1

National Research University – Higher School of Economics

Faculty of Social Sciences

School of Political Science

World Politics and International Relations1

2018-2019 (3rd

and 4th modules)

Lectures: Mikhail Mironyuk (mmironyuk@hse.ru)

Seminars: Mikhail Mironyuk and Grigory Lukyanov (glukyanov@hse.ru)

1. Course Description

This course is an introduction to the study of world politics and international

relations2. It combines a focus on major theoretical and methodological approaches

with foreign policy formation and pressing issues of world politics.

The course is organized around four main goals. The first is to introduce

students to the study of international relations (IR) as a sub-discipline of political

science. The second goal is to introduce students to major concepts, ideas, and issues

in IR that shape its field. We will explore the essential problems and puzzles in the

study of world politics and international relations: Why do states go to war? Under

what conditions do they choose to settle disputes without fighting? What is the role of

international institutions in world politics? How can institutions and norms shape

behavior of a state? Under what conditions do politicians take into account the

preferences of groups or the general public when foreign policy decisions are made?

Why do leaders decide to start trade wars? The third goal is to invite students to

critically reflect on the relationship between theory and history in the study of world

politics. The fourth goal is to stimulate students to critically read and understand

academic texts and political statements.

This course is not about Russia, the United States, China, the EU. This course

is not about retelling the news and criticizing particular leaders or countries. Students

will learn theories, concepts, models, and ideas that can be used to analyze the

choices available to leaders and to understand the rationale behind their choices. We

will discuss foreign policies of particular countries, or what is shown in the news in

order to assess how theories and concepts explain the choices seemingly available to

leaders. We will not be making judgements on moral or partisan grounds. Our

approach is mostly evidence-based.

This is an obligatory course for 3rd

year students of the undergraduate

programme “Political Science” of the Faculty of Social Sciences (HSE, Moscow).

The course is divided into 24 lectures (48 hours) and 11 seminars (22 hours).

1 I express gratitude to the teaching assistants for this course (2017-2018, 2018-2019) Kirill A.

Toloknev and Artem M. Maltsev for many good ideas expressed regarding composition of the

course and the readings. The simulation has been totally their idea and responsibility for

conducting. 2

2

As for the prerequisites, students starting this course are expected to have a

good knowledge of Political History of Russia and Foreign Countries, Economics,

History of Political Ideas, and Political Theory.

The working language of the course is English. The reading list may also

incorporate articles and books in Russian. Students are also provided with web-links

to video materials (mostly, on YouTube).

2. Learning Objectives

Students are expected to: (1) master theoretical approaches to the analysis of

international and transnational interactions and foreign policy analysis tools; (2) gain

knowledge of the characteristics of major actors in world politics; (3) understand how

the contemporary international system was formed; (4) familiarize with the pressing

issues of world politics.

3. Learning Outcomes

Upon completion of the course students are expected to: (1) have knowledge of

major concepts, ideas, and theories of IR, (2) be able to apply tools of IR research and

foreign policy analysis to analyze problem situations in the sphere of international

relations and world politics, (3) analyze critically the political statements and the

news on world politics issues, (4) be able to identify complex relationship between

national, international, and transnational politics.

4. Course Plan

The syllabus is subject to changes due to important publications becoming

available and events taking place. These changes are to be announced at least two

week in advance. The syllabus can also be subject to changes due to assessment of

progress and requests of students to focus on subjects of particular interest to them.

The readings for this course in .pdf or .doc formats are available online to

download or by means of e-mail. They are intended for private use only and are not

supposed to be distributed out of the class.

# Theme Total

hours

Contact hours Independent

work Lecture Seminar

1. Introduction to Class and IR as a

Sub-Discipline of Political Science 2 2 0 0

2. How We Can Study IR and World

Politics: A Very Brief Introduction.

