UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX
Department of International Relations
International Theory (903M1)
MA Core Course
Autumn Term 2010
Course Convenor: Beate Jahn
Course Tutors:
Beate Jahn, C339
[email protected]
Benno Teschke, B343
[email protected]
Office Hours: please see notice on office doors
Introduction: Aims and Objectives
The aim of this course is to provide students with a general introduction to the major theories of
international relations. In each case, we will locate the historical context of these theories, show
where and how they contribute to an understanding of what international politics is and how it
works, and identify their weaknesses and blind spots. By the end of the course, students should
expect to have an informed and critical grasp of the way international politics has been, and is
being, understood. We will consider some of the main concepts that define the theorization of
international relations: war and peace, states and nations, societies and systems, empires and
colonies, revolutions and resistances. We will examine the theoretical traditions within which
they are contested. This includes coverage of mainstream theoretical traditions and various
alternative accounts. Students taking the course will receive a broad introduction to IR theories,
and their critiques, as well as considering issues of ‘global’ politics more generally. This will
enhance students’ analytical skills, both in terms of developing and presenting their own
arguments, developing their capacity to engage in informed discussion and argument about
complex political questions.
Teaching Arrangements
Teaching is by seminar, held weekly for one hour and fifty minutes. These will commence in
Week 1. Students are expected to have read, as a minimum, the required readings and to be ready
to participate actively in seminar discussions. You are welcome to attend the undergraduate
lectures on Classical Political Theory and International Relations. During the course, students are
expected to write one 2000 word essay on a question either chosen from the course outline or
agreed with the tutor. Moreover, students are expected to make at least one tutorial presentation
during the term.
Assessment
The course is examined by means of a three-and-a-half-hour unseen examination, held during the
first week of the Spring Term 2011. We will organise a revision seminar in Week 10, which all
students are invited to attend. Please bring past years' exam questions which are available in the
library (and on the web) to this revision seminar.
Books and Readings
There is no single textbook for use in the course but the library holds a wide range of IR
textbooks which may come in handy as background information. Of these, two are especially
useful: S. Burchill, R. Devetak et el. Theories of International Relations 4th edition (Palgrave
Press) 2009 and Oxford Handbook of IR, ed. by Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, Oxford
(OUP) 2008. Required readings are specified each week and a course pack is provided
containing all of the required readings. You are strongly advised to purchase a copy of the course
pack at the start of term. You are encouraged to browse through the other texts listed in the
further reading lists, and to identify and find those which are of particular interest to you.
Evaluation
Towards the end of the term you will be asked to evaluate the course by filling out an anonymous
'Student Evaluation Questionnaire'. However, in the meantime please do not hesitate to come to
our office hours with questions and suggestions or advice.
2
Course Summary
Week 1:
Classical Political Theory
Week 2:
Liberalism and Neoliberalism
Week 3:
Realism and Neorealism
Week 4:
The English School and Constructivism
Week 5:
Marxist Theories
Week 6:
Normative and Ethical Theories
Week 7:
Critical Theories
Week 8
Gender Theories
Week 9:
Post-Structural Theories
Week 10:
Post-Colonial Theories
Week 1: Classical Political Theory and International Relations
The discipline of International Relations frequently traces its roots back to a variety of classical
authors – just as other modern social sciences do. This practice serves a number of different
ends. Sometimes it is meant to establish a continuity of thought and practice over time. And yet,
we need to determine whether and to what extent historical change may actually diminish the
significance of this continuity. Furthermore, this continuity is established with reference to
European authors alone and hence raises the question of a eurocentric bias in the construction of
the discipline of International Relations. Sometimes classical authors are used to establish
different traditions, or schools of thought, in International Relations. In this vein, Liberals trace
their roots to Kant, Realists to Hobbes, Machiavelli, Thucydides and Rousseau, Marxists to Marx
and so on. This practice structures the debates in contemporary International Relations around
those schools of thought without, however, considering the fact that classical writers did, firstly,
not categorically distinguish the domestic from the international and, secondly, might have been
located in their own contemporaneous debates in a very different way. In this context, we have to
ask ourselves how we can best understand the work of a classical author and evaluate its
relevance for the contemporary world. Finally, it is not uncommon to use classical authors for the
purpose of justifying certain contemporary policies – from the spread of democracy to the
preparation for war. Such a use, however, presupposes that the meaning of democracy or war
remains the same over time and that the context in which these concepts are used is comparable.
Whether or not this is actually the case, therefore, needs to be established in each case. The
purpose of this week’s seminar, hence, is threefold. Firstly, we will introduce you to two of the
most important classical authors in the field of International Relations. Secondly, in discussing
the issues mentioned above we will reflect upon the definition(s) of International Relations as an
academic discipline. And, thirdly, we will discuss important methodological questions
concerning the relationship of theory and practice, historical change and continuity, and facts and
values.
Essay Questions
1. For what purposes are classical authors generally used in the contemporary discipline of
International Relations? And how convincing are these usages?
3
2. Hobbes defined the international sphere as a state of war and the continuing presence of
war proves him right. Do you agree?
3. Evaluate the relevance of Kant’s writings for the contemporary world.
4. Classical authors wrote in a radically different social and political context and, hence,
their writings can produce no insights into contemporary international relations. Do you
agree?
Required Reading
Smith, Steve, The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory,
in, International Relations Theory Today, ed. by Ken Booth and Steve Smith, University
Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, ch. 1.
Kant, I., Perpetual Peace, New York: Macmillan, 1957. (If you want to limit the amount of
reading, you can leave out the appendices in Kant’s Perpetual Peace.)
Doyle, M., Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs, (2 parts), in: Philosophy and Public
Affairs, Vol. 12, Nos. 3 & 4, 1983. Also published in: Debating the Democratic Peace,
edited by Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller, 3-57.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Available on Jstor.
Additional Reading
Readings on Hobbes
Hobbes, Thomas, From Leviathan, in: Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger (eds.),
International Relations in Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002, 335-40.
Williams, Michael C., Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration, in: International
Organization, 1996, Vol. 50, 213-236.
Navari, C., Hobbes and the Hobbesian Tradition in International Thought, in: Millennium, Vol.
11, 1982.
Bull, H., Hobbes and the International Anarchy, in: Social Research, Vol. 48, No. 4, Winter
1981.
Forsyth, M., Thomas Hobbes and the External Relations of States, in: British Journal of
International Studies Vol. 5, 1979, pp. 96-209.
Vincent, J., The Hobbesian Tradition in Twentieth Century International Thought, in:
Millennium, Vol. 10, No. 2, Summer 1981.
Di Stefano, C., Masculinity as Ideology in Political Theory: Hobbesian Man Considered, in:
Women's Studies International Forum, Vol. 6, 1983.
Sorell, T. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996, chapters 2, 4, 8, 9.
Boucher, D., Political Theories of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998, ch. 7.
Bartelson, Jens, Short Circuits: Society and Tradition in International Relations Theory, in:
Review of International Studies, 1996, vol. 22, 339-360.
Hanson, Donald W., Thomas Hobbes’s ‚Highway to Peace’, in: International Organization, 1984,
Vol. 38, 329-354.
Odysseos, L., Dangerous ontologies: the ethos of survival and ethical theorizing in International
Relations, In: REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 28 (2): 403-418 APR 2002
4
Readings on Kant
Kant, Immanuel, Abstracts from Essay on Theory and Practice, Perpetual Peace, The
Metaphysical Elements of Rights, in: Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger
(eds.), International Relations in Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002, 428-56.
Boucher, D., Political Theories of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998, ch. 11.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood, The Republican Legacy in International Thought, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Doyle, M., Liberalism and World Politics, in: American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No.
4, 1986.
Hurrell, A., Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations, in: Review of
International Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3, July 1990.
Hutchings, Kimberly, The Possibility of Judgement: Moralizing and Theorizing in International
Relations, in: Review of International Studies, 1992, vol. 18, 51-62.
Hutchings, K., Kant: Critique and Politics, London: Routledge, 1995.
MacMillan, John. 1995. A Kantian Protest Against the Peculiar Discourse of Inter-Liberal State
Peace. Millennium 24:549-62.
McKinlay, R. & Little, R., The Liberal Model, in: Global Problems and
World Order, London: Pinter, 1986, pp. 24-53.
Pateman, C., Women and the Origins of Liberalism, in: Political Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1979.
Archibugi, Daniele. 1992. Models of International Organization in Perpetual Peace Projects.
Review of International Studies. 18:295-317.
Archibugi, Daniele. 1998. Principles of Cosmopolitan Democracy. In Re-imagining Political
Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy, edited by Daniele Archibugi, David
Held and Martin Köhler, 198-228. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Archibugi, Daniele. 2000. Cosmopolitical Democracy. New Left ReviewII. 4:137-50.
Bartelson, Jens. 1995. The Trial of Judgment: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of
Internationalism. International Studies Quarterly. 39:255-79.
Beitz, Charles. 1979. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Beitz, Charles. 1983. Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment. The Journal of Philosophy.
80:591-600.
Cavallar, Georg. 2001. Kantian Perspectives on Democratic Peace: Alternatives to Doyle.
Review of International Studies. 27:229-48.
Cavallar, Georg. 1999. Kant and the Theory and Practice of International Right. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press.
Franceschet, Antonio. 2000. Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy? Liberalism, Kant
and International Reform. European Journal of International Relations. 6:277-302.
Franceschet, Antonio. 2001. Sovereignty and Freedom: Immanuel Kant’s Liberal Internationalist
‘Legacy’. Review of International Studies. 27:209-28.
Held, David. 1996. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan
Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
5
Hurrell, Andrew. 1990. Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations. Review of
International Studies. 16:183-205.
Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose. In Political
Writings, edited by Hans Reiss, 41-53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, H., International Relations and the Limits of Political Theory, London: Macmillan,
1996, chs. 1 and 8.
Linklater, Andrew, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 1982, ch. 6.
Jahn, Beate, Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs, in: International
Organization, vol. 59, no, 1, 2005, pp. 177-207.
Readings on Clausewitz (for those interested)
Clausewitz, Carl von, On War, rev. ed., edited and translated by Michael Howard and
Peter Paret, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1984: Book 1, chapters 1-2,
pp. 83-114
Paret, Peter, Clausewitz: A Bibliographical Survey, In: World Politics, Vol. 17, No. 2. (Jan.,
1965), pp. 272-285.
Paret, Peter, ‘On the Genesis of On War’, in von Clausewitz, On War, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, pp.3-28
Moody, Peter R., Clausewitz and the Fading Dialectic of War, In: World Politics, Vol. 31, No. 3.
(Apr., 1979), pp. 417-433.
Aron, Raymond, The Great Debate: Theories of Nuclear Strategy, London:
Doubleday 1965
———, Clausewitz: Philosopher of War, translation of Penser la Guerre, London: Routledge
1983
Gallie, W.B., ‘Clausewitz on the Nature of War’, in Gallie, ed., Philosophers of Peace and War,
Cambridge: CUP 1978, pp.37-65
Gat, Azar, The Origins of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to Clausewitz, Oxford:
Clarendon 1989, chapters 5-7.
Gray, Colin, ‘Clausewitz Rules, OK? The Future is the Past – with GPS’, Review of
International Studies, 25:5, 1999, pp. 161-82.
———, Modern Strategy, Oxford: OUP 1999, chapter 3
Handel, Michael (ed.), Clausewitz and Modern Strategy, London and Totowa, N.J.: Frank Cass,
1986.
———, Masters of War: Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Jomini, London; Frank Cass 1992
Heuser, Beatrice, Reading Clausewitz, London: Pimlico 2002
Howard, Michael, Clausewitz, Oxford: OUP 1983
Lebow, Richard Ned, ‘Clausewitz and Nuclear Crisis Stability’, In: Political Science Quarterly,
Vol. 103, No. 1. (Spring, 1988), pp. 81-110.
Paret, Peter, Clausewitz and the State, 2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon 1985.
———, ‘Clausewitz’, in Paret, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the
Nuclear Age, Oxford: Clarendon 1986, pp. 186-213
———, Understanding War: Essays on Clausewitz and the History of Military Power,
Princeton: Princeton University Press 1992
———, ‘Clausewitz’, in Edward Mead Earle, Gordon A. Craig and Felix Gilbert (eds.), Makers
of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler, Princeton: Princeton
6
University Press 1943 [note the date of publication and the exclusion of Rothfels’s article
in the 1986 successor volume!]
Semmel, Bernard (ed.), Marxism and the Science of War, Oxford: OUP 1981, especially chapter
1.
Windsor, Philip, ‘The State and War’, in Cornelia Navari (ed.), The Condition of States: A Study
in International Political Theory, Buckingham and Bristol: Open University Press 1991,
pp. 125-41.
Reid, Julian, ‘Foucault on Clausewitz: Conceptualizing the Relationship Between War and
Power’, Alternatives (28, 1, 2003), pp1-28
Burke, Anthony, ‘Iraq: Strategy’s Burnt Offering’, Global Change, Peace & Security (17, 2,
2005).
Readers and Histories of Classical Thought
Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger (eds.), International Relations in Political
Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Boucher, D., Political Theories of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998.
Knutsen, Torbjorn, A History of International Relations Theory, Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1992.
Luard, Even (ed.), Basic Texts in International Relations, London: Macmillan, 1992.
Williams, H., Wright, M. and Evans, T. (eds.), A Reader in International Relations and Political
Theory, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1993.
Skinner, Q., The Foundations of Modern Political Thought Vol.2, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995.
Mapel, D. and T. Nardin (eds.), Traditions of International Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992.
Tuck, Richard, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from
Grotius to Kant, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Keene, Edward, International Political Thought. A Historical Introdcution, Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2005.
Classical Theory in International Relations
Jahn, Beate (ed.), Classical Theory in International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006.
Jackson, Robert, Is There A Classical International Theory? in: International Theory: Positivism
and Beyond, ed. by Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996, ch. 9.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke, International Politics and Political Theory, in: International Relations
Theory Today, ed. by Ken Booth and Steve Smith, University Park: The Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1995, ch. 12.
