sui 201 - theories of international relations syllabus (2023-24 fall semester)
Monday: 09:30-11:20 (353)
Tuesday: 09:30-11:20 (253)
SUI 201 – Theories of International Relations
2023-2024 Fall
Hakan Övünç Ongur
What to Do?
The
main objective of this course is to provide fundamental information about the
theories and approaches that help the development of the International
Relations as a discipline and to place frequent discussions in a
theoretical-conceptual framework. During the course, a conceptual narrative
will be presented about the theories and approaches in question by going
through current issues; it will be aimed that students interpret these
narratives with a critical perspective. Critical, post-structuralist and
feminist approaches will also be included in the scope of the course, as well
as the traditional theories, the effects of which have continued since the
establishment of the discipline.
How to Grade?
1. Attendance (%15)
2. Mid-term (%25)
3. Final (%30)
4. Group Project (%30)
Any Limitations?
As
it is practiced in all departments of the TOBB University of Economics and
Technology, students’ attendance to classes is compulsory. Students who
will not be able to attend the exams and classes are required to inform the
instructor of their official excuses.
No
audio or visual recording is allowed,
except for the students with disabilities.
Some
of the readings presented in the syllabus are mandatory and some are advisory.
There is a (+) sign next to the compulsory readings and students are
expected to do these readings before coming to the class and to subscribe to
the course’s web page in order to be informed about the possible changes.
***
I would like to thank PhD Candidate, Selman Emre Gürbüz, for his contribution
to the preparation of this syllabus.
September 18th-19th – The Birth
of the Discipline
§ David J. Singer, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in
IR,” World Politics, 14(1), 1961, pp.
77-92. (+)
§ Scott Burchill & Andrew Linklater, “Introduction”,
in Theories of International Relations,
S. Burchill et al. (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996/2005, pp. 1-28.
§ Ole Wæver, “The Sociology of A Not So International
Discipline: American and European Developments in IR”, International Organization, 52(4), 1998, pp. 687-727.
§ Christian Reus-Smit & Duncan Snidal, “Between
Utopia and Reality: The Practical Discourses of IR,” in The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, C. Reus-Smit &
D. Snidal (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 3-37.
ü Movie: The
International (Dir. Tom Tykwer, 2009)
September 25th-26th –
(Neo-)Realism
§ Richard Ned Lebow, “Classical Realism,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline
and Diversity, T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010, pp. 59-76. (+)
§ John J. Mearsheimer, “Structural Realism,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline
and Diversity, T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010, pp. 77-93. (+)
§ Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York:
Alfred Knopf, 1948, pp. 73-108.
§ Kenneth Waltz, Theory
of International Politics, California: Addison-Wesley, 1979, pp. 102-129.
§ Robert Gilpin, War
and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991/2009, pp. 186-210.
§ Stefano Guzzini, “The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in
International Relations”, European
Journal of International Relations, 10(4), 2004, pp. 533-568.
§ Peter Wilson, “The Myth of the ‘First Great Debate’”, Review of International Studies, 24(5),
1998, pp. 1-16.
ü Movie: In the
Loop (Dir. Armando Iannucci, 2009)
October 2nd-3rd -
(Neo-)Liberalism
§ Bruce Russett, “Liberalism,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, T.
Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010,
pp. 94-113. (+)
§ Jennifer Sterling-Folker, “Neoliberalism,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline
and Diversity, T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010, pp. 114-131. (+)
§ Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics,” The American Political Science Review,
80(4), 1986, pp. 1151-1169.
§ Joseph Nye, “Hard, Soft, and Smart Power,” in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy,
A. Cooper et al. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 559-574.
§ Robert O. Keohane, After
Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984, pp. 49-64.
§ Robert O. Keohane, “International Institutions: Two
Approaches,” International Studies
Quarterly, 32(4), 1988, pp. 379-396.
§ Filippo Andreatte & Mathias Koenig-Archibugi,
“Which Synthesis? Strategies of Theoretical Integration and the
Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate,” International
Political Science Review, 31(2), 2010, pp. 207-227.
ü Movie: The
Interpreter (Dir. Sydney Pollack, 2005)
October 9th-10th – The English/British
School
§ Tim Dunne, “The English School,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline
and Diversity, T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010, pp. 132-152. (+)
§ Adam Watson, The
Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis,
Londra: Routledge, 1992, pp. 1-12. (+)
§ Richard Little, “The English School’s Contribution to the
Study of International Relations,” European
Journal of International Relations, 6(3), 2000, pp. 395-422.
