Nexon, Daniel H. "The Balance of Power in the Balance." World Politics 61, no. 2 (2009): 330-59. http://www.jstor.org.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/stable/40263485.

• This work summarizes different approaches and disagreements relating to concepts on balancing power.
• p.335-347
• Understand the different conceptualizations (e.g., soft balancing, asymmetric balancing) and disagreements

Monteiro, Nuno P. 2012. "Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity Is Not Peaceful." International Security 36 (3):9-40. Available online (click download options): http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00064

• Read the intro part about what a stag hunt is, we will go over this in class
• Skip to page 199 – understand the argument on offense-defense balance, but don’t worry about the examples – you just need to understand the logic sufficiently to get his argument on nuclear weapons 
• “Offense-Defense Differentiation and Strategic Nuclear Weapons” beginning on p. 206 –This part is the main argument I want you to understand from this piece!

• This article is short – what are the possible outcomes and why should Iran get the bomb?

• This article makes the argument on the use of nuclear weapons I presented in class
• Parts to focus on:
• Introduction
• Characteristics of The Nuclear Taboo
• Explanation of The Nuclear Taboo
• Analysis of the Taboo (p. 33)
• Challenges to the argument (terrorism part optional)
• Conclusion

• The article begins on p. 61
• Although this article may seem like a non-sequitur, my aim is for you to understand that there are different ways of conceptualizing ‘security’ and to contrast ‘human security’ with ‘national security’
• What is ‘human’ security (p.66)?
• How is it different or the same as national security?
• What are the implications for states such as the US? o (Thus, focus on parts II, III and IV)

Journal Prompts

• How are ‘nuclear’ weapons different from ‘conventional’ weapons? 
• Do you think the world would be a safer place without any nuclear weapons, or would there be more war? Why or why not? 
• Should Canada develop (or procure) nuclear weapons?
• Should Canada join the American ‘missile shield’ that uses ABMs?
• Is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (i.e. the Agreement with Iran to halt its development of nuclear weapons) a success or a failure? Why or why not?
• Is North Korea’s nuclear program a threat to Canada? What about the US? Why or why not?

Week 7: The European Union

Parsons, Craig. "Showing ideas as causes: the origins of the European Union." International Organization 56.1 (2002): 47-84. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/14310

Moravcsik, Andrew. "Preferences and power in the European Community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach." JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 31.4 (1993): 473-524. https://search-ebscohost-com.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=poh&AN=9406230041&site=ehost-live&scope=site  or:

https://concordiauniversity.on.worldcat.org/oclc/210784946

Rosato, Sebastian. "Europe's troubles: Power politics and the state of the European project." International Security 35.4 (2011): 45-86. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/423538 or https://www-jstor-org.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/stable/41289680

• These sets of readings present three different accounts of why the EU was created – each using a different type of explanation. Don’t focus on the nitty gritty – can you identify which author is making a constructivist / liberal / realist argument? What is the main argument of each – you can again get this by looking at the introduction and conclusion.
• For Parsons, where does the idea of the EU come from?
• For Moravscik, don’t worry too much about neo-functionalism, instead focus on liberal intergovernmentalism and the rationality assumption. The conclusion does a good job summarizing his argument.
• For Rosato, what do the EU’s institutions reflect?
• Note: See the optional readings to read the authors arguing with one another.

Optional:

Moravcsik, Andrew. "Did power politics cause European integration? Realist theory meets qualitative methods." Security Studies 22.4 (2013): 773-790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2013.844511 or https://www-tandfonline-com.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/doi/abs/10.1080/09636412.2013.844511

Parsons, Craig. "Power, patterns, and process in European union history." Security Studies 22.4 (2013): 791-801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2013.844512 or https://www-tandfonline-com.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/doi/abs/10.1080/09636412.2013.844512

Rosato, Sebastian. "Theory and evidence in Europe United: A response to my critics." Security Studies 22.4 (2013): 802-820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2013.844513 or https://doi-org.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/10.1080/09636412.2013.844513

Journal Prompts

• These readings present three different accounts of why the EU was created – each drawing from different theories. Can you identify the theoretical perspectives each of the authors use in their explanation?
• What is the main argument of each author – you can again get this by looking at the introduction and conclusion.  
• Which arguments do you find most and least compelling?  Why?

Week 8: International Institutions

Milner, Helen V. "Globalization, Development, and International Institutions: Normative and Positive Perspectives." Perspectives on Politics 3, no. 4 (2005): 833-54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3688183.

• Written as a review of several books, this article discusses institutionalist understandings of international institutions.  
• Note: Counterfactual: What would have happened if these institutions had not existed ♣ Read intro, but don’t worry about the discussion of counterfactuals ♣ Skip or skim “A Brief Review of the Books”
• Understand sections “The Role of the International Economic Institutions” & “The Experience of the Developing Countries”
• The Section “Theories about the Functions and Benefits of International Institutions” is the main reason I included this reading, understand the four functions she identifies.
• The Section “Four Sources of the Problems with International Institution” is also important, understand the four problems (Focus on the concepts! Not the examples of IMF or Worldbank).
• Skim or Skip “International Justice and Institutions: Normative Perspectives” this introduces the ideas we’ll be looking at the following week .
• Read the conclusion to reinforce your understanding of the two sections I have identified as important, but don’t worry about her recommendations.

Barnett, Michael N., and Martha Finnemore. "The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations." International Organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 699-732. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601307.

• Read intro – note this is a constructivist take on International institutions
• Then skip to p. 710, and the section on “The Power of IOs” (pp.710-715) ♣ Understand the “three broad types of IO power”
• Note: We’re using IOs (international organizations) and international institutions synonymously at this point
• Then skip to Conclusion on p.726.
• The goal of this article is to understand a constructivist conceptualizations of how international institutions exert influence.

Mearsheimer, John J. "The False Promise of International Institutions." International Security 19, no. 3 (1994): 5-49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539078

• Introduction is important lays out the article – this is a realist critique of institutionalism
• Skim “What Are Institutions?” for context
• Skim “Realism” as it should largely be review, but focus on the section “INSTITUTIONS IN A REALIST WORLD”
• Then Focus on “LIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM,” which should largely be a review, but understand his critiques in “FLAWS IN THE CAUSAL LOGIC” on pp. 19-21
• Then skip to Conclusion
• The Main goal of this article: How does Mearsheimer argue that institutions have little independent effect from states, and what are his critiques of institutionalist approaches?

Optional:

Koremenos, Barbara, et al. “The Rational Design of International Institutions.” International Organization, vol. 55, no. 4, 2001, pp. 761–799. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3078615

Journal Prompts

• Each of the articles presents a very different view of what international institutions ‘do’.  Which do you find compelling?  Is the realist argument presented by Mearsheimer compelling, and institutions don’t usually matter much?  Is there a more nuanced argument, that institutions help foster cooperation in some situations, but not in others (Milner)?  Do you think that the constructivist argument, for example by defining and classifying terms, is really a distinct form of power or influence?
• Using a current event that is related to an international institution (e.g., North Korean nuclear crisis, Iran and nuclear weapons development, climate change, human rights in Burma) provide contrasting explanations (or hypotheses) of state behavior using each of the theoretical lenses discussed.  In other words, what are the empirical implications of these theories within the context of a current event?

Week 9: Normative Theories

V. Spike Peterson. Feminist Theories Within, Invisible To, and Beyond IR. Brown Journal of World Affairs X, 2 (Winter/Spring 2004): 35-46. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/brownjwa10&g_sent=1&collection=journals&id=323

Alternate: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~spikep/Publications/VSP%20Fem%20in&bey%20IR%20BrownJ%20P&P2004.pdf

Alternate: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590519 

• As this article is not very dense and is written clearly, I will provide only a few guide points – take the time to read this one thoroughly.
• What is feminist theory?
• What are the three overlapping feminist knowledge projects the author identifies?

• How do they differ?

• What contributions does feminist theories make compared to constructivism, realism, and liberalism?
• How is gender different than sex?
• What three claims does she make?

Tickner, J. Ann. "You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists." International Studies Quarterly 41, no. 4 (1997): 611-32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600855.

• Read the Introduction and Abstract
• Skim 614-617, can you get the gist of the misunderstandings?
• Skim 617 – 623 ‘Epistemological Divides: Where Is Your Research Program?’
• There are a lot of references to theories and literature we haven’t read, interspersed with clarifying paragraphs on feminist theories. The clarifying paragraphs largely echo the description of feminist theories described in the first article, so don’t get hung up on this part, or references to theories we haven’t explored.
• The section ‘Feminist Perspectives on Security’ from 623 onwards is what I want you to focus on in this article. 

• What are some ways feminist theories conceptualize security, and how is it different than other theories?
• What do feminists focus on?
• Understand the examples she provides.

Chandhoke, N. (2013), The Great Global Poverty Debate: Is Something Missing?. Global Policy, 4: 420–424. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12091?sid=worldcat.org

Alternate:  https://doi-org.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/10.1111/1758-5899.12091

• Focus on the conclusion and the argument on p. 422, beginning with the paragraph: “The right not to be poor should logically form part ofa wider struggle for the realization . . . ”
• What is the argument put forth with regards to the right to not be poor?
• What is poverty?

Optional:

Le Melle, T. J. 2009. Race in international relations. International Studies Perspectives 10(1): 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00359.x

Keohane, R. O. 1989. International relations theory: contributions of a feminist standpoint. Millennium 18(2): 245-253. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03058298890180021001

Weber, C. 1994. Good girls, little girls and bad girls: male paranoia in Robert Keohane's critique of feminist international relations. Millennium 23(2): 337-349. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03058298940230021401

Fukuyama, Francis. "Women and the Evolution of World Politics." Foreign Affairs 77, no. 5 (1998): 24-40. doi:10.2307/20049048. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20049048

Tickner, J. Ann. "Why Women Can't Run the World: International Politics According to Francis Fukuyama." International Studies Review 1, no. 3 (1999): 3-11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186329.

Journal Prompts

• What types of research questions related to IR might feminist or normative theorists ask?  How are these different?  
• While recognizing that feminist and queer theories are used not only in the context of gender and sexuality, but also in other issues to examine power and oppression, do you find such arguments compelling?  Why or why not?  
• Given that practitioners (and professors) in international relations still tend to be predominantly white, male, straight, might analyzes using these theories trigger defensive reactions, rather than substantial discussion?  How / Should these issues be discussed, and barriers overcome?  
• If this course were taught by a woman, would it change your perception of the course and content?  If so, how?  
• How do you feel when scholars talk about gender as being a social construct (or more controversially, race)?

Week 10: Human Rights and Justice

• This piece is interesting as Shue manages to avoid heavy philosophical language and references to discuss ideas of justice and link them to the problem of mitigating climate change.
• Why do ‘rich’ states need to cooperate with ‘poor’ states?
• How does he define ‘equity’ or fairness?
• What are the three principles of equity?
• What counterarguments do he make, and how does he refute them?

• The main goal for this reading is to understand their findings and review what different theories would lead us to expect.
• The abstract does a good job summarizing the findings
• The Section on Theoretical Expectations (pp. 926 -936) is great because it summarizes most of the Theories we have discussed (and more) and what we should expect.  Pay close attention to Table 1 on page 932.
• Skim through Review of existing studies
• Skim or skip through the Research Design
• Skip the Results and Sensitivity Analysis and go down to the Discussion and Conclusion (p.950)
• What do they find (should mirror the abstract) ?

Mutua, Makau. "Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights." Harv. Int'l LJ 42 (2001): 201. Moodle and https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/570/

• According to Mutua, what is the Savages-Victims-Saviors metaphor?
• Why is it problematic? • Focus on Part I and VI that summarize the argument
• Read through III, IV and V, to make sure you understand why Mutua is critical of the human rights movement.

Optional:

Roth, Kenneth. "The Case for Universal Jurisdiction." Foreign Affairs80, no. 5 (2001): 150-54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20050258

Kissinger, Henry A. "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction." Foreign Affairs 80, no. 4 (2001): 86-96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20050228

Simmons, Beth A. "The future of the human rights movement." Ethics & International Affairs 28.2 (2014): 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679414000227

Pogge, Thomas. “World Poverty and Human Rights.” Ethics & International Affairs 19, no. 1 (2005): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2005.tb00484.x

Power, S. 2001. Bystanders to genocide. Atlantic Monthly 288(2): 84-108. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/304571/

Nicholas D. Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn, “Two Cheers for Sweatshops” New York Times (Sept. 24, 2000). Moodle

Sen, Amartya. "Human rights and capabilities." Journal of human development 6.2 (2005): 151-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491

Journal Prompts

• What do you think is ‘just’ or ‘fair’ when it comes to splitting costs or receiving benefits? Should those with less get more? Should those with more pay more? Do you think this should apply to states? When solving international problems, should richer and poorer states contribute equally, or should richer states pay more of the costs?

• What did you think of Matua’s argument - do you find it compelling (i.e., the SVS metaphor)? Why or why not?

• Do human rights NGOs make a difference?  If so how?  

• Do human rights treaties make a difference?  Use an example to support your answer.

Week 11: International Environmental Politics

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859): 1243-1248. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243

• This piece is considered a seminal work in environmental politics. Hardin lays out a stag hunt type situation which he refers to as the ‘tragedy of the commons.’ It is not an easy read, but it is worth going through. The main goal: What is the structure of this prisoner’s dilemma type situation as referred to by Hardin? What role does population play in it? What solutions does he propose? 
• The first part of the article up until ‘How to Legislate Temperance?’ is Hardin laying out the problem of the tragedy of the commons and also links it to pollution. 
• Note: He lays out the solutions in this section: ‘What shall we do?’ On p. 1245 (bottom left) 
• See if you can follow his argument for institutions in the section ‘Mutual Coercion Mutually agreed upon’ (p. 1247)