Rational Actor,
Organizational Process and Governmental Politics models. Alternatively, read Janice
Gross Stein „ Foreign Policy Decision Making: Rational, Psychological, and
Neurological Models‟ in Chapter 6 of Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne
(eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors and Cases (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008).
Alan Chong, Foreign Policy in Global Information Space: Actualizing Soft Power
(New York: Palgrave, 2007), pp.22-38, then the whole of „Chapter 3 – Soft Power in
Foreign Policy‟.

Further Readings:

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 12

Harold Sprout and Margaret Tuttle Sprout, Man-milieu relationship hypotheses in the
context of international politics (Princeton: Center for International Studies Princeton
University, 1956).
Harold and Margaret Sprout, Foundations of International Politics (Princeton: D. Van
Nostrand, 1962), Parts I & III.
Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration: essays on international politics (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965). [Read selectively.]
James Rosenau, The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press,
1971), „Chapter XI – Toward the Study of National-International Linkages‟.
Joseph Frankel, National Interest (London: Macmillan, 1970).
Morton H. Halperin, Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy, with Priscilla Clapp and
Arnold Kanter (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1974).
Michael Clarke and Brian White (eds.), Understanding Foreign Policy: the foreign policy
systems approach (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1990).
Mark Webber and Michael Smith (eds.), Foreign policy in a Transformed World (Harlow:
Prentice-Hall, 2002).
Robert Jervis, Perception and misperception in international politics (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1976).
Alan Chong, Foreign Policy in Global Information Space: Actualizing Soft Power (New
York: Palgrave, 2007), pp.60-69 on Leadership Inside-Out and Outside-In as „Soft
Power‟.
Piers Robinson, „The Role of Media and Public Opinion‟ in Steve Smith, Amelia
Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors and Cases (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.137-155.
Chris Alden, Foreign Policy Analysis: Understanding the Diplomacy of War, Profit and
Justice (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011).

Questions:
1. Do environmental factors in foreign policy-making engender creative
strategies or resignation towards a nation-state‟s external
circumstances?
2. Critically appraise the notion of leadership in foreign policy-making.
3. Is the concept of „national interest‟ politicized to the point of
uselessness in explaining foreign policy to the public?

WEEK 9 – NON-STATE ACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (20 SEP)

Key Concepts: Transnational relations; definition and types of non-state actors;

roles of non-state actors; ‘moral entrepreneurs’.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 13

Required:
Joseph S. Nye and Robert O. Keohane, „Transnational Relations and World Politics:
an Introduction‟, in Joseph S. Nye and Robert O. Keohane (eds.) Transnational
Relations and World Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp.ix-xxix.
It may be useful looking up the various contributions by James Field, Robert Gilpin
and Kjell Skjelsbaek in this volume.
Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks
in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), Chapters 1-2.
Daphne Josselin and William Wallace, „Non-State Actors in World Politics: a
Framework‟ in Daphne Josselin and William Wallace (eds.), Non-State Actors in
World Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), pp.1-20.
Ariel Colonomos, „Non-State Actors as Moral Entrepreneurs: a Transnational
Perspective on Ethics Networks‟ in Daphne Josselin and William Wallace (eds.),
Non-State Actors in World Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), pp.76-
89.
Barak Mendelsohn, „Sovereignty under Attack: the International Society meets the Al
Qaeda Network‟, Review of International Studies 31, no.1 (2005), pp.45-68.

Further Readings:
Richard Higgott, Geoffrey Underhill and Andreas Bieler (eds.) Non-state Actors and
Authority in the Global System (London: Routledge, 2000). [Plenty of case studies]
David Machacek and Bryan Wilson, Global Citizens: the Soka Gakkai Buddhist
Movement in the World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Robert O‟Brien, Anne Marie Goetz, Jan Aart Scholte and Marc Williams, Contesting
Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Bas Arts, Math Noortmann, Bob Reinalda (eds.) Non-State Actors in International
Relations (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001). [Plenty of case studies]
Bas Arts, The Political Influence of Global NGOs: Case Studies on the Climate and
Biodiversity Conventions (Utrecht: International Books, 1998).
Alan Chong, „The Post-International Challenge to Foreign Policy: signposting „plus non-
state‟ politics‟, Review of International Studies 28, no.4, (2002), pp. 783-795.
Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, Remapping Global Politics: history's
revenge and future shock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), Chapters 1
and 4.

