Current Debates in ir theory




Скачать 46.21 Kb.
НазваниеCurrent Debates in ir theory
Дата01.11.2012
Размер46.21 Kb.
ТипДокументы


Current Debates in IR Theory

Fall 2009

Dr. Ersel AYDINLI

Mondays 13:40 – 15:40

Wednesdays 15:40 – 16:40

Office hours: Wednesday 14:30-15:30

Tel. 290-1067/1249 for appointment

ersel@bilkent.edu.tr


Course Description


This is a Ph.D. level seminar course on current debates in International Relations theory. As such, it is focused not on providing an introduction to the theoretical literature (although some review will be necessary as not all students will have had formal IR theory courses), but rather on helping the students a) to understand how to utilize theoretical positions, approaches, and tools; and b) to construct their own theoretical frameworks. The second point takes on considerable significance as most students will eventually conduct doctoral research related to Turkey, yet many existing formal theories may not be appropriate for exploring Turkey’s experiences or positions.


Course Objectives


By the end of the course, students are expected to:


  1. have a firm and consolidated understanding of the bases of IR theory schools/approaches/paradigms

  2. be up to date with cutting edge debates within these approaches, e.g. the issue of ‘soft-balancing’ within realism, democratic peace theory or post-internationalism and non-state actors within liberalism, or new attempts at combining realism and constructivism.

  3. be familiar with writing comprehensive exam questions

  4. be able to utilize these theories and theoretical frameworks in an appropriate manner while preparing to write their dissertations. This involves learning how to “think theoretically” when asking research questions.


Assessment


  1. Participation/leading the discussion (30%)

In a Ph.D. seminar, active, well-informed participation in the weekly discussion is critical to achieving a successful grade. Absenteeism or lateness to class is unacceptable except in extremely extenuating circumstances. The format of graduate level seminars is one in which students are expected to assume the leading role—as opposed to undergraduate level courses, which are generally teacher-led. Accordingly, a significant percentage of your grade is based on your participation in every session, and on your sharing of responsibilities for leading the weekly discussion. To guide us in our weekly discussions of the readings, all students will be required each week to post to Moodle a short (approximately 1-2 pages) reflection on the readings, together with discussion questions by 5:00 pm SUNDAY. In a rotating manner, each of you will take responsibility to lead the discussion, meaning that you will first briefly explain the major points of that week’s readings in a comparative manner, and then lead off and manage the subsequent discussion of those readings. Wednesday’s one hour class will be used for further discussion of the questions deemed most interesting in Monday’s class (a bonus will be given to the student whose question is chosen!).


  1. Research Paper (Theorizing Practice) (25%) You will do one of the following options: (Details on this assignment will be discussed in class)


OPTION 1

A 15-20 page review article on the topic of non-state/ transnational actors in the context of transnational relations. You may use as a model the review articles published in leading IR journals, such as World Politics, International Organization, etc. This assignment will provide you with mini-practice in the writing up of your dissertation literature review. Your analysis should follow this format:


OPTION 2

How can we conceptualize and theorize “new” Turkish foreign policy? Is there a genuine change in perceptions of (both Turkish and foreign) and practice of Turkish foreign policy? If so, how does that change come about—with a new self-image (ideational)? With material changes in global and regional politics? What are the main determining factors in such change? Which theory can best explain the origins and execution of this change (rhetorical or real), or is there a need for homegrown theorizing to explain it? If homegrown is necessary, how might that be?

Consider such questions in a 15-20 page research paper.



  1. Comprehensive Exam Questions (30%)

The final part of your grade will come from your writing up responses to various actual, previously used Ph.D. comprehensive exam questions, to be assigned throughout the semester. These assignments will give you practice in preparing an actual Ph.D. comprehensive exam question.


  1. Thought Papers (15%)

These are meant as short reflection papers on assigned topics. They should be 500-1000 words. Details for each will be discussed in class.


Paper format requirements

  • Papers must be double-spaced in Times New Roman 12-point font, with left-margin justification and margins set at 2,54 cms on all sides. Page numbers should be included at the bottom. If page limits are given, please adhere to them. Longer is not necessarily better.

  • Deadlines are non-negotiable

  • Please be careful about unwittingly falling into the plagiarism trap. You must cite all material that is either quoted OR paraphrased (rewritten in your own words), using a commonly accepted style of citations (e.g. Chicago, APA, Harvard, etc.). The library website (and the library itself) have numerous references to help you prepare appropriate and consistent citations. For your dissertation I recommend you consider purchasing a computer software program that will help you organize all of your references. If you plagiarize (use someone else’s ideas/words without giving them credit for it), you will fail this course and run the serious risk of being dismissed from the program. To avoid any risk, contact me or another professor or the friendly people at the writing center (Bilwrite, located above the Garanti Bank in Building G) if you are at all unsure about what might constitute plagiarism.


