Globalisation
note that there are no set questions for the major essay assessment of this course. Rather, students will be required to formulate their own research question. The question must relate to one of the twelve topics covered in this course and should be ‘open’ or ‘critical’ in nature; i.e. it should provide scope for a critical analysis of the topic and associated issues under consideration, and the development of a cohesive and coherent argument (we will discuss critical questions in the first seminar of the course). The essay plan is designed in part to provide students with the opportunity to develop their skills in formulating research questions.
Students will be required to formulate their own research question and submit this question, along with an essay plan and annotated bibliography, on the 31st of March. Feedback will be provided in order to provide students with adequate time to revise their plans, if necessary, and prepare their essay.
The essay plan will be required to outline the following:
• A clear statement of the course topic to which the proposed research question relates;
• The research question itself;
• A short paragraph outlining the main focus of the essay and the rationale for posing the stated essay question;
• A brief outline of the proposed essay’s structure. This need not be too detailed and can be quite general – it should only provide a rough guide of the main issues to be considered or points to be made in the essay. I am looking for evidence that you have considered the question, and how best this might be approached in a way that allows you to construct and develop a structured and coherent argument; and
• An annotated bibliography of sources consulted (see below).
The essay plan and the annotated bibliography will be assessed against the following criteria:
• The ability to formulate a ‘critical’ research question, one that provides a sound basis for a critical analysis of the topic, and related issues, under consideration;
• The conformity of the question with one of the twelve topics covered in the course (questions unrelated to one of the course topics will not be accepted);
• The ability to establish clear research parameters (your plan should state what the main focus of the essay will be); and
• The proposed structure of the essay outlined in the plan
• The quality of the summaries and analysis of sources included as part of the annotated bibliography
Writing an annotated bibliography
The aim of this part of the exercise is to encourage you to begin thinking about the theoretical foundations of your research paper and to begin engaging with the academic literature upon which you will draw in the construction of your core arguments when you write your research paper.
For this part of the assignment, you should research and identify six academic sources that will inform your arguments in your research paper and create a bibliography of those sources. These sources should not be drawn from the ‘Required reading’ listed as in the course outline.
You should then annotate the bibliography with a few lines about why you have chosen each source, what you hope to draw from it, how it fits with the rest of the literature with which you engage and so on.
Guidance on writing an annotated bibliography can be found on the UNSW Learning Centre website athttp://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/annotated_bib.html.
Specifically, your annotated bibliography should:
• Provide the full bibliographic citation for each source discussed
• Demonstrate the quality and depth of reading that you have done
And for each text:
• Indicate the content or scope
• Outline the main argument
• Identify any conclusions made by the author/s
• Discuss the relevance or usefulness of the text for your research
• Point out in what way the text relates to themes or concepts in your course
• State the strengths and limitations of the text
• Present your view or reaction to the text
Your paper must be uploaded to TurnItIn on Moodle, and a Hard copy is to be submitted to the appropriate assignment box located on the First Floor of the Morven Brown Building by 4pm Tuesday 31th March. You must include proof of submission through TurnItIn, e.g. a screen-shot showing submission is complete or the email you receive acknowledging submission. UNSW provides support for students in using TurnItIn athttps://student.unsw.edu.au/turnitin-support. This webpage includes information on how to generate and interpret originality reports in TurnItIn. Support is also available from the central TurnItIn Help Center at http://turnitin.com/en_us/support/help-center.
(HD)
Essay Question
Question does not relate to one or more of the course topics; is unclear or poorly phrased Essay Question
Question clearly relates to one or more of the course topics; is clearly phrased, concise and ‘open’
Structure of Proposed Essay
Structure indicated is not logical and/or does not provide a clear indication of how the question will be addressed and/or is largely incoherent Structure of Proposed Essay
Structure indicated is coherent and logical and clearly provides a sound basis for properly addressing the question in a well-developed manner
Choice of material and sources:
Includes largely irrelevant and/or inappropriate literature Choice of material and sources:
Represents an excellent selection of relevant literature demonstrating significant independent research.
Engagement with material:
Patchy or misguided interpretation. Showing little or no understanding of the material. Engagement with material:
Shows a sound understanding with consistent and mature insight.
Quality of analysis:
Shows limited or no effort to relate sources to research paper. Entirely descriptive. Quality of analysis:
Relate sources to research paper exceptionally well. Avoids description and explains concisely the relevance of each source.
Style and presentation:
Significant lapses or disregard for presentational standards and formalities of academic work. Style and presentation:
Of excellent or very good standard with minor lapses at most.
These tick box sections are not weighted equally with regards to your final mark.
Reading and resources
The Reading Guide for each topic below is divided into two sections – Required Reading and Recommended Reading:
This course is based on Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). All students must purchase this text. It is a requirement that you complete at the minimum the ‘Required Reading’ i.e. the relevant chapters in the textbook plus (where indicated) the stipulated journal article each week before the seminar. In addition to the ‘Required Reading’ a number of further sources are listed under ‘Recommended Reading’.
These readings are merely indicative of the wide range of sources available. The idea behind such a reading list is to encourage you to read beyond the compulsory sources. Ideally you will be able to read extensively on the various topics, so as to set what you read in a broader perspective. The included required and recommended readings provide useful material that students can use in preparing for their assignments. However, in preparing for the seminar discussions and in writing essays you are free to use sources from outside the Reading List.
In addition to the “Required Reading” there are a number of texts that provide coverage of most of the topics analysed in the course. Useful introductory texts include:
Art, Robert J. and Robert Jervis (eds.) (2009) International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues 9th edition (New York: Pearson Longman).
Baylis, John, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.) (2008) The Globalization of World Politics 4th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake and Kenneth A. Schultz (2010) World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company).
Jackson, Robert and Georg Sørensen (2007) Introduction to International Relations 3rd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Useful introductions to International Relations theory include:
Burchill, Scott et al (2009) Theories of International Relations 4th edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (eds.) (2007) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Smith, S., K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds) (1996) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9
Walker, R.B.J. (1993) Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Students may also find the following websites and journals useful:
The library runs the ELISE tutorial on-line, which familiarizes students with academic writing, research and using information responsibly. It can be located at http://elise.library.unsw.edu.au/home/welcome.html.
You will benefit from becoming familiar with GoogleScholar (http://scholar.google.com) as a key search engine for academic publications and reports. You can set up the preferences to link to the UNSW Library even when you are not on campus.
Go to Google Scholar> settings> library links, and enter ‘University of New South Wales’ in the box for “Library”:
You can sign up for Table of Contents (TOC) Alerts from the homepages of relevant journals, to receive an email whenever new articles are published in that journal. Journal websites will often carry information on the most viewed and most cited articles; these are likely to be interesting and often influential contributions. Google Scholar will also point you to articles that have cited a particular article and hence will be related to the topic.
Websites
Journals
Amnesty International – www.amnesty.org
European Journal of International Relations
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade global issues website – www.dfat.gov.au/globalissues
Review of International Studies
Foreign Affairs
United Nations – www.un.org
International Studies Quarterly
The Brookings Institute – www.brookings.edu
International Relations
Council on Foreign Relations – www.cfr.org
International Politics
Global Policy Forum – www.globalpolicy.org
Global Governance
Human Rights Watch – www.hrw.org
Australian Journal of International Affairs
Lowy Institute for International Policy – www.lowyinstitute.org
WEEK-BY-WEEK TOPIC AND READING GUIDE
Part 1: Theory and History
Week 1 (2 March): Understanding Global Politics 1: ‘Traditional’ IR Theory
The discipline of International Relations emerged as a university subject after the end of the First World War. In this seminar we will examine different theoretical traditions in International Relations theory, and explore different approaches to understanding International Relations. We focus on realist, liberal and constructivist approaches. These contending perspectives on global politics provide different explanations of continuity and change in international relations.
Seminar Questions:
a). Why do we need theory in order to understand global politics?
b). Why are questions of ontology and epistemology important to the IR theory debate?
c). How would you characterise the state of IR theory today?
d). What are the main differences between the classical and ‘neo’ versions of realism and liberalism?
e). What are the main precepts of constructivism?
