world politics and international relations1€¦ · world politics and international relations1...
TRANSCRIPT
1
National Research University – Higher School of Economics
Faculty of Social Sciences
School of Political Science
World Politics and International Relations1
2018-2019 (3rd
and 4th modules)
Lectures: Mikhail Mironyuk ([email protected])
Seminars: Mikhail Mironyuk and Grigory Lukyanov ([email protected])
1. Course Description
This course is an introduction to the study of world politics and international
relations2. It combines a focus on major theoretical and methodological approaches
with foreign policy formation and pressing issues of world politics.
The course is organized around four main goals. The first is to introduce
students to the study of international relations (IR) as a sub-discipline of political
science. The second goal is to introduce students to major concepts, ideas, and issues
in IR that shape its field. We will explore the essential problems and puzzles in the
study of world politics and international relations: Why do states go to war? Under
what conditions do they choose to settle disputes without fighting? What is the role of
international institutions in world politics? How can institutions and norms shape
behavior of a state? Under what conditions do politicians take into account the
preferences of groups or the general public when foreign policy decisions are made?
Why do leaders decide to start trade wars? The third goal is to invite students to
critically reflect on the relationship between theory and history in the study of world
politics. The fourth goal is to stimulate students to critically read and understand
academic texts and political statements.
This course is not about Russia, the United States, China, the EU. This course
is not about retelling the news and criticizing particular leaders or countries. Students
will learn theories, concepts, models, and ideas that can be used to analyze the
choices available to leaders and to understand the rationale behind their choices. We
will discuss foreign policies of particular countries, or what is shown in the news in
order to assess how theories and concepts explain the choices seemingly available to
leaders. We will not be making judgements on moral or partisan grounds. Our
approach is mostly evidence-based.
This is an obligatory course for 3rd
year students of the undergraduate
programme “Political Science” of the Faculty of Social Sciences (HSE, Moscow).
The course is divided into 24 lectures (48 hours) and 11 seminars (22 hours).
1 I express gratitude to the teaching assistants for this course (2017-2018, 2018-2019) Kirill A.
Toloknev and Artem M. Maltsev for many good ideas expressed regarding composition of the
course and the readings. The simulation has been totally their idea and responsibility for
conducting. 2
2
As for the prerequisites, students starting this course are expected to have a
good knowledge of Political History of Russia and Foreign Countries, Economics,
History of Political Ideas, and Political Theory.
The working language of the course is English. The reading list may also
incorporate articles and books in Russian. Students are also provided with web-links
to video materials (mostly, on YouTube).
2. Learning Objectives
Students are expected to: (1) master theoretical approaches to the analysis of
international and transnational interactions and foreign policy analysis tools; (2) gain
knowledge of the characteristics of major actors in world politics; (3) understand how
the contemporary international system was formed; (4) familiarize with the pressing
issues of world politics.
3. Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of the course students are expected to: (1) have knowledge of
major concepts, ideas, and theories of IR, (2) be able to apply tools of IR research and
foreign policy analysis to analyze problem situations in the sphere of international
relations and world politics, (3) analyze critically the political statements and the
news on world politics issues, (4) be able to identify complex relationship between
national, international, and transnational politics.
4. Course Plan
The syllabus is subject to changes due to important publications becoming
available and events taking place. These changes are to be announced at least two
week in advance. The syllabus can also be subject to changes due to assessment of
progress and requests of students to focus on subjects of particular interest to them.
The readings for this course in .pdf or .doc formats are available online to
download or by means of e-mail. They are intended for private use only and are not
supposed to be distributed out of the class.
# Theme Total
hours
Contact hours Independent
work Lecture Seminar
1. Introduction to Class and IR as a
Sub-Discipline of Political Science 2 2 0 0
2. How We Can Study IR and World
Politics: A Very Brief Introduction.
