Department of Political Science

University of the Philippines, Diliman

International Studies 290

Theories of
International Relations

Assistant Professor Jean Encinas-Franco, Ph.D.

Office: FC 3141 (3rd Floor, Faculty Center)
e-mail: jean.franco825@gmail.com

Class Hours: Tuesdays, (5:30 pm to 8:30 pm)

Room: Faculty Center 3141

Introduction

The course introduces the graduate student to the core theories of international relations (IR), the
historical context in which they emerged, their key assumptions and critiques. It is divided into three
main parts: (i) evolution of IR as a field of study and inquiry; (ii) mainstream and (iii) critical approaches
to IR.

As a graduate level course, it aims to (i) enable the students to understand the evolution and development
of IR both as a field of study and inquiry; (ii) provide them with knowledge of the mainstream and critical
theories and approaches in studying IR and the historical context in which they developed; (iii) train them
in evaluating the possibilities and limits of each theory‟s explanatory power; and, (iv) to show how each
theory or approach could be used as a conceptual tool in the analysis of international affairs, events and
processes.

At the end of the course, the students are expected to think and write critically on IR issues by exploring
each theory‟s usefulness and limitations in explaining actual events and practice in the contemporary
world. Moreover, the course is expected to prepare the students for upper graduate level courses in
international relations

Methods

The class will be conducted weekly with a mix of lectures and discussion as well as presentations from
the students. There will also be sessions/activiites in which students will be asked to apply theories and
approaches learned to actual events and process in international affairs. The purpose of these activities is
to train the students in looking at current events using the lens of particular approaches in understanding
international relations.

Requirements

(1) Class Participation (10%). The students are required to participate actively in class discussions
bringing with them their experiences and insights as graduate level thinkers. Moreover, reading
the assigned articles and book chapters is a must for every student so that he or she could actively
engage with the instructor as well as her fellow students during class time.

(2) Seminar Presentations (20%). Each student is assigned two specific topics and sets of readings
which he or she will synthesize and present in class. The presentation should take about 20 to 25
minutes and should be accompanied by a two to three-page outline based on a set of questions the
instructor will give the presentors. The outline will be photocopied and given to the entire class.
A discussant would react for five minutes to the presentation and subsequently, the class will
discuss the topic and reflect on its assumptions and explanatory power. Each presentation session
will start with the instructor giving a lecture on the broad overview of the particular topic and its
contribution to the study of international relations. At the end of the presentation and discussion,
the instructor will summarize the major points made by the presentor, the discussant, and the
class.

(3) Annotated Bibliography (15%). The annotated bibliography is a collection of one-page

summary and brief evaluation of each of 20 journal articles on a particular topic of choice of the
student. This requirement prepares the student for the review essay which is to be submitted at the
 end of the term. There are several websites that provide guidelines on how to do the annotated
bibliography. Nonetheless, the instructor will devote time to discuss the details of this in class.

(4) Review Essay (30%). A review essay of five to six thousand words (excluding references) shall
be submitted at the end of the semester. The paper will cover any research area/topic in
international relations that the student wishes to explore. It must consist of a review of a
minimum of 20 journal articles on a specific topic. Based on these articles, the student will
attempt to write on the specific themes, debates and issues on the topic that were covered by the
journal articles. Finally, the student shall also try to formulate a research question based on the
themes and issues contained in the review essay. The instructor will devote time to discuss the
details of how to write review essays.

The font should be Times New Roman, the size should be 12 while the line spacing should be
2.0. The American Political Science Association (APSA) 2006 Manual of Style (to be provided
by the instructor) shall be used in citing references. Plagiarism shall not be tolerated and shall be
dealt with the strictest disciplinary action as per university rules and regulations.

(5) Final Examination (25%). This will be taken by the student at the end of the semester and will
cover the entire readings. It prepares the student for the comprehensive examination that he/she
will be taking up as one of the requirements to pass the graduate program. The date of the
examination will be announced by the instructor.

Background Reading Materials

The following are books that serve as background reading material in this course. These books are
specifically tailored for the uninitiated in the study of international relations.

 Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, Understanding International Relations, 4th ed. (London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)

 Scott Burchill et al, Theories of International Relations 4th ed. (London: Palgrave, 2008)

 John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics (4th
Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007)

 Patrick Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations (London: Routledge, 2010)

 Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations
(London: Sage, 2002)

 Cynthia Weber, International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge,

2001)
Course Outline

Week 1

 Orientation on the Course Syllabus

 Class Requirements and Guidelines

 King, Charles. 1998. “Battling the Six Evil Geniuses of Essay Writing”. PS: Political Science and
Politics. American Political Science Association. Available at
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/BattlingSixEvilGeniusesEssay.pdf

 Brief discussion on Proper Citation of Sources

 The American Political Science Association (APSA) 2006 Style Manual

Weeks 2 and 3

Part I. Historical Context of International Relations and ‘international relations’ and the
Discipines’ Philosophical Foundations

Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater.2005. „Introduction.‟ In Theories of International Relations, ed.
Scott Burchill et.al. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.1-28.

Andrew Heywood. 2011.‟Historical Context‟. In Global Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.25-
52.

Chris Brown with Kirsten Ainley. 2005. „Chapters 1 and 2‟. In Understanding International Relations,
3rd Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.1-35.

Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2011. „Philosophical Wagers‟. In The Conduct of Inquiry in IR.New York:
Routledge pp. 22-40.

Martin Griffiths. 2007. „Worldviews and IR Theory: Conquest or Coexistence?‟. In International

Relations Theory for the 21st Century, ed. Martin Griffiths. New York: Routledge.pp.1-10.

J. David Singer. „The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations‟. In The International

System: Theoretical Essays, eds. David J. Singer, et.al. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961.
pp.77-92. (this is for week 3)

Part II. Mainstream Approaches in IR

Week 4:Realism

Machiavelli, Nicolo. „Recommendations for the Prince‟. In The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli, trans. N.H. .
Thomson. New York: P. F. Collier and Sons, 1910.pp.48-51, 57-59.

Hobbes, Thomas. „Relations Among Sovereigns‟. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1909. pp.94-98.
Edward Hallet Carr. „The Realist Critique and Limitations of Realism‟. In The Twenty Years’ Crisis
1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, Edward Hallet Carr. New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964. pp.63-64, 75-76,80-82,87-89,93.

Morgenthau, Hans. „Six Principles of Political Realism‟. In Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for
Power and Peace, 5th ed. Hans J. Morgenthau. New York, NY:Alfred A. Knopf, 1973. pp.4-6, 8-12.

Kenneth Waltz. „The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory‟. In The Journal of Interdisciplinary History.
Vol. 18, No.4. Spring, 1988. pp.39-52.

Kenneth Waltz.‟ The Stability of a Bipolar World‟. In Daedalus, Vol.93. No.3. Summer, 1964.pp.881-
887,899-902,907-909.

Kenneth Waltz. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading Mass:Addison-Wesley.

Kenneth Waltz. 1959. Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press.

John Mearsheirmer. 2003. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton.

Richard Ashley. „The Poverty of Neorealism‟. International Organization. Vol. 38, No.2. pp.225-286.

Robert Keohane, ed. 1986. Neorealism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Week 5: Liberalism

Woodrow Wilson. The Fourteen Points. In The Fourteen Points. Wilson’s Adress to Congress, Woodrow
Wilson, January 8, 1918.

Andrew Moravsik. „Liberalism and International Relations Theory‟. Available at

http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/liberalism_working.pdf

Francis Fukuyama. 1989. „The End of History‟. Summer. National Interest.

Michael Doyle. „Liberal Internationalism: Peace, War and Democracy‟. Available at

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/doyle/

Michael Doyle. 1986. „Liberalism and World Politics‟. American Political Science Review, Vol. 80. No.
4. pp.1151-1169.

Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. „The Characteristics of Complex Interdependence‟. In Power and
Interpendence. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. 1977. Scott, Foreman and Company.

Stephen Walt. 1998. „International Relations: One World, Many Theories‟. Foreign Policy, Vol. 110.
pp.29-46.

J.L. Richardson. 1997. „Contending Liberalisms.Past and Present‟. European Journal of International
Relations. Vol.3. No.1. pp.5-33.
Week 6:The English School

Hugo Grotius. „The Rights of War and Peace‟. In The Rights of War and Peace. Hugo Grotius, A.C.
Campbell, A.M., trans. New York: M. Walter Dunne, 1901, pp.55-57,62.

Hedley Bull. „The Idea of International Society‟. In The Anarchical Society: A Study of World Politics,
Hedley Bull. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1977. New York: Columbia University Press.pp.24-27,
41, 51-52.

Alex Bellamy. „Introduction: International Society and the English School‟. Available at
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926520-8.pdf

Balkan Devlen et.al. 2005. „The English School, International Relations and Progress‟. International
Studies Review. Vol. 7. pp. 171-197. Available at
http://asrudiancenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/englishschool.pdf

Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami. 2006. The English School of International Relations: A
Contemporary Re-assessment. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Week 7: Marxist IR

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. 1848. Communist Manifesto. Available at

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

John Hobson. „The Economic Taproots of Imperialism‟. In Imperialism, John Hobson. London: George
Allen and Unwin, 1954. pp.47-50.

V.I. Lenin. Imperialism: „A Special Stage of Capitalism‟. In Imperialism, The Highest Stage of
Capitalism, V.I. Lenin. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. pp.50-52.

Halliday, Fred. 1994. „A Necessary Encounter: Historical Materialism and International Relations‟, in
Rethinking International Relations. Basingstoke. pp.47-71.

Immanuel Wallerstein. „The Modern World System‟. In Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-
System: CapitalistAgriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in theSixteenth Century.
New York: Academic Press, 1976, pp. 229-233. Available at
http://media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/courses/WORLDSYS.HTML

Robert Cox. 1981. ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Vol.10. No. 2. pp.126-155.

Robert Cox. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: an Essay in Method’. Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, volume 12, number 2 (1983).

Stephen Gill. „International Relations: A Radical

View‟http://www.stephengill.com/ikrit_dictionary_final_2002.pdf
Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton. 2003. „Theoretical and Methodological Challenges of neo-
Gramscian Perspectives in International Political Economy‟. Available at
http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/resources/online_articles/articles/bieler_morton.shtml

Roger Dale and Susan Robertson. 2003. „Interview with Robert W Cox‟. Globalisation, Societies and
Education. Vol.1, No.1. pp.13-23. Available at
http://seriesofhopes.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/interview-cox.pdf

Neil Ryan. „Globalisation, Neo-Gramscianism and Open Marxism. Available at

http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/politics/research/hmrg/activities/documents/Ryan
.pdf

Robbie Shilliam. 2004. Hegemony and the Unfashionable Problematic of „Primitive Accumulation‟.
Millennium Journal of International Relations, Vol. 32, No.1. pp. 59-88. Available at
http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/politics/research/hmrg/activities/documents/Shilli
am.pdf

Week 8: Social Constructivism

Sorenson, Jackson. 2005. „Methodological Debates: Post-Positivist Approaches‟ Available at

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/bt/jacksonsorensen/ch09.pdf

Alexander Wendt. 1995. „Constructing International Politics‟. International Security, Vol.20.No.1. pp.71-
81.

Ted Hopf. 1998. „The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory‟. International
Security, Vol.23.No.1.pp.171-200.

John Gerard Ruggie. 1998. „What Makes the World Hang Together‟. International Organization, Vol.
52.No.4.pp.855-885.

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. 2001. „Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in
International Relations and Comparative Politics‟. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.4.pp.391-416.

Jennifer Sterling-Folker. 2002. „Realism and the Constructivist Challlenge: Rejecting, Reconstructing and
Rereading. International Studies Review, Vol. 4.No.1.pp.73-97.

Robert Snyder. 2005. „Bridging the Realist/Constructivist Divide: The Case of the Counterrevolution in
Soviet Foreign Policy at the End of the Cold War‟. Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 1.pp.55-71.