Required Reading:
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) (2012) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): Introduction and Chapter 1 (pp.1-34)
***Dunne, Tim, Hansen, Lene and Wight, Colin (2013) ‘The End of International Relations Theory’, European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 405-25
Recommended Reading:
Theories of World Politics:
Burchill, Scott (2009) “Introduction” in Theories of International Relations 4th Edition (Hampshire: Palgrave)
Holsti, K.J. (1989) “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Which Are the Fairest Theories of All?” International Studies Quarterly 33(3): 255-61
Lapid, Yosef (1989) “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era” International Studies Quarterly 33(3): 235-54
Tickner, J. Ann and Andrei P. Tsygankov (2008) “Responsible Scholarship in International Relations: A Symposium” International Studies Review 10(4): 661-66
Realism:
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) (2012) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): Chapter 2 (pp.35-47)
11
Forde, Steven (1995) “International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism” International Studies Quarterly 39(2): 141-60
Jervis, Robert (1999) “Realism in the Study of World Politics” International Organization 52(4): 971–91
Lebow, Richard Ned (1994) “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism” International Organization 48(2): 249-77
Legro, Jeffrey W. and Andrew Moravcsik (1999) “Is Anybody Still Realist?” International Security 24(2): 5-55
Neo-realism (structural realism):
Glaser, Charles (2003) “Structural Realism in a More Complex World” Review of International Studies 29(3): 403-14
Goddard, Stacie E. and Daniel H. Nexon (2005) “Paradigm Lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics” European Journal of International Relations 11(1): 9-61
Mearsheimer, John (1990) “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War” International Security 15(1): 5-56
Waltz, Kenneth N. (2000) Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House)
Waltz, Kenneth N. (2000) “Structural Realism after the Cold War” International Security 25(1): 5-41
Liberalism:
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds) (2012) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): Chapter 3 (pp.48-61)
Doyle, Michael (1986) “Liberalism and World Politics” American Political Science Review 80(4): 1151-69
Macmillan, John (2004) “Whose Democracy, Which Peace? Contextualizing the Democratic Peace” International Politics 41(4): 472-93
Moravcsik, Andrew (1997) “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics” International Organization 51(4): 513-53
Richardson, James (1997) “Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present”, European Journal of International Relations 3(1): 5-33
Neo-Liberalism:
Goldstein, Judith et al. (2000) “Introduction: Legalization and World Politics” International Organization 54(3): 385-99
12
Jervis, Robert (1999) “Realism, Neoliberalism and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate” International Security 24(1): 42-63
Keohane, Robert O. and Lisa L. Martin (1995) “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory” International Security 20(1): 39-51
Nye, Joseph S. (1988) “Neorealism and Neoliberalism” World Politics 40(2): 235-51
Constructivism:
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) (2012) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): Chapter 7 (pp.103-118)
Adler, Emmanuel (1997) “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics” European Journal of International Relations 3(3): 319-63
Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change” International Organization 52(4): 887-917
Hopf, Ted (1998) “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory” International Security 23(1): 171-200
Wendt, Alexander (1992) “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics” International Organization 46(2): 391-425
Wendt, Alexander (1995) “Constructing International Politics” International Security 20(1): 71-81
Week 2 (9 March): Understanding Global Politics 2: Critical Perspectives on Global Politics
Last week we explored traditional theories of International Relations and the challenge presented to them by the so-called ‘critical theories’ that emerged during the Third Great Debate. In this seminar, we explore these critical theories in more detail. In particular, we will explore Marxism and Critical Theory, Feminism and Post-Structuralism. All three share an inherent post-positivism in their basic epistemological assumptions, but they differ markedly in their focus, their prescriptions and their challenge to the traditional IR theories.
Seminar Questions:
a). How do critical scholars of IR understand the concepts of ‘power’ and ‘representation’ and how do these understandings differ from more traditional interpretations?
b). What are the basic challenges that critical approaches to IR pose to traditional approaches?
c). What are the basic tenets of post-structuralism?
d). Why is the study of gender important in international relations? What does it add to our understanding of IR?
13
e). Why was IR resistant to feminist theories for so long?
Required Reading:
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012): Chapters 4, 5 and 6 (pp.62-102)
***Hansen, Lene (1997) ‘A Case for Seduction? Evaluating the Poststructuralist Conceptualization of Security’, Cooperation and Conflict 32(4): pp.369-97
Recommended Reading:
Feminism:
Elshtain, Jean Bethke (2009) “Woman, the State, and War” International Relations 23(2): pp.289–303
Hooper, Charlotte (2001) Manly States: Masculities, International Relations and Gender Politics (New York: Columbia University Press)
Peterson, V. Spike, (1999) ‘Sexing Political Identities/Nationalism as Heterosexism’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 1(1): pp.34-65
Shepherd, Laura J. (2006) ‘Veiled References: Constructions of Gender in the Bush Administration Discourse on the Attacks on Afghanistan Post-9/11’ International Feminist Journal of Politics 8(1): pp.19-41
Shepherd, Laura J. (2010) “Sex or Gender? Bodies in World Politics and Why Gender Matters”, in Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations (London: Routledge): pp.3-16
Steans, Jill (2006) Gender and International Relations: Issues, Debates and Future Directions 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Polity Press)
Youngs, Gillian (2004) “Feminist International Relations: a Contradiction in Terms? Or: How Women and Gender are Essential to Understanding the World ‘We’ Live In” International Affairs 80(1): pp.75-87
Zalewski, Marysia (1995) ‘What is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia?’, International Affairs 71(2): pp.339-56
Marxist and Critical Approaches:
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) (2012) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): Chapter 4 (pp.62-75)
Cox, Robert (1981) “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory” Millennium 10(2): 126-55
14
Price, Richard and Christian Reus-Smit (1998) “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism” European Journal of International Relations 4(3): 259-94
Rupert, Mark (2003) “Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (re-)vision of the politics of governance/resistance” Review of International Studies 29 (special issue): 181-98
Rengger, Nicholas and Ben Thirkell-White (2007) “Still Critical After All These Years? The Past, Present and Future of Critical Theory in International Relations” Review of International Studies 33 (special issue): 3–24
Post-Structuralism
Der Derian, James and Shapiro, Michael (eds) (1989) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lexington: Lexington Books)
Der Derian, James (1990) ‘The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance and Speed’, International Studies Quarterly 34(3): 295-310
Epstein, Charlotte (2013) ‘Constructivism or the Eternal Return of Universals in International Relations. Why Returning to Language is Vital to Prolonging the Owl’s Flight’, European Journal of International Relations 19(3): pp.499-519
Hansen, Lene (2011) ‘The Politics of Securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis: A post-Structuralist Perspective’, Security Dialogue 42 (4-5): 357-69
Walker, R.B.J. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University)
Week 3 (16 March): The Evolution of the Global System
Key features of contemporary global politics are the result of historical forces shaping the modern world. In this seminar we will explore the historical context that has shaped key structures and processes in the contemporary global system. We will examine the historical emergence of the state and the concept of sovereignty. The aim is to provide both an introduction to the evolution of world politics and also an understanding of the relationship between empirical and theoretical development.
Seminar Questions:
a). Of what significance was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia in the emergence of the modern state?
b). What makes a state sovereign?
c). How should we understand state sovereignty? Is it a concept with a fixed meaning? Does sovereignty today mean the same thing as did 300 years ago?
Required Reading:
15
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012): Chapter 9 (pp.135-147).
***Osiander, Andreas (2001) “Sovereignty, International Relations and the Westphalian Myth” International Organization 55(2): 251-288
Recommended Reading:
The Evolution of the Inter-State System:
Armstrong, David (2008) “The Evolution of International Society” in John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics 4th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 36-52.
Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little (2000) International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Jackson, Robert (1999) “Sovereignty in World Politics: A Glance at the Conceptual and Historical Landscape” Political Studies 47(3): 431-56.
Sofer, Sasson (2009) “The Prominence of Historical Demarcations: Westphalia and the New World Order” Diplomacy & Statecraft 20(1): 1–19.
Suzuki, Shogo (2005) “Japan’s Socialisation into Janus-Faced European International Society” European Journal of International Relations 11(1): 137-16.
Watson, Adam (1992) The Evolution of International Society (London: Routledge): 135-277.
Sovereignty and the State:
Biersteker, Thomas J. and Cynthia Weber (eds.) (1996) State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Krasner, Stephen D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Lake, David (2003) “The New Sovereignty in International Relations” International Studies Review 5(3): 303-324.
Stirk, P. (2012) ‘The Westphalian Model and Sovereign Equality’, Review of International Studies 38(3): 641-60.
Thomson, Janice (1995) “State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Empirical Research” International Studies Quarterly 39(2): 213- 233.
Zacher, Mark (2001) “The Territorial Integrity Norm” International Organization 55(2): 215-250.
16
Week 4 (23 March): Decolonisation and the Emergence of the Global South
Decolonisation is a historical event that had a major, albeit somewhat under-recognised, role in shaping contemporary international society. The existence today of an international society that spans the globe is in large part the product of European colonialism and subsequent processes of decolonisation in which the colonies gained their independence and became sovereign states. The granting of independence to the colonies subsequently led to the emergence of the ‘Third World’ or the ‘Global South’. Many of the effects of colonialism and decolonisation are therefore still felt today in the context of issues relating to international development, economic inequalities between states and the phenomena of so-called failed states. In exploring this topic, we will also consider both the English School concept of an ‘international society’ and post-colonial approaches to global politics and their claim that the discipline of IR, like international society itself, retains an inherent Eurocentrism.