Levels of Analysis in IR
2 2 0 0
3. How Was Our World Shaped? A Bit
of History: The Making and
Expansion of the Territorial State,
European Imperialism, the World
Wars, the Cold War and its
Consequences. Discussions on the
Liberal World Order
22 4 4 14
4. A Brief Introduction to Anarchy and 26 6 6 14
3
Cooperation in World Politics:
Paradigmatic Approaches to
Understand Them
5. Actors, Preferences and Interests,
Institutions, and Interactions 12 4 0 8
6. Why Are There Wars Between
States? 20 8 2 10
7. Means of Getting What You Want in
World Politics. Political Uses of
Force Today
8 0 2 6
8. Domestic Politics and Wars 18 6 4 8
9. Status Considerations in World
Politics 6 2 0 4
10. International Law and Norms.
Human Rights in World Politics.
Logic of Appropriateness and Logic
of Consequentialism
12 4 2 6
11. International Trade: Winners and
Losers, the International Political
Economy of Trade, Trends and
Patterns in International Trade
10 4 0 6
12. International Financial and Monetary
Relations 12 4 2 6
13. What to Expect from Tomorrow: The
Future of IR and World Politics 2
Total 152 48 22 82
1&2. Introduction to Class and IR as a Sub-Discipline of Political Science. How
We Can Study IR and World Politics: A Very Brief Introduction. Levels of
Analysis in IR
Barry Buzan and Richard Little. 2000. International Systems in World History:
Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford; N.Y.: Oxford University
Press. Pp.68-89.
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Stephan Haggard, David A. Lake, and David G. Victor.
The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations // International Organization
71, Supplement 2017, pp. S1–S31.
Fearon, J.D., “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science”, World
Politics, Vol. 43, No. 2, (January 1991), pp. 169–95
Tetlock, P. E. & Belkin, A. (eds.), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World
Politics, Princeton University Press, (Princeton), 1996;
Lebow, R.N., “What’s so Different about a Counterfactual?”, World Politics, Vol. 52,
No. 4, (July 2000), pp. 550–85.
James Lee Ray, “Integrating Levels of Analysis in World Politics”, Journal of
Theoretical Politics, 13:4 (2001): 355-388.
4
David J. Singer, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations”, World
Politics, 14:1 (1961): 77-92.
Dina A. Zinnes, “Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher: Presidential Address”,
International Studies Quarterly, 24:3 (1980): 315-342.
Ikenberry G. J. The illusion of geopolitics: The enduring power of the liberal order //
Foreign Affairs – 2014. – Т. 93. – С. 80.
Mead W. R. The return of geopolitics: The revenge of the revisionist powers
//Foreign Affairs – 2014. – Т. 93. – С. 69.
Niblett R. Liberalism in Retreat: the Demise of a Dream //Foreign Affairs – 2017. –
Т. 96. – С. 17.
Nye Jr J. S. Will the liberal order survive: The history of an idea //Foreign Affairs –
2017. – Т. 96. – С. 10.
Mazarr M. J. The once and future order: what comes after hegemony //Foreign
Affairs – 2017. – Т. 96. – С. 25.
Patrick S. M. Trump and World Order: The Return of Self-Help //Foreign Affairs –
2017. – Т. 96. – С. 52.
Optional reading
Charli Carpenter, “Rethinking the Political / -Science- / Fiction Nexus: Global Policy
Making and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots”, Perspectives on Politics, 14:1
(2016): 53-69.
2. How Was Our World Shaped? A Bit of History: The Making and Expansion
of the Territorial State, European Imperialism, the World Wars, the Cold War
and its Consequences. Discussions on the Liberal World Order
Hendrik Spruyt, “The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the Modern
State”, Annual Review Of Political Science, 5 (2002): P.127-149.
Churchill, Winston. The Sinews of Peace: Speech at Westminster College, Fulton,
Missouri, March 1946. – https://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-
of-winston-churchill/120-the-sinews-of-peace.
G. John Ikenberry, “The Illusion of Geopolitics: The Enduring Power of the Liberal
Order”, Foreign Affairs, 93:3 (2014), 80-90.