Teaching

As noted above, this is a post-graduate seminar, the purpose of which is not to spoon-feed information into you, but to provide you with a structured environment in which to explore ideas, learn to think independently and critically, practice taking informed positions in discussions, and become prepared for a possible future in academia. For you to take this active role in the seminar, you absolutely MUST prepare seriously for each week’s class. This involves doing the readings, reflecting critically on them (in other words, questioning their arguments and assumptions rather than simply blindly accepting their main points), and drawing on your past and current knowledge to understand the relationships between the readings. Without active, informed participation in each week’s session, you can not pass this course.


Course Schedule/Readings


Week 1. September 14. Introduction to the Class


September 16. Socialization into IR

  • Ersel Aydinli & James Rosenau, “Courage versus Caution: A Dialogue on Entering and Prospering in IR”, International Studies Review, Fall 2004, vol. 6, issue 3, p. 511-526.

  • E. Aydinli, H. Ozdemir, E. Kurubas, Yontem, Kuram, Komplo: Turk Uluslararasi Iliskiler Displininde Vizyon Arayislari, (Asil Yayin, 2009).

Section 1: Uluslararasi Iliskiler Disiplininin iki Temel Sorunu: Kimlik ve Kuram, pp. 15-78.


Assignment : Thought Paper (Bring to class on Wednesday the 23rd for discussion)

Why are you studying IR at the PhD level? How do you think theoretical inquiries might guide or help you?


Week 2. September 21. BAYRAM HOLIDAY


.Week 3. September 28/30. Overview of IR and Concepts


  • Stephen M. Walt, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories,” Foreign Policy, 110, Spring 1998, pp. 29-36.

  • Susan Strange, “1995 Presidential Address – ISA as a Microcosm”. International Studies Quarterly, 1995, Volume 39, pp. 289-295.

  • Barnett, Michael and Raymond Duvall. “Power in International Politics,” International Organization 59,1 (2005): 39-75.

  • Wendt, Alexander. “On Constitution and Causation in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 24,5 (1998): 101-117

  • Duncan Snidal and Alexander Wendt, “Why there is International Theory now”, International Theory (2009), 1:1, 1–14.


Week 4. October 5/7. The Uses and Meanings of Theory in IR


  • James Rosenau & Mary Durfee, ”The Need for Theory ,”in Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches to an Incoherent World (Westview Press: Boulder), pp. 1-8.

  • Ngaire Woods, “The Uses of Theory in Study of International Relations,” in N. Woods, ed. Explaining International Relations Since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 9-31.

  • James Rosenau & Mary Durfee, “Towards Thinking Theory Thoroughly,” in Thinking Theory Thoroughly, pp.177-190.

  • John Lewis Gaddis, ‘History, Science, and the Study of International Relations,’ in Ngaire Woods, ed., Explaining International Relations Since 1945, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 32-48.

  • Marysia Zalewski, ‘“All These Theories, Yet Bodies Keep Piling up”: Theory, Theorists, Theorising,’ in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp.340-353.


Assignment : Thought Paper


What is your position on the question of ‘why we need IR theory’? Do we need it? Does it help or hinder progress in international relations scholarship?

There are two steps to this assignment:

  1. By Tuesday (October 6) you must post some initial thoughts on this question to Moodle.

  2. By Friday (October 9) you must submit to me a written thought paper,



Week 5. October 12/14. Methodological Debates (positivist vs. non-positivist)


REQUIRED


  • Milja Kurki and Colin Wight, “International Relations and Social Science,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp.13-35. (A good introduction with simple language).

  • Steve Smith, “Positivism and Beyond,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Canbridge University Press, 1996), pp.11-47. (More advanced approach to epistemological debates, alternatives of empiricism)

  • Gary King, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 1-33.

  • Alexander George and Andrew Bennet, Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences (Cambridge: MA: MIT Press, 2004), chapters 1 and 12.

  • Andrew Bennett and Colin Elman, “Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield Comparative,” Political Studies, Vol. 40, No. 2, 170-195 (2007).


STRONGLY RECOMMENDED



  • E. Aydinli, H. Ozdemir, E. Kurubas, Yontem, Kuram, Komplo: Turk Uluslararasi Iliskiler Displininde Vizyon Arayislari, (Asil Yayin, 2009).