Walker, R. B. J., International Relations and the Concept of the Political, in: International
Relations Theory Today, ed. by Ken Booth and Steve Smith, University Park: The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995, ch. 14.
Bartelson, Jens, A Genealogy of Sovereignty, Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press, 1995.
7
Holzgrefe, J.L., The Origins of Modern International Relations Theory, in: Review of
International Studies, 15, 1989.
Smith, H., The Silence of the Academics, in: Review of International Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2,
April 1996.
Williams, H., International Relations in Political Theory, Buckingham: Open University Press,
1992, chapters 5, 6, 8, 11.
Williams, H., International Relations and the Limits of Political Theory, London: Macmillan,
1996.
Hoffman, S., Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International
Politics, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981.
Hutchings, Kimberley, International Political Theory, London, Sage, 1999.
Linklater, A., Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 1982.
Connolly, W., Identity/Difference, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991, chapter 2.
Der Derian, J., Anti-Diplomacy: Spies, terror, Speed and War, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Walker, R., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992.
Week 2: Liberalism
and Neoliberalism
As an academic discipline, International Relations was
established after the end of World War I with the explicit aim of
investigating ways to prevent a repetition of such a catastrophic
war and, of course, wars in general. Liberals believed that
traditional power politics were largely responsible for the war
and promoted international cooperation through international
organizations like the League of Nations, through trade and
economic interaction, as well as the spread of democracy. While
the outbreak of World War II discredited this approach for some
time, it became more prominent again in the 1970s under a
variety of names: interdependence, transnationalism, pluralism, regime theory, liberal
institutionalism and neo-institutionalism. This development was triggered by the first ‘thaw’ in
the Cold War in connection with the development of European integration and the oil crisis of
the early 1970s which allowed a shift away from security issues towards economic issues and
international organization. Some strands of this new liberalism have, in the meantime, moved
very close to Neorealism while others developed into globalization theories and a range of
positions in between the two. Globalization theories in particular, but also the Democratic Peace
thesis and other liberal paradigms have again received a boost from the end of the Cold War.
And yet, the liberal optimism of the 1990s – triumphantly proclaiming the end of history – has
given way again to more pessimistic reflections on the clash of civilizations, a global war on
terror and the like. In light of this history, we will need to discuss, first, what the core
assumptions and beliefs of liberal theories of International Relations are and how they may have
changed over time. Secondly, we will need to pay some attention to the epistemological and
methodological foundations and developments of liberal international thought. And, finally, we
8
will need to discuss which role liberalism plays – in conjunction with other theories – in defining
International Relations.
Essay Questions
1. What are the core assumptions of Liberalism – and have they changed over time?
2. Liberalism captures the contemporary world particularly well because it has successfully
overcome the distinction between domestic and international politics. Discuss.
3. How do you explain the resurgence of Liberalism after the end of the Cold War?
4. What is the difference between Liberalism and Neoliberalism? How does the latter avoid
the charge of ‘utopianism’?
5. Why do states cooperate?
Required Readings
Angell, Norman, The Great Illusion, London 1910, Introduction.
Richardson, J.L., Contending Liberalisms – Past and Present, in: European Journal of
International Relations, vol. 3, no. 1, 1997.
Dunne, Tim, Liberalism, in The Globalization of World Politics, ed. by John Baylis and Steve
Smith, Oxford: OUP 2005, Ch. 8.
Additional Readings
Readings on Liberalism
Wilson, Peter, ‘The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate’’, Review of International Studies, 24,
Special Issue, 1998.
Mitrany, David, The Functional Approach to World Organization, in: International Affairs, Vol.
24, No. 3, 1948, 350-363.
Angell, Norman, The New Imperialism and the Old Nationalism, in: International Affairs, vol.
10, no. 1, 1931, 69-83.
Hoffmann, Stanley, Janus and Minerva, Boulder: Westview 1987.
Hoffmann, Stanley, The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism, in: Foreign Policy, vol. 98, 1995.
Smith, M.J., Liberalism and International Reform, in: Terry Nardin and David Mapels (eds),
Traditions of International Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Zacher, M. and R.A. Matthew, Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent
Strands, in: Kegley (ed), Controversies in International Relations, NY: St Martin’s Press,
1995, 107-50.
Burchill, Scott, Liberalism, in: Theories of International Relations, ed. by Scott Burchill et al,
Basingstoke: Palgrave 2001, 29-69.
Doyle, Michael, Liberalism and World Politics, in: American Political Science Review, vol. 80,
no. 4, 1986, 1151-1169.
Gardner, R.N., The Comeback of Liberal Internationalism, in: The Washington Quarterly, vol.
13, no. 3, 1990, 23-39.
Claude, I., Swords into Plowshares, London: Random House, 1971, chapters. 1, 2 and 10.
Williams, H., Wright, M. and Evans, T. (eds.), A Reader in International Relations and Political
Theory, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1993, chapters 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
Wolfers, A., Discord and Collaboration, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962
chapters 6-8.
Banks, M., Where are we now?, in: Review of International Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, July 1985.
9
Donelan, M., Elements of International Political Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 2237.
Griffiths, M., Realism, Idealism and International Politics, London: Routledge, 1992.
Butterfield, H.& Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, London: Allen & Unwin, 1966,
chapters 6, 7, 11.
Lieber, R., Theory and World Politics, London: Allen & Unwin, 1973, chapters 5&7.
Long, D. & P. Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997.
Hoffman, S., International Organization and the International System in: International
Organization, Summer 1970.
Tranholm-Mikkelsen, J., Neo-Functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? in: Millennium, Vol. 20,
Spring 1991.
Moravcsik, Andrew, Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,
in: International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, 1997, pp. 513-553.
Deudney, D. and J.G. Ikenberry, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, in:
Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1999, pp. 179.96.
Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History, in: The National Interest, 16, 1989.
MacMillan, John, On Liberal Peace: Democracy, War, and the International Order, London:
Tauris, 1998.
Hovden, Eivind & Edward Keene (eds). The Globalization of Liberalism (Basingstoke: Palgrave,
2002).
Readings on Neoliberalism
Moravcsik, Andrew, Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,
in: International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, 1997, pp. 513-553.
Hasenclever/Mayer/Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997, ch. 1.
Banks, M., Where are we now?, in: Review of International Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, July 1985.
Donelan, M., Elements of International Political Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 2237.
Deudney, D. and J.G. Ikenberry, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, in:
Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1999, pp. 179.96.
Saad-Filho, Alfredo and Deborah Johnston (eds), (2005) Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader
(London: Pluto Press).
Griffiths, M., Realism, Idealism and International Politics, London: Routledge, 1992.
Milner, H., The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: a critique, in: Review of
International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1991.
Taylor, T. (ed.), Approaches and Theory in International Relations, London: Longman, 1978,
(Chaps 6, 9).
Viotti, P. & M. Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1999, chapter 2.
Baldwin, D.A. (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: the Contemporary debate, New York:
Columbia University Press, 1993.
Dessler, D., What's at Stake in the agent-structure debate? in: International Organization, Vol. 3,
No. 3, Summer 1989.
10
Griffiths, M., Realism, Idealism and International Politics, London: Routledge, 1992.
Hollis, M. & S. Smith, Beware of gurus: structure and action in international relations, in:
Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, Oct. 1991.
Hollis, M. & S.Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990. Introduction and chapters 5&6.
Keohane, R.& J. Nye, Power and Interdependence, London: Harper Collins, 1989, chapter 1.
Keohane, R.(ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1984,
chapters 1, 2, 4, 7, 9.
Keohane, R., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Krasner, S. (ed.), International Regimes, New York: Columbia University Press, Introduction
and Conclusion.
Krasner, S., Structural Conflict: The Third World Against Global Liberalism, Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1985.
Nye, J., Neorealism and Neoliberalism in: World Politics, Vol. 40, Jan. 1988.
Archer, C., International Organizations, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 71-131.
Cocks, P., Towards a Marxist Theory of European Integration in: International Organization,
Winter 1980.
Grieco, J., The Maastricht Treaty, Economic and Monetary Union and the Neo-Realist research
programme, in: Review of International Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Jan 1995.
Groom, J. & P. Taylor, (eds.), International Organization: A Conceptual Approach, London:
Pinter, 1978.
Haas, E., The Uniting of Europe, 2nd edition, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Haas, P.M., Saving the Mediterranean: the politics of international environmental cooperation,
New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.
Harrop, J.,The Political Economy of Integration in the European Community, Aldershot: Elgar,
1992, chapters 7- 10.
Hoffman, S., International Organization and the International System in: International
Organization, Summer 1970.
Hoskyns, C., Gender issues in international relations: the case of the European Community in:
Review of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, July 1994.
Keohane R. & S. Hoffman (eds.), The New European Community: Decisionmaking and
Institutional Change, Boulder: Westview, 1991.
Keohane, R., International Institutions and State Power: Essays in I.R. Theory, Boulder:
Westview, 1989, chapters 1 & 7.
Kostakos, Groom, Taylor & Morphet, Britain and the new UN Agenda: towards global riot
control?, in: Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1991.
Murphy, C., International Organization and Industrial Change, Cambridge: Polity, 1994.
Palmer, J., Trading Places: The Future of the European Community, 1989.
Pentland, C., International Theory and European Integration, Faber, 1973, pp. 24-186.
Taylor, P., International Organisation in the Modern World, London: Pinter, 1993.
Tranholm-Mikkelsen, J., Neo-Functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? in: Millennium, Vol. 20,
Spring 1991.
Taylor, P., The European Community and the State: assumptions, theories, and propositions in:
Review of International Studies Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1991.
11
Taylor, P., The UN System under stress: financial pressures and their consequences in: Review
of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, Oct. 1991.
Taylor, T. (ed.), Approaches and Theory in International Relations, London: Longman, 1978,
chap. 11.
Tsoukalis, L., The New European Economy: The Politics and Economics of Integration, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
Whitworth, S., Gender, International relations and the case of the ILO, in: Review of
International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4, Oct. 1994.
Readings on Globalization
Baylis, J. & Smith, S. (eds.), The Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997, Introduction and chapter 1.
Gowan, Peter, The Global Gamble. Washington’s Faustian Bid for World Dominance, London:
Verso, 1999, chs. 1-3, pp. 3-38.
Hirst, P. & G. Thompson, Globalization in Question, Cambridge: Polity, 1999, ch. 1, pp. 1-17.
Albrow, M., The Global Age, Cambridge: Polity, 1996.
Waters, Malcolm, Globalization, London: Routledge, 1995, ch. 5, pp. 96-123.
Burbach, R. & W.I. Robinson, The Fin de Siècle Debate: Globalization as an Epochal Shift, in:
Science and Society, Vol. 63, No.1, Spring 1999.
Burton, J., World Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, Introduction and
chapter 1.
Colas, Alejandro, International Civil Society, Cambridge: Polity, 2001, ch. 5; this chapter is also
published on The Global Site – there is a link from the Subject Group website to The
Global Site.
Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995.
Fawcett, L. & A. Hurrell (eds.), Regionalism in World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995.
Gamble, A. & A. Payne (eds.), Regionalism and World Order, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996.
Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity, 1990.
Gill, S., The Emerging World Order and European Change, in: Miliband & Panitch (eds.),
Socialist Register, London: Merlin Press, 1992.
Held, D. et al., Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1999.
Jones, R. & P. Willets (eds.), Interdependence on Trial, London: Pinter, 1984.
Keeley, J.F., Towards a Foucauldian Analysis of International Regimes, in: International
Organization, Vol. 44, No. 1, 1990.
Keohane, R. & Nye, J. (eds.), Transnational Relations and World Politics, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1972, chapters 1, 5, 6, 12, 20.
Kofman, E. & G. Youngs (eds.), Globalization: Theory and Practice, London: Pinter: 1996.
Merle, M., The Sociology of International Relations, Leamington Spa: Berg, 1987.
Millennium, Vol. 21, No. 3, Winter 1992 - Special Issue: Beyond International Society.
Miller, J.D.B., Sovereignty as a Source of Vitality for the State, in: Review of International
Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, April 1986. (See also the comment by Alan James, pp. 91-93.)
Murray, R., The Internationalization of Capital and the Nation State, in: New Left Review, No.
67.
12
O'Meara, R.L., Regimes and Their Implications for International Theory, in: Millennium, Vol.
13, No. 3, Winter 1984.
Radice, H., Taking Globalization Seriously in: Panitch, L. & Leys, C. (eds.), The Socialist
Register 1999, London: Merlin Press, 1999.
Rittberger, V. (ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.
Rosenau, J. &E.-O. Czempiel (eds.), Governance without government: order and change in world
politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, chapters 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10.
Rosenberg, Justin, The Follies of Globalisation Theory, London: Verso 2000.
Scholte, J.-A., International Relations of Social Change, Buckingham: Open University Press,
1993.
Shaw, M., Global Society and International Relations, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994.
Shaw, M., There is no such thing as society: beyond individualism and statism in international
security studies, in: Review of International Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, April 1993.
Wade, R., The Global Economy: New Edifice or Crumbling Foundations?, in: New Left Review,
No. 168, March/April 1988.
Waltz, K., The New World Order, in: Millennium, Vol. 22, No. 2, Summer 1993.
Weiss, L., Globalization and the Myth of the Powerless State, in: New Left Review, No. 225,
September/October 1997.
Willetts, P. (ed.), Pressure Groups in the Global System, London: Pinter, 1982.
Week 3: Realism
and Neorealism
The early dominance of liberal thought in International Relations
has given way to Realism with the outbreak of the Second World
War. Against the ‘utopian’ assumptions of the Liberals, Realists
argued that war is ultimately rooted in human nature. Hence, it
cannot be overcome but at best, through balance of power
politics, prudently contained. This assumption seemed to be
supported by the onset of the Cold War very soon after the
Second World War. And yet, the first thaw in the Cold War
during the 1970s brought with it a liberal critique of, first, the
narrow realist focus on security issues and, secondly, on the
‘unscientific’ methods of realism relying, as it did, on unprovable assumptions about human
nature. This challenge led to the development of Neorealism or Structural Realism adopting more
‘scientific’ methods, giving more space to economics, and deriving the nature of international
politics from the structure of the system rather than from human nature. Despite a host of
critiques from a variety of angles, Neorealism became extremely influential in the discipline of
International Relations. Hence, we need to establish this week what exactly the core assumptions
of realism and neorealism are and in how far the latter presents an advance on the former.
