Actualités et agenda
Nos formations
Présentation
Students are graded on the basis of the following assignments:
(1) Participation (30%): This is a reading-heavy and interactive class. Each student is expected to read all compulsory texts and participate actively in class discussions.
(2) Debates (2 x 35%): For sessions 5-8, students will be sorted into different teams to engage in formal debates on particular IR controversies. Each team takes part in two debates.
This is an advanced theory course which presupposes a background in International Relations (IR) theories and expects students to read, prepare, and discuss theoretical texts in class. The course explores a range of recent research programs and scholarly debates in IR, from the turn to the history of the state system through rationalist theories of war and nuclear proliferation to constructivist studies of norms, identity, and anxiety. Students will gain a more profound understanding of key disciplinary discussions, middle-range theories, and research strategies. The final four sessions are devoted to organized debtates in which student teams face off against each other to challenge and defend particular IR positions that are also discussed in the field.
Modalités
1 Introduction
No readings.
PART I: HISTORY, WAR, AND IDENTITY IN IR
2 The ‘Myth of Westphalia’ and the international system
Osiander, Andreas. 2001. ‘Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth’ International Organization 55(2), pp. 251-287.
3 Rational explanations for war?
Fearon, James D. (1995). ‘Rationalist explanations for war.’ International Organization, 49(3), 379-414.
4 Identity, fear, and ontological security
Mitzen, Jennifer. (2006). ‘Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma.’ European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341-370.
PART II: DEBATES
5 Deterrence or gamble? Nuclear weapons in realist and liberal perspectives
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1990). ‘Nuclear myths and political realities.’ American Political Science Review 84(3): 730-745.
Sagan, Scott D. (1997). ‘Why do states build nuclear weapons? Three models in search of a bomb.’ International Security21(3): 54-86.
6 The (in)stability of the liberal international order
Mearsheimer, John J. (2019). ‘Bound to fail: The rise and fall of the liberal international order.’ International Security43(4): 7-50.
Ikenberry, G. John. (2018). ‘Why the liberal world order will survive.’ Ethics & International Affairs 32(1): 17-29.
7 Are states really persons? A constructivist controversy
Wendt, Alexander. 2004. ‘The state as person in international theory.’ Review of International Studies 30(2): 289-316.
Schiff, Jacob. 2008. ‘”Real”? As if! Critical reflections on state personhood.’ Review of International Studies 34(2): 363-377.
8 Recognition as a form of justice? Ethics and critical IR
Heins, Volker. 2008. ‘Realizing Honneth: Redistribution, recognition, and global justice.’ Journal of Global Ethics 4(2): 141-153.
Birnbaum, Maria. 2023. ‘The costs of recognition: global politics, religion, and the colonial history of South Asia.’ International Theory 15(2): 323-350.
PART III: CONCLUSION
9 The future of IR
Lake, David A. (2013). ‘Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations.’ European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 567-587.