Section 1: Tarihsel Yaklasimlarin Uluslararasi Iliskilerin Kuramsallasmasina Etkisi ve Turkiye’deki Yansimalari, pp. 79-136.


RECOMMENDED


  • Stephan Van Evera, “Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science,” (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), pp.7-88.

  • “Explaining and Understanding” in Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 45-91.

  • Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, ‘The Benefits of a Social-Scientific Approach to Studying International Affairs,’ in Ngaire Woods, ed., Explaining International Relations Since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 49-76.

  • Jonathan Grix, “Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social Research,” Politics 22:3 (2002), pp. 175-186.

  • Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994), pp. 191-219.

  • Richard Devetak, ‘Postmodernism,’ in Scott Burchill et al, eds., Theories of International and Relations, 2nd ed. (London: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 181-208.



Week 6. October 19/21. Classical Realism


  • Richard Ned Lebow, “Classical Realism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp.52-71. (A good introduction with a case study on the Iraqi War)

  • Randall L. Schweller, "The Progressiveness of Neoclassical Realism", pp. 311-347 in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds., Progress in International Relations Theory, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003)

  • Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. “State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-Extractive State,” Security Studies 15,3 (2006): 464-495.

  • Hartmut Behr and Amelia Heath, “Misreading in IR theory and ideology critique: Morgenthau, Waltz and neo-realism”, Review of International Studies (2009), 35:327-349.


Week 7. October 26/28. Structural Realism


  • Thomas Walker and Jeffrey Morton, “Re-Assessing the ‘Power of Power Politics’ Thesis: Is realism still dominant?” The International Studies Review, 7:2 (June 2005)

  • Robert O. Keohane, ‘Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond,’ in International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism and Beyond, Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997), pp. 153-183.

  • Georg Sørensen, “`Big and Important Things' in IR: Structural Realism and the Neglect of Changes in Statehood”, International Relations, Vol. 23, No. 2, 223-239 (2009).

  • Kenneth Waltz, "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory," Journal of International Affairs, 44:1 (1990), pp. 21-37.

  • Wohlforth, William C., et al. "Testing Balance-of-Power Theory in World History." European Journal of International Relations 13,2 (2007): 155-185.


RECOMMENDED

  • Robert O. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).


Week 8. November 2/4. Current Debate: The Future of Balance of Power Theory


  • Daniel H. Nexon, “Review Article: The Balance of Power in the Balance”, World Politics, 61(2), 2009, 330-359.

  • Keir A. Lieber and Gerard Alexander, "Waiting for Balancing" International Security 30:1 (Summer 2005)

  • T.V. Paul, "Soft Balancing in the Age of US Supremacy," International Security 30:1 (Summer 2005)

  • Robert A. Pape, "Soft Balancing against the United States," International Security 30:1 (Summer 2005)

  • Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, "Hard times for Soft Balancing," International Security 30:1 (Summer 2005)

  • Art, Robert J. et al. “Correspondence: Striking the Balance.” International Security 30,3 (2005/2006): 177-196.


Assignment (Comprehensive Exam Question): Should non-state actors (e.g. terrorist networks) be incorporated into balance of power theory? If not, why not, if so, how do you juxtapose non-state actors with balance of power theory, and what would be the main characteristics of non-state balancing?


Week 9. November 9/11. Liberalism


  • Tim Dunne, ‘Liberalism,’ in John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds., The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to and International Relations, 2nd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 163-181.

  • Michael Suhr, “Profile: Robert O. Keohane: A Contemporary Classic,” in Neumann and Weaver, The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? pp. 90-120.

  • D. Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, Review of International Studies 25:2 (1999), pp. 179-196.

  • Lake, David A. “Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics,” International Security 32,1 (2007): 47-79.

  • Thompson, Alexander. “Coercion Through IOs: The Security Council and the Logic of Information Transmission,” International Organization 60,1 (2006): 1-34.

  • Hurd, Ian. “The Strategic Uses of Liberal Internationalism: Libya and the UN Sanctions, 1992-2003,” International Organization 59,3 (2005): 495-526.


RECOMMENDED


  • Liberalism section in Key Thinkers in International Relations (pp. 51-100)

  • Liberalism in Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches (pp. 105-135)

  • M.W. Doyle, Liberalism and World Politics, in Kauppi and Viotti

  • Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, 51:4 (1997), pp. 513-553.

  • Voeten, Eric. “The Political Origins of the UN Security Council’s Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force,” International Organization 59,3 (2005): 527-557.

  • Checkel, Jeffrey ed. “International Institutions and Socialization in Europe” International Organization 59,4 (2005).