§ Barry Buzan, “The English School: An Underexploited
Resource in IR,” Review of International
Studies, 27(1), 2001, pp. 471-488.
§ Andrew Linklater, The
Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 29-75.
§ Laust Schouenborg, “A New Institutionalism? The
English School As International Sociological Theory,” International Relations, 25(1), 2011, pp. 26-44.
ü Movie: Dr.
Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Dir. Stanley
Kubrick, 1964)
October 16th-17th – (Neo-)Marxist
Approaches
§ Mark Rupert, “Marxism,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, T.
Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010,
pp. 153-170. (+)
§ Immanuel Wallerstein, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction, Durham: Duke University
Press, 2004, pp. 1-59. (+)
§ Samir Amin, Imperialism
and Unequal Development, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977, pp. 89-102.
§ Andre G. Frank, “The Development of Underdevelopment,”
in Imperialism and Underdevelopment: A
Reader, R. Rhodes (ed.), New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971, pp. 4-17.
§ Andrew Davenport, “Marxism in IR: Condemned to A
Realist Fate?,” European Journal of International Relations, 19(1), 2011, pp. 27-48.
ü Movie: El Hoyo /
The Platform (Dir. Galder Gaztelu-Urrutia, 2019)
October 30th-31st – Critical
Approaches
§ Steven C. Roach, “Critical Theory,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline
and Diversity, T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010, pp. 171-186. (+)
§ Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World
Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 1981, pp.
126-155. (+)
§ Antonio Gramsci, Prison
Notebooks, Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith (eds.), London: Lawrence &
Wishart, 1971, pp. 445-557.
§ Andreas Bieler & Adam D. Morton, “The Gordion Knot
of Agency – Structure in International Relations: A Neo-Gramscian Perspective”,
European Journal of International
Relations, 7(1), 2001, pp. 5-35.
§ Andrew Linklater, “The Evolving Spheres of
International Justice,” International
Affairs, 75(3), 1999, pp. 473-482.
§ Stephen Gill, Power
and Resistance in the New World Order, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008,
pp. 100-122.
ü Movie: Snowpiercer
(Dir. Bong Joon Ho, 2013)
ü
November 6th-7th – Constructivism
§ K. M. Fierke, “Constructivism,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline
and Diversity, T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010, pp. 153-170. (+)
§ Alexander E. Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of
It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), 1992, pp. 391-425. (+)
§ Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in
International Relations Theory,” International
Security, 23(1), 1998, pp. 171-200.
§ Friedrich Kratochwil, “On Legitimacy”, International Relations, 20(3), 2006,
pp. 302-308.
§ Emanuel Adler, “The Spread of Security Communities:
Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO’s Post-Cold War
Transformation”, European Journal of
International Relations, 14(2), 2008, pp. 195-230.
§ David McCourt, The
New Constructivism in International Relations Theory, Bristol: Bristol
University Press, 2022, pp. 39-52.
ü Movie: The
Village (Dir. M. Night Shyamalan, 2004)
November 13th-14th – (Post-)Structuralist
Approaches
§
David Campbell,
“Poststructuralism,” in International
Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S.
Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 223-246. (+)
§
Richard K.
Ashley, “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy
Problematique,” Millennium: Journal of
International Studies, 17(2), 1988, pp. 227-262. (+)
§
James DerDerian &
Michael J. Shapiro (der.), International/Intertextual
Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, New York: Lexington,
1989, pp. 1-22. (+)
§
John G. Ruggie,
“Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International
Relations”, International Organization,
47(1), 1993, pp. 139-174.
§
Jennifer
Milliken, “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of
Research and Methods”, European Journal
of International Relations, 5(2), 1999, pp. 225-254.
ü Movie: Das weiβe
Band – Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte / The White Ribbon (Dir. Michael
Haneke, 2009)
November 20th-21th – Feminist/Gender
Related Approaches
§ J. Ann Tickner & Laura Sjoberg, “Feminism,” in International Relations Theories: Discipline
and Diversity, T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010, pp. 205-222.
§ J. Ann Tickner, “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled
Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists”, International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 1997, pp. 611-632.
§ Christine Sylvester, Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 242-266.
§ Susanne Zwingel, “How Do Norms Travel? Theorizing
International Women’s Rights in Transnational Perspective”, International Studies Quarterly, 56(1),
2012, pp. 115-129.
§ J. Ann Tickner & Jacqui True, “A Century of IR
Feminism: From World War I Women’s Peace Pragmatism to the Women, Peace and
Security Agenda,” International Studies
Quarterly, 62(1), 2018, pp. 221-233.
ü
Movie:
Holy Spider (Dir. Ali Abbasi, 2022)
November 27th-28th – Post-colonializing
or Globalizing IR
§ Barry Buzan & Richard Little, “Why International
Relations Has Failed As An Intellectual Project and What to Do About It”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies,
30(1), 2001, pp. 19-39. (+)
§ Arlene Tickner, “Seeing IR Differently: Notes From the
Third World”, Millennium: Journal of
International Studies, 32(2), 2003, pp. 295-324. (+)
§ Amitav Acharya, “Global IR and Regional Worlds,” International Studies Quarterly, 58(4),
2014, pp. 647-659. (+)
§ Barry Buzan ve Mathias Albert, “Differentiation: A
Sociological Approach to International Relations Theory”, European Journal of International Relations, 16(3), 2010, pp.
315-337.
§ Jens Bartelson, “The Social Construction of
Globality,” International Political
Sociology, 4(1), 2010, pp. 219-235.
ü
Movie:
Babel (Dir. Alejandro G. Iñárritu,
2006)
About Group Projects
Within
the content of the course, all students are expected to write a critical
article about one of the movies in the reading list in a group of two
students and within the framework of any two opposing concepts/theories
explained in this course, in accordance with the following scheme.
- In short, what is the chosen movie about? How should
this issue count as an international political event?
- Which assumptions and arguments of the chosen theory
can be applied to which three (3) scenes of the movie or enable these
scenes to be handled in a theoretical framework?
- Why is the theory you chose the most appropriate
to explain the movie?
- After exchanging assignments; at what points can
you criticize the relationship your bandmate has established between the
theory chosen and the movie? Why is the theory you have chosen better suited to
explain this film?
The
rules for all assignments are as follows:
- You must choose your groupmate and movie by the
end of the 4th week at the latest.
- You have to write an article between
1,000-1,800 words for the part where you explain the theory and the movie,
send this article to your groupmate, and write a 500-800 word review for
the homework you received from him.
- Prepare your answer file in partnership with your
groupmate, in Microsoft@Word format, Times New Roman, 12 points, double-spaced
and justified on both sides. The title of your Word file should be in
the format (Name 1, Name 2, Movie Name, SUI 201).
- Each student MUST use at least five (5) reference
sources related to the chosen theory. You can use any format of
reference (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) that can be tractable.
- Regardless of the movie and theory you choose, your
comment/criticism/idea will be evaluated rather than the correctness of
your answer.
I
would like to state that you are responsible for each other as
groupmates at every stage of your homework. It is MANDATORY to notify your
friend and then me about the assignments given as copy-paste directly from
the Internet or other sources. If such a situation is encountered, all
group members will be responsible for the said problem.
Group Project Draft
1)
Introduction (100-200 words)
• Which movie was chosen?
• With which theory or concept will the selected movie
be explained?
• Why was this theory or concept chosen?
2)
A short summary of the movie (100-200 words)
• Subject, main theme, message
• Main characters
3)
Theory Section (400-700 words)
• A brief information about the time period in which
the selected theory emerged.
• Purpose of the chosen theory
• Basic assumptions, concepts, arguments of the chosen
theory
• Fundamental criticisms of the chosen theory
4)
Film - Theory Comparison (400-700 words)
• Selected scene from the movie 1: Which concept of
the chosen theory is compatible, why?
• Selected scene from the movie 2: Which concept of
the chosen theory is compatible, why?
• Selected scene from the movie 3: Which concept of
the chosen theory is compatible, why?
5)
Criticism to your group mate (500-800 words)
• With which different theory or concept did his
bandmate explain the same movie, what is the reason for doing this?
• What are the wrong approaches, truths and possible
corrections in the theory that the bandmate paired with the three scenes he
chose?
• In general, on which concepts or topics did the
groupmate have problems?
6) References - Bibliography
Comments
Post a Comment