Walter Russell Mead, “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist
Powers”, Foreign Affairs, 93:3 (2014), 69-79.
Советский Союз – оплот мира и демократии: Материалы по одиннадцатой теме
/ В помощь слушателям политшкол. – М.: Издательство ЦК ВЛКСМ «Молодая
гвардия», 1949.
5
Телеграмма поверенного в делах США в СССР Дж.Кеннана государственному
секретарю США. Москва. 22 февраля 1946 г. («Длинная телеграмма Кеннана»)
// Документы 1945-2003: Том 4 // Системная история международных
отношений: В четырех томах / Под ред. А.Д. Богатурова. – М.: НОФМО, 2004. –
http://www.obraforum.ru/pdf/fourth.pdf.
Тилли Ч. Принуждение, капитал и европейские государства. 990– 1992 гг. - М.:
Издательский дом «Территория будущего», 2009.
Optional reading
Голдстоун Дж. Почему Европа? Возвышение Запада в мировой истории, 1500-
1800. М.: Изд-во Института Гайдара, 2015.
4. A Brief Introduction to Anarchy and Cooperation in World Politics:
Paradigmatic Approaches to Understand Them
Ian Hurd, “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics,” International
Organization ol. 53 (1999): 379‐ 408.
Robert Jervis, “Realism in the Study of World Politics,” International Organization,
Vol. 52 (1998): 971‐ 992.
David A. Lake, “Escape from the state of nature: Authority and hierarchy in world
politics”, International Security 32:1 (2007): 47-79.
Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, “Is Anybody Still a Realist?”, International
Security, Vol. 24 (1999): 5‐ 55 and the correspondence, “Brother Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or was Anybody Ever a Realist,” International Security, ol. 25 (2000):
165‐ 193.
John Mearsheimer, “Structural Realism,” in Dunne, Kurki, and Smith, editors,
International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006), 71‐ 88.
Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of
International Relations,” International Organization, Vol. 51 (1997): 513‐ 553.
Kenneth Waltz, “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics,” in Robert J. Art and
Robert Jervis, International Politics, 9th edition. New York: Pearson Longman. Pp.
29-49.
Alexander Wendt. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of
power politics." International Organization 46:02 (1992): 391-425.
Walt S. M. Alliances: balancing and bandwagoning //International politics: enduring
concepts and contemporary issues. – 2000. – С. 96-103.
Mearsheimer J. Anarchy and the Struggle for Power //The Realism Reader. – 2014. –
Т. 179.
6
Oye K. A. The conditions for cooperation in world politics //Art and Jervis. – 1992.
Keohane R. O. International institutions: Can interdependence work? //Foreign
policy. – 1998. – С. 82-194.
Web-links
Keynote by Professor John J. Mearsheimer - IntRpol, University of Southern
Denmark / Intrpol Sdu. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNbePdkeXAA.
An Interview with Kenneth Waltz An Interview with Kenneth Waltz /
Annualreviews. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T-Bh254RJI.
Betts, Richard. Realism / Columbiauniversity. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCE7EB1Nvq4.
Conversations with History: Kenneth Waltz / UCtelevision. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9eV5gPlPZg&list=PL6C18659277F2DAA3.
Conversations With History: John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt / UCtelevision. –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ddFhjIyYKc&list=PL6C18659277F2DAA3.
Conversations with History: John Mearsheimer / UCtelevision. –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKFamUu6dGw&list=PL6C18659277F2DAA3.
Conversations with History: Stephen M. Walt / UCtelevision. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfeaI61RSY&list=PL6C18659277F2DAA3.
Ty, Rey. Conservative Political Realism in International Relations. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ROHR1ly5Iw.
Realism & Neo-Realism: How Conservatives View the World / Rey Ty. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw9J3bzzW0A&playnext=1&list=PL6C1865927
7F2DAA3&feature=results_main.
Conversations with History: Robert O. Keohane / UCtelevision. –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5foxGFXNl-s.