Seminar Questions:
a). What is an international society? Does it actually exist?
b). Was the ‘Standard of Civilisation’ a legitimate method of creating an international society comprised of states with uniform domestic political systems and shared values?
c). How significant was decolonisation in the evolution of international society?
d). What is the legacy of European colonialism? Is it still significant for international society today?
e). Is the discipline of International Relations still ‘Eurocentric’ today? Why/why not?
Required Reading:
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012): Chapter 17 (pp.243-255).
***Seth, Sanjay (2011) “Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations”, Millennium, 40(1): 167-83.
Recommended Readings:
Anghie, Antony (2006) “The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities” Third World Quarterly 27(5): 739-53
Bain, William (2003) Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press) – ebook available from the UNSW library website.
Bowden, Brett (2005) “The Colonial Origins of International Law: European Expansion and the Classical Standard of Civilization”, Journal of the History of International Law 7(1): 1-23
Brooks, Rosa Ehrenreich (2005) “Failed States, or the State as Failure?” The University of Chicago Law Review 72(4): 1159-96
17
Bull, Hedley (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press)
Bull, Hedley and Adam Watson (eds) (1984) The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Gong, Gerrit W. (1984) The ‘Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
Jackson, Robert (1990) Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Keal, Paul (2003) European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: The Moral Backwardness of International Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Keene, Edward (2002) Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Paris, Roland (2003) “Peacekeeping and the Constraints of Global Culture” European Journal of International Relations 9(3): 441-73
Philpott, Daniel (2001) Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped the Modern World (Princeton: Princeton University Press): chapter 8
Philpott, Daniel (2001) “Liberalism, Power, and Authority in International Relations: On the Origins of Colonial Independence and Internationally Sanctioned Intervention” Security Studies 11(2): 117-63
Week 5 (30 March): The Cold War
In this seminar we explore the development of international relations since 1945. We will examine the principal developments in world politics through the lens of the Cold War. The Cold War dominated international politics between 1945 and 1990 and its end has also ushered in major structural change. Indeed, several scholars have suggested that the end of the Cold War has ushered in the ‘End of History or a ‘New World Order’. These claims will be assessed in the seminar.
Seminar Questions:
a). Was the Cold War inevitable?
b). Does the Cold War confirm or refute the view that conflict is inevitable in the international system?
c). Is it persuasive to claim that the Cold War was a ‘long peace’?
d). Are the claims of an ‘End of History’ or the emergence of a ‘New World Order’ persuasive today, 25 years after the end of the Cold War?
Required Reading:
Devetak, Richard, Anthony Burke and Jim George (eds.) An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012):
18
Chapter 20 (pp.281-293).
***Fukuyama, Francis (1992) The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Penguin) pp.xi-xxiii (available via Moodle and the Library Website)
Recommended Reading:
The Cold War:
Clark, Ian (2001) The Post-Cold War Order: The Spoils of Peace (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Cox, Michael (2008) “From the Cold War to the War on Terror” in John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics 4th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 70-87
Kegley, Charles W. (1993) “The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies? Realist Myths and the New International Realities” International Studies Quarterly 37(2): 131-46
Keylor, William (2006) The Twentieth Century World and Beyond 5th edition (New York: Oxford University Press): 233-61
Woods, Ngaire (ed.) (1996) Explaining International Relations since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 81-196
The End of the Cold War:
Freedman, Lawrence (1991/92) ‘Order and Disorder in the New World’ Foreign Affairs, 71(1): 21-37
Fukuyama, Francis (1992) The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Penguin)
Roberts, Adam (1991) “A New Age in International Relations?” International Affairs 67(3): 509-25
Sorensen, Georg (1998) “IR theory after the Cold War” Review of International Studies 24(5): 83-100
No Seminar in Week 6
Part 2: Key Issues in Contemporary Global Politics
Week 7 (20 April): Globalisation
Perhaps no term is more widely used in discussions of contemporary international relations than the term, ‘globalisation’. It is thus vital that attention is given to the debates concerning the meaning and impact of globalisation. In this seminar we will critically evaluate debates on globalisation, including those regarding its significance and impacts. We will attempt to assess the competing arguments
19
through attention to the impact of globalisation on the actors in the global system, and the structures of the system.
Seminar Questions:
a). Is globalisation a ‘real’ phenomenon? Or is it merely a form of internationalisation or greater economic interdependence between a select group of states?
b). Do you think the hyperglobalists, sceptics