Week 10. November 16/18. Current Debate: Democratic Peace Theory


  • Michael Mousseau, “The Nexus of Market, Society, Liberal Preferences and Democratic Peace: Interdisciplinary Theory and Evidence,” International Studies Quarterly 47:4 (December 2003)

  • John Owen, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” International Security 19:2 ( Fall 1994)

  • Barbara Farnham, “The Theory of Democratic Peace and Threat Perception,” International Studies Quarterly 47(2003)

  • Errol Handerson, “Neoidealism and Democratic Peace,” Journal of Peace Research 36:2 (1999)


RECOMMENDED


  • John R. Oneal, Bruce Russett and Michael Berbaum, “Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations 1885-1992,” International Studies Quarterly 47:3 (September 2003)


Assignment (Comprehensive Exam Question): “Despite the many rigorous analyses of the democracy-war question, some major problems of interpretations remain” asserts one writer, who goes on to ask whether the prevailing interpretations have “put the cart before the horse.” Is it democracy which leads to peace, or is it geopolitical factors, like the prior establishment of regional primacy, which create the context (permissive conditions) for democratization?


Review the findings on the democracy-war connection, and explain the most important questions they raise for the study of International Relations.


Week 11. November 23/25. English School


* possible guest lecturer, Dr. Nuri Yurdusev (METU)


For preliminary information check this webpage: http://wapedia.mobi/en/English_school_of_international_relations_theory


  • Chris Brown, “International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the Middle Way,” Review of International Studies, vol. 21 (1995), pp. 183-195.

  • Barry Buzan, “From International System to International Society: Structure, Realism and Regime Theory meet the English School,” International Organization 47:3 (1993), pp. 327-352.

  • Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, (New York: Columbia UP, 1977), pp. 3-22.

  • Paul Sharp, “Mullah Zaeef and Taliban Diplomacy: An English School Approach,” Review of International Studies, vol. 29 (2003), pp. 481-498.

  • Tim Dunne, “English School,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp.127-148. (A good introduction with a case study on humanitarian intervention)



RECOMMENDED


  • Tim Dunne, ‘The Social Construction of International Society,’ European Journal of International Relations 1:3 (1995), pp. 367-389.

  • Hedley Bull, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations,” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds., Diplomatic Investigations (London: Allen & Unwin, 1966), pp.35-50. (Explains the different views of Grotius and Oppenheim on International Society)


Current debate: Forum on English School

  • Forum on the English School (joined by A. Watson, B. Buzan, A. Hurrell, S. Guzini, I.B. Neumann, & M. Finnemore), Review of International Studies, vol. 27, no. 3 (July 2001), pp. 465-513.


Week 12. November 30. BAYRAM/HOLIDAY


Week 13. December 7/9. Constructivism


  • Alexander Wendt, “Constructing World Politics”, International Security, vol. 20 (1995), pp. 71-81.

  • Jonathan Mercer, “Anarchy and Identity,” International Organization, vol. 49 (1995), pp. 229-252.

  • Ted Hopf, ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,’ International Security 23:1 (1998), pp. 171-200.

  • K. M. Fierke, “Constructivism,” in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp.166-185. (A good introduction with a case study on NATO enlargement).

  • Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change," International Organization 52 (Autumn 1998). (Explains the emergence of norms and points to the cutting edge debates within constructivism)

  • Wendt, Alexander. “Why a World State is Inevitable,” European Journal of International Relations 9,4 (2003): 491-542.


RECOMMENDED

  • Nicholas Onuf, “Constructivism: A User’s Manual”, in International Relations in a Constructed World, V. Kubalkova, N. Onuf & P. Kowert (Eds), London: N.E. Sharpe.



Week 14. December 14/16. Current Debate: Constructivism converging with Realism, the Power of Words


  • “The Forum. Bridging the Gap: Toward a Realist-Constructivist Dialogue,” International Studies Review 6:2 (2004), pp. 337-352.

  • Risse, Thomas. “’Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics,” International Organization 54,1 (2000): 1-39.

  • Mitzen, Jennifer. “Reading Habermas in Anarchy: Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres,” American Political Science Review 99,3 (2005): 401-417.

  • Busby, Joshua. “Bono Made Jesse Helms Cry: Jubilee 2000, Debt Relief, and Moral Action in International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly 51,2 (2007): 247-275.

  • Krebs, Ronald and Patrick Jackson. “Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric,” European Journal of International Relations 13,1 (2007): 35-66.



Week 15. December 21. Critical Approaches to IR (2hr class only)


  • Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory” in S. Smith, K. Booth, Zalewski, eds., International Theory, pp. 279-298.