Levels of Analysis in IR

2 2 0 0

3. How Was Our World Shaped? A Bit

of History: The Making and

Expansion of the Territorial State,

European Imperialism, the World

Wars, the Cold War and its

Consequences. Discussions on the

Liberal World Order

22 4 4 14

4. A Brief Introduction to Anarchy and 26 6 6 14

3

Cooperation in World Politics:

Paradigmatic Approaches to

Understand Them

5. Actors, Preferences and Interests,

Institutions, and Interactions 12 4 0 8

6. Why Are There Wars Between

States? 20 8 2 10

7. Means of Getting What You Want in

World Politics. Political Uses of

Force Today

8 0 2 6

8. Domestic Politics and Wars 18 6 4 8

9. Status Considerations in World

Politics 6 2 0 4

10. International Law and Norms.

Human Rights in World Politics.

Logic of Appropriateness and Logic

of Consequentialism

12 4 2 6

11. International Trade: Winners and

Losers, the International Political

Economy of Trade, Trends and

Patterns in International Trade

10 4 0 6

12. International Financial and Monetary

Relations 12 4 2 6

13. What to Expect from Tomorrow: The

Future of IR and World Politics 2

Total 152 48 22 82

1&2. Introduction to Class and IR as a Sub-Discipline of Political Science. How

We Can Study IR and World Politics: A Very Brief Introduction. Levels of

Analysis in IR

Barry Buzan and Richard Little. 2000. International Systems in World History:

Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford; N.Y.: Oxford University

Press. Pp.68-89.

Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Stephan Haggard, David A. Lake, and David G. Victor.

The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations // International Organization

71, Supplement 2017, pp. S1–S31.

Fearon, J.D., “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science”, World

Politics, Vol. 43, No. 2, (January 1991), pp. 169–95

Tetlock, P. E. & Belkin, A. (eds.), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World

Politics, Princeton University Press, (Princeton), 1996;

Lebow, R.N., “What’s so Different about a Counterfactual?”, World Politics, Vol. 52,

No. 4, (July 2000), pp. 550–85.

James Lee Ray, “Integrating Levels of Analysis in World Politics”, Journal of

Theoretical Politics, 13:4 (2001): 355-388.

4

David J. Singer, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations”, World

Politics, 14:1 (1961): 77-92.

Dina A. Zinnes, “Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher: Presidential Address”,

International Studies Quarterly, 24:3 (1980): 315-342.

Ikenberry G. J. The illusion of geopolitics: The enduring power of the liberal order //

Foreign Affairs – 2014. – Т. 93. – С. 80.

Mead W. R. The return of geopolitics: The revenge of the revisionist powers

//Foreign Affairs – 2014. – Т. 93. – С. 69.

Niblett R. Liberalism in Retreat: the Demise of a Dream //Foreign Affairs – 2017. –

Т. 96. – С. 17.

Nye Jr J. S. Will the liberal order survive: The history of an idea //Foreign Affairs –

2017. – Т. 96. – С. 10.

Mazarr M. J. The once and future order: what comes after hegemony //Foreign

Affairs – 2017. – Т. 96. – С. 25.

Patrick S. M. Trump and World Order: The Return of Self-Help //Foreign Affairs –

2017. – Т. 96. – С. 52.

Optional reading

Charli Carpenter, “Rethinking the Political / -Science- / Fiction Nexus: Global Policy

Making and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots”, Perspectives on Politics, 14:1

(2016): 53-69.

2. How Was Our World Shaped? A Bit of History: The Making and Expansion

of the Territorial State, European Imperialism, the World Wars, the Cold War

and its Consequences. Discussions on the Liberal World Order

Hendrik Spruyt, “The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the Modern

State”, Annual Review Of Political Science, 5 (2002): P.127-149.

Churchill, Winston. The Sinews of Peace: Speech at Westminster College, Fulton,

Missouri, March 1946. – https://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-

of-winston-churchill/120-the-sinews-of-peace.

G. John Ikenberry, “The Illusion of Geopolitics: The Enduring Power of the Liberal

Order”, Foreign Affairs, 93:3 (2014), 80-90.

