International Relations

Master 1, 2020/2021
Mondays, 14:00 – 16:00
6 ECTS
Lecturer: Zuzana Hudáková, PhD
Office hours: By appointment
Email: zuzana.hudakova@graduateinstitute.ch

Course description
What is the object of the study of International Relations (IR)? How did the (sub-)discipline
originate and develop? Where is it headed and how does it relate to other approaches to the study
of politics? The course provides an overview of the major theoretical approaches in the field of
IR. The purpose is to familiarize students with its central concepts, classical texts, and field-
defining debates. Spanning across the major theoretical paradigms of IR, the course is divided into
two main sections. The first one examines the standard approaches to the study of international
relations, including realism, liberalism, and constructivism, which came to dominate the discipline.
The second focuses on some of the main critical approaches – Marxism, feminism, and post-
colonialism – that critique the mainstream approaches from the point of view of class, gender, and
race, respectively. In the final session, we will look at the future of the discipline and its prospects
for a pluralistic research program. The course is organized as a reading seminar, meaning that the
emphasis is on giving students broad exposure to a wide range of IR readings and on facilitating
an active engagement with these readings in the form of class debates and short discussion essays.

Requirements
The final grade will be based on the following components:
(1) Class participation and evidence of consistent preparation for class (20%): Full
attendance and active student participation in class discussions is expected. The instructor
can call on students to summarize readings and answer questions, so be prepared to engage
with the session’s readings, as well as with related readings discussed earlier in the semester.
(2) A short writing assignment (20%): Each student will write one short discussion paper
of no more than 3 pages (12pt font, double spaced, 2 cm margins) covering one of the ten
substantive lessons of the course (Session 3 to Session 12). The essay should not summarize
the assigned readings but, rather, choose a particular aspect or theme of the readings and
develop an argument, exploring their shortcomings or problematic implications in the process.
It must be shared via e-mail with the entire class no later than 2pm one day before the session
takes place. This task also includes preparing 2 discussion questions (included in the
document shared with the class and the instructor prior to the class) and serving as a
“resident expert” or “authors’ advocate” who can be called upon to explain the authors’
arguments or clarify questions about the readings during the class. Discussion paper topics
will be distributed at the beginning of the semester.
(3) The final exam (60%): At the end of the semester, students will sit for an in-class exam.
The first part will be structured as multiple choice (20%), the second part will consist of
two essay questions (20% each). The exam will cover all of the course readings.
Course policies
Late work:
Late assignments will automatically receive a one-point penalty for each started late hour.
Plagiarism:
Please read the university’s policy on plagiarism and make sure to cite all sources (both when
quoting and when paraphrasing) and use quotation marks when directly quoting the author.
Evidence of plagiarism (including copying and pasting of text from the web) will result in a failing
grade for the assignment (0/20) and the launch of official university plagiarism procedure.
Electronic devices:
The use of electronic devices, including laptop computers, tablets, and phones, is not allowed during
class as their use appears to hinder the ability to understand complex conceptual issues. Please use
pen and paper to take notes in class (and try to get into the habit of making handwritten comments
on the margins of the texts while reading to facilitate class discussion and remind yourselves of
the authors’ main points when consulting the texts later). For more on this, please see:
• Mueller, Pam A. & Oppenheimer, Daniel M. (2014) “The Pen is Mightier than the
Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand over Laptop Note Taking,” Psychological Science 25(6):
1159-1168;
• Rosenblum, Darren (2017) “Leave Your Laptops at the Door to My Classroom,” The
New York Times, January 2.

Class schedule and reading assignments

The course is a seminar centered on class discussions. Please make sure to do the readings before
each session as being familiar with the authors’ arguments is essential for the quality of the class
discussion.

INTRODUCTION
1. Course introduction
Short introduction of the course & the course requirements; sign-up for discussion papers.

2. International Relations (IR) as a discipline

• Carr, Edward Hallett (1939) “Chapter 1: The Beginnings of a Science,” The Twenty Years’
Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, London: MacMillan &
Co. LTD, second edition, pp. 1-10.
• Hoffmann, Stanley (1977) “An American Social Science: International Relations,”
Daedalus 106(3): 41-60.
• Snyder, Jack (2004) “One World, Rival Theories,” Foreign Policy 145 (November/
December): 53-62.