Questions:
1. In what ways do the roles of non-state actors in international
relations raise the question of value-setting in international
politics?
2. How far do non-state actors contribute towards the actualization
of international or global society?

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 14

 3. Are non-state actors vehicles of resistance against unjust world
orders?

WEEK 10 – REFLECTIVISM I: CONSTRUCTIVISM & SECURITISATION IN

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (27 SEP)

Key Concepts: Agent and structure; fluid world order; fluid identities;
incorporating complexity in analysis rather than rationalist perspectives;
impact of ideas in international relations; ‘culture’ in international relations;
securitisation.

Required:
Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, Remapping Global Politics: history's
revenge and future shock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), „Chapter
5 – Identities in a Postinternational World‟.
Karin M. Fierke, „Constructivism‟ in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds)
International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2007), pp.167-184.
Alexander Wendt, „Anarchy is What States Make of It‟, International Organization 46,
No. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 391-425.
Martha Finnemore, „Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention‟ in Peter J.
Katzenstein, (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World
Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp.153-185. See also Alastair Iain
Johnston‟s „Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China‟, pp.216-270 in the same
volume.
Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, Jaap de Wilde, Security: a new framework for analysis
(Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), „Chapter 2 – Security Analysis:
conceptual apparatus‟. Read also Michael C. Williams, „Words, Images, Enemies:
Securitization and International Politics‟, International Studies Quarterly 47, no. 4
(2003), pp. 511-531; and also Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, „Macrosecuritisation and
Security Constellations: Reconsidering Scale in Securitisation Theory‟, Review of
International Studies 35, no.2 (2009), pp.253-276.

Further Readings:
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999), chapters 1, 3, 6, 7.
Amitav Acharya, „How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and
Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism‟, International Organization 58, no.2 (2004),
pp. 239-75.
John Gerard Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity (London and New York: Routledge,
1995), Introduction.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 15

Jeffrey Checkel, „The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory‟, World
Politics 50, No. 2 (1998), pp. 324-48.
Andrew Hurrell, „Norms and Ethics in International Relations?‟ in Walter Carlsnaes,
Thomas Risse and Beth A Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations
(London: Sage, 2003), pp. 137-54.
Amitav Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the
Problem of Regional Order (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), Introduction,
Chapters 1 and 2, conclusion.
See Seng Tan, „Rescuing Constructivism from the Constructivists: A Critical Reading of
Constructivist Interventions in Southeast Asian Security‟, The Pacific Review 19, no. 2
(2006), pp. 239-60.

Questions:
1. Do human rights matter in international politics? Use constructivism to
provide an answer.
2. How might constructivism explain the differences and similarities
between First and Third World regional organizations?
3. Pick any „Non-Traditional Security‟ issue and test Buzan et al‟s
Securitization theory by explaining it.
4. The Cold War in Asia is best explained by securitization theory. Discuss
in relation to the Korean reunification and Taiwan issues.

WEEK 11 – REFLECTIVISM II: POSTMODERNISM/POSTSTRUCTURALISM AND

FEMINISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (4 OCT)

Key Concepts: significance of the factors of uncertainty in international politics;

paying attention to marginalized characteristics of statist politics; ‘personal as
political’, ‘time/speed’, ‘space’ and ‘culture’ in international relations; women and
gender as a distinct perspective on international politics.

Required:
Fred Halliday, Rethinking International Relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994),
Chapters 4, 6, 7 & 10.
David Campbell, „Poststructuralism‟ in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds)
International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007), pp.203-228.
James Der Derian, “The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance,
and Speed”, International Studies Quarterly 34 (1990): 295-310.
David Pascoe, Airspaces (London: Reaktion Books, 2001), „Chapter IV – Theatres of
War‟.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 16

 Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of
International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992/2001), „Chapter 2
– On the Beach: Sexism and Tourism‟; „Chapter 3 – Nationalism and Masculinity‟.