Walter Russell Mead, “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist

Powers”, Foreign Affairs, 93:3 (2014), 69-79.

Советский Союз – оплот мира и демократии: Материалы по одиннадцатой теме

/ В помощь слушателям политшкол. – М.: Издательство ЦК ВЛКСМ «Молодая

гвардия», 1949.

5

Телеграмма поверенного в делах США в СССР Дж.Кеннана государственному

секретарю США. Москва. 22 февраля 1946 г. («Длинная телеграмма Кеннана»)

// Документы 1945-2003: Том 4 // Системная история международных

отношений: В четырех томах / Под ред. А.Д. Богатурова. – М.: НОФМО, 2004. –

http://www.obraforum.ru/pdf/fourth.pdf.

Тилли Ч. Принуждение, капитал и европейские государства. 990– 1992 гг. - М.:

Издательский дом «Территория будущего», 2009.

Optional reading

Голдстоун Дж. Почему Европа? Возвышение Запада в мировой истории, 1500-

1800. М.: Изд-во Института Гайдара, 2015.

4. A Brief Introduction to Anarchy and Cooperation in World Politics:

Paradigmatic Approaches to Understand Them

Ian Hurd, “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics,” International

Organization ol. 53 (1999): 379‐ 408.

Robert Jervis, “Realism in the Study of World Politics,” International Organization,

Vol. 52 (1998): 971‐ 992.

David A. Lake, “Escape from the state of nature: Authority and hierarchy in world

politics”, International Security 32:1 (2007): 47-79.

Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik, “Is Anybody Still a Realist?”, International

Security, Vol. 24 (1999): 5‐ 55 and the correspondence, “Brother Can You Spare a Paradigm? (Or was Anybody Ever a Realist,” International Security, ol. 25 (2000):

165‐ 193.

John Mearsheimer, “Structural Realism,” in Dunne, Kurki, and Smith, editors,

International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2006), 71‐ 88.

Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of

International Relations,” International Organization, Vol. 51 (1997): 513‐ 553.

Kenneth Waltz, “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics,” in Robert J. Art and

Robert Jervis, International Politics, 9th edition. New York: Pearson Longman. Pp.

29-49.

Alexander Wendt. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of

power politics." International Organization 46:02 (1992): 391-425.

Walt S. M. Alliances: balancing and bandwagoning //International politics: enduring

concepts and contemporary issues. – 2000. – С. 96-103.

Mearsheimer J. Anarchy and the Struggle for Power //The Realism Reader. – 2014. –

Т. 179.

6

Oye K. A. The conditions for cooperation in world politics //Art and Jervis. – 1992.

Keohane R. O. International institutions: Can interdependence work? //Foreign

policy. – 1998. – С. 82-194.

Web-links

Keynote by Professor John J. Mearsheimer - IntRpol, University of Southern

Denmark / Intrpol Sdu. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNbePdkeXAA.

An Interview with Kenneth Waltz An Interview with Kenneth Waltz /

Annualreviews. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T-Bh254RJI.

Betts, Richard. Realism / Columbiauniversity. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCE7EB1Nvq4.

Conversations with History: Kenneth Waltz / UCtelevision. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9eV5gPlPZg&list=PL6C18659277F2DAA3.

Conversations With History: John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt / UCtelevision. –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ddFhjIyYKc&list=PL6C18659277F2DAA3.

Conversations with History: John Mearsheimer / UCtelevision. –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKFamUu6dGw&list=PL6C18659277F2DAA3.

Conversations with History: Stephen M. Walt / UCtelevision. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfeaI61RSY&list=PL6C18659277F2DAA3.

Ty, Rey. Conservative Political Realism in International Relations. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ROHR1ly5Iw.

Realism & Neo-Realism: How Conservatives View the World / Rey Ty. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw9J3bzzW0A&playnext=1&list=PL6C1865927

7F2DAA3&feature=results_main.

Conversations with History: Robert O. Keohane / UCtelevision. –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5foxGFXNl-s.

