POLS-602 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

--Course Syllabus-Instructor: zlem Demirta Bagdonas

Office: F- 201
Phone: 5093
Email: odbagdonas@fatih.edu.tr
Course Objectives: The course provides an introduction to several contemporary approaches
to and some of the important areas of study in International Relations (IR). The aim of the
course is two-fold. First, it aims to make students better acquainted with the basic concepts
and issue areas within the discipline of IR and introduce the main questions circulating within
specific issue areas. Second, it aims to help students develop the academic and critical skills
necessary for a fruitful engagement with the major debates and theoretical approaches in IR.
Both of these aims are meant to assist students in preparing for a successful defense of their
thesis projects.
Requirements:
Participation: % 10, Presentation: % 20, Exam: % 20, Final Paper: % 50
Attendance: Students are expected to attend all of the seminars. If you will not be able to
attend, please let me know about your absence beforehand. Failing to provide a legitimate
excuse for your absence will affect the assessment.
Participation: While attendance is also important, it does not equate to class participation,
that is, absolute attendance does not guarantee an A grade for participation. That is why it is
crucial for the students to come to the class having read the assigned texts and prepared for
the class discussions. At the beginning of each seminar, there will be a mini-lecture on the
context of the assigned texts, providing an overview of the weeks topic. The following
discussion will focus on a set of questions related to the texts. While reading, students
should focus on the main question raised in the article/chapter and identify the main
argument of the author. The discussion will mostly focus on diverging views on the questions
raised in the texts.
Final Paper: You are expected to apply one of the theoretical approaches to a selected case.
The paper should be around 15-20 pages (1.5/double space between lines + 12 font),
consisting of an introduction (1-2 pages), literature review on the selected theory (4-5 pages),
literature review on the applications of the chosen theory (4-5 pages), brief analysis of an
empirical case from the perspective of the selected theory (3-4 pages), and a conclusion (1-2
pages). Please do not exceed the page limits.

The introduction should start with a puzzle, a question that intrigues the reader. The intro
section should persuade the reader why it is significant to explain the selected case
according to the selected theory and introduce the main argument as well as the structure of
the paper. The literature review should not be a mere description of the texts but should
organize/categorize the field around the question raised in the introduction. Similarly, the
case section should not be a collection of dates and events but must be a concise analysis of
the events from the perspective of the selected theory. The conclusion should summarize
the main points of the paper and may raise further question for future research.
The paper should be well-structured and written clearly. The arguments should be wellsupported, providing necessary evidence and citing reliable sources.
Please be aware that plagiarized papers will amount to an F grade for the course. Please use
footnotes carefully, insert quotation marks should you have a quotation, and provide full
citation details, including page numbers. Since plagiarism is a serious academic offense with
serious consequences, students are encouraged to avoid it at all costs.
Course Outline:
Week 1: (17 September): Introduction
Week 2: (24 September): What is theory, IR, and what is it good for?

Chris Brown, Defining International Relations, in Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley,
eds., Understanding International Relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005),
pp: 1-18

Stephen M. Walt, The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International

Relations, Annual Review of Political Science 8 (2005): 23-48

Robert Cox, Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations
Theory, Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 10 (1981): 126-155.

Kenneth Waltz, Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory, Journal of International

Affairs, 44 (1990): 21-38.

Fred Chernoff, Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and

Contending Accounts (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), pp: 79-129.

Friedrich Kratochwill, Evidence, Inference, and Truth as Problems in Theory Building

in the Social Sciences, in Richard Ned Lebow and Mark Irving Lichbach, eds., Theory
and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2007), pp: 25-54.

Week 3: (1 October): Idealism/Liberal Internationalism versus Realism

Chris Brown, The Development of the International Relations Theory in the 20th
Century, in Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, eds., Understanding International
Relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp: 19-39.

Harfold J. Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality (Harmondsworth: Pelican Books,

1944 [1919]), pp: 1-28.

Michael W. Doyle, A more perfect union? The liberal peace and the challenge of
globalization, Review of International Studies 26, 5 (2001): 81-94

Edward Hallett Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of
International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1946).

Michael W. Doyle, Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace, American Political Science
Review 99, 3 (2005): 463-466.

John Ikenberry, Liberal Internationalism 3.0.: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal
World Order, Perspectives on Politics 7 (2009): 71-87.

Beate Jahn, Kant, Mill, and Illegal Legacies in International Affairs, International
Organization 59, 1 (2005): 177-207.

Week 4: (8 October): Political Realism

Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New
York: Knopf, 1950 [1948]).

Michael C. Williams, Morgenthau Now: Neoconservatism, National Greatness and

Realism, in Michael C. Williams, ed., Realism Reconsidered: The Relevance of
Morgenthau in International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp:
216-240.

Week 5: (15 October): Traditionalism vs. Scientism in IR: Realism vs. Neorealism

Jack Donnely, Realism, in Burchill et. al., eds., Theories of International Relations
(New York: Palgrave, 2005), pp: 29-54

Kenneth Waltz, Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory, Journal of International

Affairs, 44 (1990): 21-38.

Kenneth Waltz, Structural Realism after the Cold War, International Security 25, 1
(Summer 2000), pp: 5-41.

John Merscheimer, Why we will soon miss the Cold War, in Mark Charlton and
Elisabeth Riddell-Dixon, eds., International Relations in the Post-Cold War Era
(Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson, 1993), pp: 14-30.

Robert Koehane, Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press,
1986).
Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War (Columbia University Press. New York: 1959).
Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (McGraw Hill. New York: 1979)

Week 6: (22 October): Realism vs. Globalism: Complex Interdependence, Neoliberal

Institutionalism and Transnationalism

Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Jr., Power and Interdependence: World Politics
in Transition (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 2001 [1977]), pp: 20-31.

Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Jr., Globalization: Whats New? Whats Not?
(And So What?) Foreign Policy (Spring 2000): 104-119

Chris Brown, Globalization, in Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, eds., Understanding
International Relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), pp: 164-184.

Barry Cooper, Terrorism and Globalization, Perspectives on Global Development

and Technology 4, 3-4 (2005): 543-575

Ian Clark, Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of
International Relations, Review of International Studies, 24, 4 (1998): 479-498.

Ian Clark, Globalization and Fragmentation: International Relations in the

Twentieth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Norrin M. Ripsman and T. V. Paul, Globalization and the National Security State: A
Framework for Analysis, International Studies Review 7 (2005): 199-227.

Week 7: (29 October): official holiday

Week 8: (5 November): Level of Analysis debate in International Politics

Andrew Moravcsik, Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International

Politics, International Organization 51, 4 (Autumn 1997): 513-553.

Graham T. Allison, Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Classic
Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations (Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth, 2006), pp: 178-209.

J. David Singer, The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations, in Classic

Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations (Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth, 2006), pp: 133-147.

Week 9: exams week- no class

Week 10: (12 November): Constructivism

Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press, 1999), pp: 92-96, 113-138.

Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is What States Make of It, International Organization

46, 2 (Spring 1992), 391-425.

Christian Reuss-Smith, Constructivism, in Burchill et. al., eds., Theories of

International Relations (New York: Palgrave, 2005), pp: 188-212

Steve Smith, Wendts World, Review of International Studies 26 (2000): 151-163.

Ted Hopf. The Promise of Constructivism in IR Theory, International Security, 23,

(Summer 1998): 171-200.

Jeffrey Checkel, 1998. The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory,

World Politics 50, 2 (January 1998): 324-348.

Week 11: (19 November): Copenhagen School, Securitization and Desecuritization

Ole Waever, Securitization and Desecuritization in Ronnie D. Lipschutz, ed., On

Security (New York NY: Columbia University Press 1995), pp. 46-86.

Michael C. Williams, Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International

Politics, International Studies Quarterly 47 (2003): 511-531

Jef Huysmans, The European Union and the securitization of migration, Journal of
Common Market Studies, 38, 5 (2000): 751-777.

Alper Kaliber, Securing the Ground Through Securitized Foreign Policy: The Cyprus
Case, Security Dialogue 36, 3 (2005): 319-337.

Pinar Bilgin, Making Turkeys Transformation Possible: Claiming security-speak

not Desecuritization! Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 7: 4
(2007), 555-571

Week 12: (26 November): exam

Week 13: (3 December): Moving Beyond the positivist IR: Post-Structuralist/Postmodernist
Approaches

Lene Hansen, Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (NY.:
Routledge, 2006)- read especially the introduction, chapter I, and chapter II.

Richard Devetak, Postmodernism, in Burchill et. al., eds., Theories of International

Relations, 161, 187 (New York: Palgrave, 2005)

David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992)

David Campbell, Politics without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics and the Narratives of the
Gulf War (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1993)

David Campbell, Poststructuralism, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (eds.)

International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 203-228 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007).

Week 14: (10 December): Feminist Perspectives on IR

Jaqui True, Feminism, in Burchill et. al., eds., Theories of International Relations
(New York: Palgrave, 2005), pp: 213-234.

Ann Tickner, You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists
and IR Theorists International Studies Quarterly, 41, 4 (Dec., 1997): 611-632.

Marysia Zalewski, Well, What Is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia? International

Affairs, 71, (1995): 339-356.

Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International
Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).

Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1992)

Week 15: (17 December): General Review & Discussion of term paper projects
Week 16: (24 December): Paper consultations & make up presentations
Week 17: (31 December): Paper consultations