Conversations with History: Stephen D. Krasner / UCtelevision. –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf9VkLX0mA.
Conversations with History: Joseph S. Nye / UCtelevision. –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeaFWKUzxbI.
Ty, Rey. Liberalism in International Relations. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RfRCo-QwIs.
Optional reading
Helen Milner, “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A
Critique,” Review of International Studies, 17: 1 (1991), pp. 67-85.
7
Andrew Moravcsik, “The New Liberalism,” in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan
Snidal, eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (pp. 234-254).
Simulation (Game) – 4 hours
Drezner, Daniel W. (2011). Theories of International Politics and Zombies.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Schelling T. C. The diplomacy of violence //Theories of Peace and Security. –
Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1970. – С. 64-84.
Art R. J. The four functions of force //The Use of Force. – 1993. – Т. 4. – С. 3-11.
Web-links
Zombies, G20 and International Relations / Centre for International Governance
Innovation. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iALDdTICSAU
Simulation (Game) Description We suggest playing an interactive game that will allow students to examine which one of the
major theories of International relations would explain their own behavior if they had to make high-
level decisions in times of global crisis.
Antioch was a small and unremarkable state on the Eastern cost of the Mediterranean Sea,
until the civil war broke out a few years ago. Now other countries fight for the influence on Antioch
and political power on international arena. However, the situation became more complicated when
the usage of an unknown type of chemical weapon by one of the sides of the conflict lead to the
appearance of zombies in Antioch.
Therefore, now the participants face two challenges:
First, they have to end the civil war in Antioch on the most favorable conditions for
themselves.
Secondly, they have to stay alive and not be eaten by zombie.
Rules
The participants will get personal tasks that describe the goals of their faction. The final
evaluation depends on how successful the faction was in achieving their goals. Some players will
also have their personal goals, that should not be shared with other players. All factions have the
following resources:
Money - the standard monetary unit in the game is $1 billion. Each country has a starting
budget, and a certain income on each turn. The amount of income varies depending on the course of
the game, and on the country’s influence. At the beginning of each turn, countries have to divide
their budget on military and civilian goals. The factions have limitations on the allocation of their
budget.
Military budget - forms a country’s military power. Funds transferred to the military
budget cannot be used for other purposes. Factions determine the size of their military budget at the
beginning of each turn: the military budget can be changed only by a special card or by other
faction. The unutilized part of the military budget goes to the next turn.
Civilian budget – can be spent on zombie research, economic purposes and bribes. The
civilian budget is determined by the faction at the beginning of each turn and cannot be changed.
Factions can exchange part of their civilian budget to receive part of the military budget of another
8
faction, if they are able to reach an agreement. The faction can also transfer part of its civilian
budget to another faction.
Influence - is a parameter that determines the political power of the state. Different levels of
influence determine the number of votes for each faction. States can acquire and lose influence,
successfully fighting and accumulating resources. All factions representing state actors have the
right to propose resolutions. Non-state actors do not participate in voting, but they can ask states to
make proposals for them.
Action cards - special cards regulating the additional capabilities of factions. They are
unique for each faction and can have a one-time or multi-use action.
Course of the game
The first phase (allocation of available resources):
Factions distribute their budgets on military and civilian purposes (their decision is recorded
by game coordinators).
The second phase (negotiations):
Factions negotiate with each other and propose resolutions aimed at resolving the crisis in
Antioch. Points of resolutions that received more than half of the votes are considered accepted:
however, the violation or execution of resolutions remains up to factions. Meanwhile, the players
communicate freely with each other, conduct negotiations (including secret ones), bribe each other,
initiate military conflicts, create military bases on the territory of other countries.
During the second phase the participants have to submit their concrete decisions on budget
e.g. which part of their civil budget is allocated on zombie treatment, bribes, etc., and which part of
their military budget is allocated on zombie fighting, or wars with other factions.