  • Ann Tickner, “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists,” International Studies Quarterly, 41 (1997), pp. 611-632.

  • Kimberly Hutchings, “Happy Anniversary! Time and Critique in International Relations Theory”, Review of International Studies (2007), 33:71-89.

  • Chris Brown, ‘“Turtles All the Way Down”: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations,’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23 (1994), pp. 213-236.

  • John Hobson, “Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphalian towards a post-racist critical IR,” Review of International Studies (2007), 33:91-116.


RECOMMENDED

  • Steven C. Roach (ed), Critical Theory and International Relations, (Routledge, 2008).

  • Jim George, Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994), pp. 139-190.

  • Joyce Kaufman & Kristen Williams, “Gendered Nationalism and the Balkan Wars: Who Belongs? Women, Marriage and Citizenship,” International Feminist Journal of Politics, 6:3 (2004), pp. 416-435.


Assignment (Comprehensive Exam Question): How feasible are emancipatory approaches in international relations? Does the critical approach run the risk of turning into another problem-solving theory if it tries to ‘prove’ itself as an IR theory?


Week 16. December 23. IR Theory and the Non-Western World (2 hr class only)


  • E. Aydinli, H. Ozdemir, E. Kurubas, Yontem, Kuram, Komplo: Turk Uluslararasi Iliskiler Displininde Vizyon Arayislari, (Asil Yayin, 2009).

Section 4: Turk Uluslararasi Iliskiler Disiplininde Ozgun Kuram Potansiyeli:

Anadolu Ekolune Dogru, pp. 194-260.

  • Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, “Why is there no non-Western international relations theory?An introduction,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific (2007).

  • Mohammad Ayoob, “Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case of Subaltern Realism,” International Studies Review 4:3 (December 2002), pp.27-48.

  • Ole Waever, “The Sociology of Not So International a Discipline; American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization, vol. 52: 4 (1998), pp.687-727.

  • Arlene Tickner and Ole Waever, International Relations Scholarship Around the World (Routledge, 2009), Introduction, pp. 1-30.


RECOMMENDED

  • E. Aydinli, H. Ozdemir, E. Kurubas, Yontem, Kuram, Komplo: Turk Uluslararasi Iliskiler Displininde Vizyon Arayislari, (Asil Yayin, 2009).pp.

Section 3: Bir Kuram Sorunu: Turk Uluslararasi Iliskilerinde Komplocu Aciklama

Egilimi ve Kuramsallasmaya Etkisi, 137-193

  • Stephanie G. Neuman (ed), International Relations Theory and the Third World (London: Macmillan, 1998).


Assignment: Thought Paper

By now you have read most of the book Yontem, Kuram, Komplo for previous weeks’ assignments. Write a response to the book. Do not waste time on a summary—I know it already—but concentrate on considering what is missing in the book and what, therefore, might be an appropriate follow-up to it. Provide details on how this follow-up might look.


If time allows: Post Internationalism


  • James N. Rosenau, “Justifying Jailbreaks,” in Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)

  • Richard W. Mansbach, “Changing Understandings of Global Politics,” in Heidi Hobbs (ed.) Pondering Postinternationalism (SUNY Press, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000).

  • Mary Durfee, “Constituting Complexity, Order and Turbulence in World Politics,” in Pondering Postinternationalism.

  • Joseph Lepgold, “An Intellectual Agenda for Students of Postinternational World Politics, “in Pondering Postinternationalism.

  • Yale H. Ferguson, “Postinternationalism and the Future of IR Theory,” in Pondering Postinternationalism.

  • James N. Rosenau, “Beyond Postinternationalism,” in Pondering Postinternationalism.


RECOMMENDED

Dario Moreno, “Sovereignty in a Bifurcated World,” in Pondering Postinternationalism.



Похожие:

Current Debates in ir theory iconSociological debates effective Term: Autumn and Spring

Current Debates in ir theory iconProbability Theory: Theory and Examples, 3rd edition, Richard Durrett 国内有第2版影印本

Current Debates in ir theory iconWords, kinds and causal powers: a theory theory perspective on early naming and categorization

Current Debates in ir theory iconRepublican Presidential Debates, 2008 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Printed November 2007), (Each link is provided for replay)

Current Debates in ir theory iconCurrent work in the history of medicine

Current Debates in ir theory icon2 Analysis of Current State of Field 5

Current Debates in ir theory iconCurrent Membership in Professional Organizations

Current Debates in ir theory iconCurrent work in the history of medicine

Current Debates in ir theory iconCurrent work in the history of medicine

Current Debates in ir theory iconCurrent Concepts in Ophthalmology 2010

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница