UNIT GUIDE 2016/17

POLI10003 Theories of International Relations Teaching Block: 1

Unit Owner: Phone: Email: Office: Unit owner office hours:

Weeks: 1-12

Level: Credit points: Prerequisites: Curriculum area:

Torsten Michel 0117 33 10855 [email protected] Room 1.03, 4 Priory Road Tue 2-3 and Thu 11-12

C/4 20 None International Relations

Scheduled office hours do not run during reading weeks, though you can still contact tutors for advice by email and to arrange individual appointments Timetabled classes: Lectures: Tue 9-10, 1.40 PUGSLEY, Queens Building and Thu 1-2 in Priory Road Lecture Theatre, Social Sciences Complex. You are also expected to attend ONE seminar each week. Your online personal timetable will inform you to which group you have been allocated. Seminar groups are fixed: you are not allowed to change seminar groups without permission from the office. Weeks 6, 12, 18 and 24 are Reading Weeks; there is NO regular teaching in these weeks. In addition to timetabled sessions there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and assessments. Reading the required readings in advance of each seminar is the minimum expectation. The University Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student input. Learning Outcomes On successful completion of the unit, students will be able to: • demonstrate awareness of the key theoretical approaches in International Relations and their main assumptions • demonstrate understanding of the key concepts and terminologies used in International Relations scholarship • critically engage with the historical contingencies shaping the development of different traditions in international thought • critically engage with the strength and weaknesses of particular theoretical approaches in International Relations Requirements for passing the unit: • Satisfactory attendance at seminars • Completion of all formative work to an acceptable standard • Attainment of a composite mark of all summative work to a passing standard (40 or above) Details of coursework and deadlines Assessment: Formative - essay Summative - essay • • • •

Word count: 1,500 words 2,000 words

Weighting: 0% 100%

Deadline: 09.30am 09.30am

Day: 28th October 2016 16th January 2017

Week: 5 January Assessment Period

Summative essay questions will be made available on the unit’s blackboard site. Instructions for the submission of coursework can be found in Appendix A Assessment in the school is subject to strict penalties regarding late submission, plagiarism and maximum word count. A summary of key regulations is in Appendix B. Marking criteria can be found in Appendix C.

1

Unit aims The unit provides an introduction into the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the discipline of International Relations. It covers highly influential texts and authors, broader theoretical traditions and empirical cases to demonstrate the intrinsic connections between theory, concepts and empirical examples. It traces the main theoretical influences and positions that have driven various stages of the discipline in relation to central historical and political developments. As such it provides the theoretical background that students require to successfully progress through their degree. The unit specifically aims to: •

introduce students to key theoretical and conceptual debates in International Relations

•

familiarise students with core authors and texts in International Relations in the 20th and 21st centuries

•

demonstrate the mutual relationship between the development of theoretical approaches and historical circumstances in international politics

Core reading Each week has a number of essential readings that is the minimum you are required to read. This selection of readings will prepare you for the seminar discussions and also add further detail and substance to the lectures in each week. In addition I have identified a set of recommended readings that can be consulted for further discussions and more depth regarding each week’s topic. You should try and read at least one of those readings in addition to the essential readings. The final set of readings listed in each week are further readings that can be helpful when you prepare essays. I have not chosen a set textbook for this unit. There are numerous excellent overviews of IR theory, all of which provide you with the basic knowledge about the different theoretical approaches in IR. If you wish to purchase a textbook, I would recommend you purchase one of the following (they are usually quite cheap as second hand copies from amazon): John Baylis et al. (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater (eds.), Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013. Tim Dunne et al. (eds.): International Relations Theory. Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013

Electronic Journals In addition to hard copy journals, the library subscribes to a vast number of electronic journals. Most of the following are not in the library in hard copy. Where the journal is electronic only, no library shelfmark is (or indeed can) be given in the syllabus below. The most relevant journals for this unit are International Organization, Review of International Studies, Millennium, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, European Journal of International Relations, International Relations, New Political Science, Globalizations, Political Studies, Third World Quarterly, International Affairs, World Politics, Social Justice, Alternatives, American Political Science Review, International Journal of Human Rights, Globalizations , 2

Journal of Global Ethics, Ethics and International Affairs, International Peacekeeping, Global Governance, Australian Journal of International Affairs and New Left Review.

Electronic journals are accessible through http://www.bris.ac.uk/is/library/electronicjournals/.

the

library’s

home

page

at

It is a good idea to supplement and update the assigned material by reading current newspapers/periodicals. Browsing through the contents pages of these journals is a great way of finding unexpected valuable angles on issues. A growing number of sources are available on the web and some and some are listed in this syllabus. As with all sources you should treat items posted on the web critically and you should not rely solely on sources taken from the Internet when preparing for seminar presentations and writing essays BEWARE WIKIPEDIA! Wikipedia comes high in online searches. However, entries vary drastically in their reliability and hence you should not rely on it for facts or interpretations. It has come to light that corporations, government bodies and many others have been editing entries anonymously. DO NOT USE for citation.

Assessments The unit has two assessments, one formative and one summative. The formative essay will give you the opportunity to submit a 1500 word essay and receive feedback in preparation for the summative assessment. The summative assessment, a 2000 word essay, will count 100% towards the unit mark and is submitted at the end of term. For details about the format of the essay, proper referencing, and how to submit your assignments please consult the study guide and the UG handbook. You should also feel encouraged to discuss essay plans with your seminar tutor to receive informal feedback and advice before submitting the essay. The School also offers weekly study skills sessions that you can use to clarify any issues regarding the format of the essay.

Formative essay questions (please select ONE of the following questions for your formative essay): 1. Discuss the relation between ‘utopianism’ and ‘realism’ in E.H. Carr. 2. Critically assess the main commonalties and differences between Wilson’s and Angell’s version of liberal internationalism. 3. IR should aspire to be a science. Discuss.

3

Lecture Schedule

Week 1: Introduction Lecture 1: The history of International Relations (IR): Birth of a discipline Lecture 2: Key theoretical challenges in IR Week 2: The inter-war period Lecture 3: Wilson, Angell and Zimmern: Interwar ‘idealism’ Lecture 4: The legacy of liberal internationalism Week 3: The rise of ‘realism’ Lecture 5: E.H. Carr and ‘The Twenty Years’ Crisis’ Lecture 6: Hans Morgenthau and the tragic vision of international politics Week 4: International Relations as a Social Science? Lecture 7: Bull and Kaplan: IR as a Social Science? Lecture 8: The third debate: positivism vs post-positivism Week 5: Marxist Approaches to IR Lecture 9: Immanuel Wallerstein and ‘World Systems Theory’ Lecture 10: Robert Cox and Gramsci in IR Week 6: READING WEEK – no teaching Week 7: The neo-neo debate in IR Lecture 11: Kenneth Waltz and structural realism Lecture 12: Robert Keohane and neo-liberal institutionalism Week 8: Constructivism Lecture 13: The rise of social constructivism in IR Lecture 14: Weldes and the construction of national interests Week 9: Post-structuralism Lecture 15: Poststructuralism, Deconstruction and IR Theory Lecture 16: Doty on Colonization Week 10: Feminism and Gender in IR Lecture 17: ‘Where are the women’? Feminism and IR – An Overview Lecture 18: UN Security Council Resolution 1325: Four feminist perspectives Week 11: Post-colonialism and the question of non-Western IR Lecture 19: Legacies of colonialism in contemporary IR theory Lecture 20: Post-colonialism and the quest for non-Western IR theory

4

Week 1: Introduction Lecture 1: The history of International Relations (IR): Birth of a discipline Lecture 2: Key theoretical challenges in IR

Central Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What are the core concerns of ‘International Relations’ as an academic subject? What is the relation between history and theory in International Relations? Why do we need ‘theories’ of international relations? Why is there not just one theoretical approach?

Essential Readings: •

•

Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen, ‘IR as an Academic Subject’, in Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 28-57. Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, ‘Introduction: Defining International Relations’, in Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, Understanding International Relations, Basingstoke: Plagrave MacMillan, 2009, pp. 1-17.

Recommended Reading: • •

• •

•

• •

•

Paul W. Schroeder, ‘History and International Relations Theory: Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit, International Security, 22(1), 1997, pp. 64-74. Yale H. Ferguson and Richard W. Mansbach, ‘Between celebration and despair: Constructive suggestions for future international theory,’ International Studies Quarterly, 35(4), 1991, pp. 363-386. Vivienne Jabri, Reflections on the Study of International Relations, in: Trevor Salmon and Mark Imber (eds.), Issues in International Relations, London: Routledge, 2008, pp. 11-32. Zalewski, Marysia, ‘”All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up”: Theory, Theorists, Theorising’, in Steve Smith et al. (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 340-353. Fred Halliday, ‘The future of international relations: Fears and hopes,’ in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp.318-327 Brian C. Schmidt, ‘The historiography of academic international relations’, Review of International Studies, 20(4) 1994, pp. 349-367. Miles Kahler, ‘Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945’, in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.), New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997, pp. 20-53. Stephen M. Walt, ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’, Foreign Policy, 110, 1998, pp. 29-46.

Further Reading: • • •

J.L Holzgrefe, ‘The origins of modern international relations theory,’ Review of International Studies, 15(1), 1989, pp.11-26. Gene M. Lyons, ‘The study of international relations in Great Britain: Further connections,’ World Politics, 38(4), 1986, pp. 626-645. Cornelia Navari, ‘Varieties of history in international thought,’ European Journal of International Relations, 1(3), 1995, pp. 409-418. 5

•

• • • • • • •

• • •

• • • •

William Olson and Nicholas Onuf, ‘The growth of a discipline: Reviewed,’ in Steve Smith, ed., International Relations: British and American Perspectives, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985, pp. 1-28. Steve Smith, ‘Power and truth: A reply to William Wallace’, Review of International Studies, 23(4), 1997, pp. 507-516. Robert L Rothstein (ed.), The Evolution of Theory in International Relations, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994. R.B.J. Walker, ‘On pedagogical responsibility: A response to Roy Jones’, Review of International Studies, 20 (3), 313-322. William Wallace, ‘Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations,’ Review of International Studies, 22(3), 1996, pp. 301-321; Ken Booth, ‘Discussion: A Reply to Wallace,’ Review of International Studies, 23(3), 1997, pp. 371-377. Hedley Bull, ‘The theory of international politics, 1919-1969,’ in James Der Derian (ed.), International Theory: Critical Investigations, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995. John Lewis Gaddis, ‘History, Science and the Study of International Relations’, in Ngaire Woods (ed.), Explaining International Relations since 1945, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Stephen M. Walt, ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998, pp. 29-46. George Lawson, ‘The eternal divide? History and International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 18(2), 2012, pp. 203-226. Martin Wight, , ‘Why is there no international theory?’, in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays on the Theory of International Politics, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1966, pp.17-34. George Lawson and John M. Hobson, ‘What is history in international relations?’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37(2), 2008, pp. 415-435. Knud Erik Jorgensen, ‘Continental IR theory: The best kept secret,’ European Journal of International Relations, 6(1), 2000, pp. 9-42. Chris Brown, ‘International political theory - A British social science?’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(1), 2000, pp.114-123. Ole Waever, ‘The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations,’ International Organization, 52 (4), 687-727.

Week 2: The inter-war period and the legacy of liberal internationalism Lecture 3: Wilson, Angell and Zimmern: Interwar ‘idealism’ Lecture 4: The legacy of liberal internationalism

Seminar Questions: 1. What were the main aims and objectives of liberal internationalist thinkers in the interwar period? 2. How did they try to increase the prospects for cooperation and peace following WWI? 3. Which elements of interwar liberal internationalism are still relevant for today’s international relations? 4. Have we seen a revival of liberal internationalism after the end of the Cold War and, if so, in what form?

6

Essential Readings: • •

•

•

Robert W. Tucker, ‘The Triumph of Wilsonianism’, World Policy Journal, 10(4), 1993/1994, pp. 83-99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40209339.pdf Cornelia Navari, ‘The Great Illusion Revisited: The International Theory of Norman Angell’, Review of International Studies, 15(4), 1989, pp. 341-358. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20097198.pdf John Ikenberry, ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order’, Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 2009, 71-87. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3998584&fileId =S1537592709090112 Charles A. Kupchan and Peter L. Trubowitz, ‘The Illusion of Liberal Internationalism’s Revival’, International Security, 35(1), 2010, pp. 95-109. http://pmteu.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/44BU_VU1:default_scope:TN_museS1531480410100035

Recommended Readings: • • •

• • •

• • • •

Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” available at http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Handouts/Fourteen_Points.pdf D.J. Markwell, ‘Sir Alfred Zimmern Revisited: Fifty Years On’, Review of International Studies, 12(4), 1986, pp. 279-292. Paul Rich, ‘Reinventing Peace: David Davies, Alfred Zimmern and Liberal Internationalism in Interwar Britain’, International Relations, 16(1), 2002, pp. 117-133. http://ire.sagepub.com/content/16/1/117.abstract Alfred Zimmern, ‘ Nationalism and Internationalism’, Foreign Affairs, 1(4), 1923, pp. 115126. John A Thompson, ‘Wilsonianism: the dynamics of a conflicted concept’, International Affairs, 86(1), 2010, pp. 27-48. Martin Ceadel, ‘The founding text of International Relations? Norman Angell’s seminal yet flawed The Great Illusion (1909-1938), Review of International Studies, 37(4), 2011, pp. 1671-1693. Lucian M. Ashworth, ‘Where are the Idealists in Interwar International Relations?’, Review of International Studies, 32(2), 2006, pp. 291-308. John Ikenberry, ‘The Future of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism After America’, Foreign Affairs, 90(3), 2011, pp. 56-68. Stanley Hoffman, ‘The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism’, Foreign Policy, 98, 1995, pp. 159177. Antonio Franceschet, ‘The Ethical Foundations of Liberal Internationalism’, International Journal, 54(3), 1999, pp. 463-481.

Further Reading: • • •

•

David Long, ‘J.A. Hobson and Idealism in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17(3), 1991, pp. 285-304. Daniel Laqua, Transnational intellectual cooperation, the League of Nations, and the problem of order’, Journal of Global History, 6(2), 2011, pp. 223-247. Thomas Richard Davies, ‘A “Great Experiment” of the League of Nations Era: International Nongovernmental Organizations, Global Governance, and Democracy Beyond the State’, Global Governance, 18(4), 2012, pp. 405-423. Andreas Osiander, ‘Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited’, International Studies Quarterly, 42(3), 1998, pp. 409-432. 7