Part III: Critical Approaches in IR

Week 9: Critical IR and the Frankfurt School

Anthony Leysen. 2008. The Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. In The Criticial Theory of Robert W.
Cox:Fugitive or Guru? by Anthony Leysen, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.pp. 71-87. Available at
http://spmehazem.yolasite.com/resources/the%20critical%20theory%20of%20robert%20cox.pdf
Critical Theory, Habermas and International Relations. Available at
http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60844.pdf

Anthony Leysen. 2008. The „Critical‟ Turn in International Relations. In The Criticial Theory of Robert
W. Cox:Fugitive or Guru? New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.89-111. Available at
http://spmehazem.yolasite.com/resources/the%20critical%20theory%20of%20robert%20cox.pdf

Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit. 1998. Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and
Constructivism. European Journal of International Relations, Vol.4.No.3. pp.259-294. Available at
http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/Uses%20of%20Theory.pdf

Week 10: Post-Modernism and International Relations

John Gerard Ruggie. 1993. „Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International
Relations‟. International Organization, Vol. 47.No.1. pp.139-174.
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch/Pol272/Ruggie.Territoriality.pdf

Jim George. 1994. „Thinking Beyond International Relations: Postmodernism-Reconceptualizing Theory

as Practice‟. In Discourses of Global Politics. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.pp.191-220.

Cynthia Weber. 1999. „IR: The Resurrection of New Frontiers of Incorporation‟. European Journal of
International Relations. Vol. 5. No. 4. pp.435-450. Available at
http://ir.emu.edu.tr/staff/ekaymak/courses/IR515/Articles/Weber%20on%20the%20resurrection.pdf

Felipe Klause Dornelles. 2002. „Post-Modernism and IR: From Disparate Critiques to a Coherent Theory
of Global Politics‟. Available at http://www.globalpolitics.net/essays/Krause_Dornelles.pdf

Nick Vaughan Williams. 2005. „International Relations and the „Problem of History‟. Millennium Journal
of International Studies. Vol.34.No.1. pp.115-pp.115-
136.http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/vaughan-
williams/publications/millennium20article20nvw.pdf

Cynthia Weber. 2010. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction, 3rd Edition. New York:
Routledge. Chapters 1 and 10.

Week 11: Feminist IR

Fred Halliday. 1994. „Hidden from International Relations: Women and the International Arena‟.
in Rethinking International Relations. Basingstoke.

J. Ann Tickner. 1997. „You Just Don‟t Understand:Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR
Theorists. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41.No.4.pp.611-632. Available at
http://asrudiancenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/jannticknertroublebetwfeministirtheorists1.pdf

Anuradha Chenoy. 2000. „Bridging Gender into National Security and International Relations‟.
International Studies, Vol.37.No.1. pp.19-29.
Kimberly Hutchings. 2008. „1988 and 1998: Contrast and Continuity in Feminist International Relations‟.
Millennium Journal of International Relations, Vol.37.No.1.pp.97-105.

Jean Bethke Elshtain. 2009 (Reprint). Woman, the State, and War. International Relations, Vol. 23. No.
2.pp.289-303.

Laura Sjoberg. 2011. „Gender, the State, and War Redux: Feminist International Relations across the
„Levels of Analysis‟. International Relations, Vol. 25. pp.108-134.

Week 12: ‘Western’ and ‘Non-Western’ International Relations Theory

Jacinta O‟Hagan. 2002. Conceptualizing the West in International Relations Theory: From Spengler to
Said. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chapters 1and 2.

Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan. 2007. „Why is there no Non-Western International Relations Theory?:
An Introduction.‟ International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. Vol. 7. pp.287-312. Available at
http://berkouk-mhand.yolasite.com/resources/non%20western%20irth.pdf

Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, eds. 2009. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives
on and beyond Asia. New York: Routledge. Chapters 1, 6 and 10.

Josuke Ikeda. 2010. „The Post-Western Turn in International Theory and the English School‟.
Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, Vol.9, pp.29-44. Available at
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/ir/college/bulletin/e-vol.9/03Josuke%20Ikeda.pdf

Week 13: Research and Writing Break

Week 14: Paper Presentation
Week 15: Paper Presentation
Week 16: Synthesis and Integration/Writeshop
Week 17: Final Examination: (March 20, 2012)

Submission of Final Paper: on or before April 2, 2012

Submission of Annotated Bibliography: on or before January 30, 2012