Further Readings:
Mathias Albert, David Jacobson, and Yosef Lapid (eds.) Identities, Borders, Orders:
Rethinking International Relations Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
2001).
James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations:
Postmodern Readings of World Politics (New York: Lexington, 1989).
James Der Derian, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1992).
R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,1993), pp.1-14. [Those of you inclined towards political
philosophy might wish to delve into Chapters 2, 3 and 8.]
Robert W. Gregg, International Relations on Film (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998).
Cynthia Weber, Imagining America at War: Morality, Politics and Film (New York:
Routledge, 2005).
Jean Bethke Elshtain, „Feminist Themes and International Relations‟, in James Der
Derian (ed.), International Theory: Critical Investigations (Washington Square, NY: New
York University Press, 1995), pp. 340-60.
J. Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg, „Feminism‟ in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve
Smith (eds) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007), pp.185-202.
Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Questions:
1. How might the inadequacies of human nature in encounters with
technology transform Realist thinking about war and military
incidents?
2. How might the study of film shed light on the nature of American
hegemony?
3. Does the feminist claim to a distinctive perspective on international
relations further the advocacy of human rights in international
politics?

WEEK 12 – THE POSSIBILITY OF NON-WESTERN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE

STUDY OF IR (11 OCT)

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 17

 Key Concepts: Alternative cultural perspectives; hierarchy as order in IR; justice
through hierarchy; role of mystical philosophy; nationalism upon tradition.

Required:
Alastair Iain Johnston, Cultural Realism: strategic culture and grand strategy in
Chinese history (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), Chapter 3.
David C. Kang, „Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytical Frameworks‟
International Security 27, no.4 (2003), pp.27-85.
Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (eds.) Non-Western International Relations Theory –
Perspectives on and beyond Asia (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010). Look up the following
chapters within:
 Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, „Why is there no non-Western
international relations theory? An introduction.‟

 Qin Yaqin, „Why is there no Chinese international relations theory?‟

 Navnita Chadha Behera, „Re-imagining IR in India.‟

 Alan Chong, „Southeast Asia: Theory between modernization and

tradition?‟

 Leonard C. Sebastian and Irman G. Lanti, „Perceiving Indonesian

approaches to international relations theory.‟

Giorgio Shani, „Toward a Post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical
International Relations Theory‟, International Studies Review 10, no.4 (2008), pp.
722 – 734.
Jurgen Haacke, ASEAN's diplomatic and security culture: origins, development and
prospects (New York: Curzon, 2002).

Further Readings:
Jongsuk Chay (ed.) Culture and International Relations (New York Praeger, 1990).
[Especially section IV on „World Cultures and international Relations‟]
Stephen Chan and Peter Mandaville (eds.) The Zen of International Relations (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001). [IR theorizing from the Sinic and Islamic worldviews?]
G. John Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno (eds.), International Relations Theory and
the Asia-Pacific (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2003).
Victoria Tin-bor Hui, War and State formation in Ancient China and Early Modern
Europe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Zafar Iqbal and Mervyn K. Lewis, An Islamic Perspective on Governance (Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar, 2009).
Mohammed Ayoob, „The Third World and the System of States,‟ in The Third World
Security Predicament (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995), chapter 4.

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 18

Ralph Pettman, „Taoism and the concept of global security‟, International Relations of
the Asia-Pacific 5 (2005), pp. 59-83.

Questions:
1. Is it accurate to assess the differences between „western IR theory‟
and „Asian IR theory‟ on a spectrum of modernity versus tradition?
2. Asian versions of non-western IR theory heavily privilege the spiritual
and humanist aspects of political life. Do you agree?
3. Do Southeast Asian, Chinese or Indian states offer some vision of an
indigenously synthesized nationalistic IR theory through the practice
of regionalism?
4. Can indigenous nationalism in Africa and Latin America offer
inspiration for alternative perspectives on IR theory?

WEEK 13 – TRIMESTER REVIEW (18 OCT)

WEEK 14 – FINAL EXAM (25 - 30 OCT)

IR6001 The Study of International Relations (AC) 19