Military bases - deployed only with the consent of the host country. In order to deploy a
military base, it is necessary to ask the game coordinator to record it during the second phase.
Declaration of war - war can be declared only if a faction has a common border with
another faction, or if there is a military base deployed on the bordering territory. During the second
phase, the attackers provide the coordinators with the following information: the object of attack
and the amount of resources allocated for the attack. In one turn, one faction can attack no more
than 2 factions.
Military assistance, budget transfers - the transfer of a part of a budget from one faction to
another is confirmed only if it is recorded by a game coordinator (the presence of representatives of
both parties is required).
In contrast, bribery requires the presence of one party, who provides the information on the
sum of a bribe and the person to be bribed.
The third phase
Calculation of the results. Change in the levels of influence.
The coordinators announce which faction has attacked which faction. After that, the
defending faction has 30 seconds to declare its bet. If two factions attacked each other at the same
time, this stage is skipped: the faction with higher influence is considered an attacker; the bet of the
defending faction is considered to be its original attacking bet. During the same period, factions that
do not directly participate in conflict, can send aid (part of their military budget) to one of the two
fighting factions. After all bets are made, the results of the conflict are announced. The winner is the
faction with the highest bet. The losing faction loses the difference between the attack bet and the
defender's bet from their budget. The losing faction moves downwards on the scale of influence if
its budget after deducting the defeat fine becomes less than the budget of the fraction located below
it on the scale of influence. Three losses per game mean the transfer of the faction to the class of
"non-state actors" (a nuclear strike on the territory of the faction also transfers it to the category of
"non-state actors"). The defeated faction can no longer participate in voting.
5. Actors, Preferences and Interests, Institutions, and Interactions
9
Robert Axelrod, “An Evolutionary Approach to Norms”, American Political Science
Review, 80:04 (1986): 1095-1111.
Peter Gourevitch, “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of
Domestic Politics,” International Organization, ol. 32 (1978): 881‐ 912.
Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two‐ Level
Games," International Organization, Vol. 42 (1988): 427‐ 460.
Ratner S. R. International Law: The Trials of Global Norms // Foreign Policy. –
1998. – С. 65-80.
Oye K. A. The conditions for cooperation in world politics // Art and Jervis. – 1992.
Keohane R. O. International institutions: Can interdependence work? //Foreign
policy. – 1998. – С. 82-194.
Web-links
Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics / UChicago. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPe5f5dcrGE .
6. Anarchy’s Challenges and Mitigation of Anarchy: Security Dilemma,
Alliances, and International Institutions
Robert Jervis, “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, 30:2
(1978): 167-214.
Tanisha M. Fazal, “Why States No Longer Declare War”, Security Studies, 21:4
(2012): 557-593.
Glenn Snyder, “The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics”, World Politics, 36: 4
(1984): 461-495.
Charles A. Kupchan and Clifford A. Kupchan, “The Promise of Collective Security”,
International Security, 20:1 (1995): 52-61.
6. Why are there wars between states?
The Oxford Handbook of War / Ed. by Yves Boyer and Julian Lindley-French. –
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199562930.001.0001
/oxfordhb-9780199562930?rskey=ICxSSP&result=88.
Jack S. Levy, William R. Thompson. 2010. Causes of War. Chichester, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Jonathan Monten and Andrew Bennett, “Models of Crisis Decision Making and the
1990-91 Gulf War”, Security Studies, 19:3 (2010): 486-520.
10
Tudor A. Onea, “Between Dominance and Decline: Status Anxiety and Great Power
Rivalry”, Review of International Studies, 40:1 (2014): 125-152.
John A. Vasquez and Brandon Valeriano, "Classification of Interstate Wars", Journal
of Politics 72, 2 (April 2010): 292-309.
Brandon aleriano and John A. asquez, “Identifying and Classifying Complex
Interstate Wars”, International Studies Quarterly, 54 (2010): 561-582.
Schelling T. C. The diplomacy of violence //Theories of Peace and Security. –
Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1970. – С. 64-84.
