IR 2083 International Relations Theory - hse.ru · Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (sixth edition) Oxford University Press. pp. 99-112 Donnelley, Jack (2005),

National Research University Higher School of Economics

School of World Economy and International Affairs

Undergraduate Programme

in International Relations

(Parallel Degree from HSE and UoL)

IR 2083

International Relations Theory

Course Syllabus

(Fall/Spring 2019/2020)

Instructors: Prof. Andrej Krickovic

Prof. Iain Ferguson

[email protected]

[email protected]

Teaching Assistant: Mr. Alexei Koriagin [email protected]

I.Course description

Welcome to International Relations Theory! In this course, we will examine the different

ways in which international politics is understood, explained, interpreted and judged by

different theoretical traditions and paradigms. We will be exploring different frameworks

for thinking about why and how international politics works in the way that it does, but also

for thinking about how international politics ought to be. The course will focus primarily on

theoretical texts and concepts, rather than on empirical or historical knowledge, though we

will try to relate the ideas discussed in to the empirical and real world examples from

international politics.

Level: third-year course

Duration: 14 weeks, 54 classes

Prerequisite: Introduction to International Relations

Course Objective:

This course will allow you to develop a broad knowledge of the tools used in studying

international relations and of the debates between different theoretical perspectives. I will

acquaint you with ideas, concepts and texts in international political theory (both classical

and modern) in their historical context, introduce you to issues of methodology in IR, and

enable you to think critically about alternative ways of explaining, understanding and

judging international politics.

Learning Outcomes:

• demonstrate knowledge of different frameworks for thinking about international politics

• demonstrate knowledge of a range of ideas, concepts and texts in international political

theory and the historical contexts in which they arose

• distinguish and evaluate different methodological approaches within the study of

international politics

• evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways of explaining, understanding and

judging contemporary international politics.

Course Materials:

Study Guide “International Relations Theory” by K. Hutchings (2018).

Baylis, John and Steve Smith (eds) The Globalization of World Politics. (Oxford,

Oxford University Press, 2014)

Brown, Chris. Understanding International Relations. (Basingstoke, Palgrave,

2005) second edition.

Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger (eds) International Relations

in Political Thought: texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War.

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002)

Burchill, S., Andrew Linklater et al. Theories of International Relations.

(Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2005).

Additional readings (articles and book chapters) can be found in the course dropbox folder:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qbdlo9uz5imq7d2/AAA2H8Q1T4Qrl1vm-3_SPSN0a?dl=0

II.Assessment Policies

Classroom policies:

Code of Conduct ! The professors reserve the right to impose sanctions in

the cases described in the document

Expectations

The Final Grade consists of two major parts: Cumulative Grade and Exam

Grade (each of them having the weight of 60% and 40% respectively).

Cumulative Grade is divided into two parts. A student gets 30% for his/her

participation in the seminars during the year, and 30% for the MOCK exams.

Each MOCK exam contains 3 questions, duration – 3 hours.

If the discipline is held in the Fall Semester, a student gets 15% for

participation in the seminars in the 1st Module and 15% for participation in the

seminars in the 2nd

Module.

If the discipline is held in the Spring Semester, a student gets 20% for

participation in the seminars in the 3rd

Module and 10% for participation in the

seminars in the 4th Module.

Exam grade is provided by the University of London Exam Committee. The

exam is usually held in May, the date of exam is announced not later than 4

month in advance.

Final Grade Formula:

Fall semester: (1stModule seminars*0.15) + (2

ndModule seminars*0.15) +

(1stModule MOCK exam*0.15) + (2

ndModule MOCK exam*0.15) + Final

Exam*0.4

Spring semester: (3rd

Module seminars*0.2) + (4thModule seminars*0.1) +

(3rd

Module MOCK exam*0.15) + (4thModule MOCK exam*0.15) + Final

Exam*0.4

III. Course Design and Resources

Week Topic

Week #1

Jan 9-11

Part 1: Introduction to IR Theory

Week #2

Jan 14-18

Part 2: History of IR Theory - Foundational Thinkers

Thucydides and St. Augustine

Machiavelli and Hobbes

Week #3

Jan 21-25

Grotius and Rousseau

Kant and Marx

Week #4

Jan 28- Feb 1

Free Week

Week #5

Feb 4-8

Part 3: Major Schools of IR Theory

Realism

Week #6

Feb 11-15

Liberalism

Week #7

Feb 18-22

English School

Constructivism

Week #8

Feb 25- Mar 1

Marxism

Exam Prep and 1st Mock Exam

Week #9

Mar 4 -8

Part 4: Critiques of Mainstream IR

Critical Theory and Feminism

Poststructuralism

Week #10

Mar 11-15

Part 5 – Methodology

IR, Science and the Agency-Structure Debate

Part 6: Theorizing International Politics in the 21st Century

Human Rights / Humanitarian Intervention

Week #11

Mar 18-22

Free Week – HSE Off Session

Week #12

Mar 25-29

Unipolarity

Cultural Bias: Towards a Non-Western IR?

Week #13

Apr 1-5

Regionalism

Exam Prep & 2nd

Mock Exam

Week #14

April 8-12

Bargaining Theory

Status

Week #15

April 15-19

Global Governance: The Last Utopia?

Part 7: Using IR Theory to Understand Russia

Russia: Beyond Realism

Week #16

April 22-26

Russia: Constructivism Reconsidered

Review for Final Exam

IV.Exam questions

List of exam questions is announced at the exam by the University of London Exam

Committee.

For preparation students may use exam questions of the previous years with Examiners’

commentaries available through VLE of the University of London.

International Relations Theories

Course Readings

Part 1: Introduction

1. Theory in International Relations

Required:

Burchill, S., Andrew Linklater et al. (2005) Theories of International Relations. Palgrave.

Chapter 1: 1-28.

Brown, Chris (2005). Understanding International Relations. Chapter 2

Walt, Stephen M. (1998), "International relations: one world, many theories." Foreign

Policy: 29-46.

Recommended:

Brown (2005), Chapter 1

Van Evera, Stephen. (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science, (Ithaca:

Cornell University Press) “Hypotheses, Laws, and Theories: A User’s Guide.” pp. 7-48

Elster, Jon (1983) “Modes of Scientific Explanation”, Explaining Technical Change, pp. 15-

83

Part 2: History of International Relations Theory: Foundational Thinkers

2. Thucydides and St. Augustine

Required:

Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger (eds) (2002). International Relations in

Political Thought: texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War. Cambridge

University Press. pp. 32-35, 47-73, 107-115, 131-147. (note: use page numbers from the pdf

counter as the copy of the book doesn’t have page numbers)

Bagby, L. M. J. (1994). “The Use and Abuse of Thucydides in International

Relations”. International Organization, 48(1), 131-153.

Recommended:

Robert Gilpin (1988) “The Theory of Hegemonic War”’ Journal of Interdisciplinary

History, 18:4: 591–613.

Loriaux, Michael. (1992). “The Realists and Saint Augustine: Skepticism, Psychology, and

Moral Action in International Relations Thought. International Studies Quarterly 36: 401-

420

Niebuhr, Reinhold. (1953). “Augustine’s Political Realism”. The Essential Reinhold

Niebuhr - Selected Essays and Addresses, ed. Robert McAfee Brown, Yale University Press.

pp. 123-141.

3. Machiavelli and Hobbes

Required:

Brown, et.al. (2002) Chapter 5, pp.255-259, 270-282; Chapter 6, pp. 349-354.

Femia, Joseph and Paul Kelley (2005), “Machiavelli” Chapter 9 in David Boucher and Paul

Kelley (eds.) Political Thinkers. Oxford.

Vincent, R. John (1981). "The Hobbesian Tradition in Twentieth Century International

Thought." Millennium 10.2 : 91-101.

Recommended:

Skinner, Quentin (2000). Machiavelli: A very short introduction. Oxford.

Bull, Hedley (1981). “Hobbes and International Anarchy”, Social Research, 48(4): 717-38.

Heller, Mark (1980). “The Use and Abuse of Hobbes: The State of Nature in International

Relations”, Polity, 13(1): 21-32.

4. Grotius and Rousseau

Required:

Brown et.al. (2002) Chapter 7, 393-401, 431-442

Bull, Hedley. “The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations” in Bull,

Hedley, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts, eds. Hugo Grotius and International

Relations. Oxford University Press, 1992

Recommended:

Brown et.al. Chapter 6, pp.348–49

Bull, Hedley, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts, eds. (1992). Oxford University Press,

Hugo Grotius and International Relations. Chapter 1 Introduction

Fidler, David P. (1996) "Desperately Clinging to Grotian and Kantian Sheep: Rousseau’s

attempted escape from the state of war." In Clark and Neumann (1996), Classical theories of

international relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 120-141.

5. Kant and Marx

Required:

Brown et al (2002) Chapter 7, pp. 401-408, 443-472, Chapter 9, pp. 590-592.

Brewer, Anthony (2002). Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. Routledge.

pp. 11-16, 25-57.

Recommended:

Williams, Howard, and Ken Booth. "Kant: theorist beyond limits." In Clark and Neumann

(1996) Classical theories of international relations. pp. 71-98.

Marx, Karl and Freidrich Engels (1848). “The Communist Manifesto” Chapters 1, 2.

Part 3 – Major Schools of IR Theory

6. Realism Part 1 – From Classical to Structural Realism

Required:

Chapter 6: “Realism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds) The Globalization of World

Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (sixth edition) Oxford University Press.

pp. 99-112

Donnelley, Jack (2005), “Realism” in Burchill, Scott et. al Theories of International

Relations Palgrave. pp. 29-51.

Jervis, Robert. (1994). Hans Morgenthau, realism, and the scientific study of international

politics. Social research, 853-876.

Recommended:

Waltz, Kenneth (2000). "Structural realism after the Cold War." International security 25.1:

5-41.

Snyder, G. H. (2002). Mearsheimer's World—Offensive Realism and the Struggle for

Security: A Review Essay. International Security, 27(1), 149-173.

Rynning, S and Ringsmose J (2008) Why Are Revisionist States Revisionist? Reviving

Classical Realism as an Approach to Understanding International Change”, International

Politics 45.1, 19–39.

7. Realism Part 2 – … and Back

Required:

Brown (2005) Chapter 6

Wohlforth, William C (2011) "Gilpinian realism and international relations." International

Relations 25.4: 499-511.

Rathbun, Brian (2008). "A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical

and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism." Security Studies 17.2 (2008): 294-321.

Recommended:

Schweller, Randy. L. (1994). “Bandwagoning For Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State

Back In”. International Security, 19(1), 72-107.

Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., and Taliaferro, J . W. (eds) (2009), Neoclassical Realism, the

State, and Foreign Policy (Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press). Chapter 1.

DiCicco, Jonathan and Jack S. Levy, “Power Shifts and Problem Shifts: The Evolution of the Power Transition Research Program,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 43, no. 6 (1999): 675 –704.

8. Liberalism 1: From the Liberal Tradition to the Neo-Neo Debates

Required:

Chapter 7: “Liberalism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds) pp. 113-125

Burchill, Scott (2005) “Liberalism”, in Burchill et al. pp 55-81.

Lamy, Steven (2014) Chapter 8: “Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and

neo-liberalism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds) pp. 126-140

Recommended:

Nye, Joseph (1992). “Neorealism and Neoliberalism”, World Politics 35, 1992.

Jervis, Robert “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate”,

International Security, Summer 1999, Vol. 24, No. 1, Pages 42-63

9. Liberalism 2 – Three Pillars of Liberalism

Required:

Doyle, Michael W. (2005) "Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace." American Political Science

Review 99.3 (2005): 463-466

Deudney, D. and G. J. Ikenberry (1999) “The Nature and Sources of Liberal International

Order” Review of International Studies 25(2): 179–96.

Erik Gartzke. (2007). “The Capitalist Peace”. American Journal of Political Science, Vol.

51, No. 1: 166–91.

Recommended:

Chan, Steve (1997). “In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise”,Mershon

International Studies Review, Vol. 41, No. 1: 59-91.

Rosato, Sebastian. (2003) “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory”, American

Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 4: 585-602

Copeland, Dale. (1996) "Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade

Expectations," International Security 4: 5-41,

10. The English School

Required:

Armstrong, David (2014) Chapter 2: “The Evolution of International Society” in Baylis,

Smith and Owens. pp. 36-49

Linklater, Andrew (2005) Chapter 4: “The English School” in Burchill et. al. .pp 84-109.

Recommended:

Brown, Chris (1995). ‘International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the

Middle Way’, Review of International Studies 21(2) pp.183–96.

Hall, Ian (2012). ‘Taming the Anarchical Society’, E-International Relations, July 5,

available here: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/05/taming-the-the-anarchical-society/

Hoffman, Stanley (1986). ‘Hedley Bull and His Contribution to International Relations’

International Affairs, Vol. 62, No. 2. pp. 179 – 195

Little, Richard D (2003). ‘The English School vs. American Realism: A Meeting of Minds

or Divided by a Common Language?’ Review of International Studies 29 (3) pp. 443 – 460.

Suganami, Hidemi (2010). ‘The English School in a Nutshell’, Annual Review of

International Studies, Vol.9 pp. 15–28.

Suganami, Hidemi (2017). ‘The Argument of The Anarchical Society’ in Hidemi Suganami,

Madeline Carr and Adam Humphreys (eds.) The Anarchical Society at 40: Contemporary

Challenges and Prospects. Oxford University Press. pp 23–40.

11. Constructivism

Required:

Reus-Smit, Christian (2005) Chapter 8: “Constructivism” in Burchill et. al. pp 188-212.

Weber, Cynthia (2010). International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction (3rd

edition).

Routledge. ‘Constructivism: Is Anarchy What States Make of It?’ pp. 61−82.

Wendt, Alexander (1992). ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of

Power Politics,’ International Organization, 46, Spring 1992. pp. 391 – 425.

Recommended:

Adler, Emanuel (1997). ‘Seizing the Middle Ground’, European Journal of International

Relations 3, pp.319–64.

Adler, Emanuel (2013). ‘Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions,

and Debates’ in: Walter E. Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth A Simmons (eds.). Handbook of

International Relations (2nd ed.), Sage. pp. 112 – 144.

Barnett, Michael (2014) Chapter 10: “Social constructivism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens.

pp. 155-168

Copeland, Dale (2000). ‘The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism: A Review

Essay’. International Security, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 187–212

Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998). ‘International Norm Dynamics and

Political Change’. International Organization 52, no.4, pp. 887 – 917.

Rengger, N. (2000). International Relations, Political Theory and The Problem of Order.

Routledge. “Society” Chapter.

Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1999. ‘Three Cultures of Anarchy’. pp. 264 – 312.

12. Marxism

Required:

Chapter 9: “Marxist Theories of International Relations” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds)

pp. 141-154

Linklaer, Andrew (2005) “Marxism”, in Burchill et.al. pp: 110-136.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (2011) Chapter 5: “The Rise and Future Demise of the World

Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis”, in The Essential Wallerstein

Recommended:

Frank, A. G. (1966) ‘The Development of Underdevelopment’, Monthly Review 18(4): 17–

31

McKelvey, Charles (2018). The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution

Palgrave. Chapter 1: Global and Historical Context.

Ho-Fung, H. (2009). “China: America's Head Servant?”. New Left Review, No 60,

Part 4 –Critiques of Mainstream IR

13. Critical Theory and Feminism

Required:

Devetak, Richard (2005) Chapter 6: “Critical Theory” in Burchill et. al. .pp 137-160.

Tickner, Ann (2014) Chapter 17: “Gender in World Politics” in Baylis, Smith and Owens

(eds) pp. 258-273

True, Jacqui (2005) Chapter 9: “Feminism” in Burchill et. al. .pp 213-234.

Recommended:

Enloe, C. (2014). Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International

Politics. (2nd ed.). London: University of California Press. Chapter 1 and Conclusion. pp. 1–

36; 343–60.

Rengger, N. (2000). International Relations, Political Theory and The Problem of Order.

Routledge. “Emancipation” Chapter.

Rengger, N. J. and Tristram Thirkwell-White. (2007). ‘Still Critical After All These Years?

The Past, Present and Future of Critical Theory in International Relations’ in Critical

International Relations Theory after 25 Years. CUP. pp. 3 – 24.

Weber, C. (2001). International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. Routledge.

“Introduction” and “Gender” chapters.

14. Poststructuralism

Required:

Devetak, Richard (2005) Chapter 7: “Postmodernism” in Burchill et. al. pp 161-187.

Hansen, Lene (2014) Chapter 11: “Poststructuralism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds) pp.

169-183

Rengger, N. (2000). International Relations, Political Theory and The Problem of Order.

Routledge. “Limits” Chapter.

Recommended:

Der Derian, J. (2009). Critical Practices in International Theory: Selected Essays.

Routledge. ‘Post-theory’, ‘The (S)pace of International Relations’, ‘S/N: International

Theory’, Balkanisation and the New World Order’ & ‘Virtuous War/Virtual Theory’. pp.

43−62, 97−119, 190−209 & 243–261.

Weaver, Ole. (2013) ‘Still a Discipline after all these Debates?’. In Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki

& Steve Smith (eds.). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (3rd

edition). Oxford University Press. pp. 306 – 328.

Weber, C. (2001). International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. Routledge.

“Conclusion” chapter.

Part 5 - Methodology

15. IR, Science and the Agency-Structure Debate

Required:

Wendt, Alexander. (1987) “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations

Theory”, International Organization 41 (3), 1987, pp.335–70.

Lamont, Christopher (2015). Research Methods in International Relations (London: Sage)

Chapter 1

Singer, J. David (1961). “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations” World

Politics 14 (1), pp.77–92.

Recommended:

Hollis, M. and S. Smith (1991) Explaining and Understanding International

Relations.(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). Chapters 1, 5 and 9

Keohane, R (1988). ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International

StudiesbQuarterly 32, pp. 379-96.

Smith, Steve (1996). "Positivism and Beyond." In International Theory: Positivism and

Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski. Cambridge University

Press, pp. 11-44.

Part 6: Theorizing International Politics in the 21st Century

16. Humanitarian /Intervention Rights

TBA

17. Unipolarity

Required:

Brown (2005), Chapter 12

Cox, Michael. (2002). “September 11th and the U. S. Hegemony – Or Will the 21st Century

Be American Too?”, International Studies Perspectives 3: 53–70.

Ikenberry, Mastanudo and Wohlforth (2009) “Unipolarity, State Behavior and Systemic

Consequences”, World Politics, 61

Recommended:

Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2000), Empire. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press)

Wohlforth, W. ‘American Primacy’, Foreign Affairs 81(3), 2002.

Mallaby, S. ‘The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States and the Case for American

Empire’, Foreign Affairs 81(2), 2002, pp.318–45.

18. Cultural Bias: Towards a Non-Western IR?

Required:

Buzan, Barry, and Amitav Acharya (2009). "Why is there no non-Western international

relations theory? An introduction." Non-Western International Relations Theory. Routledge,

2009.

Sylvester, Christine (2014) Chapter 12: Post-colonialism” in Baylis, Smith and Owens (eds)

pp. 184-197.

Brown (2005), Ch. 10 “The International Politics of Identity”, pp 185-2016

Recommended:

Thomas, Scott M (2003). “Taking Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global

Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Society Regionalism”, in

Petito, F. and P. Hatzopoulos (eds) Religion in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan:

21-55

Bell, Daniel (2000). East Meets West: Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia.

Princeton.

Huntington, Samuel (1993) “The Clash of Civilizations”, Foreign Affairs 72, pp.22–49.

Kang, David C. East Asia before the West: Five centuries of trade and tribute. Columbia

University Press, 2010.

19. Regionalism

Required:

Acharya, Amitav (2009) “Regional Worlds in a Post-hegemonic Era,” Spirit Working

Papers No. 1 (Bordeaux: Science Po).

Hurrell, Andrew (2012) “Regional Powers and the Global System from a Historical

Perspective”, in Daniel Flemes (ed), Regional Leadership in Global Perspective. GIGA.

Buzan, Barry and Ole Waever (2004), Chapter 3 “Security complexes: a theory of regional

security”, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge.

Recommended:

Lake, David. (2009) “Regional Hierarchy: Authority and Local International Order,” Review

of International Studies 35, no. 1: 35–58.

Katzenstein, Peter (1996) “Regionalism in Comparative Perspective,” Cooperation and

Conflict 31, no. 2 (1996): 123–159.

20. Bargaining Theory

Required:

Fearon, James D. (1995),"Rationalist Explanations for War." International Organization

49.03 (1995): 379-41

Reiter, Dan (2003) “Exploring the Bargaining Model of War”, Perspectives on Politics,

March 2003 Vol1 No1

Philip Streich, Jack S. Levy. (2014) “Information, Commitment, and the Russo-Japanese

War of 1904-1905” Foreign Policy Analysis

Recommended:

Lake, David A.(2011) “Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist

Explanations of the Iraq War”, International Security, Vol. 35, No. 3, Pages 7-52

Kydd, Andrew (2010). “Rationalist Approaches to Conflict Prevention and Resolution”,

Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 13: 101-121

21. Status

Required:

Paul, T.V., Deborah Larson and William Wohlforth (2014) “Status and World Order” in

Paul, Larson and Wohlforth (eds.) Status in World Politics. Cambridge University Press. pp

3-32.

Wohlforth, William (2009). “Unipolarity, Status, and Major Power War”. World Politics

61, no. 1 : 28–57.

Larson, D. W., & Shevchenko, A. (2010). Status seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to

US primacy. International Security, 34(4), 63-95.

Recommended:

Renshon, Jonathan. (2016). "Status deficits and war." International Organization 70.3: 513-

550.

Ward, Steven.(2013). "Race, status, and Japanese revisionism in the early 1930s." Security

Studies 22.4: 607-639.

Tsygankov, A. P. (2012). Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: honor in

international relations. Cambridge University Press.

22. Global Governance: The Last Utopia?

Required:

Craig, C., (2010) “The Resurgent Idea of World Government” in Jovan Babic and Petar

Bojanic (eds.) World Governance: Do We Need It, Is It Possible, What Could It (All) Mean?

Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 90-100

Hoffman, S., (2010) “World Governance: Beyond Utopia” in Jovan Babic and Petar Bojanic

(eds.) World Governance, pp. 61-71

Kennedy, D., (2009) “The Mystery of Global Governance” In Jeffrey L. Dunoff, Joel P.

Trachtman (eds.) Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global

Governance, Cambridge University Press, pp. 37-68

Rengger, N. (2003) “On ‘Good Global Governance’, Institutional Design and the Practice of

Moral Agency” in Toni Erskine (ed.) Can Institutions Have Responsibilities? Collective

Moral Agency and International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.207-217

Recommended:

Barnett, M., (2015) “Paternalism and Global Governance” Social Philosophy and Policy,

Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 216-243

Bartleson, J., (2010) “Beyond Democratic Legitimacy: Global Governance and the

Promotion of Liberty”. In Christer Jönsson and Jonas Tallberg (eds.) Transnational Actors

in Global Governance: Patterns, Explanations, and Implications, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.

218-236

Buchanan, A. and Robert Keohane (2010) “The Legitimacy of Global Governance

Institutions” in Jovan Babic and Petar Bojanic (eds.) World Governance, pp. 214-246

Cabera, L., (2015) “Global Government and the Sources of Globoscepticism” Millennium:

Journal of International Studies, Vol. 43, Issue 2, pp. 471–491

Hurrell, A., (2011) “The Theory and Practice of Global Governance: The Worst of All

Possible Worlds?” International Studies Review, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp. 144–154

Part 7: Using IR Theory to Understand Russia

23. Realism Reconsidered

Required:

Mearsheimer, John (2014). "Why the Ukraine crisis is the west s fault." Foreign Affairs

93.5: 77-89

Stoner, Kathryn and Michael McFaul. (2015) “Who Lost Russia (This Time)? Vladimir

Putin”, The Washington Quarterly 38:2: 167-187.

Kagarlitsky, Boris (2008). Empire of the Periphery: Russia and the World System. Pluto

Press. pp. 1-25; 204-325.

Recommended:

Charap, Samuel, and Timothy J. Colton. (2016) Everyone Loses: The Ukraine crisis and the

ruinous contest for post-Soviet Eurasia. Delphi.

Marten, Kimberly. (2015) "Informal political networks and Putin’s foreign policy: The

examples of Iran and Syria." Problems of Post-Communism 62.2: 71-87.

Krickovic, Andrej and Yuval Weber. (2017) “Commitment Issues: Ukraine and Syria as

Bargaining Failures”, Problems of Post-Communism, Published online: 29 June

24. Beyond Constructivism

Required:

Clunan, Anne L. (2014). "Historical aspirations and the domestic politics of Russia's pursuit

of international status." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47.3-4: 281-290.

Tsygankov, Andrei. (2015). “Vladimir Putin’s Last Stand: The Sources of Russia’s Ukraine

Policy,” Post-Soviet Affairs 31:4, pp. 279-303.

Krickovic, Andrej and Yuval Weber. (2018) “What Can Russia Teach Us About Change?

Status-Seeking as a Catalyst for Transformation in International Politics” International

Studies Review 20(2), 292-300.

Recommended:

Larson, Deborah Welch, and Alexei Shevchenko (2014). "Russia says no: Power, status, and

emotions in foreign policy." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47.3-4: 269-279.

Neumann, Iver (2016). Russia and the idea of Europe: a study in identity and international

relations. London: Routledge.

Rutland, Peter (2015). "Petronation? Oil, Gas, and National Identity in Russia." Post-Soviet

Affairs 31.1: 66-89.