PART I – STANDARD APPROACHES

3. Classical realism
• Thucydides, (431 BC) “The Melian Dialogue,” The Peloponnesian War, Book V.
• Machiavelli, Niccolo (1532) The Prince, Chapters 15, 17, and 18.
• Hobbes, Thomas (1660) The Leviathan, Chapter XIII.
• Carr, Edward Hallett (1945 [1939]) “Chapter 5: The Realist Critique,” The Twenty Years’
Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, London: MacMillan &
Co. LTD, second edition, pp. 63-88.
• Morgenthau, Hans J. (2006 [1948]) “Chapter 1: A Realist Theory of International
Relations,” Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, seventh edition, pp. 3-16.
4. Idealism
• Angell, Norman (1910) “The Great Illusion,” The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of
Military Power to National Advantage, New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, pp. 29-48.
• Wilson, Woodrow (1918) “The Fourteen Points” Speech to the Congress, delivered in
Joint Session on 8 January.
• Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) “Treaty between the United States and Other Powers
Providing for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy,” signed in
Paris on 27 August.
• Mueller, John (1989) “Introduction: History’s Greatest Nonevent,” Retreat from Doomsday:
The Obsolescence of Major War, New York, NY: Basic Books, pp. 3-13.

5. Neorealism
• Waltz, Kenneth (1979) “Chapter 5: Political Structures,” Theory of International Politics,
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 79-101.
• Waltz, Kenneth (1979) “Chapter 6: Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power,” Theory of
International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 102-128.
• Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) “Chapter 1: Introduction,” The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,
New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 1-28.
• Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) “Chapter 2: Anarchy and The Struggle for Power,” The
Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 29-54.

6. Liberalism and neoliberal institutionalism

• Kant, Immanuel (1795) Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.
• Maoz, Zeev and Russet, Bruce (1993) “Normative and Structural Causes of the
Democratic Peace,” American Political Science Review 87(3): 624-638.
• Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S. (1989 [1977]) “Chapter 2: Realism and Complex
Interdependence,” Power and Interdependence, New York, NY: Harper Collins, second
edition, pp. 23-37.
• Axelrod, Robert and Keohane, Robert (1985) “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy:
Strategies and Institutions,” World Politics 38(1): 226-254.

7. English school
• Bull, Hedley (1977) “The Concept of Order in World Politics,” The Anarchical Society: A
Study of Order in World Politics, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 3-21.
• Buzan, Barry (2010) “Culture and International Society,” International Affairs 86(1): 1-25.
• Keene, Edward (2013) “International Hierarchy and the Origins of the Modern Practice
of Interventions,” Review of International Studies 39(5): 1077-1090.

8. Constructivism
• Wendt, Alexander (1992) “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction
of Power Politics,” International Organization 46(2): 391-426.
• Onuf, Nicholas (1998) “Constructivism: A User's Manual,” in V. Kubálková, N. Onuf,
and P. Kowert (eds.) International Relations in a Constructivist World, New York, NY: ME
Sharpe, pp. 58-78.
• Ruggie, John Gerard (1998) “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism
and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” International Organization 52(4): 855-885.
PART II – CRITICAL APPROACHES
9. Marxism and critical theory
• Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974) “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist
System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History
16(4): 387-415.
• Cox, Robert W. (1981) “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10(2): 126-155.
• Ashley, Richard K. (1987) “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical
Social Theory of International Politics,” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 12(4): 403-434.

10. Feminism
• Tickner, J. Ann (2005) “What is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to
International Relations Methodological Questions,” International Studies Quarterly 49(1): 1-
21.
• Cohn, Carol (1987) “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,”
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12(4): 687-718.
• Hudson, Valerie M. and Den Boer, Andrea (2002) “A Surplus of Men, a Deficit of Peace:
Security and Sex Ratios in Asia's Largest States,” International Security 26(4): 5-38.

11. Post-colonialism
• Seth, Sanjay (2011) “Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations,”
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40(1): 167-183.
• Hobson, John M. (2007) “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western
Imperialism? Beyond Westphalian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR,” Review of
International Studies 33(S1): 91-116.
• Chowdhry, Geeta and Nair, Sheila (2002) “Introduction: Power in a Postcolonial World:
Race, Gender, and Class in International Relations,” Power, Postcolonialism and International
Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class, London: Routledge, pp. 1-32.

CONCLUSION
12. Theoretical pluralism and the future of IR theory
• Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard (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.
• Lake, David A. (2013) “Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great
Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations,” European Journal of
International Relations 19(3): 567-587.
• Friedrichs, Jörg and Kratochwil, Friedrich (2009) “On Acting and Knowing: How
Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology,”
International Organization 63(4): 701-731.