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

David Long and Peter Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the twenty years’ crisis: inter-war idealism reassessed, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Brian C. Schmidt, ‘Lessons from the Past: Reassessing the Interwar Disciplinary History of International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 42(3), 1998, pp. 433-459. Daniel Deudney and John G. Ikenberry, ‘The nature and sources of liberal international order,’ Review of International Studies, 25(2), 1999, pp.179-196. Charles R. Beitz, ‘Social and cosmopolitan liberalism,’ International Affairs, 75(3), 1999, pp. 515-529. David Long, Toward a new liberal internationalism: the international theory of J.A. Hobson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics,’ International Organization, 51(4), 1997, pp.513-553. Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Explaining international human rights regimes: Liberal theory and Western Europe,’ European Journal of International Relations, 1(2), 1995, pp.157-189. Andrew Moravcsik, ‘The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe,’ International Organization, 54 (2), 2000, pp.217-252. Michael W. Doyle, ‘Liberalism and world politics,’ American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1986, pp. 1151-1169. J.L. Richardson, ‘Contending liberalisms: Past and Present’, European Journal of International Relations, 3(1), pp. 5-33. Daniel Gorman, ‘Liberal Internationalism, the League of Nations Union, and the Mandates System’, Canadian Journal of History, 40(3), 2005, pp. 449-477. Jean-Yves Haine, ‘The European Crisis of Liberal Internationalism’, International Journal, 64(2), 2009, pp. 453-479. William Pfaff, ‘Is Liberal Internationalism Dead?’, World Policy Journal, 10(3), 1993, pp. 515. Casper Sylvest, ‘Continuity and change in British liberal internationalism, c.1900-1930’, Review of International Studies, 31(2), 2005, pp. 263-283. Colin Dueck, ‘Hegemony of the Cheap: Liberal Internationalism from Wilson to Bush’, World Policy Journal, 20(4), 2003/2004, pp. 1-11. The Difficulties of Idealism in International Relations’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 132, 1927, pp. 160-163. Per A. Hammarlund, Liberal internationalism and the decline of the state: The thought od Richard Cobden, David Mitrany, and Kenichi Ohmae, Basingstoke: MacMillan, 2005.

Week 3: The rise of ‘realism’ Lecture 5: E.H. Carr and ‘The Twenty Years Crisis’ Lecture 6: Hans Morgenthau and the tragic vision of international politics

Seminar Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

How does Carr construct the relation between realism and utopianism? What are his main points of criticism against a fully utopian position? How does Morgenthau’s realism differ from Carr? What are the core determinants that influence behaviour in the international realm?

8

Essential Readings: • • •

•

E.H. Carr, ‘Utopia and Reality’, in E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis – 1919-1939, London: Papermac, 1995, pp. 12-21. Charles Jones, ‘ The Trouble with Carr’, in Charles Jones, E.H. Carr and International Relations. A Duty to Lie, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 1-21. Jeremy Weiss. ‘E.H. Carr, Norman Angell, and Reassessing the Realist-Utopian Debate’, The International History Review, 35(5), 2013, pp. 1156-1184. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2013.817468#.VcoG6pNVhHw Hans J. Morgenthau, ‘Another “Great Debate”: The National Interest of the United States’, The American Political Science Review, 46(4), 1952, pp. 961-988. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1952108.pdf

Recommended Reading: • • •

• • •

•

E.H. Carr, ‘The realist critique’, in Colin Elman and Michael A. Jensen (eds.), The Realism Reader, London: Routledge, 2014, pp. 39-46. Sean Molloy, ‘Truth, Power, Theory: Hans Morgenthau’s Formulation of Realism’, Diplomacy and Statecraft, 15(1), 2004, pp.1-34. Cameron G. Thies, ‘Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist-Realist Debate’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 8 No. 2 (2002), pp.147-185. Peter Wilson, ‘The Myth of the “Frist Great Debate”’, Review of International Studies, 24(5), 1998, pp. 1-15. William Bain, ‘ Diffusing Morgenthau: Moral Inquiry and Classical Realism Reconsidered’, Review of International Studies, 26(3), 2000, pp. 445-464. Michael C Williams, ‘Hans Morgenthau and Historical Construction of Realism’, in Michale C. Williams, The realist tradition and the limits of international relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 82-127. Michael C. Williams (ed.), Realism reconsidered: the legacy of Hans Morgenthau in international relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Further Readings: • •

• • • • • •

Lucian Ashworth, ‘Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations’, International Relations, 16(1), 2002, pp. 33-51. Jonathan Christol, ‘ Morgenthau vs. Morgenthau? “The Six Principles of Political Realism” in Context’, American Foreign Policy Interests: The Journal of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, 31(4), 2009, pp. 238-244. John J. Herz, ‘Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma’, World Politics, 2(2), 1950, pp. 157-180. Charles W. Kegley, ‘ The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies? Realist Mythos and the New International Realities’, International Studies Quarterly, 37(2), 1993, pp. 131-146. John Mearsheimer, ‘E.H. Carr vs. Idealism: The Battle Rages On’, International Relations, 19(2), 2005, pp. 139-152. Ken Booth, Navigating the “Absolute Novum”: John H. Herz’s Political Realism and Political Idealism’, 22(4), 2008, pp. 510-526. Barry Buzan, ‘The timeless wisdom of realism?’ in Steve Smith et al. (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 47-65. Robert Gilpin, ‘The richness of the tradition of political realism,’ International Organization, 38(2), 1984, pp. 287-304. 9

• • • • •

David A. Lake, ‘Anarchy, hierarchy, and the variety of international relations,’ International Organization, 50(1), 1996, pp. 1-34. John Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism: A Study in Theory and Realities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Hans J. Morgenthau, Scientific Man vs. Power Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946. Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics, NY: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1947. Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962.

Week 4: International Relations as a Social Science? Lecture 7: Bull and Kaplan: IR as a Social Science? Lecture 8: The third debate: positivism vs post-positivism

Seminar Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What is at stake in the ‘traditionalism vs. Science’ debate? Why is this debate so persistent and so fiercely debated? Do you think IR is, or even should be, a ‘science’ – why/why not? What are the main terms of contention in this debate?

Essential Readings: •

• •

•

Milja Kurki and Colin Wight, ‘International Relations and Social Science’, in: Tim Dunne et al. (eds.): International Relations Theory. Discipline and Diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 14-35. Hedley Bull, ‘International Theory: A Case for a Classical Approach’, World Politics 18 (3), 1966, pp. 361-377. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2009761.pdf Morton A. Kaplan, ‘The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations’, World Politics 19 (1), pp. 1-20. http://reinhardmeyers.unimuenster.de/docs/GraduateT/Kaplan1966.pdf Singer, David (1966), The Behavioral Science Approach to International Relations: Payoff and Prospect, SAIS Review, 10 (4), pp. 12-20.

Recommended Readings: • • • •

•

Steve Smith, ‘Positivism and Beyond’, in: Steve Smith et al. (eds.): International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 11-44. Steve Smith, ‘The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science?’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2(3), 2000, pp. 374-402. Richard B. Finnegan, ‘International Relations: The Disputed Search fro Method’, The Review of Politics, 34(1), 1972, pp. 40-66. Yosef Lapid, ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a PostPositivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (3), 1989, pp. 235-254. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2600457.pdf Stanley Hoffman, ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus, 106(3), 1977, pp. 41-60. 10

Further Readings: •

• • • • • • •

• • •

•

• • • • • •

• • •

•

Richard Ned Lebow, ‘A Social or Scientific Project?’, in Oliver Kessler et al. (eds.), On Rules, Politics and Knowledge. Friedrich Kratochwil, International Relations and Domestic Affairs, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. John G. Gunnell, ‘Social scientific inquiry and meta-theoretical fantasy: the case of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 37(4), 2011, pp. 1447-1469. Forum on ‘Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations’, International Studies Review, 5(1), 2003, pp. 123-153. Yale H. Ferguson, ‘Diversity and IR theory: Pluralism as an Opportunity for Understanding Global Politics’, International Studies Perspectives, 16(1), 2015, pp. 3-12. Alexander Wendt, ‘ Bridging the Theory/Meta-Theory Gap in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 17(4), 1991, pp. 383-392. Patrick Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: philosophy of science and its implications of the study of world politics, Abingdon: Routledge, 2011. Forum on Patrick Jackson’s Conduct of Inquiry, Millennium, 41(2), pp. 247-378. Robert M. A. Crawford and Darryl S. L. Jarvis (eds), International Relations – Still and American Social Science. Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany: State University of New York, 2001. R. B. J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Mark Neufeld, ‘Interpretation and the “science” of international relations’, Review of International Studies, 19(1), 1993, pp. 39-61. Christian Bueger and Frank Gadinger, ‘Reassembling and Dissecting: International Relations Practice from a Science Studies Perspective’, International Studies Perspectives, 8(1), 2007, pp. 90-110. Jeffry A. Frieden and David Lake, ‘International Relations as a Social Science: Rigor and Relevance, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 600(1), 2005, pp. 136-156. Tim Dunne et al. (eds.), ‘Special Issue: The End of International Relations Theory?’ European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 2013, pp. 405-665. Rudra Sil and Peter J. Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, ‘Foregrounding Ontology: Dualism, Monism and IR Theory’, Review of International Studies, 34(1), 2008, pp.129–153; Fred Chernoff, ‘The Ontological Fallacy: A Rejoinder on the Status of Scientific Realism in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 35(2), 2009, pp. 371–395. Torsten Michel, ‘Pigs Can’t Fly or Can They? Ontology, Scientific Realism and the Metaphysics of Presence in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 35 (2), 2009, pp. 397–419. Colin Wight, ‘A Manifesto for Scientific Realism in IR: Assuming the Can-Opener Won’t Work!’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39(2), 2007, pp. 379–398. Colin Wight and Heikki Patomäki, ‘After PostPositivism: The Promise of Critical Realism’, International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), 2000, pp. 213–237. Martin Weber, ‘Ontologies, Depth, and Otherwise: Critical Notes of Wight’s Metatheoretical Proposal of a Scientific Realist IR’, Review of International Studies, 38(1), 2012, pp. 223–234. Oliver Kessler, ‘On Logic, Intersubjectivity, and Meaning: Is Reality an Assumption We Just Don’t Need?’, Review of International Studies, 38(1), 2012, pp. 253–265. 11

• •

Badredine Arfi, ‘Khora as the Condition of Possibility of the Ontological without Ontology’, Review of International Studies, 38(1), 2012, pp. 191–207. Benjamin Herborth, ‘Theorising Theorising: Critical Realism and the Quest for Certainty’, Review of International Studies, 38(1), 2012, pp. 235–251.

Week 5: Marxist Approaches to IR Lecture 9: Immanuel Wallerstein and ‘World Systems Theory’ Lecture 10:Robert Cox and Gramsci in IR

Seminar Questions: 1. In what ways do Marxist approaches differ from the realist and liberal internationalist accounts we have discussed earlier? 2. Are there specific developments or aspects of international relations that Marxist accounts can illuminate better than the traditional theories? 3. What role does the state play in Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory? 4. How is Gramsci’s notion of ‘hegemony’ different from its realist manifestation?

Essential Readings: • •

•

•

Immanuel Wallerstein, World–Systems Analysis. An Introduction, Durham N.C. and London: Duke University Press, 2004, chapter 2, pp. 23-41. Charles Ragin and Daniel Chirot, ‘The World System of Immanuel Wallerstein: Sociology and Politics as History’, in: Theda Skocpol, Vision and Method In Historical Sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 276-312. Robert W. Cox, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, in: Robert Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, pp. 204-254. Andreas Bieler and Adam D. Morton, ‘A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations’, Capital & Class 28(1), 2004, p. 85-113. http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/28/1/85.refs

Recommended Readings: • •

• • • • •

Robert W. Cox, ‘Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 12(2), 1983, pp. 162-175. Immanuel Wallerstein, ‘The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 1974, pp. 387-415. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/178015.pdf Stephen Gill and David Law, ‘Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital’, International Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 1989, pp. 475-499. Chamsy el-Ojeili, ‘Reflections of Wallerstein: The Modern World-System, Four Decades on’, Critical Sociology, 41(4-5), 2014, pp. 679-700. Immanuel Wallerstein, ‘A world-system perspective on the social sciences’, The British Journal of Sociology, 61, 2010, pp. 167-176. John Maclean, ‘Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(2), 1988, pp. 295-319. Randall D. Germain and Michael Kenny, ‘Engaging Gramsci: International relations theory and the new Gramscians’, Review of International Studies, 24(1), 1998, pp. 3-21. 12

Further Readings: •

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Kalevi J. Holsti, ‘Neo-Marxist Challenges to the Classical Tradition’, in Kalevi J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987, pp. 61-81. Andrew Savchenko, ‘Constructing a World Fit for Marxism: Utopia and Utopistics of Professor Wallerstein’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66(5), 2007, pp. 1033-1052. Stephen Gill (ed.), Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Alison J. Ayres (ed.), Gramsci, Political Economy, and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperors, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013. Joseph Femia, ‘Gramsci, Machiavelli and International Relations’, The Political Quarterly, 76(3), 2005, pp. 341-349. Owen Worth, ‘The Poverty and Potential of Gramscian Thought in International Relations’, International Politics, 45(6), 2008, pp. 633-649. Owen Worth, ‘Recasting Gramsci in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 37(1), 2011, pp. 373-393. Craig N. Murphy, ‘Understanding IR: Understanding Gramsci’, Review of International Studies, 24(3), 1998, pp. 417-425. Andrew Gamble, ‘Marxism after Communism: Beyond Realism and Historicism,´ Review of International Studies, 25(5), 1999, pp.127-144. Mark Rupert, Producing Hegemony: The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Mark Rupert, Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order. London and NY: Routledge, 2000. Giovanni Arrighi, ‘Marxist century, American century: The making and remaking of the world labour movement,’ New Left Review, 179, 1990, pp. 29-63. Anthony Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism, 2nd edition, London: Routledge, 1990. Robert W. Cox, ‘Civil society at the turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an alternative world order,’ Review of International Studies, 25(1), 1999, pp. 3-28. B.K. Gills, ‘Historical materialism and international relations theory,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16(2), 1987, pp. 265-272. Andrew Linklater, ‘Realism, Marxism and critical international theory,’ Review of International Studies, 12(4), 1986, pp. 301-312. Nicholas Rengger, ‘Clio’s cave: Historical materialism and the claims of ‘substantive social theory’ in world politics’, Review of International Studies, 22(2), 1996, pp. 213-231.

Week 6: READING WEEK – no teaching

Week 7: The neo-neo debate in IR Lecture 11: Kenneth Waltz and structural realism Lecture 12: Robert Keohane and neo-liberal institutionalism

Central Questions: 13

1. What are the main contentions debated in the neo-neo-debate? 2. Are neo-realism and neo-liberalism really two different theories or simply two sides of he same coin? 3. What role does the absolute vs relative gains distinction play in the neo-neo debate?

Essential Readings: •

• • •

Steven L. Lamy, ‘Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neo-liberalism’, in John Baylis et al. (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp.126-139. Kenneth Waltz, ‘Realist thought and neorealist theory,’ Journal of International Affairs, 44(1), 1990, pp. 21-37. http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/PSC783/Waltz44.pdf Keohane Robert O., and Lisa L. Martin, ‘The promise of institutionalist theory’, International Security, 20(1), 1995, pp. 39-51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2539214.pdf John J. Mearsheimer, ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, 19(3), 1994/95, pp. 5-49. http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0021.pdf

Recommended Readings: •

• • • • • • •

Ole Waever, ‘The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate,’ in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Chris Reus-Smit, ‘The Strange death of Liberal International Theory’, European Journal of International Law, 12(3), 2001, pp. 573-594. Robert Keohane, ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 1988, pp. 379-396. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2600589.pdf Joseph M Grieco et al., ‘The relative gains problem for international cooperation,’ American Political Science Review, 87(3), 1993, pp. 729-743. Kenneth Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’, International Security, 25(1), 2000, pp. 5-41. Helen Milner, ‘The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique’, Review of International Studies, 17(1), 1991, pp. 67-85. Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘The embarassement of changes: neo-realism as the science of Realpolitik without politics’, Review of International Studies, 19(1), 1993, pp. 63-80. Colin Elman and Michael A. Jensen (eds.), The Realism Reader, London: Routledge, 2014.

Further Readings: • • •

• •

•

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, London” MacGraw–Hill, 1979. John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York and London: W.W. Norton, 2014. Michael Doyle, ‘Conclusion: Liberals and Realists: Explaining the Differences’, in Doyle, M., Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism, New York: W. W. Norton, 1997, pp. 301-312. Stephen Walt, The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987. Barry Buzan, ‘The timeless wisdom of realism?’ in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 47-65. David Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. 14

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • •

Stephen Walt, ‘The progressive power of realism’, American Political Science Review, 9794), 1997, pp. 931-935. Joseph S. Nye, The paradox of American power: why the world’s only superpower can’t go it alone, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Barry Buzan et al., The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993. Fozouni, Bahman, ‘Confutation of political realism,’ International Studies Quarterly, 39(4), 1995, pp. 479-510. Stefano Guzzini, ‘The different worlds of realism in international relations,’ Millennium, 30(1), 2001, pp. 111-121. Alan James, ‘The realism of realism: The state and the study of international relations’, Review of International Studies, 15(3), 1989, pp. 215-229. Patrick James, ‘Structural realism and the causes of war’, Mershon International Studies Review, 39(2), 1995, pp.181-208. Ethan B. Kapstein, ‘Is realism dead? The domestic sources of international politics,’ International Organization, 49(4), 1995, pp. 751-774. Ethan B. Kapstein and Michael Mastanduno (eds.), Unipolar Politics: Realism and state Strategies After the Cold War, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999. Robert Keohane, (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, NY: Columbia University Press, 1986. Robert Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1989. Robert Keohane, ‘Realism, neorealism and the study of world politics,’ in Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, NY: Columbia University Press, 1986, pp.1-26. Robert Keohane, ‘The theory of hegemonic stability and changes in international regimes, 1967-1977’, in Ole Holsti, et al. (eds.), Change in the International System, Boulder, CO; Westview Press, 1980, pp.131-162. Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘The embarrassment of changes: Neo-realism as the science of Realpolitik without politics,’ Review of International Studies, 19(1), 1993, pp. 63-80. Charles Krauthammer, ‘The Unipolar Moment’, Foreign Affairs 70(1), 1991, pp. 23-33. Michael Mastanduno, ‘Preserving the unipolar moment - Realist theories and US grand strategy after the Cold War’, International Security, 21(4), 1997, pp. 49-88. Kenneth Waltz, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 1988, pp. 615-628. Michael Mastanduno et al., ‘Toward a realist theory of state action,’ International Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 1989, pp. 457-474. Menon, Rajan, and Hendrik Spruyt, ‘The limits of neorealism: Understanding security in Central Asia,’ Review of International Studies, 25(1), 1999, pp.87-105. Paul Schroeder, ‘Historical reality and neo-realist theory,’ in Michael E. Brownet al. (eds.), The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Realism and International Security, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, pp. 421-461. Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959. Stephen M. Walt, ‘Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power’, International Security, 9(4), 1985, pp. 3-43. Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Is Anybody Still a Realist?’ International Security, 24(2), 1999, pp. 5-55. William C. Wohlforth, ‘The Stability of a Unipolar World’, International Security, 24(1), 1999, pp. 5-41. Christopher Layne, ‘The Unipolar Illusion Revisited. The Coming End of the United States’ Unipolar Moment’, International Security, 31(2), 2006, pp. 7-41.

15

•

Charles L. Glaser, ‘Realists and Optimists: Cooperation as Self-Help’, International Security, 19(3), 1994-1995, pp, 50-90.

Week 8: Constructivism Lecture 13: The rise of social constructivism in IR Lecture 14: Weldes and the construction of national interests

Central Questions: 1. ‘Constructivism is not itself a theory of international relations, the way balance-of-power theory is, for example, but a theoretically informed approach to the study of international relations.’ (John Gerard Ruggie). What are the central differences Ruggie refers to? 5. In which way are the Constructivist conceptions of global politics different from those of Realists and Liberals? 6. What are the main aims and objective of constructivist scholars? 7. What do Constructivists have to say about norms, identity and culture in international relations?

Essential Readings: • • •

Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Constructivism’, in, Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater (eds.), Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013, pp. 217-240. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52(4), pp. 887-917. Jutta Weldes, ‘Constructing National Interests’, European Journal of International Relations, 2(3), 1996, pp. 275-318.

Recommended Reading: •

• •

• • • • •

Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘Constructivism: what it is (not) and how it matters’, in: Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating (eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 80-98. Ted Hopf, ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, 23(1), 1998, pp. 171-200. Karin Fierke, ‘Language is Power’, in, Karin Fierke, Changing Games, Changing Strategies. Critical investigations in security, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998, pp. 210-223. Jeffrey T. Checkel, ‘The constructivist turn in international relations theory,’ World Politics, 50(2), 1998, pp. 324-348. Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics,’ International Organization, 46(2), 1992, pp.391-425 Friedrich Kratochwil, ‘Constructing a new orthodoxy? Wendt’s Social Theory of International Politics and the constructivist challenge’, Millennium, 29(1), 2000, pp. 73-101. Emanuel Adler, ‘Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics,’ European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 1997, pp.319-363. Nicholas Onuf, ‘Constructivism: A user’s manual,’ in Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas Onuf and Paul Kowert (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World, London: M.E. Sharpe, 1998, pp. 58-78.

Further Reading: 16

• •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Nicholas Onuf, World of Our Making. Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations, London: Routledge, 2013. Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms and Decisions. On the conditions of legal and practical reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Vendulka Kubalkova et al. (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World, Amonk, N/Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1998. Maja Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations: the politics of reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Samuel J. Barkin, Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Thomas Risse, ‘Constructivism and International Institutions: Toward Conversations Across Paradigms’, in Katznelson, Ira and Helen Miller (eds.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline, New York: W. W. Norton 2003, pp. 597-629. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52(4),1998, pp. 887-917. Alexander Wendt, ‘Constructing international politics,’ International Security, 20, 1995, pp. 71-81. Karin Fierke and Knud Erik Jorgensen (eds.), Constructing International Relations: the next generation, Amonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2001. Karin Fierke, Links Across the Abyss: Language and Logic in International Relations, International Studies Quarterly, 46(3), 2002, pp.331-354. Jeffrey T. Checkel, ‘International norms and domestic politics: Bridging the rationalistconstructivist divide,’ European Journal of International Relations, 3(4), 1997, pp. 473-495. David Dessler, ‘Constructivism within a positivist social science,’ Review of International Studies, 25(1), 1999, pp.123-137. Timothy Dunne, ‘The social construction of international society,’ European Journal of International Relations, 1(3), 1995, pp.367-389. Theo Farrell, ‘Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program,’ International Studies Review , 4(1), 2002, pp. 49-72. Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996. Audie Klotz, ‘Norms reconstituting interests: Global racial equality and U.S. sanctions against South Africa,’ International Organization, 49(3), 1995, 451-478. Audie Klotz, Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Iver B. n, ‘Self and other in international relations,’ European Journal of International Relations, 2(2), 1996, pp.139-174. Ronan Palan, ‘A world of their making: An evaluation of the constructivist critique in International Relations,’ Review of International Studies, 26(4), 2000, pp. 575-598. Christian Reus-Smit, ‘The constitutional structure of international society and the nature of fundamental institutions,’ International Organization, 51(4), 1997, pp. 555-589. Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Human rights and the social construction of sovereignty,’ Review of International Studies, 27(4), 2001, pp. 519-538. Review of International Politics, ‘Forum on Alexander Wendt,’ 26(1), 2000, pp.123-180 [articles by Keohane, Krasner, Doty, Alker, Smith and Wendt]. John Gerard Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity: Essays in International Institutionalization, London: Routledge, 1998. 17

• • • • • •

John Gerard Ruggie, ‘Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations, International Organization, 46(2), 1992, pp. 391-425. Jennifer Sterling-Folker, ‘Realism and the Constructivist Challenge: Rejecting, Reconstructing or Rereading,’ International Studies Review, 4(1), 2002, pp. 73-97. Hidemi Suganami, ‘On Wendt’s philosophy: A critique,’ Review of International Studies, 28(10, 2002, pp. 23-37. Alexander Wendt, ‘Collective identity formation and the international state,’ American Political Science Review, 88(2), 1994, pp. 384-396. Richard Price, ‘Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Relations Theory and Constructivism, European Journal of International Relations, 4(3), 1998, pp. 259-294. Stefano Guzzini, ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations, European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 2000, pp. 147-182.

Week 9: Post-structuralism Lecture 15: Poststructuralism, Deconstruction and IR Theory Lecture 16: Doty on Colonization

Seminar Questions: 1. How does post-structuralism conceive of ‘International Relations’? 2. What role do the notions of ‘language’ and ‘text’ play in poststructuralist accounts? 3. What are the key contributions post-structuralism has made to the study of international relations?

Essential Readings: • • •

Richard Devetak, ‘Post-Structuralism’, in, Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater (eds.), Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013, pp. 187-216. Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism. A Marxist Critique, Cambridge: Polit Press, 1989, chapter 3, pp. 62-91. Roxanne Doty, ‘The Logic of Differance in International Relations: US Colonization of the Philippines, in Francis Beer and Robert Hariman (eds.), Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations, Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1996, pp. 331-345.

Recommended Readings: •

• • •

•

William E. Connolly, ‘Identity and difference in global politics,’ in: Der Derian, James, and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989, pp. 323-342. 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. David Campbell, Writing Security. United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. Michael J. Shapiro, ‘Textualizing Global Politics’, in, James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations. Postmodern Readings of World Politics, New York: Lexington Books, 1989, pp. 11-22. Lene Hansen, ‘Discourse analysis, identity, and foreign policy’, in: Lene Hansen, Security as Practice. Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, London: Routledge, 2006, pp.17-36.

18

Further Readings: • •

• • • •

• • •

•

• • • • • • • •

• • • •

Richard Ashley, ‘Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17(2), 1988, 227-262. Richard Ashley, The achievements of post-structuralism,’ in Steve Smith, et al. (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 240-253. R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: international relations as political theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. James Der Derian, and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989. Roxanne Lynn Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Roxanne Lynn Doty, ‘Aporia: a critical exploration of the agent-structure problematique in international relations theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 1997, pp. 365-392. Mathias Albert, ‘On boundaries, territory and postmodernity: An international relations perspective’, Geopolitics, 3(1), 1998, pp. 53-68. James Der Derian, ‘The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed’, International Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 1990, pp. 295-310. Jim George and David Campbell, ‘Patterns of Dissent and the celebration of difference: Critical social theory and international relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 1990, pp. 269-293. Shapiro, Michael J. ‘Textualizing global politics,’ in: James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989, pp. 11-22. Michael Dillon and Julian Reid, ‘Global liberal governance: Biopolitics, security and war,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 30(1), 2001, pp. 41-66. Jenny Edkins, ‘Legality with a Vengeance: Famines and Humanitarian Relief in ‘Complex Emergencies’,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 25(3), 1996, pp. 547-575. Jenny Edkins, Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999. Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994. Michael J. Shapiro, ‘Sovereignty and exchange in the orders of modernity,’ Alternatives, 16(4), 1991, pp. 447-477. Michael J. Shapiro, Reading the Postmodern Polity: Political Theory as Textual Practice, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. Michael J. Shapiro, ‘Moral geographies and the ethics of post-sovereignty,’ Public Culture, 6(3), 1994, pp. 479-502. R.B.J. Walker, ‘Sovereignty, identity, community: Reflections on the horizons of contemporary political practice,’ in R.B.J. Walker and Saul H. Mendlovitz (eds.), Contending Sovereignties: Redefining Political Community, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1990, pp. 159-185. R.B.J. Walker, ‘State sovereignty and the articulation of political space/time,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 20(3), 1991, pp. 445-461 R.B.J. Walker, ‘History and structure in the theory of international relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 18(2), 1989, pp. 163-183 Cynthia Weber, ‘Reconsidering statehood: Examining the sovereignty/intervention boundary,’ Review of International Studies, 18(3), 1992, pp. 199-216. Cynthia Weber, Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 19

•

D.S.L. Jarvis, International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism. Defending the Discipline, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000.

Week 10: Feminism and Gender in IR Lecture 17: ‘Where are the women’? Feminism and IR – An Overview Lecture 18: UN Security Council Resolution 1325: Four feminist perspectives

Seminar Questions: 1. What are the key commonalities and differences between liberal, standpoint and poststructural feminist perspectives? 2. What are the key concerns, aims and objectives of feminist/gender perspectives in IR? 3. What are the key contributions feminist perspective have made theoretically and empirically?

Essential Readings: • •

• •

•

Jill Steans, ‘Gender, Feminism and International Relations’, in: Jill Steans, Gender and International Relations: An Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998, pp. 10-37. Cynthia Enloe, ‘Gender makes the World Go Round: Where are the Women?’ in, Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases. Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014, pp.1-36. Robert Keohane, ‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 18(2), 1989, pp. 245-253. Cindy Weber, ‘Good girls, little girls and bad girls: Male paranoia in Robert Keohane’s critique of feminist international relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23(2), 1994, pp. 337-349. R. Charli Carpenter, ‘Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Men and Boys in Conflict Situations’, Security Dialogue, 37(1), 2006, pp. 83-103.

Recommended Readings: •

•

• • •

•

J. Ann Tickner, ‘Engendered Insecurities: Feminist Perspectives on International Relations, in, J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations. Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992, pp.1-25. V. Spike Peterson, ‘Transgressing boundaries: Theories of knowledge, gender, and international relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21(2), 1992, pp. 183206. Craig N. Murphy, ‘Seeing women, recognizing gender, recasting international relations’, International Organization, 50(3), 1996, pp. 513-538. J. Ann Tickner, ‘You just don’t understand: Troubled engagements between feminists and IR theorists,’ International Organization, 41(4), 1997, pp. 611-632. Adam Jones, ‘Does “Gender” make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 22(4), 1996, pp. 405-429. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20097459.pdf Terrell Carver et al., ‘Gendering Jones: Feminism, IRs, Masculinities, Review of International Studies, 24(2), 1998, pp. 283-297. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20097523.pdf 20

Further Readings: • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

•

• • • • • •

Laura Sjoberg, ‘Gender, structure, and war: what Waltz couldn’t see’, International Theory, 4(1), 2012, pp. 1-38. Michael Allen, ‘Women, bargaining and change in seven structures of world political economy,’ Review of International Studies, 25(3), 1999, pp. 453-474. Mary K.Burgieres, ‘Feminist approaches to peace: Another stop for peace studies,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19(1), 1990, pp.1-18. Jean Bethke Elshtain, ‘Sovereignty, identity, sacrifice,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 20(3), 1991, pp. 395-406. Jean Bethke Elshtain, ‘Reflections on war and political discourse: Realism, just war, and feminism in a nuclear age,’ Political Theory, 13(1), 1985, pp. 39-57. Cynthia Enloe, ‘Feminist thinking about war, militarism, and peace,’ in Beth B. Hess and Myra Marx Feree, eds., Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987, pp. 526-547. Cynthia Enloe, Does Khaki Become You? The Militarization of Women’s Lives, London: Pandora, 1988. ‘Feminists write international relations,’ special issue of Alternatives, 18(1), 1993. Rebecca Grant and Kathleen Newland (eds)., Gender and International Relations, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991. Charlotte Hooper, ‘Masculinities, IR and the ‘Gender Variable’: A Cost-Benefit Analysis for (Sympathetic) Gender Sceptics,’ Review of International Studies, 25(3), 1999, pp. 475-491. Charlotte Hooper, Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics, NY: Columbia University Press, 2001. Catherine Hoskyns, ‘Gender issues in international relations: The case of the European Community,’ Review of International Studies, 20(3), 1994, 225-239. Marianne H.Marchand, ‘Reconceptualizing ‘gender and development’ in an era of ‘globalization’,’ Millennium: Journal on International Studies, 25(3), 1996, pp. 577-603. V. Spike Peterson and Anne Sisson Runyan, Global Gender Issues, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1999. V. Spike Peterson (ed)., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992. Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Christine Sylvester, ‘The contributions of feminist theory to international relations,’ in Steve Smith et al. (eds)., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 254-278. Christine Sylvester, ‘The emperors’ theories and transformations: Looking at the field through feminist lenses,’ in Dennis C. Pirages and Christine Sylvester (eds.), Transformations in the Global Political Economy, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1990, pp. 230253. Jan Jindy Pettman, Worlding Women: A feminist international politics, London: Routledge, 1996. J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993. Cynthia Weber, Faking It: U.S. Hegemony in a ‘Post-Phallic Era, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. Sandra Whitworth, ‘Gender in the inter-paradigm debate,’ Millennium, 18(2), 1989, pp. 265272. Sandra Whitworth, ‘Gender, international relations, and the case of the ILO,’ Review of International Studies, 20(4), 1994, pp. 389-405. ‘Women and International Relations,’ special issue of Millennium, 17(3), 1988. 21

Week 11: Post-colonialism and the question of non-Western IR Lecture 19: Legacies of colonialism in contemporary IR theory Lecture 20: Post-colonialism and the quest for non-Western IR theory

Central Questions: 1. What were the core concerns for Spivak when she raised the question whether the subaltern can speak? 2. What do post-colonial scholars criticise when they charge IR with ‘Eurocentrism’ and why is this critique important? 3. What are/have been the main obstacles to establishing non-Western theoretical perspectives as equivalent to existing Eurocentric ones?

Essential Readings: • •

•

Charlotte Epstein, ‘The postcolonial perspective: an introduction’, International Theory, 6(2), 2014, pp. 294-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1752971914000219 Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, ‘Introduction: Power in a postcolonial world: race, gender, and class in international relations, in: Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair (eds.), Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations. Reading race, gender and class, London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 1-32. Seth, Sanjay (2011), Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40 (1), pp. 167-183.

Recommended Readings: • • • • • • •

•

Himadeep Muppdi, The Colonial Signs of International Relations, London: Hurst and Company, 2012. Roxanne Lynn Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996, pp. 1-22. Arlene B. Tickner, ‘Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations’, European Journal on International Relations, 19(3), 2013, pp. 627-646. Kamran Matin, ‘Redeeming the universal: Postcolonialism and the inner life of Eurocentrism’, European Journal of International Relations, 19(2), 2013, 535-377. Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia, Abingdon: Routledge, 2010. Pinar Bilgin, ‘Thinking past “Western” IR?’, Third World Quarterly, 29:1 (2008) pp.5-23. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1988, pp. 271-313. Rosa Vasilaki, ‘Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 41(1), 2012, pp. 3-22. http://mil.sagepub.com/content/41/1/3.full.pdf

Further Reading: •

Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, London: Penguin, 2001. 22

• • • • • • • •

• •

• • • • • •

• •

• • • • •

•

Sankaran Kishna, ‘The Importance of Being Ironic: A Post Colonial View on Critical International Relations Theory’, Alternatives, 18 (1993) pp.385-417. Edward Said, Orientalism, London: Penguin, 1995. Gregory Castle (ed.), Post-colonial Discourses: An Anthology, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Albert J Paolini, Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism, Identity, and International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999. Christine Sylvester, ‘Post-Colonialism’, in John Baylis et al., The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 184-197. Philip Darby and A.J.Paolini, ‘Bridging International Relations and Postcolonialism’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 19(3), 1994, pp. 371-397. Lucy Taylor, ‘Decolonizing International Relations: Perspectives form Latin America’, International Studies Review, 14(3), 2012, pp. 386-400. Boniface Mgonja and Iddi Makombe, ‘Debating international relations and its relevance to the third world’, African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 3(1), 2009, pp. 27-37. Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (eds.), Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia, London: Routledge, 2009. Sankaran Krishna, ‘ Review: The Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical International Relations’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 18(3), 1993, pp. 385417. Branwen Gruffydd Jones, Decolonizing international relations, Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Philip Darby (ed.), At the edge of international relations: postcolonialism, gender, and dependency, London and New York: Pinter, 1997. L.H.M. Ling, Postcolonial international relations: conquest and desire between Asia and the West, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002. Vivienne Jabri, The postcolonial subject: claiming politics/governing others in late modernity, London: Routledge, 2013. A.K. Ramakrishnan, ‘The gaze of orientalism: reflections on lining postcolonialism and international relations’, International Studies, 36(2), 1999, pp. 129-163. Christine Sylvester, ‘In-between and in evasion of so much: Third World literatures, international relations and postcolonial analysis’, Postcolonial Studies, 2(2), 1999, pp. 249261. Sanjay Seth, ‘Postcolonial Theory and the critique of international relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(1), 2011, pp. 167-183. Brian Maccormack, ‘Postcolonialism in an Age of Globalization: Opening International Relations Theory to Identities in Movement, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(1), 2002, pp. 99-115. Forum: Interrogating the use of norms in international relations: postcolonial perspectives, International Theory, 6(2), 2014, pp. 293-390. Philip Darby, ‘Pursuing the political: A postcolonial rethinking of international relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(1), 2004, pp. 1-32. Martin Hall and John M. Dobson, ‘Liberal international theory: Eurocentric but not always imperialist?’ International Theory, 2(2), 2010, pp. 210-245. A. Sajed, ‘The post always rings twice? The Algerian War, poststructuralism and the postcolonial in IR theory’, Review of International Studies, 38(1), 2012, pp. 141-163. M. Sabaratnam, ‘IR in Dialogue … but Can We Change Subjects? A Typology of Decolonising Strategies for the Study of World Politics’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39(3), 2011, pp. 781-803. Roland Bleiker, ‘New Writings on Postcolonial International Relations’, Political Theory, 36(2), 2008, pp. 313-320.

23

• • • •

Robbie Shilliam (ed.), International relations and non-Western thought: imperialism, colonialism and investigations of global modernity, London: Routledge, 2010. Donald, J. Puchala, ‘Some non-western perspectives on international relations’, Journal of Peace Research, 34(2), 1997, pp. 129-134. Amitav Acharya, ‘Dialogue and discovery: in search of international relations theories beyond the West’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39(3), 2011, pp. 619-637. Stephanie G. Neuman (ed.), International Relations Theory and the Third World, Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1998.

24

Appendix A Instructions on how to submit essays electronically

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Log in to Blackboard and select the Blackboard course for the unit you are submitting work for. If you cannot see it, please e-mail [email protected] with your username and ask to be added. Click on the "Submit Work Here" option at the top on the left hand menu and then find the correct assessment from the list. Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have selected both the correct unit and the correct piece of work. The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter your name (for FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) or candidate number (for SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) as a submission title, and then select the file that you wish to upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click on the ‘upload’ button at the bottom. You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct essay and click the ‘Submit’ button. This step must be completed or the submission is not complete. You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and a copy sent to your email address for your records.

Important notes • You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that all parts of your work – references, bibliography etc. – are included in one single document and that you upload the correct version. You will not be able to change the file once you have uploaded. • Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work submitted in .rtf (Rich Text Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use another word processing package, please ensure you save in a compatible format. • By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on plagiarism and confirm that the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the word count stated on the essay is an accurate statement of essay length. • If Blackboard is not working email your assessment to [email protected] with the unit code and title in the subject line. How to confirm that your essay has been submitted • You will have received a digital receipt by email and If you click on the assessment again (steps 1-4), you will see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If you click on submit, you will not be able to submit again. This table also displays the date of submission. If you click on the title of the essay, it will open in a new window and you can also see what time the essay was submitted.

25

Appendix B Summary of Relevant School Regulations (Further information is in the year handbook) Attendance at classes SPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an essential part of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, have done the required reading and participate fully. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of illness or for other exceptional reasons. If you are unable to attend a seminar you must inform your seminar tutor, as well as email [email protected]. You should also provide evidence to explain your absence, such as a selfcertification and/or medical note, counselling letter or other official document. If you are unable to provide evidence then please still email [email protected] to explain why you are unable to attend. If you are ill or are experiencing some other kind of difficulty which is preventing you from attending seminars for a prolonged period, please inform your personal tutor, the Undergraduate Office or the Student Administration Manager. Requirements for credit points In order to be awarded credit points for the unit, you must achieve: • Satisfactory attendance in classes, or satisfactory completion of catch up work in lieu of poor attendance • Satisfactory formative assessment • An overall mark of 40 or above in the summative assessment/s. In some circumstances, a mark of 35 or above can be awarded credit points.

Presentation of written work Coursework must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or Times New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double–space or single–space your essays as you prefer. Your tutor will let you know if they have a preference. All pages should be numbered. Ensure that the essay title appears on the first page. All pages should include headers containing the following information: Formative work Name: e.g. Joe Bloggs Unit e.g. SOCI10004 Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr J. Haynes Word Count .e.g. 1500 words

Summative work **Candidate Number**: e.g. 12345 Unit: e.g. SOCI10004 Seminar Tutor: e.g. Dr J. Haynes Word Count: e.g. 3000 words

Candidate numbers are required on summative work in order to ensure that marking is anonymous. Note that your candidate number is not the same as your student number. Assessment Length Each piece of coursework must not exceed the stipulated maximum length for the assignment (the ‘word count’) listed in the unit guide. Summative work that exceeds the maximum length will be subject to penalties. The word count is absolute (there is no 10% leeway, as commonly rumoured). Five marks will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Thus, an essay that is 1 word over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks; an essay that is 101 words over the word limit will be penalised 10 marks, and so on. The word count includes all text, numbers, footnotes/endnotes, Harvard referencing in the body of the text and direct quotes. It excludes, the title, candidate number, bibliography, and appendices. However, appendices should only be used for reproducing documents, not additional text written by 26

you. Referencing and Plagiarism Where sources are used they must be cited using the Harvard referencing system. Inadequate referencing is likely to result in penalties being imposed. See the Study Skills Guide for advice on referencing and how poor referencing/plagiarism are processed. Unless otherwise stated, essays must contain a bibliography. Extensions Extensions to coursework deadlines will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. If you want to request an extension, complete an extension request form (available at Blackboard/SPAIS_UG Administration/forms to download and School policies) and submit the form with your evidence (e.g. self-certification, medical certificate, death certificate, or hospital letter) to Catherine Foster in the Undergraduate Office. Extension requests cannot be submitted by email, and will not be considered if there is no supporting evidence. If you are waiting for evidence then you can submit the form and state that it has been requested. All extension requests should be submitted at least 72 hours prior to the assessment deadline. If the circumstance occurs after this point, then please either telephone or see the Student Administration Manager in person. In their absence you can contact Catherine Foster in the UG Office, again in person or by telephone. Extensions can only be granted by the Student Administration Manager. They cannot be granted by unit convenors or seminar tutors. You will receive an email to confirm whether your extension request has been granted. Submitting Essays Formative essays

Summative essays

Unless otherwise stated, all formative essay submissions must be submitted electronically via Blackboard

All summative essay submissions must be submitted electronically via Blackboard.

Electronic copies enable an efficient system of receipting, providing the student and the School with a record of exactly when an essay was submitted. It also enables the School to systematically check the length of submitted essays and to safeguard against plagiarism. Late Submissions Penalties are imposed for work submitted late without an approved extension. Any kind of computer/electronic failure is not accepted as a valid reason for an extension, so make sure you back up your work on another computer, memory stick or in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive or Dropbox). Also ensure that the clock on your computer is correct. The following schema of marks deduction for late/non-submission is applied to both formative work and summative work: Up to 24 hours late, or part thereof For each additional 24 hours late, or part thereof Assessment submitted over one week late • •

Penalty of 10 marks A further 5 marks deduction for each 24 hours, or part thereof Treated as a non-submission: fail and mark of zero recorded. This will be noted on your transcript.

The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and university closure days. If an essay submitted less than one week late fails solely due to the imposition of a late penalty, then the mark will be capped at 40. 27

•

If a fail due to non-submission is recorded, you will have the opportunity to submit the essay as a second attempt for a capped mark of 40 in order to receive credit points for the unit.

Marks and Feedback In addition to an overall mark, students will receive written feedback on their assessed work. The process of marking and providing detailed feedback is a labour-intensive one, with most 2-3000 word essays taking at least half an hour to assess and comment upon. Summative work also needs to be checked for plagiarism and length and moderated by a second member of staff to ensure marking is fair and consistent. For these reasons, the University regulations are that feedback will be returned to students within three weeks of the submission deadline. If work is submitted late, then it may not be possible to return feedback within the three week period. Fails and Resits If you fail the unit overall, you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. In units where there are two pieces of summative assessment, you will normally only have to re-sit/resubmit the highestweighted piece of assessment. Exam resits only take place once a year, in late August/early September. If you have to re-sit an exam then you will need to be available during this period. If you are not available to take a resit examination, then you will be required to take a supplementary year in order to retake the unit.

28

Appendix C Level 4 Marking and Assessment Criteria (First Year) 1st (70+)

o o o o o

2:1 (60–69)

o o o o o

2:2 (50–59)

o o o o

o

3rd (40–49)

o

o

o o

Marginal Fail

o

(35–39)

o o o o

Excellent knowledge and understanding of the subject, as well as a recognition of alternative perspectives and viewpoints Uses an argument that is logically structured and supported by evidence Engages with the material critically and demonstrates some capacity for intellectual initiative/ independent thought Incorporates one or two sources from beyond the reading list High quality organisation and style of presentation (including referencing) with few grammatical or spelling errors and attention to writing style Good knowledge and understanding of subject and some recognition of other viewpoints and perspectives Evidence of an argument that is logically structured, but it may not be consistently developed Some evidence of critical thinking in places Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ Presentation showing promise: effective writing style but some grammatical and spelling errors; referencing and bibliographic formatting satisfactory on the whole Reasonable knowledge and understanding of subject and an ability to answer the question, but there may be some gaps A tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of reason and evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical. Little attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit; displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material Satisfactory presentation: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes clumsy; some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing but generally accurate bibliography Shows some knowledge and understanding of the subject and some awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues but misses the point of the question Demonstrates little/no ability to construct an argument and an underdeveloped or chaotic structure with only minimal attempt to use evidence Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources Poorly presented: writing style unclear with significant grammatical and spelling errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions Shows limited understanding and knowledge of the subject and omits significant parts of the question Little or no argument and incoherent or illogical structure; evidence used inappropriately or incorrectly Inadequate use of analytical skills and tendency to assert opinion rather than engage in critique Some evidence of reading but little comprehension Inadequate presentation e.g. not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; some attempt to provide references but inconsistent and containing bibliographic omissions

29

Outright Fail (0–34)

o o o o o

Very limited, and seriously flawed, knowledge and understanding ; little understanding of the question or fails to address the question entirely No attempt to construct an argument and incoherent or illogical structure No evidence of analytical skill Uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources. Very poor presentation: poor writing style; significant errors in spelling and grammar with limited or no attempt at providing references and containing bibliographic omissions.

30