Art R. J. The four functions of force //The Use of Force. – 1993. – Т. 4. – С. 3-11.
Keohane R. O., Nye J. S. Complex interdependence and the role of force. – 2000.
7. Seminar. Means of Getting What You Want in World Politics. Political Uses
of Force Today
Robert J. Art, “To What Ends Military Power?”, International Security, 4:4 (1980): 3-
35.
Alastair Johnston, “Thinking About Strategic Culture,” International Security, ol.
19 (1995): 32‐ 64.
Nina Tannenwald, “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis
of Nuclear Non-Use”, International Organization, 53:3 (1999): 433-468.
Charles L. Glaser, “Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and
Refining the Spiral and Deterrence Models”, World Politics, 44:4 (1992), 497-538.
Charles L. Glaser, “The Security Dilemma Revisited”, World Politics, 50:1 (1997):
171-201.
Evan Braden Montgomery, “Breaking Out of the Security Dilemma: Realism,
Reassurance, and the Problem of Uncertainty”, International Security, 31:2 (2006), 7-
41.
James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,”
American Political Science Review, 97:1 (2003): 75-90.
James D. Fearon, “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Long?”, Journal of Peace
Research, 41:3 (2004): 275-302.
Stathis N. Kalyvas, “‘New’ and ‘Old’ Civil Wars: A alid Distinction?”, World
Politics, 54:1 (2001): 99-118.
Stathis N. Kalyvas, “Civil Wars.” In Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., Oxford
Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pp.
416-34.
Robert A. Pape. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism”, American Political
Science Review, 97:3 (2003): 343-361.
Sagan S. D., Waltz K. N. The spread of nuclear weapons: A debate. – 1995.
11
Web-links
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Scuicide Terrorism. -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEsWRXV_BM
8. Domestic Politics and Wars
Kurt Dassel, “Civilians, Soldiers, and Strife: Domestic Sources of International
Aggression”, International Security, 23:1 (1998): 107-140.
James Fearon, “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International
Disputes,” American Political Science Review, ol. 88 (1994): 577‐ 592.
Peter Feaver, “Civil-Military Relations”, Annual Review of Political Science, 2
(1999): 211-241.
O. Löwenheim, and G. Heimann, “Revenge in international politics”, Security
studies, 17 (2008): 685-724.
Jessica L. Weeks, “Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling
Resolve”, International Organization, 62:1 (2008): 35-64.
Benjamin A. Valentino, Paul K. Huth, and Sarah E. Croco, “Bear Any Burden? How
Democracies Minimize the Costs of War”, Journal of Politics, 72:2 (2010): 528-544.
Kaufmann C. Possible and impossible solutions to ethnic civil wars //International
security. – 1996. – Т. 20. – №. 4. – С. 136-175.
Collier P. The market for civil war //Foreign Policy. – 2003. – №. 136. – С. 38.
Optional reading
Kenneth A. Schultz, “Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform?”,
International Organization, 53:2 (1999): 233-266.
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Randolph Siverson, and Alastair
Simth, “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace”, American Political
Science Review, 93 (1999): 791-807.
Kevin Narizny, “Both Guns and Butter, or Neither: Class Interests in the Political
Economy of Rearmament”, American Political Science Review 97:2 (2003): 203-
220.
Jack Snyder. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Chapters 1 and 2.
9. Status Considerations in World Politics
Allan Dafoe, Jonathan Renshon, and Paul Huth. Reputation and Status as Motives for
War // Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2014. 17:371–93.
12
Larson, Deborah Welch and Alexei Shevchenko. Status Seekers: Chinese and
Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy // International Security, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Spring
2010), pp. 63–95.
Major powers and the quest for status in international politics : global and regional
perspectives / edited by Thomas J. Volgy ... [et al.]. 1st ed. N.Y.: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2011. – Preface, Ch. 1, 2, 3, 10.
Reinhard Wolf. Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of
status recognition // International Theory (2011), 3: 1, 105 – 142.
10. International Law and Norms. Human Rights in World Politics. Logic of
Appropriateness and Logic of Consequentialism
James G. March and Johan P. Olsen. The Institutional Dynamics of International
Political Orders // International Organization 52,4, Autumn1998, pp.943– 969.
Ratner S. R. International Law: the trials of global norms //Foreign Policy. – 1998. –
С. 65-80.
Oye K. A. The conditions for cooperation in world politics //Art and Jervis. – 1992.
Keohane R. O. International institutions: Can interdependence work? //Foreign
policy. – 1998. – С. 82-194.
Stahn C. Responsibility to protect: Political rhetoric or emerging legal norm?
//American Journal of International Law. – 2007. – Т. 101. – №. 1. – С. 99-120.
Chandler D. The responsibility to protect? Imposing the ‘liberal peace’ //International
peacekeeping. – 2004. – Т. 11. – №. 1. – С. 59-81.
Chandler D. The R2P Is Dead, Long Live the R2P: The Successful Separation of
Military Intervention from the Responsibility to Protect //International Peacekeeping.
– 2015. – Т. 22. – №. 1. – С. 1-5.
Averre D., Davies L. Russia, humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to
Protect: the case of Syria //International Affairs. – 2015. – Т. 91. – №. 4. – С. 813-
834.
11. International Trade: Winners and Losers, the International Political
Economy of Trade, Trends and Patterns in International Trade
The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade // Ed. by Lisa
L. Martin –
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001
/oxfordhb-9780199981755.
13
Jeffry A. Frieden, David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. 2nd
edition. 2013. World
Politics: Interests, Interactions, and Institutions. New York: Norton. Pp. 264-311.
Jensen, J. Bradford, Dennis P. Quinn, and Stephen Weymouth. Winners and Losers
in International Trade: The Effects on US Presidential Voting // International
Organization 71, Summer 2017, pp. 423–457.
Frieden, Jeffry. The Backlash Against Globalization and the Future of the
International Economic Order / Harvard University, February 2018. Prepared for a
Policy Network volume, The Next Phase of Globalisation: Capitalism and Inequality
in the Industrialized World
Posen, Adam S. The Post-American World Economy: Globalization in the Trump Era
// Foreign Affairs. 2018. Volume 97. Number 2. Pp. 28-38.
12. International Financial and Monetary Relations
Jeffry A. Frieden, David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. 2nd
edition. 2013. World
Politics: Interests, Interactions, and Institutions. New York: Norton. Pp. 312-385.
J. Lawrence Broz and Jeffry A. Frieden. The Political Economy of Exchange Rates //
The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy / Edited by Donald A. Wittman and
Barry R. Weingast . –
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.001.0001
/oxfordhb-9780199548477-e-032
Krzysztof J. Pelc. What Explains the Low Success Rate of Investor-State Disputes? //
International Organization 71, Summer 2017, pp. 559–583
13. What to Expect from Tomorrow: The Future of IR and World Politics
To be updated for 2018/2019.
The Global Risks Report 2017. 12th ed. / World Economic Forum, 2017. -
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdf.
Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue about the Future with Nongovernment Experts /
National Intelligence Council, December 2000. –
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_2015%20Report.pdf.
Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020
Project / National Intelligence Council, December 2004. –
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%20the%20Global
%20Future%202020%20Project.pdf.
Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World / National Intelligence Council,
November 2008. –
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/2025_Glob
al_Trends_Final_Report.pdf.
Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds / National Intelligence Council, December
2012. – http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf.
14
Global Trends 2035: Paradox of Progress / National Intelligence Council, January
2017. – https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/nic/GT-Full-Report.pdf .
Web-links
Global Trends: Paradox of Progress. Part 1 / Office of the Director of National
Intelligence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83E3LWPGhlQ
Global Trends: Paradox of Progress. Part 2 / Office of the Director of National
Intelligence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rb9frj5bkM
5. Guidelines for Knowledge Assessment
First, students are expected to attend seminars, participate in discussions, and
complete regular quizzes. The class format necessarily creates mutual obligations
among students to come prepared to discuss both the readings and the lecture
materials. If only a few people in a group or the class are regularly doing the reading
and prepared for simulation work, our discussions will stumble as the bulk of
students rely on a minority to carry them. Such a situation penalizes those students
doing the readings as they then are pushed to shoulder more responsibility in class.
To avoid this situation while fostering a stimulating and productive intellectual
environment in class, students’ attendance and participation will be tracked regularly
throughout the semester with two mechanisms – random quizzes and attendance
control. The quizzes will be drawn from the reading materials assigned for that day
and the previous lectures.
Second, given the nature of the readings in English, students will be assigned
the task of critiquing the assigned readings in a seminar format. The seminar leader
will expect students to be able to demonstrate that they have done the readings by
performing such tasks as summarizing the main arguments, critiquing author’s
claims, drawing out policy implications, suggesting how an author’s argument may
apply to another issue area, or highlighting similarities and differences with other
readings.
Third, students will take 4 tests based on the classroom material.
Fourth, students will participate in a Simulation (Game) in class.
Fifth, students will take a written exam (multiple choice questions and a short
essay).
Cumulative grade is calculated from grades for Seminar Participation (*0,1),
Active Participation in a Simulation (Game) (*0,1), Active Participation in
Discussions (*0,15), Quizzes (*0,25), and Tests (*0,4, *0,1 for each test).
Final grade is calculated from a Cumulative Grade (*0,6) and Exam (*0,4).
We employ an arithmetic rounding method to calculate the final grade.
Examples of questions and assignments:
Fill in the gaps
15
Correlate the ascribed interests (Table 2) with respective actors in world politics (Table 1). Two interests are to be left out as not fully correct.
Table 1
Actor Ascribed interests
(use the letter indicating an interest for an appropriate actor )
States
Politicians
Firms, industries, or business associations
Classes
Bureaucracies
International organizations
Transnational or international NGOs
Table 2
Ascribed interests
A Profit and a market share in global economy
B Environment and peace
C Security and power, welfare, ideology
D Normative, ideological, or policy goals, etc.
E Budget maximization, influence, policy preferences
F Reflect the interests of member states as well as budget maximization, influence, policy preferences
G Material well-being and power
H Security and power
I Reelection or retention of power, ideology, and policy goals
Multiple choice
Choose the events which can be qualified as wars (according to Levy and Thompson, 2010): Choose all correct answers
A. Six Days War (1969) B. Second Lebanon War (2007)
16
C. Soviet-Chinese clashes around the Ussuri River (1969) D. Cold War 1.0 E. Cold War 2.0 F. Soviet invasion in Hungary (1956) G. Warsaw Pact invasion in Czechoslovakia (1968) H. War on Drugs (US, 1971-present times)
Essay Write an essay (not less than 300 words). If you demonstrate a perfect knowledge of the
course, especially the readings, if your arguments are clear, if you use the appropriate theories (naming their authors and representatives), this essay can give you up to 40 points. You can choose out of the following topics:
1. Thomas Schelling concludes his famous The Diplomacy of Violence (1970) with the following phrase: “Small wars embody the threat of a larger war, they are not just military engagements, but crisis diplomacy”. What does he mean by this? Please explain the crucial factors that have changed modern war in Schelling’s perspective.
2. President Trump says that “trade wars are good and easy to win”. What is the logic (or rather logics – theoretical (political economy) and political) behind this statement?
6. Methods of Instruction
Lectures are aimed at introducing students to particular issues in IR. In addition
to lectures, there are seminars. Participation in seminars is obligatory. During
seminars, students are expected to be prepared to discuss a particular topic. Reading
of the required material should be completed before a seminar. The main purpose of
seminars is the discussion of the reading and lecture materials.
7. Special Equipment and Software Support (if required)
The instructor needs a computer and a projector to show slides when lecturing.