Moreover, we need to compare (Neo)Realism and (Neo)Liberalism in order to establish in how
far and in what ways these approaches differ and where they overlap. On this basis we will be
able to determine the parameters of International Relations as defined by these two most
influential approaches.
Essay Questions
13
1. What are the basic assumptions of Realism and Liberalism respectively? And are these
theories mutually exclusive?
2. What is the difference between Realism and Neorealism? Is the latter an advance on the
former?
3. What are the commonalities and differences between Neoliberalism and Neorealism?
Does it make sense – as is sometimes done – to subsume both under the name
Neorealism?
4. Is Realism – as often claimed – really the dominant theory in International Relations?
5. Explain the Realist conception of political power with reference to key texts.
6. Which theory grasps contemporary international relations best and why – Liberalism,
Realism, or neither?
Required Readings
Hobbes, T., Leviathan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977, ch. 13.
Morgenthau, Hans J. (revised Kenneth W. Thompson) (1967), Politics Among Nations: The
Struggle for Power and Peace, 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, chapter 1.
Waltz, Kenneth, ‘Reductionist and Systemic Theories’, in Waltz, Theory of International
Politics, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley 1979, chapter 4 [reprinted in Robert O.
Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press 1986,
chapter 3.
Waltz, Kenneth, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, 25:
1, 2000, pp.5-41.
Additional Reading
Readings on Realism
Buzan, Barry, ‘The Timeless Wisdom of Realism?’ In Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marisa
Zalewski, Beyond Positivism, Cambridge University Press 1997
Bain, William, ‘Deconfusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered’,
Review of International Studies, 26:3, 2000, pp.445-64.
Butterfield, Herbert and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, London: Allen &
Unwin, 1966, chapters 6, 7, 11
Claude, Inis L., Power and International Relations, Random House 1962
Donelan, Michael, Elements of International Political Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990,
pp. 22-37.
Frankel, Benjamin ed., Roots of Realism, Portland: Frank Cass 1996
Gellman, P., ‘Hans J. Morgenthau and the Legacy of Political Realism’, Review of International
Studies, Vol. 14, 1988.
Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981.
Gilpin, Robert, ‘The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism’, in R.O. Keohane, ed.,
Neorealism and its Critics, New York 1986, pp. 301-21
Guzzini, Stefano, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: the
Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London: Routledge 1998, introduction, Part I, and
conclusion.
Griffiths, M., Realism, Idealism and International Politics, London: Routledge, 1992.
Haslam, Jonathan, No Virtue like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations since
Machiavelli, New Haven: Yale University Press 2002.
14
Jervis, Robert, ‘Realism in the Study of World Politics’, in Peter Katzenstein, ed., Explorations
and Controversies in World Politics
Krasner, Stephen, Defending the National Interest, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1977,
‘A Statist Approach to the Study of Foreign Policy," and "The National Interest and Raw
Materials,’ pp. 5-54
Krasner, Stephen, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University Press
1999
Lieber, R., Theory and World Politics, London: Allen & Unwin, 1973, chapters 5&7.
Long, D. & Peter Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997.
Mearsheimer, John, ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security,
19:3, 1995, pp. 5-49.
———, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York 2001.
Moorehead Wright, P. (ed.), Special Issue on Balance of Power, Review of International Studies,
April 1989, articles by Claude, Little, Webb and Krasner.
Murray, Alistair J.H., Reconstructing Realism: between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan Ethics,
Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997.
Nobel, J., ‘Morgenthau's Struggle with Power: the Theory of Power Politics and the Cold War’,
Review of International Studies, 21:1, 1995
Sheehan, Michael, The Balance of Power: History & Theory, Lodnon: Routledge 1996.
Smith, Michael Joseph, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press 1986; especially Chapter 1, ‘Modern Realism in Context’, pp. 1-22
Spegele, Ronald, ‘On Evaluative Political Realism’, Millennium, 14:1, 1985
Spegele, Ronald, Political Realism in International Theory, Cambridge: CUP 1997
Taylor, T. (ed.), Approaches and Theory in International Relations, London: Longman, 1978,
(Chaps 6, 9).
Vasquez, John, The Power of Power Politics: A Critique, London: Pinter, 1983.
Viotti, P. & M. Kauppi, International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1999, chapter 2.
Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press 1959,
especially chapters 6-7, pp. 159-223.
Williams, H., Wright, M. and Evans, T. (eds.), A Reader in International Relations and Political
Theory, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1993, chapters 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
Wolfers, Arnold, Discord and Collaboration, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962
chapters 6-8.
Ashley, R.K., ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’,
Millennium, 17:2, 1988
Cox, Michael, E.H.Carr: A Critical Appraisal, Basingstoke: Palgrave 2000.
George, Jim, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International
Relations, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1994, chapters 3 and 4.
Gowan, Peter, ‘A Calculus of Power’, New Left Review, 16, 2002, pp. 47-67
[http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR25003.shtml]
Legro, Jeff and Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Is Anybody Still a Realist?’, International Security, 24:2,
1999, pp. 5-55 (also see responses in 25:1, 2000)
Milner, H., The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: a critique, Review of
International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, Jan. 1991
15
Palan, Ronen P. and Brook M. Blair, ‘On the Idealist Origins of the Realist Theory of
International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 19:4, 1993, pp. 385-400
Rosenberg, Justin, ‘The Trouble with Realism’, chapter one in Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil
Society, London: Verso 1994
Walker, Rob B.J., ‘Realism, Change, and International Political Theory’, International Studies
Quarterly, 31, 1987, pp. 65-86.
Carr, Edward H., The Twenty Years Crisis, London: Macmillan, 1981.
Readings on Neorealism
Buzan, Barry, People, States and Fear, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1983
Buzan, Barry, David Jones, and Richard Little, Logic of Anarchy, Columbia University Press
1992
Forde, Steven, ‘International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and
NeoRealism’, International Studies Quarterly, 39, 2, 1995, pp. 141-60
Grieco, Joseph, Cooperation Among Nations, Cornell University Press 1990
Hollis and Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, read ‘The
International System’, pp. 92-118
Jervis, Robert, ‘Cooperation under the Security Dilemma’, World Politics, 30:2, 1978, pp. 167214.
Linklater, Andrew, ‘Neo-Realism in Theory and Practice,’ in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds.,
International Relations Theory Today, Penn State Press 1995, pp. 241-62
Little, Richard, ‘Structuralism and Realism’, in: Light, Margot and John Groom (eds.),
International Relations: Handbook of Current Theory.
Mearsheimer, John, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International
Security, 15:1, 1990, pp..
Snidal, Duncan, ‘Rational Choice and International Relations’, in Walters Carlsnaes et al. (eds.),
Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage 2002, chapter 4.
Snyder, Glenn, Alliance Politics, Cornell University Press 1998.
Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, Cornell
University Press 1991, Chapter 1.
Vasquez, John, The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism,
Cambridge: CUP 1998.
Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley 1979.
————, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol.
18, 1988, pp. 615-28.
————, ‘Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory’, Journal of International Affairs, 44:1, 1990,
pp. 21-37.
————, ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, in Michael Brown, et al., eds., The
Perils of Anarchy, 1995, pp. 42-77.
Walt, Stephen, Revolution and War, Cornell University Press 1996
Wayman, Frank and Paul Diehl, ‘Realism Reconsidered: The Realpolitik Framework and Its
Basic Propositions,” in Wayman and Diehl, eds., Reconstructing Realpolitik, University
of Michigan Press 1994, pp. 3-28.
Williams, M., ‘Neo-Realism and the Future of Strategy’, Review of International Studies, 19:2,
1993, pp…
16
Special Symposium on ‘Windows on Waltz’ in Review of International Studies, 28:1, 2002 with
contributions by Ewan Harrison and Matthew Woods. See also the reply by Martin
Weber, Kant and Systemic Approaches to IR’, Review of International Studies, 29:1,
2003, pp.145-50
Ashley, Richard K., ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly,
25:2, 1981, pp. 204-236; and "Comment" by John H. Herz: 237-241.
———, ‘the Poverty of Neorealism’, in Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics,
New York: Columbia University Press 1986, chapter 9.
Bromley, Simon, ‘Rethinking IR Theory: A Conjunctural Approach’, in Bromley, American
Hegemony and World Oil, Cambridge: Polity Press 1991, chapter 1
Burnham, Peter, ‘Marxism, Neorealism and International Relations’, Common Sense, 1993.
Dessler, David, ‘What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?’, International Organization,
3:3, 1989.
George, Jim, ‘Of Incarceration and Closure: Neo-Realism and the New/Old World Orders’,
Millennium, 22:2, 1993.
———, ‘The Backward Discipline Revisited: The Closed World of Neo-realism’, in George,
Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations,
Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1994, chapter 5.
Guzzini, Stefano, ‘Structural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis’, International
Organization, 47:3, 1993, pp. 443-478
———, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: the Continuing
Story of a Death Foretold, London: Routledge 1998, part II.
Halliday, Fred and Justin Rosenberg, ‘Interview with Ken Waltz’, Review of International
Studies, 4:3, 1998
Keohane, Robert O. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press
1986, chapters 1-5, 7.
Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-Realism as the Science of
Realpolitik Without Politics’, Review of International Studies, 19:1, 1993, pp. 63-80.
Milner, Helen, ‘The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory’, Review of
International Studies, 17:1, 1991, pp. 67-85.
Miller, B., ‘Explaining the Emergence of Great Power Concerts’, Review of International
Studies, 20:4, 1994
Nuri Yurdusev, A., ‘Level of Analysis and Unit of Analysis: A Case for Distinction’,
Millennium, 22:1, 1993
Nye, John, ‘Neorealism and Neoliberalism’, World Politics, 40, 1988
Schroeder, Paul, ‘Historical Reality vs. Neo-realist Theory’, International Security, 19:1, 1994,
pp. 108-148. And Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, Paul Schroeder, (Exchange)
"History v. Neorealism: A Second Look" in International Security, 20:1, 1995, pp. 182195.
Schweller, Randall, ‘Neorealism’s Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?” in B. Frankel,
ed., Realism: Restatements and Renewal, Portland: Frank Cass 1996, pp. 90-121.
Teschke, Benno, The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International
Relations, London: Verso 2003, chapter 1.
Vasquez, John, ‘The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs:
An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition,” APSR, 91,
17
4, 1997, pp. 899-913. (with responses by Kenneth Waltz, Colin and Miriam Elman,
Randall Schweller, and Stephan Walt)
Week 4: The English School and Constructivism
The domination of the discipline of International Relations by Liberalism and Realism has been
berated and challenged by a number of competing paradigms, significantly from the 1960s
onwards by what is known as the English School. The English School claims to offer a distinct
approach to International Relations. It does so by attempting to combine the forms of positivist
methodology which emerged in the United States after World War II and became associated with
the Realist paradigm of International Relations especially, with a more ‘English’ stress on the
importance of grasping the actuality and roles of historical change. Leading proponents of the
English School approach such as Hedley Bull have attempted to achieve this synergy between
American and English approaches by developing the concept of an ‘international society’ in
contrast to the more American and realist concept of the ‘international system’. Proponents of the
English School have used this concept to argue that the development of international relations is
a story of the institutionalization of shared interests and identities among states, and that culture,
norms and institutions play a hitherto misunderstood and under-represented role in international
relations. In turn they have attempted to distinguish their theorization of the roles of norms and
institutions in international relations from that developed by Liberalism. Whether the English
School can ever be anything more than a via media between Realism and Liberalism is
something we will want to debate. However during this week we will also examine the ways in
which some of its most fundamental arguments and core concepts have been developed further in
a new school of International Relations that emerged during the 1990s. That school is called
Constructivism. Constructivists, like theorists of the English School, stress the role of culture,
norms and institutions in conditioning the agency of states and other actors. In turn, they too, on
the basis of this claim, have attempted to constitute a form of ‘third way’ between Realism and
Liberalism. Whether Constructivism offers an account of international relations qualitatively
different to that developed by the English School, and whether it is a meaningful intervention
upon the debate between Realism and Liberalism is also for us to discuss this week.
Essay Questions
1. What are the differences between the concepts of an ‘international society’ and an
‘international system’? Is the former concept a convincing corrective of the latter?
2. Can the English School claim to be anything more than a via media between realism and
liberalism?
3. In what ways might ‘international society’ be thought of as under threat in the 21st
century?
4. What are the differences between the account of the role of norms in international
relations offered by the English School and Constructivists respectively?
5. What are the implications of Wendt’s claim that anarchy is simply a construct?
Required Readings
18
Bull, Hedley, ‘The Concept of Order in World Politics’ in Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study
of Order in World Politics (London, Macmillan), pp3-22.
Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’,
International Organization (vol.46, no.2, 1992), pp391-425.
Little, Richard, (2000) ‘The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International
Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 6:3, 395-422.
Additional Readings
English School Readings
Tim Dunne, ‘The Social Construction of International Society’, European Journal of
International Relations 1, no.3 (1995), pp.367-389.
Bellamy, Alex J. (ed.) (October 2004) International Society and its Critics, Oxford University
Press.
Brown, Chris (1995) 'International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the Middle
Way', Review of International Studies, 21.2, 183-196.
Bull, Hedley 'International Law and International Order', Review Essay, International
Organization, 26.3 (1972), 588.
Bull, Hedley 'The Grotian Conception of International Society', British Committeepaper, (April
1962) Later published in H.Butterfield and M.Wight eds., Diplomatic Investigations.
London, Allen and Unwin, 1966. ( also in Alderson and Hurrell eds., 2000)
Bull, Hedley, (1976) ‘Martin Wight and the Theory of IR', British Journal of International
Studies, 2:2, 101-16. (also in Wight, Martin (1991) International Theory: The Three
Traditions. Leicester, Leicester University Press/Royal Institute of International Affairs,
Edited by Brian Porter and Gabriele Wight. Esp.
Bull, Hedley and Adam Watson, (eds.) (1984), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bull, Hedley 'International Theory: The Case for the Classical Approach', British Committee
paper, (January 1966) Later Published in World Politics, 3 (1966), 361-377; and reprinted
in K.Knorr and J.N.Rosenau eds., Contending Approaches to International Relations.
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1969.
Bull, Hedley 'Society and Anarchy in International Relations', British Committee paper, (October
1961) Later published in H.Butterfield and M.Wight eds., Diplomatic Investigations.
London, Allen and Unwin, 1966. ( also in Alderson and Hurrell eds., 2000)
Bull, Hedley (1979) ‘The State’s Positive Role in World Affairs’, Dædalus, 108:4, 111-23. ( also
in Alderson and Hurrell eds., 2000)
Bull, Hedley (1990) 'The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations', in
Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury and Adam Roberts (eds.), Hugo Grotius and
International Relations. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 65-93.
Buzan, Barry (1993) 'From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and
Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organization, 47:3, 327-52.
Buzan, Barry and Richard Little, (1996) ‘Reconceptualizing Anarchy: Structural Realism Meets
World History’, European Journal of International Relations, 2:4, 403-38, esp. pp. 41725.
19
Buzan, Barry and Richard Little, (1994) ‘The Idea of International System: Theory Meets
History’, International Political Science Review, 15:3, 231-56.
Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little, (2000) International Systems in World History: Remaking the
Study of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cutler, Claire A., (1991) 'The "Grotian tradition" in international relations', Review of
International Studies, 17:1, 41-65.
Donnelly, Jack (1998a) ‘Human rights: a new standard of civilization?’ International Affairs,
74:1, 1-23.
Dunne, Tim, (2003) ‘Society and Hierarchy in International Relations’, International Relations
17, no. 3, pp3-20.
Dunne, Tim, (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. London,
Macmillan.
Dunne, Tim (2001) ‘Sociological Investigations: Instrumental, Legitimist and Coercive
Interpretations of International Society’, Millennium, 30:1, 67-91.
Dunne, Tim, (1995a) ‘The Social Construction of International Society’, European Journal of
International Relations,1:3, 367-89.
Dunne, Tim and Nicholas Wheeler, (1996) ‘Hedley Bull’s pluralism of the intellect and
solidarism of the will’, International Affairs, 72:1, 91-107.
Dunne, Tim and Nicholas J.Wheeler, (1999) Human Rights in Global Politics, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Dunne, Tim, (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. London,
Macmillan, ch. 8 on Vincent.
Evans, Tony and Peter Wilson, (1992) ‘Regime Theory and the English School of International
Relations: A Comparison’, Millennium, 21:3, 329-51.
Fawn, Rick and Jeremy Larkin (eds.), (1996) International Society After the Cold War, London,
Macmillan.
Finnemore, Martha (2001) 'Exporting the English School', Review of International Studies, 27:3,
509-13.
Gong, Gerritt W., (1984) The Standard of 'Civilization' in International Society, Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Gonzalez-Pelaez, Ana and Barry Buzan (2003) ‘A Viable Project Of Solidarism? The neglected
contributions of John Vincent's basic rights initiative’, International Relations, 17:3, 32139.
Jackson, Robert (1987) 'Quasi-states, dual regimes, and neoclassical theory: International
jurisprudence and the Third World', International Organization, 41:4, 519-49.
Jackson, Robert H. (1990b) Quasi-States, Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third
World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, Robert H. 'Pluralism in International Political Theory', Review of International Studies,
18 (1992), 271-81.
Jackson, Robert H. 'The Political Theory of International Society', in K.Booth and S.Smith eds.
International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge, Polity Press, 1995, 110-118.
20
Jackson, Robert H. (2000) The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Keene, Edward (2002) Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World
Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, chs. 1-2.
Linklater, Andrew (1996) ‘Rationalism’. in Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater et al., Theories of
International Relations London, Macmillan. Clarendon, 49-72.
Little, Richard, (1995) ‘Neorealism and the English School: A Methodological, Ontological and
Theoretical Reassessment’, European Journal of International Relations, 1:1. 9-34.
Little, Richard (1998) ‘International System, From International to World Society?: A Reevaluation of the English School' in B.A.Roberson ed., International Society and the
Development of International Relations Theory. London, Pinter.
Manning, C.A.W. (1962,), The Nature of International Society London: LSE; Macmillan, 2nd
edition, 1975
J.D.B. Miller and John Vincent, (eds) (1990), Order and Violence: Hedley Bull and International
Relations, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
Neumann, Iver B. (1997) ‘R.J.Vincent’, in I.B.Neumann and O.Waever eds., The Future of
International Relations: Masters in the Making? London: Routledge.
Roberson, B. A. (ed.) (1998), International Society and the Development of International
Relations Theory, London, Pinter. Revised paperback edition, London & New York,
Continuum, 2002.
Suganami, Hidemi (2001) ‘C.A.W. Manning and the study of International Relations’, Review of
International Studies, 27:1 91-107.
Suganami, Hidemi (2001d) ‘Alexander Wendt and the English School’, Journal of International
Relations and Development 4:4, 403-423.
Suganami, Hidemi (2002) ‘The international society perspective on world politics reconsidered',
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2:1, 1-28.
Vincent, R.J. (1988) ‘Hedley Bull and Order in International Politics’, Millennium, 17:2, 195213.
Vincent, John (1978) ‘Western Conceptions of a universal moral order’, British Journal of
International Studies, 4:1, 20-46.
Vincent, John,(1986a), Human Rights and International Relations: Issues and Responses,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Vincent, R.J. (1992b) 'Modernity and Universal Human Rights', in A.G.McGrew and P.G.Lewis
et al, Global Politics: Globalization and the Nation -State. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 272-80.
Watson, Adam, (1987) 'Hedley Bull, state systems and international studies', Review of
International Studies, 13:2.
Watson, Adam, (1990) 'Systems of States', Review of International Studies, 16:2.
Watson, Adam, (1992) The Evolution of International Society, London, Routledge. The main
theory sections here are: Intro, chs. 1, 12, pp.251-62, ch. 25, and pp. 311-25.
Watson, Adam (1997) The Limits of Independence: Relations Between States in the Modern
World, London, Routledge
21
Wheeler, Nicholas J. (1992) 'Pluralist and Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull
and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention', Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
21.3, 463-89.
Wheeler, Nicholas J. (1996) 'Guardian Angel or Global Gangster: A Review of the Ethical
Claims of International Society', Political Studies, 44, 123-35.
Wheeler, Nicholas J. and Justin Morris (1996) ‘Humanitarian Intervention and State Practice at
the End of the Cold War’, in Rick Fawn and Jeremy Larkin (eds.), International Society
After the Cold War, London, Macmillan.
Wheeler, Nicholas J. (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International
Society, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Wheeler, Nicholas (2001) ‘Introduction: The Political and Moral Limits of Western Military
Intervention to Protect Civilians’, Contemporary Security Policy,
Wight, Martin (1987 [1960]) 'An Anatomy of International Thought', Review of International
Studies, 13, 221-7.
Wight, M. (1966b) 'Western Values in International Relations', British Committee paper,
(October 1961) Later published in H.Butterfield and M.Wight eds., Diplomatic
Investigations. London, Allen and Unwin.
Wight, Martin (1991) International Theory: The Three Traditions. Leicester, Leicester University
Press/Royal Institute of International Affairs, Edited by Brian Porter and Gabriele Wight.
Wight, Martin (1977b) Systems of States. Leicester, Leicester University Press. Edited by
Hedley Bull.
Constructivism
Adler, Emanuel, "Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions, Debates,
and Future Directions," in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth Simmons, Editors,
Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage Publications,)
Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore, "The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International
Organizations,"International Organization 53 (Autumn 1999).
Barnett, Michael, "Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change: Israel's Road to Oslo,"
European Journal of International Relations 5 (March 1999).
Barnett, Michael, ‘Identity and Alliances in the Middle East’ in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The
Culture of National Security (New York, Columbia University Press, 1996), pp400-447.
Evangelista, Matthew, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), chapters 14, 17.
Finnemore, Martha, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1996).
Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink, "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,"
International Organization 52 (Autumn 1998).
Guzzini, Stefano, A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations," European
Journal of International Relations 6 (June 2000).
Herman, Robert, "Identity, Norms and National Security: The Soviet Foreign Policy Revolution
and the End of the Cold War," in Peter Katzenstein, Editor, The Culture of National
22
Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (NY: Columbia University Press, 1996),
chapter 8.
Hopf, Ted, "The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory," International
Security 23 (Summer 1998).
Klotz, Audie, Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1995).
Laffey, Mark and Jutta Weldes, "Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study
of International Relations," European Journal of International Relations 3 (June 1997).
Moravcsik, Andrew, "Is Something Rotten in the State of Denmark? Constructivism and
European Integration," Journal of European Public Policy 6 (1999): 669-81.
Milliken, Jennifer, "The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research
and Methods," European Journal of International Relations 5 (June 1999).
Price, Richard and Christian Reus-Smit, "Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and
Constructivism," European Journal of International Relations 4 (September 1998).
Price, Richard, "A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo," International Organization 49
(Winter 1995).
Price, Richard, "Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines,"
International Organization 52 (Summer 1998).
Risse, Thomas, Stephen Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, Editors, The Power of Human Rights:
International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999).
Risse, Thomas, "Let's Argue!: "Communicative Action in World Politics," International
Organization 54 (Winter 2000).
Rittberger, Volker, Andreas Hasenclever and Peter Mayer, "Interests, Power, Knowledge: The
Study of International Regimes," Mershon International Studies Review 40 (October
1996): 177-228.
Ruggie, John, Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization (NY:
Routledge, 1998).
Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999).
Week 5:
Theories
Marxist
Despite the fact that Marxism has, from its inception, pertained
to offer a theory of international relations, its entry into the
discipline only occurred relatively late. This was due to a number
of factors. The historical and political context of the early
development of IR was that of the Cold War. The fact that IR
developed predominantly in the United States inevitably tended
to frustrate any potential influence that Marxism might have
upon its central concerns and debates. Today, however, we find
two main strands of Marxist theory in International Relations:
one going back to the writings of Marx and the other to work of
the Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci who was seriously
23
influenced by Marx but whose ideas were also distinct from those of Marx in significant
respects. Marxist theories of International Relations pay particular attention to the role of
production and the consequent inequalities in the construction of the international order.
Gramscian approaches, in addition, explore the cultural underpinnings of contemporary
hegemony. In recent years Marxism has enjoyed a relative renaissance. Many argue today that
the phenomenon of Globalisation and the expansion of capitalist forms of economy that have
come with it demand a more specifically Marxist approach to international relations. This in
order to address the new forms of inequality being created by their expansion and penetration
into previously non-capitalist societies, as well as to think about how to counteract these
tendencies.
Essay Questions
1. Marxist thought focuses on economics and can, therefore, not explain international
politics. Do you agree?
2. In what ways is Gramsci’s concept of hegemony useful for an understanding of the
organisation of power internationally?
3. What are the defining tenets of a Marxist account of International Relations?
4. Explain the contemporary resurgence of Marxism as a theory of International Relations
since the end of the Cold War.
5. What are the weaknesses of Marxism as a theory of Globalisation?
Required Readings
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, ed. by Chris Arthur, London: Lawrence
and Wishart, 1974, pp. 42-68.
Rosenberg, Justin, The Empire of Civil Society, London: Verso, ch. 5.
Teschke, Benno, Origins and Evolution of the European States-System, in Brown, Bromley,
Athreye (eds.), History, Change and Transformation, London: Pluto, 2004.
Additional Readings
Marxism
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels [1848], The Communist Manifesto [various editions], chapter 1;
Bourgeois and Proletarians’
Teschke, Benno, Marxism, in Reus-Smit and Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of IR, Oxford:
OUP 2008, 163-87.
Teschke, Benno, Bourgeois Revolution, State Formation and the Absence of the International, in
Historical Materialism, 2005, v. 13, 3-26.
Rosenberg, Justin, Why Is There No International Historical Sociology? In EJIR 12, 2006, 30740.
Debate: Global Capitalism and the States System, in Cambridge Review of International Affairs,
vol. 20, no. 4, 2007.
Laffey, Mark and Kathryn Dean, ‘A flexible Marxism for flexible times: globalization and
historical times’, in Mark Rupert and Hazel Smith (eds.), Historical Materialism and
Globalization (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), pp90-109.
Benner, Erica, Really Existing Nationalisms: A Post-Communist View from Marx and Engels
(Oxford, 1995).
24
Boyle, Chris, ‘Imagining the World Market: IPE and the Task of Social Theory’, Millennium,
23:2, 1994, pp. 351-63.
Brenner, Robert ‘The Social Basis of Economic Development’, in John Roemer (ed.), Analytical
Marxism, Cambridge: CUP 1986, pp. 23-53
Brenner, Robert, ‘The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism’,
New Left Review, 104, 1977, pp. 25-92.
Bromley, Simon, ‘Marxism and Globalisation’, in Andrew Gamble, David Marsh and Tony Tant
(eds.) Marxism and Social Science (London: MacMillan, 1999).
Peter Brunham, Peter, ‘Open Marxism and vulgar international political economy", Review of
International Political Economy ½, 1994: 221-231.
Deudney, Daniel, Geopolitics as Theory: Historical Security Materialism, European Journal of
International Relations 6:1 (2000) 77-107.
Drainville, Andre, ‘International Political Economy in the Age of Open Marxism’, Review of
International Political Economy 1(1): 105-132.
Gamble, Andrew, ‘Marxism after Communism: Beyond Realism and Historicism’, Review of
International Studies (25) (1999).
Gamble, Andrew, et al (eds.), Marxism and Social Science (London, 1999).
Halliday, Fred, ‘Three Concepts of Internationalism’, International Affairs (64, 1988).
Halliday, Fred, Rethinking International Relations, ch.3, (London: Macmillan, 1994)
Halliday, Fred, Revolution and World Politics: The Fifth Great Power (Basingstoke, 1999).
Hobden, Stephen and Richard Wyn Jones, Marxist Theories of International Relations, in The
Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd ed., John
Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 200-223.
Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1989).
Harvey, David, ‘Globalization in question’, Rethinking Marxism 8, 1996: 1-17.
Holloway, John, ‘Global Capital and the Nation-State’, Capital & Class, 52, 1994, pp.23-50.
Heine, Christian and Benno Teschke, ‘Sleeping Beauty and the Dialectical Awakening: On the
Potential of Dialectic for International Relations’, Millennium, 1996, 25:2, pp. 399-423.
Heine, Christian and Benno Teschke, ‘On Dialectic and International Relations: A Reply to Our
Critics’, Millennium, 1997, 26:2, pp. 455-70.
Lenin, Vladimir Illich, ‘The division of the world among the great powers’, in Lenin,
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (as reproduced in Henry M Christman (ed)
Essential Works of Lenin (New York: Dover, 1966): 226-236).
Linklater, Andrew, Marxism, in Theories of International Relations, Scott Burchill et al
(London: Macmillan, 1996) 119-144.
Maclean, John, ‘Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect’,
Millennium 17/2, 1988: 295-310.
MacLean, John, ‘Belief Systems and Ideology in International Relations: a Critical
Approach’, in: Little, R. and S. Smith (eds), Belief Systems and International
Relations, Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.
Panitch, Leo, ‘The New Imperial State", New Left Review 2, 2000: 5-20.
Silver, Beverly J. & Eric Slater, ‘The Social Origins of World Hegemonies’, in Giovanni Arrighi
and Beverly J. Silver Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System (Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Press, 1999).
Rosenberg, Justin, The Empire of Civil Society (London, Verso, 1994)
25
Rosenberg, Justin, ‘Isaac Deutscher and the Lost History of International Relations’, New Left
Review, No. 215, January/February 1996.
Smith, Paul, ‘One World: Globality and Totality’, in Millennial Dreams: Contemporary Culture
and Capital in the North (London: Verso, 1997).
Teschke, Benno, The Myth of 1648 (London, Verso, 2003).
Thomas, Caroline, ‘Where is the Third World Now?’, Review of International Studies (25, 1999).
Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Inter-state Structure of the Modern World System, in International
Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 87-107.
Wood, Ellen, Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism, Cambridge:
CUP 1995
Wood, Ellen ‘Global Capital, National States’, in Mark Rupert and Hazel Smith (eds.),
Historical Materialism and Globalisation, London: Routledge 2002, chapter 1.
Wood, Ellen, The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View, London: Verso 2002.
Wood, Ellen, The Empire of Capital, London: Verso 2003.
Brewer, Anthony (1990), Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, 2nd. ed., London;
Routledge, chapter 2.
Dobb, Maurice (1946), ‘Capitalism’, in M.Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capitalism
(London: Routledge ), pp.1-32.
Dobb, Maurice (1937), ‘Classical Political Economy and Marx’, in M.Dobb, Political Economy
and Capitalism (London: Routledge), pp.55-78.
Eatwell, John, M.Milgate, P.Newman (eds.) (1990), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of
Economics: Marxian Economics (NY/London), various entries (Karl Marx, Class, Capital
as a Social Relation, Contradictions of Capitalism, Imperialism, Labour Theory of Value,
Primitive Capitalist Accumulation)
Heilbroner, Robert (1953), ‘The Inexorable World of Karl Marx’, in The Worldly Philosophers:
The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers (New York: Simon and
Schuster), chapter 6.
Schumpeter, Joseph (1951), Ten Great Economists: from Marx to Keynes (New York: OUP),
chapter 1. [being also part 1 of Schumpeter (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy (various editions)]
Neo-Gramscian Theory
Robert Cox, ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium
(1983, 12), pp162-175.
Gill, Stephen, ‘Toward a Postmodern Prince? The Battle in Seattle as a Moment in the New
Politics of Globalisation’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies (29, 1, 2000),
pp131-140.
Anderson, Perry, “The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci.” New Left Review, No. 100 (1976-77):578.
Augelli, Enrico, America's Quest for Supremacy and the Third World : a Gramscian Analysis.
London : Pinter Publishers, 1988.
Bieler, Andreas and Adam David Morton, The Gordion Knot of Agency-Structure in
International Relations: A Neo-Gramscian Perspective, European Journal of
International Relations 7:1 (2001) 5-35.
Buttigieg, Joseph A. "Gramsci's Method." Boundary 17, No. 2 (Summer 1990): 60-81
26
Buttigieg, Joseph A., "Philology and Politics: Returning to the Text of Antonio Gramsci's Prison
Notebooks." Boundary 21, No. 2 (Summer 1994):98-138
Buttigieg, Joseph A., " Gramsci on Civil Society" Boundary 22, No. 2 (Fall 1995):1-32
Cox, Robert W. with Timothy Sinclair, Approaches to World Order, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996).
Cox, Robert W., Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1987).
Cox, Robert W., ‘Ideologies and the New International Economic Order: reflections on some
recent literature’, International Organization 33/2, 1979: 257-302.
Femia, Joseph V., Gramsci's Political Thought. Hegemony, Consciousness and the
Revolutionary Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 198
Finocchiaro, Maurice A., "Gramsci's Crocean Marxism." Telos, No. 41 (1979): 17-32.
Finocchiaro, Maurice A., Gramsci and the History of Dialectical Thought . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Fontana, Benedetto, Hegemony and Power: On the Relation between Gramsci and Machiavelli
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
Germain, Randall, and M. Kenny, ‘Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the
New Gramscians’, Review of International Studies, Vol.24(1988).
Germino, Dante L., Antonio Gramsci : Architect of a New Politics Baton Rouge : Louisiana State
University Press, 1990.
Gill, Stephen, Power and Resistance in the New World Order, London: Palgrave 2003.
Gill, Stephen, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Gill, Stephen, ‘Globalisation, Market Civilisation and Disciplinary Neo-Liberalism’, Millennium
(24, 4, 1995).
Gill, Stephen, ‘Globalization, Democratization and the Politics of Indifference’ in James Martin,
editor. Antonio Gramsci: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers. London
and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Golding, Sue, Gramsci's Democratic Theory: Contributions to Post-Liberal Democracy.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992.
Haug, Wolfgang Fritz, "Rethinking Gramsci's Philosophy of Praxis from one Century to the Next
Boundary 26 No. 2 )Summer 1999):101-17
Haug, Wolfgang Fritz, "Gramsci's Philosophy of Praxis." Socialism and Democracy 14 (SpringSummer 2000):1-19.
Holub, Renate, Antonio Gramsci. Beyond Marxism and Post-Modernism. London: Routledge,
1992.
Kahn, Beverly, “Antonio Gramsci’s Critique of Scientistic Marxism.” Thought 64 (1989):15875.
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985.
Martin, James, Gramsci’s Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. New York: St Martin’s
press, 1998
Mittelman, James., (ed.) Globalization: Critical Reflections (Boulder, 1996).
Morera, Esteve, "Gramsci's Critical Modernity." Rethinking Marxism 12 (Spring 2000): 16-46.
Mouffe, Chantal, editor. Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
27
Murphy, Craig, ‘Understanding IR: Understanding Gramsci’, Review of International Studies,
Vol. 24 (1998).
Nemeth, Thomas, Gramsci's Philosophy: A Critical Study Sussex: The Harvester Press, New
Jersey: Humanities Press, 1980.
Overbeek, Henk, (ed.), Restructuring Global Hegemony, London: Routledge, 1993
Van der Pijl, Kees, Transnational Classes and International Relations, London: Routledge, 1998.
Van der Pijl, Kees, The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class, London: Verso, 1980.
Robinson, William, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Rupert, Mark, ‘Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (Re-vision) of the Politics of
Governance/Resistance’, Review of International Studies (29, 2003).
Rupert, Mark, Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order, London:
Routledge 2000.
Sasoon, Ann Showstack ,editor. Approaches to Gramsci . London: Writers and Readers
Cooperative Society, 1982.
Sasoon, Ann Showstack, Gramsci and Contemporary Politics. Beyond Pessimism of the Intellect
London and New York: Routledge, 2000.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, "Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography," Subaltern
Studies 4 (1985): 330-63.
Traditional theories of International Relations have been
accused either of neglecting normative issues or of, explicitly
or implicitly, promoting morally unsatisfactory policies. Like
other ‘critical’ approaches, normative theories have gained
some ground since the 1980s. One of the important intellectual
triggers for this development was the publication of John
Rawls’s Theory of Justice. There are broadly three strands of
normative thought in International Relations: following Rawls
and other liberal authors, cosmopolitanism attempts to develop
moral standards on the basis of the individual while its main
competitor, communitarianism, insists on the social
construction of individuals and, hence, on the need to respect some rights for communities. The
third critical strand of ethical thought calls into question the parameters of the cosmopolitan
debate and wishes to expand our understanding of ethics. While not particularly prominent
amongst theories of International Relations, normative theories nevertheless provide the moral
justifications for policies of intervention and nonintervention and, thus, require critical
assessment.
Week 6: Normative
and Ethical
Theories
Essay Questions
1. Moral principles have to be derived from individuals. Discuss.
2. Why are ‘ethics’ often understood as an endeavour distinct from international politics?
3. What are the differences, if any, between normative critical theory and liberal idealism?
28
4. Why
should
International
ethical
theorising
move
away
from
cosmopolitan/communitarian debate?
5. Does normative critical theory offer us a solution to the problem of sovereignty?
the
Required Readings
Hoffman, Mark. ‘Normative International Theory: Approaches and Issues’ in A.J.R Groom and
M. Light (eds), Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, London:
Pinter, 1994, pp. 27-44.
Odysseos, L. ‘On the Way to Global Ethics? Cosmopolitanism, Ethical Selfhood and Otherness,’
European Journal of Political Theory 2, No. 2 (April 2003): 183-207.
Habermas, Jürgen, The Divided West, , Cambridge: Polity 2006, ch. 8.
Additional Readings
Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars. A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, New
York, Basic Books, 1977, ch. 6.
Brown, C., International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches, Hemel Hempstead,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992, pp. 82-106.
Campbell, David. Why Fight? Humanitarianism, Principles and Post-Structuralism, in:
Millennium, 1998, vol. 27, 497-521.
Beitz, C., Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1979, pp. 69-123.
Barry, B., Do Countries have Moral Obligations? The Case of World Poverty, in: The Tanner
Lectures on Human Values, 1981, II, Sterling M. McMurrin (ed.), Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Buchanan, Allen and Robert O. Keohane, The Preventive Use of Force: A Cosmopolitan
Institutional Proposal, in Ethics and International Affairs, 18(1), 2004, 1-22.
Attfield, R. and Wilkin, B. (ed.), International Justice and the Third World, London: Routledge,
1992.
Beitz, C. et al, (eds.), International Ethics, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985.
Beitz, C., Sovereignty, Morality and International Affairs in: Held, D. (ed), Political Theory
Today, Cambridge: Polity, 1994 and Political Theory and International Relations,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979, Introduction and chapter 3.
Brown, C., International Relations Theory-New Normative Approaches, Hemel Hempstead,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992. See especially Part I, pp. 21-106.
Brown, C., The Modern Requirement. Reflections on Normative International Theory in a PostWestern World, in: Millennium, Vol. 17, no. 2, 1988.
Cochran, Molly, Normative Theory in International Relations. A Pragmatic Approach,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Dunne/Wheeler (eds.), Human Rights in Global Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Dyer, Hugh C., Moral Order/World Order. The Role of Normative Theory in the Study of
International Relations, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1997.
Ellis, A., (ed.), Ethics and International Affairs, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986.
Forbes, I., and Hoffman, M., (eds.), Political Theory, International Relations and the Ethics of
Intervention, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993.
Frost, M., Ethics in International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
29
Hoffman, S., Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International
Politics, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1981.
Hutchings, Kimberley, International Political Theory, London, Sage, 1999.
Ishay, Micheline R. (ed.), The Human Rights Reader, London, Routledge, 1997.
Jabri, Vivienne, ‘Discourse Ethics, Democratic Practice and the Possibility of Intercultural
Understanding’, in Hazel Smith (ed.), Democracy and International Relations: Critical
Theories/Problematic Practices (London and New York: Macmillan, 2000).
Jahn, B., One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal
Idealism in: Millennium, No. 3, 1998.
Lapid, Y. and F. Kratochwil (eds.), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Boulder:
Lynne Rienner, 1996.
Linklater, A., Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 1982.
Linklater, A., The Question of the Next Stage in IR Theory: A Critical Theoretical Point of View
in: Millennium, Vol. 21, Spring 1992.
Linklater, Andrew, ‘The achievements of Critical Theory’ in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and
Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999)
Mapel, D. and T. Nardin, Convergence and Divergence in International Ethics, in: Nardin, T.
and D. Mapel, (eds.), Traditions of International Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992.
Meyer, William H., Human Rights and the International Political Economy in Third World
Nations, Westport CN, Praeger, 1998.
Miller, D., The Ethical Significance of Nationality in: Ethics, 1988, 647-62.
Odysseos, L., Dangerous ontologies: the ethos of survival and ethical theorizing in International
Relations, In: REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 28 (2): 403-418 APR 2002
Odysseos, Louiza, The Subject of Coexistence: Otherness in International Relations
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007)
Robertson/Merrills, Human Rights in the World, Manchester, Manchester University Press,
1996.
Smith, S., The Forty Years Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International
Relations in: Millennium, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1992, 489-508.
Thompson, J., Justice and World Order: A Philosophical Enquiry , London: Routledge, 1992.
Vincent, R.J., Human Rights and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986.
Warner, D., An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations, Boulder: Lynne Rienner,
1992.
Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, 1: Reason and the Rationalization of
Society (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984).
Alker, Hayward R. Jr. and Thomas J. Biersteker, “The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a
Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol.
28, No. 2 (June 1984): 121-42.
Ashley, Richard, ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly (1981,
25).
Ashley, Richard, ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of
International Politics’, Alternatives (12, 4).
30
Ashley, Richard, ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy
Problematique’, Millennium, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1988).
Bohman, James, ‘How to Make a Social Science Practical: Pragmatism, Critical Social Science
and Multiperspectival Theory’, Millennium (31, 3, 2002).
Booth, Ken, 'Security and Emancipation', Review of International Studies (17,4, 1991).
Brown, Chris, ‘Turtles all the Way Down: Antifoundationalism, Critical Theory and
International Relations’, Millennium, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1994).
Connolly, William, ‘Democracy and Territoriality’, Millennium, Vol. 20, No. 3 (1991).
Devetak, Richard, ‘Critical Theory’, in Scott Burchill, et al, Theories of International Relations,
2nd edition (1996).
Devetak, Richard and Richard Higgott, 'Justice Unbound? Globalization, States and the
Transformation of the Social Bond', International Affairs (75, 3, 1999).
Eschle, Catherine and B. Maiguascha (eds.), Critical Theories, World Politics, and the 'AntiGlobalization Movement' (London, 2005).
Ferguson, Yale H. and Richard Mansbach, “Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive
Suggestions for Future International Theory,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 35,
no. 4 (December 2001): 363-86.
Fierke, Karin M., Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security
(Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1998).
George, Jim, “International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the
Third Debate,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 3 (September 1989): 269-79.
George, Jim and David Campbell, “Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference:
Critical Social Theory and International Relations,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol.
34, No. 3 (September 1990): 269-93.
George, Jim, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International
Relations (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 1994).
Habermas, Jürgen, Communication and the Evolution of Society (Boston, 1979).
Habermas, Jürgen, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (Cambridge, 1987).
Habermas, Jürgen, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Cambridge, 1990).
Habermas, Jürgen, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics (Cambridge,
1993).
Habermas, Jürgen, The Past as Future (Cambridge, 1994).
Habermas, Jürgen, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (Cambridge, 1998).
Hoffman, Mark, ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate’, Millennium, Vol. 16, No. 2
(1987).
Hoffman, Mark, 'Third-Party Mediation and Conflict Resolution in the Post-Cold War World' in
John Baylis and Nick Rengger (eds.) Dilemmas of World Politics (Oxford, 1992).
Hutchings, Kimberley, International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era
(London, 1999).
Wyn Jones, Richard, ed., Critical Theory and World Politics, London and Boulder, Lynne
Rienner Publishers, 2001.
Lapid, Yosef, “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist
Era,” International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3 (September 1989): 235-54.
Linklater, Andrew, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the PostWestphalian World (1998).
Linklater, Andrew, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd edn (1990).
31
Linklater, Andrew, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations
(1990).
Linklater, Andrew, ‘The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical
Theoretical Point of View’, Millennium (21, 1).
Linklater, Andrew, ‘The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Implications for the Sociology of
States-Systems’, International Affairs (78, 8).
Marc Lynch, 'The Dialogue of Civilizations and International Public Spheres',
Millennium (29, 2, 2000).
Macmillan, John and Andrew Linklater, Boundaries in Question: New Directions in
International Relations (London, 1995).
Neufeld, Mark, The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995).
Rengger, Nicholas, Political Theory, Modernity and Postmodernity: Beyond Enlightenment and
Critique (1995).
Review of International Studies, Forum on Linklater, Vol. 25, No. 1 (1999).
Risse, Thomas, 'Let's Argue!: Communicative Action in World Politics', International
Organization (54, 1, 2000).
Risse, Thomas, 'Global Governance Communicative Action', Government and Opposition (39, 2,
2004).
Shapcott, Richard, 'Beyond the Cosmopolitan/Communitarian Divide: Justice, Difference and
Community in International Relations' in M. Lesnu and J.S. Fritz (eds.), Value Pluralism,
Normative Theory and International Relations (London, 2000).
Shapcott, Richard, Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations (Cambridge,
2001).
Smith, Hazel, (ed.), Democracy and International Relations: Critical Theories/Problematic
Practices (London and New York: Macmillan, 2000).
Walker, R.B.J., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Waller, Mark and Andrew Linklater (eds.), Political Loyalty and the Nation-State (London,
2003).
Pogge, Thomas W., Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty, in Ethics 103(1), 1992, 48-75.
Falk, Richard, The United Nations and Cosmopolitan Democracy: Bad Dream, Utopian Fantas,
Political Project, in David Held (ed), Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern
State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1996, 309-331.
Held, David, Political Community and the Cosmopolitan Order, in David Held (ed), Democracy
and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge,
Polity Press, 1996, 221-238.
Archibugi, Daniele, Models of International Organization in Perpetual Peace Projects, in Review
of International Studies, 1992, No. 4, 295-317.
Archibugi, Daniele, Principles of Cosmopolitan Democracy, in Archibugi, Held and Köhler (eds)
Reimagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy, Cambridge,
Polity Press, 1998, 198-228.
Beitz, Charles R., Rawls’s Law of Peoples, in Ethics 110(4), 2000, 669-696.
Rawls, John, The Law of Peoples, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1971.
32
Brown, Chris, Theories of International Justice, in British Journal of Political Science, 27(2),
1997, 273-297.
Week 7: Critical Theories
In the heyday of the Frankfurt
School, Max Horkheimer insisted
on a distinction between what he termed ‘traditional’ and ‘critical’ theory. Robert Cox used this
distinction to critique the prevalence, nature, and political implications of ‘problem-solving’
theories of international relations in a famous article in the early 1980s. Since then, and on the
basis of this distinction, the discipline of International Relations underwent its third ‘great’ – or,
interparadigm – debate. Critical international theory was once lauded as the future of a new
international relations in which questions of emancipation took centre stage. Critical theory has
since then evolved and become tied to a broader cosmopolitan project, itself coming under attack
for relinquishing its Marxist roots and for lending legitimacy to the international politics of
Western powers. This topic will examine the contribution of critical international theory, its
contemporary relevance and the veracity of the critiques rendered against it.
Essay Questions
1. In what ways is the distinction between problem-solving and critical theory useful?
2. If theory is ‘always for someone and for some purpose’, for whom and for what purpose
is critical international theory itself?
3. Has the evolution of critical theory towards cosmopolitanism meant its depoliticisation
and loss of emancipatory potential? Discuss with specific examples from contemporary
international politics.
Required Readings
Cox, Robert, “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’,
in Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10(2), 1981, 126-155. Reprinted in
Keohane (ed) Neorealism and its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986,
ch. 8.
Hoffman, Mark (1987) ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate’, Millennium: Journal of
International Studies 16(2): 231-249.
Jahn, Beate (1998) ‘One Step Forwards, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition
of Liberal Idealism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27(3): 613-641.
Linklater, Andrew, The Transformation of Political Community, Cambridge: Polity, 1998.
Recommended Readings
Critical International Theory
Linklater, Andrew (1992) ‘The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A
Critical Theoretical Point of View’, Millennium: Journalof International Studies 21(1):
77-98.
Hayward R. Alker, Jr. and Thomas J. Biersteker, “The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a
Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol.
28, No. 2 (June 1984): 12142.
33
Yale H. Ferguson and Richard Mansbach, “Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive
Suggestions for Future International Theory,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 35,
no. 4 (December 2001): 36386.
Jim George, “International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the
Third Debate,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 3 (September 1989): 26979.
Jim George and David Campbell, “Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical
Social Theory and International Relations,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No.
3 (September 1990): 269293.
Yosef Lapid, “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist
Era,” International Studies Quarterly, 33, 3 (September 1989): 23554.
Richard Ashley, “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of
International Politics,” Alternatives, XII (1987): 40334.
James Der Derian and Michael Shapiro, International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern
Readings of World Politics (New York: Lexington, 1989).
Jim George. Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical Reintroduction to International Relations
(Macmillan UK, 1994), ISBN: 0333616855
Douglas Kellner, “Critical Theory and the Crisis of Social Theory,” Sociological Perspectives,
Vol. 33, Issue 1 (Spring 1990), pp. 11-23
Mark Neufeld. The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge University
Press, 1995).
Nicholas Onuf and Frank F. Klink, “Anarchy, Authority, Rule,” International Studies Quarterly,
Vol. 33, No. 2 (June 1989): 149-173.
Rashmary Roy, RBJ Walker and Richard Ashley, “Dialogue: Towards a Critical Social Theory
of International Politics,” Alternatives, XIII (1988): 77-102.
Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds., International Theory: Positivism and
Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 1996). ISBN 0521474183
Roger Spegele, “Emancipatory International Relations: Good News, Bad News or No News at
All?,” International Relations, 16, 3 (December 2002): 381402.
Claire Turrene-Sjolander and Wayne Cox, eds., Beyond Positivism: Critical Reflections on
International Relations (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner 1994). ISBN: 1555874835
Critical Social Theory
David Couzens Hoy, “Debating Critical Theory,” Constellations: An International Journal of
Critical and Democratic Theory, Vol. 3, Issue 1 (April 1996): 104-15.
Stanley Fish, “Theory’s Hope,” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 30, Issue 2 (Winter 2004): 37-48.
Axel Honneth, “The Social Dynamics of Disrespect: On the Location of Critical Theory Today,”
Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, Vol. 1, Issue
2 (October 1994).
Frederic Jameson, “Symptoms of Theory or Symptoms for Theory?” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 30,
Issue 2 (Winter 2004): 4038.
Teresa de Lauretis, “Statement Due,” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 30, Issue 2 (Winter 2004), p.365, 4p
Pilar Rodriguez Martinez, “Later Reflections on Critical Theory,” Journal of Classical
Sociology, Vol. 4, Issue 1 (March 2004).
Mary Poovey, “For What It’s Worth,” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 30, Issue 2 (Winter 2004): 42933.
Moishe Postone, “History and Critical Social Theory,” Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 19, Issue 2
(3/1/90).
34
John P Scott. “Critical Social Theory: An Introduction,” British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 29,
Issue 1 (March 1978).
Rolf Wiggershaus, “The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance,”
Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, Vol. 2, Issue
2 (October 1995).
Critical Theory – Marx, Hegel & Frankfurt School
David Held, Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas (1981)
Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory (1975)
Russell A. Berman, Modern Culture and Critical Theory: Art Politics and the Legacy of the
Frankfurt School (1989)
Axel van den Berg, “Critical Theory: Is There Still Hope?” The American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 86, No. 3 (November 1980): 449-78.
Howard Dick, “Political Theory, Critical Theory, and the Place of the Frankfurt School,” Critical
Horizons, Vol. 1, Issue 2 (September 2000): 271-81.
James Farganis, “A Preface to Critical Theory,” Theory and Society, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Winter
1975): 483-508.
William Leiss, “Critical Theory and Its Future,” Political Theory, Vol. 2, No. 3 (August 1974):
330-49.
Steven B. Smith, “Hegel’s Idea of a Critical Theory,” Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 1 (February
1987): 99126.
Kevin Anderson, “On Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory: A Critical Appreciation of Herbert
Marcuse’s Reason and Revolution, Fifty Years Later,” Sociological Theory, Vol. 11, No.
3 (November 1993): 243-67.
Kevin Anderson, “On Marx, Hegel and Critical Theory in Postwar Germany: A Conversation
with Iring Fetscher,” Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 50, Issue 1 (March 1998):
118.
Martin Jay, “For Theory,” Theory and Society, Vol. 25, Issue 2 (April 1996): 16783.
Neil McLaughlin. “Origin Myths in the Social Sciences: Fromm, the Frankfurt School and the
Emergence of Critical Theory,” Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol. 24 Issue 1 (Winter
1999).
Guido Starosta, “Editorial Introduction: Rethinking Marx’s Mature Social Theory,” Historical
Materialism, 12, 3 (2004): 4352.
Critical Theory – Habermas & Foucault
Johanna Meehan, ed., Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse (Thinking
Gender) (1995)
David M. Rasmussen, ed., The Handbook of Critical Theory (1996)
Ricardo Blaug. “Between Fear and Disappointment: Critical, Empirical and Political Uses of
Habermas,” Political Studies, 03/01/97, Vol. 45 Issue 1, pp. 100-18
Bent Flyvberg, “Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for Civil Society?” The British Journal of
Sociology, 49, 2 (June 1998): 210-33.
Dieter Freundlieb. “Rethinking Critical Theory: Weaknesses and New Directions,”
Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, Vol. 7, Issue 1
(March 2000): 89-99.
35
Peter Uwe Hohendahl, “Critical Theory, Public Sphere and Culture: Jurgen Habermas and his
Critics,” New German Critique, Issue 16 (Winter 1979): 89118.
Bo Isenberg, “Habermas on Foucault: Critical Theory Remarks,” Acta Sociologica, 34 (1991):
299-308.
Jeffrey Noonan, “One Dimensional Criticism: A Marcusean Reflection on Habermas’s Critical
Theory,” European Legacy, Vol. 9, Issue 4 (August 2004), p.469, 12p
Larry Ray, “Pragmatism and Critical Theory,” European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 7, Issue
3 (August 2004).
Week 8:
Theories
Gender
Among those theories which argue that traditional perspectives
do not pay enough attention to underlying structures, agents and
ideologies which produce states, statesmen and organizations in
the first place are gender theories. Although gender studies start
from the assumption that it is neither natural nor a coincidence
that women all over the world, to a greater or lesser degree, do
more work than men but earn and own less, have less access to
power than men although they are the majority of the world’s
population, if only by a margin, are the victims of wars and civil
wars although they are supposedly protected by men’s armies,
are the losers in economic crises, as well as that part of the world’s population whose human
rights are least protected, they do not stop at these empirical data. Gender studies leave the
concepts of biological men and women behind and analyze the socially constructed and
reproduced conceptions of masculinity and femininity instead which can be applied not just to
biological men and women but also to societal and political organizations and institutions like
the state or the UN, international political actions like peace and war, theoretical conceptions like
labour, value and security - ultimately, the definition of the human being necessarily underlying
any social and human science including International Relations - and thus undermining a
disciplinary orthodoxy which does not reflect upon the social construction of these given
concepts. In this context we will discuss how gender theories explain the different positions of
men and women in world politics. More importantly, however, we will explore the way in which
gendered concepts and categories influence knowledge production in the discipline of
International Relations.
Essay Questions
1. On what grounds can it be argued that International Relations is a “gendered” discipline?
How convincing is this charge?
2. What does it mean to claim that ‘women’ and ‘men’ are socially constructed? Discuss,
with examples from the practices of international politics.
3. In what way is the distinction between public and private constitutive of international
relations?
4. What is the difference between a ‘gendered’ and an ‘ungendered’ concept of power?
5. Which strands of gender theory are represented in International Relations and what are
their respective strengths and weaknesses?
36
Required Readings
Steans, Jill, Gender and International Relations (Cambridge: Polity, 1998), pp. 10-37.
Tickner, J. Ann, You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR
Theorists, in: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, 1997, 611-632.
Cohn, Carol, A Feminist Spy in the House of Death: Unraveling the Language of Strategic
Analysis, in: Isaksson (ed.), Women and the Military System, New York, London,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1988;
also published as: Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals, in: Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists, June 1987, pp. 17-24; and in: Signs, 1987, vol. 12, no. 4; and in:
Russell, Diana (ed.), Exposing Nuclear Phallacies, New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 12763; and as: ‘Clean Bombs’ and Clean Language, in: Elshtain/Tobias (eds.), Militarism
and War, Savage: Rowman & Littlefield, 1990, pp. 33-55.
Morgan, David H.J. ‘Theater of War: Combat, the Military and Masculinities’ in H. Brod and M.
Kaufman (eds), Theorizing Masculinities (London: Sage, 1994), 165-182.
Additional Readings
Connell, R.W. “The Social Organization of Masculinity” in Stephen M. Whitehead and Frank J.
Barrett (eds), The Masculinities Reader. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2001, pp. 30-50
Delphy, Christine, Rethinking Sex and Gender, in: Women’s Studies International Forum, vol.
16, no. 1, 1993, pp. 1-9.
Peterson/Runyan, Global Gender Issues, Boulder, Westview, 1993.
Enloe, C., Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Relations,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1989, chapter 1.
Youngs, Gillian (ed.), Political Economy, Power and the Body. Global Perspectives,
Basingstoke, Macmillan, 2000.
Harding, Sandra, The Instability of the Analytical Categories of Feminist Thought, in: H.
Crowley and Susan Himmelweit (eds.), Knowing Women: Feminism and Knowledge,
OUP 1992.
Sylvester, Christine, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era,
Cambridge, CUP, 1993, Introduction.
Alternatives, Special Issue, Feminists Write International Relations, 1993, vol. 18, no. 1.
Brown, S., Feminism, International Theory and International Relations of Gender Inequality, in:
Millennium, 1988, vol 17, no. 3.
Grant/Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations, Milton Keynes, OUP, 1991, pp. 1-7.
Hartsock, N., The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1996, chapter 4.
Jones, A., Does Gender Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International
Relations, in: Review of International Studies, 1996, vol. 22, no. 4.
Keohane, R., International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint, in:
Grant/Newland (eds.), Gender and International Relations, Milton Keynes, OUP, 1991.
Peterson, V. Spike, Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender and International
Relations, in: Millennium, 1992, vol. 21, no. 2.
Pettman, J. J., Worlding Women. A Feminist International Politics, London, Routledge, 1996,
Introduction.
Steans, J., Gender and International Relations, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1998, chapter 1.
37
Tickner, J. Ann, Gender in International Relations, New York, Columbia University Press, 1992,
chapter 1.
Weber, C., Good Girls, Little Girls, Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohanes Critique of
Feminist International Relations, in: Millennium, 1994, vol. 23, no. 2.
Zalewski, M., The Women/’Women’ Question in International Relations, in: Millennium 1993,
vol. 23, no. 2.
Hooper, Charlotte, Manly States: Maculinities, International Relations and Gender Politics, New
York: Columbia University Press, 2001.
Coole, Diana, Women in Political Theory, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1993.
Millennium. Special Issue on Gender and International Relations, Winter 1988.
Millennium. Discussion on Women and IR, vpl. 18, summer 1989.
Gender and Power
Aviel, J.E., Political Participation of Women in Latin America, in: Western Political Quarterly,
1981, vol. 34, no. 1.
Epstein/Coser (eds.), Access to Power: Cross-National Studies of Women and Elites, London,
Allen and Unwin, 1981.
Howes/Stevenson (eds.), Women and the Use of Military Force, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 1993,
chapter 8.
McGlen/Sarkees (eds.), Women in Foreign Policy: The Insiders, London, Routledge, 1993,
chapters 1, 4.
Pietala/Vickers, Making Women Matter: The Role of the United Nations, London, Zed Books,
1990.
Gender and War
Cohn, C. Wars, Wimps, and Women: Talking Gender and Thinking War, in: Cooke/Woollacott
(eds.), Gendering War Talk, Princeton, Princeton UP, 1993, pp. 227-246.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke, Women and War, New York, Basic Books, 1987, pp. 3-13.
Elshtain/Tobias (eds.), Women, Militarism and War: Essays in History, Politics, and Social
Theory, Totawa, Rowman and Littlefield, 1990.
Reardon, Betty, Sexism and the War System, New York, Teachers College Press, 1985.
Stiglemayer, A. (ed.), Mass Rape: The War against Women in Bosnia Herzegovina, Lincoln,
University of Nebraska Press, 1994.
Feminising the Military, Exchange, in: Millennium, vol. 29, 2000, 429-460.
Harris/Ynestra (eds.), Rocking the Ship of State. Towards a Feminist Peace Politics. Boulder:
Westview 1989.
Gender and the Global Political Economy
Beneria, L., (ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labour in Rural Societies,
Praeger, 1982.
Boserup, E. Women’s Role in Economic Development, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1970.
Fuentes/Ehrenreich, Women in the Global Factory, Boston, South End Press, 1983.
Hoskyns, C., Women’s Equality and the European Community, in: Feminist Review, 1985, no.
20.
Joekes, S.P., Women in the World Economy, New York: Oxford UP, 1987.
38
Kabeer, N., Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought, London, Verso,
1994, chapters 1, 2, 9.
Nash/Fernandez-Kelly (eds.), Women, Men and the International Division of Labour, Albany,
State University of New York Press, 1983, chapters 1, 3.
Nelson, N., African Women in the Development Process, London, Cass, 1981.
Seager/Olsen, Women in the World. An International Atlas, London, Pluto, 1986.
Tinker, I. (ed), Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development, New York, OUP, 1990.
Whitworth, S., Theory as Exclusion: Gender and IPE, in: Stubbs/Underhill (eds.), Political
Economy and the Changing Global Order, London, MacMillan, 1994.
Dewan, Ritu, Gender Implications of the ‘New’ Economic Policy: A Conceptual Overview, in:
Women’s Studies International Forum, vol. 22, no. 4, 1999, 425-9.
Marchand, M., Reconceptualizing Gender and Development in an Era of Globalization, in:
Millennium Vol. 25, no. 3, 1996.
Poststructuralist theories of International Relations are inspired
by the work of Foucault, Derrida, Levinas, Baudrillard, Deleuze
and Guattari and others. They argue that there are no firm
grounds for knowledge. Hence, the kind of knowledge
developed and taught in International Relations and other
disciplines is intimately connected to power and its morality
and, therefore, constantly suppressing alternative forms of
knowledge and morality. For poststructuralists there is no Truth
but only truths. This position has been strongly criticized by
traditional approaches, first, for challenging the possibility of
science as such; second, for being unable to establish grounds
for ethics; and consequently third, for being politically conservative. Whether and in how far
these accusations are correct, needs to be investigated. And in the process we will establish what
contribution poststructuralism can make to the study of international relations.
Week
9:
PostStructural Theories
Essay Questions
1. Poststructuralist theories are frequently accused of not being able to provide an ethics. On
what basis is this accusation made and is it convincing?
2. Is Campbell right to claim that ‘danger is not an objective condition’? Are the dangers
which states attempt to address through their foreign policies, such as terrorism, merely
discursive constructs?
3. Explain the power/knowledge nexus and its relevance for international relations.
4. Why are firm grounds for knowledge untenable?
5. What are the differences between ‘postpositivism’, ‘poststructuralism’ and
‘postmodernism’ and what implications do they have for international theory?
Required Readings
Brown, Chris, ‘Turtles all the Way Down: Antifoundationalism, Critical Theory and
International Relations’, Millennium, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1994).
39
Campbell, David, Writing Security (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1998), pp. 1533.
Devetak, Richard, Postmodernism, in: Burchill/Linklater (eds.), Theories of International
Relations, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996, ch. 7.
Additional Readings
Rabinow, Paul, The Foucault Reader, London: Penguin 1984.
Ashley, Richard (1996) 'The achievements of Post-Structuralism' in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and
Marysia Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), pp. 240-253.
Dean, Mitchell Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. (London: Sage, 1999).
Foucault, Michel, ‘Right of Death and Power over Life’ in Michel Foucault, The History of
Sexuality, Introduction, Volume 1 (London, Penguin, 1990), pp135-158.
Baudrillard, J. The Gulf War Did Not Take Place, Sydney: Power Publications, 1995.
Ashley, Richard and R.B.J.Walker, ‘Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence in International
Relations’, International Studies Quarterly (34, 3, 1990).
Ashley, Richard, ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy
Problematique’, Millennium (17, 2, 1988).
Ashley, Richard, ‘The achievements of post-structuralism’, in Steve Smith et al, International
Theory, Positivism and Beyond (Beyond (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1999).
Bleiker, Roland, Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 2000).
Burke, Anthony, ‘Just War or Ethical Peace? Moral Discourses of Strategic Violence after 9/11’,
International Affairs (80, 2).
Burke, Anthony, ‘Iraq: Strategy’s Burnt Offering’, Global Change, Peace and Security (17, 2,
2005).
Butler, Judith, Precarious Life: Powers of Mourning and Violence (London, Verso, 2004).
Campbell, David, ‘The Deterritorializing of Responsibility: Levinas, Derrida and Ethics after the
End of Philosophy’, Alternatives (19, 1994).
Campbell, David, National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia
(Minneaoplis, University of Minnesota Press, 1998).
Campbell, David, ‘Why Fight? Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post-Structuralism’,
Millennium (27, 3, 1998).
Campbell, David, ‘Time is Broken: The Return of the Past in the Response to September 11’,
Theory & Event (5, 4, 2002).
Campbell, David, ‘Atrocity, Memory, Photography: Imaging the Concentration Camps of Bosnia
– The Case of ITN versus Living Marxism, Part 2’, Journal of Human Rights (1, 2,
2002).
Connolly, William, ‘Democracy and Territoriality’, Millennium (20, 3, 1991)
Connolly, William, Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox
(Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1991).
Connolly, William, Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed (Minneapolis, University of
Minnesota Press, 2002).
Campbell, David and Michael Dillon, The Political Subject of Violence (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1993).
40
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari, Anti_Oedipus: Capitalism & Schizophrenia (London,
Athlone Press, 2000)
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus (London, Athlone Press, 1999).
Der Derian, James, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford: Blackwell,
1987).
Der Derian, James and M.J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern
Readings of World Politics (Massachusetts, 1989)
Dillon, Michael, The Politics of Security (London: Routledge, 1996).
Dillon, Michael, ‘Sovereignty and Governmentality: From the Problematics of the New World
Order to the Ethical Problematic of the World Order’, Alternatives (20, 3, 1995), pp323368.
Dillon, Michael and Jerry Everard, ‘Stat(e)ing Australia: Squid Jigging and the Masque of the
State’, Alternatives (17, 3, 1992).
Dillon, Michael and Julian Reid, ‘Global Governance, Liberal Peace and Complex Emergency’,
Alternatives (25, 1, 2000).
Dillon, Michael and Julian Reid, ‘Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security, and War’,
Millennium (vol.30, no.1, 2001).
Doty, Roxanne Lynn, ‘Racism, Desire, and the Politics of Immigration’, Millennium (28, 3,
1999).
Edkins, Jenny, Post-Structuralism and International Relations (London and Boulder, Lynne
Rienner, 1999).
Edkins, Jenny, ‘Sovereign Power, Zones of Indistinction, and the Camp’, Alternatives (25, 1,
2000).
Edkins, Jenny, ‘Forget Trauma? Responses to September 11’, International Relations (16, 2,
2002).
Edkins, Jenny, Nalini Persram and Veronique Pin-Fat (eds.), Sovereignty and Subjectivity
(Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 1999)
Foucault, Michel, ‘The Subject and Power’ in Michel Foucault, Power: Essential Works Volume
3 (London, Allen Lane, 2003), pp326-348.
Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979).
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri, Multitude (New York, Penguin, 2004).
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri, Empire, New York: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Lisle, Debbie, ‘Consuming Danger: Reimagining the War/Tourism Divide’, Alternatives (25, 1,
2000).
Odysseos, Louiza. ‘Radical Phenomenology, Ontology and International Political Theory’
Alternatives 27, no. 3 (2002), pp. 373-405.
Reid, Julian, ‘Foucault on Clausewitz: Conceptualizing the Relationship Between War and
Power, Alternatives (28,1, 2003).
Reid, Julian, ‘Deleuze’s War Machine: Nomadism Against the State’, Millennium (32, 1, 2003).
Reid, Julian, ‘Architecture, Al-Qaeda and the World Trade Center: Rethinking the Relations
Between War, Modernity and City Space After 9/11’, Space and Culture (7, 4, 2004).
Reid, Julian, ‘The Biopolitics of the War on Terror: A Critique of the Return of Imperialism
Thesis in International Relations’, Third World Quarterly (26, 2, 2005), pp237-252.
Shapiro, Michael, ‘Sovereignty and Exchange in the Order of Modernity’, Alternatives (vol.16,
no.4, 1991).
Shapiro, Michael, The Politics of Representation (Madison, 1998).
41
Shapiro, Michael, ‘The Event of Discourse and the Ethics of Global Hospitality’, Millennium
(27, 3, 1998).
Shapiro, Michael and Hayward Alker (eds.), Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial
Identities (Minneapolis, 1996).
Virilio, Paul & Sylvio Lotringer, Pure War (New York: Semiotext, 1997).
Weber, Cynthia, Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Exchange
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995).
Weber, Cynthia, ‘Performative States’, Millennium (27, 1, 1998).
Weber, ‘Flying Planes Can Be Dangerous’, Millennium (31, 1, 2002).
Zehfuss, Maja, ‘Forget September 11’, Third World Quarterly (24, 3, 2003).
Rasch, William, (2004) Sovereignty and its Discontents: On the Primacy of Conflict and the
Structure of the Political. (London: Birkbeck Law Press)
Larner, Wendy and William Walters (eds.), Global Governmentality: Governing International
Spaces (London: Routledge, 2004).
Week 10: Postcolonial Theories
The discipline of International Relations has been created in the West and during a time in which
most of the world was colonized by Western powers. It thus does not only reflect a Western or
European cultural heritage but also a worldview which justified the colonization of non-Western
peoples. Just as in the case of Feminism, it was initially expected that the political emancipation
– decolonization – would put an end to the inequalities between the Western and the nonWestern world. Yet, this hope has proven wrong. Postcolonialism – strongly inspired by Edward
Said’s seminal works Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism - thus theorizes the continuing
inequalities and the means by which they are reproduced. Prominent amongst these means is the
construction of knowledge which excludes the particular experiences, issues, and contributions
of non-European peoples to international history and politics. In its critique, postcolonialism
does not just address the orthodoxy of International Relations but also the so-called critical
approaches by arguing that non-Western people face the triple oppression of race, class and
gender.
Essay Questions
1. If all theory is ‘for someone and for some purpose’, who is postcolonial theory for and
what purpose does it serve?
2. How do theories of International Relations exclude non-European experiences?
3. Does the experience of the triple oppression of race, class, and gender constitute the basis
for a ‘better’ knowledge of international relations?
4. What, if anything, does a postcolonial analysis of international relations add to our
understanding?
5. If more ‘Africans’, ‘Asians’, and ‘Latin Americans’ wrote and taught International
Relations, the discipline would be less biased. Discuss.
6. What was the historical function of culture in the development of imperialism? How has
that function undergone change?
42
Required Readings
Pal Ahluwalia, Politics and Post-Colonial Theory: African Inflections (London and New York,
Routledge, 2001), ch.2
Fanon, Frantz. (1986) 'The Fact of Blackness' in Black Skins, White Masks (London: Pluto
Press), 109-140.
Slater, David, ‘Postcolonial Questions for Global Times’, Review of International Political
Economy, vol. 5, no. 4, 1998, 647-678.
Additional Readings
Spivak, Gayatri C. ‘Can the subaltern speak?’ in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds), Marxism and
the Interpretation of Culture (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 271-313.
Phillip Darby, The Fiction of Imperialism: Reading Between International Relations and
Postcolonialism, (London: Cassell, 1998), ch.1, pp. 9-33.
Chowdhry, Gita and Sheila Nair (eds.), Power, Postcolonialism and IR: Reading Race, Gender,
and Class, London: Routledge 2002, Introduction.
Spivak, Gayatri C. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing
Present Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Amin, Samir, Eurocentrism, NY: Monthly Review Press, 1988.
Anghie, Anthony, Colonialism and the Birth of International Institutions: Sovereignty, Economy
and the Mandate System of the League of Nations, New York University Journal of
International Law and Politics, Vol. 34, 2002, 513-633.
Anghie, Anthony, Time Present and Time Past: Globalization, International Financial
Institutions, and the Third World, New York University Journal of International Law and
Politics, Vol. 32, 2000, 243-290.
Anghie, Anthony, Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century
International Law, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1999, 1-80.
Anghie, Anthony, Francisco de Vitoria and the Colonial Origins of International Law, Social and
Legal Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1996, 321-336.
Ayoob, Mohammed, Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for
Subaltern Realism, International Studies Review, vol. 4, no. 3, 2002, 27-48.
Blaut, James, The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric
History, London: The Guildford Press, 1993.
Chimni, Bhupinder, Towards a Radical Third World Approach to Contemporary International
Law, ICCLP Review, Vol. 5, no. 2, 2002, 18-32.
Chimni, Bhupinder, International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary
Approaches, New Delhi: Sage 1993.
Crawford, Robert and Darryl Jarvis (eds.), International Relations – Still an American Social
Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, NY: State University of NY Press,
2001.
Darby, Philip and Albert J. Paolini, Bridging International Relations and Postcolonialism,
Alternatives, vol. 19, no. 3, 1994, 371-97.
Darby, Philip, At the Edge of International Relations: Postcolonialism, Gender and Dependency,
London: Pinter, 1997.
Darby, Philip, The Fiction of Imperialism: Reading Between International Relations and
Postcolonialism, London: Cassell, 1998.
43
Dirlik, Arif, Vinay Bahl and Peter Gran, History after the Three Worlds: Post-Eurocentric
Historiographies, New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
Emeagwali, Gloria (ed), Africa and the Academy: Challenging Hegemonic Discourses on Africa,
Trenton NJ: Africa World Press, 2002.
Gandhi, Leela, Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 1998.
Gathii, James T., Representations of Africa in Good Governance Discourse: Policing and
Containing Neo-Liberalism, Third World Legal Studies, 1999.
Gathiie, James T., Good Governance as a Counter Insurgency Agenda to Oppositional and
Transformative Social Projects in International Law, Buffalo Human Rights Law Review,
vol. 5, 107-174.
George, Jim and David Campbell, Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical
Social Theory and International Relations, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, 1990,
269-293.
Grovogui, Siba N., Regimes of Sovereignty: International Morality and the African Condition,
European Journal of International Relations, vol. 8, no. 3, 315-338.
Grovogui, Siba N., Come to Africa: A Hermeneutic of Race in International Theory,
Alternatives, vol. 26, no. 4, 2001, 425-448.
Grovogui, Siba N., Sovereigns, Quasi-Sovereigns, and Africans, Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1996.
Hoffmann, Stanley, International Relations: An American Social Science, Daedalus, vol. 106,
1977, 41-59.
Holsti, Kalevi, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory,
London: Allen and Unwin, 1985.
Jahn, Beate, The Cultural Construction of International Relations: The Invention of the State of
Nature, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000.
Krippendorff, E., The Dominance of American Approaches in International Relations, in:
Millennium, Vol. 16, No. 2, Summer 1987.
Krishna, Sankaran, Race, Amnesia and the Education of International Relations, Alternatives,
vol. 26, no. 4, 2001, 401-424.
Krishna, Sankaran, The Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical
International Relations Theory, Alternatives, vol. 18, 1993, 385-417.
Ling, L.H.M., Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire Between Asia and the
West, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002.
Mandaville, Peter, Toward a different Cosmopolitanism – or the ‘I’ Dislocated, Global Society,
vol. 17, no. 2, 209-221.
Mignolo, Walter D., The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality and
Colonization, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995.
Mignolo, Walter, Local Histories, Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and
Border Thinking, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Neuman, Stephanie G. (ed), International Relations Theory and the Third World. Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 1998.
Pasha, Mustapha K., Fractured Worlds: Islam, Identity and International Relations, Global
Society, vol. 17, no. 2, 111-120.
Said, Edward, Orientalism, Vintage 1979.
Said, Edward, Culture and Imperialism, Vintage 1994.
44
Smith, Steve, The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?, The
British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 2, no. 3, 2000.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, Boston:
Beacon Press 1995.
Vitalis, Robert, The Graceful and Generous Liberal Gesture: Making Racism Invisible in
American International Relations, Millennium, vol. 29, no. 2, 2000, 331-356.
Waever, Ole, The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European
Developments in International Relations, International Organization, vol. 52, 1998, 687727.
Watson, Hilbourne, Theorizing the Racialization of Global Politics and the Caribbean
Experience, Alternatives, vol. 26, 2001, 449-483.
Achebe, Chinua. “African Writer,” in Colonial Discourse and Postcolonial Theory, Patrick
Williams and Laura Chrisman, Eds. New York: Columbia UP, 1994. Morning Yet on
Creation Day, Garden City: Anchor, 1976.
Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, London: Verso, 1992. “Jameson’s
Rhetoric of Otherness and the ‘National Allegory’,” in Social Text 17, 1987. Althusser,
Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” in Critical Theory Since 1965.
Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle, Eds. Tallahassee: UP Florida, 1989. *Anderson, Benedict.
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. UK:
Verso, 2000.
Appiah, Anthony. In My Father’‘s House. New York: Oxford UP, 1992.
Ashcroft, Bill, et al. eds. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial
Literatures. London, Routledge, 1989.
Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture, Nation and Narration. London, Routledge, 1994.
Brysk, Alison et al, ‘After Empire: National Identity and the Postcolonial Family of Nations’,
European Journal of International Relations (8, 2, 2002).
Chatterjee, Partha. Nationalist Thought in the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse.
Minneapolis: U of MN P, 1986. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and
Postcolonial Histories. Princeton, Princeton UP, 1992.
Christian, Barbara. “The Race for Theory,” The Post-colonial Studies Reader. Bill Ashcroft,
Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, Eds. London: Routledge, 1995.
Cixous, Helene. “The Laugh of Medusa,” Critical Theory Since 1965. Hazard Adams and Leroy
Searle, Eds. Tallahassee: UP Florida, 1989.
Clifford, James. “Travelling Cultures,” The Predicament of Culture (introduction)Postcolonial
Literature and Theory 1 Updated 7/2003
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari “Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature,” from A Thousand
Plateaus. Minneapolis: U of MN P, 1987.
Derrida, Jacques “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” Critical
Theory Since 1965. Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle, Eds. Tallahassee: UP of Florida,
1989.
Fanon, Frantz Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press, 1962.
Fanon, Frantz The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1968.
Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. “The Blackness of Blackness: A Critique of the Sign and the Signifying
Monkey,” in Black Literatures and Literary Theory, New York: Methuen, 1984.
Introduction to “Race,” Writing and Difference. Chicago: UCP, 1986.
Gilroy, Paul. There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack. Chicago: UCP, 1987.
45
Greenblatt, Stephen. Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World. Chicago: UCP,
1991.
Guha, Ranajit, ed. Selected Subaltern Studies, New York: Oxford UP, 1988.
Hall, Stuart “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms,” in Llull, John, ed. Media Culture and Society: A
Global Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia U P, 1995.
Hoogvelt, Ankie, Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of
Development (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).
hooks, bell. “Representing Whiteness in the Black Imagination,” in Grossberg, Lawrence et al.,
Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, 1990.
Hodge, Bob and Vijay Mishra “What is Post(-)colonialism?” In Colonial Discourse and
Postcolonial Theory. Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, Eds. New York: Columbia
UP, 1994.
Hulme, Peter Colonial Encounters. London: Methuen, 1986.
Jameson, Frederic “Third World Literature in an Era of Multinational Capitalism.”
“Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Capital,” Social Text 15: 1986. Postcolonial
Literature and Theory 2 Updated 7/2003
Jan-Mohammed, Abdul “The Economy of Manichean Allegory,” in The Nature and Context of
Minority Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, 1990.
Jussawalla, Feroza. “Resurrecting the Prophet: The Case of Salman, the Otherwise,” Public
Culture 2.1 (Fall 1989). 107-118.
Family Quarrels: Towards a Criticism of Indian Writing in English, New York & Berne: Peter
Lang, 1984.
Interviews with Writers of the Post-Colonial World. Jackson: U P of Mississippi, 1992.
Krishna, Shankaran, Postcolonial Insecurities: India, Sri Lanka, and the Question of Nationhood
(Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1999).
Lee, Dennis “Writing in Colonial Space,” in Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin,
Eds. The Post-colonial Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 1995.
Lionnet, François Postcolonial Representations: Women, Literature, Identity. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell U P, 1995.
Lynne Doty, Roxanne. Imperial Encounters (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1996).
Mannoni, Octave. Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology of Colonization. Ann Arbor: U of
Michigan P, 1991.
McCormack, Brian, ‘Postcolonialism in an Age of Globalization: Opening International
Relations Theory to Identities and Movement’, Alternatives (27, 1, Jan-Mar 2002).
Memmi, Albert. The Colonizer and the Colonized. Boston: Beacon P, 1991.
Miller, James “Postscript,” in The Passion of Michel Foucault. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1993.
Minh-ha, Trinh T. “No Master Territories,” in Woman, Native, Other, Bloomington: Indiana U P,
1989.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial
Discourses.” Colonial Discourse and Postcolonial Theory. Patrick Williams and Laura
Chrisman, Eds., New York: Columbia UP, 1994.
Moore Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Policies. New York: Verso,
1997.
Paolini, Albert, Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism, Identity, and International Relations
(Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999).
46
Pratt, Mary Louise Imperial Eyes: Transculturation. London: Routledge, 1992.
Sangeeta Ray, En-Gendering India: Woman and Nation in Colonial and Postcolonial Narratives
(Durham, Duke University Press, 2000)
Rushdie, Salrnan. Imaginary Homelands. New York: Viking Penguin, 1991.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Colonial Discourse and
Postcolonial Theory, Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, eds., New York: Columbia U
P, 1994.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.“Reading the Satanic Verses,” Public Culture 2.1 (Fall 1989). 79100. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present.
Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1999.
Soyinka, Wole “Neo-Tarzanism: The Poetics of Pseudo-Tradition,” in Transition, (48) 38-44.
Taylor, Charles “The Rushdie Controversy,” Public Culture 2.1 (Fall 1989). 118-123.
wa Thiong’‘o, Ngugi Decolonizing the Mind, London: James Curry & Heinemann, 1986. Young,
Robert White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. London: Routledge, 1990.
47