Conversations with History: Stephen D. Krasner / UCtelevision. –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf9VkLX0mA.

Conversations with History: Joseph S. Nye / UCtelevision. –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeaFWKUzxbI.

Ty, Rey. Liberalism in International Relations. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RfRCo-QwIs.

Optional reading

Helen Milner, “The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A

Critique,” Review of International Studies, 17: 1 (1991), pp. 67-85.

7

Andrew Moravcsik, “The New Liberalism,” in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan

Snidal, eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (pp. 234-254).

Simulation (Game) – 4 hours

Drezner, Daniel W. (2011). Theories of International Politics and Zombies.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Schelling T. C. The diplomacy of violence //Theories of Peace and Security. –

Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1970. – С. 64-84.

Art R. J. The four functions of force //The Use of Force. – 1993. – Т. 4. – С. 3-11.

Web-links

Zombies, G20 and International Relations / Centre for International Governance

Innovation. – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iALDdTICSAU

Simulation (Game) Description We suggest playing an interactive game that will allow students to examine which one of the

major theories of International relations would explain their own behavior if they had to make high-

level decisions in times of global crisis.

Antioch was a small and unremarkable state on the Eastern cost of the Mediterranean Sea,

until the civil war broke out a few years ago. Now other countries fight for the influence on Antioch

and political power on international arena. However, the situation became more complicated when

the usage of an unknown type of chemical weapon by one of the sides of the conflict lead to the

appearance of zombies in Antioch.

Therefore, now the participants face two challenges:

First, they have to end the civil war in Antioch on the most favorable conditions for

themselves.

Secondly, they have to stay alive and not be eaten by zombie.

Rules

The participants will get personal tasks that describe the goals of their faction. The final

evaluation depends on how successful the faction was in achieving their goals. Some players will

also have their personal goals, that should not be shared with other players. All factions have the

following resources:

Money - the standard monetary unit in the game is $1 billion. Each country has a starting

budget, and a certain income on each turn. The amount of income varies depending on the course of

the game, and on the country’s influence. At the beginning of each turn, countries have to divide

their budget on military and civilian goals. The factions have limitations on the allocation of their

budget.

Military budget - forms a country’s military power. Funds transferred to the military

budget cannot be used for other purposes. Factions determine the size of their military budget at the

beginning of each turn: the military budget can be changed only by a special card or by other

faction. The unutilized part of the military budget goes to the next turn.

Civilian budget – can be spent on zombie research, economic purposes and bribes. The

civilian budget is determined by the faction at the beginning of each turn and cannot be changed.

Factions can exchange part of their civilian budget to receive part of the military budget of another

8

faction, if they are able to reach an agreement. The faction can also transfer part of its civilian

budget to another faction.

Influence - is a parameter that determines the political power of the state. Different levels of

influence determine the number of votes for each faction. States can acquire and lose influence,

successfully fighting and accumulating resources. All factions representing state actors have the

right to propose resolutions. Non-state actors do not participate in voting, but they can ask states to

make proposals for them.

Action cards - special cards regulating the additional capabilities of factions. They are

unique for each faction and can have a one-time or multi-use action.

Course of the game

The first phase (allocation of available resources):

Factions distribute their budgets on military and civilian purposes (their decision is recorded

by game coordinators).

The second phase (negotiations):

Factions negotiate with each other and propose resolutions aimed at resolving the crisis in

Antioch. Points of resolutions that received more than half of the votes are considered accepted:

however, the violation or execution of resolutions remains up to factions. Meanwhile, the players

communicate freely with each other, conduct negotiations (including secret ones), bribe each other,

initiate military conflicts, create military bases on the territory of other countries.

During the second phase the participants have to submit their concrete decisions on budget

e.g. which part of their civil budget is allocated on zombie treatment, bribes, etc., and which part of

their military budget is allocated on zombie fighting, or wars with other factions.

Military bases - deployed only with the consent of the host country. In order to deploy a

military base, it is necessary to ask the game coordinator to record it during the second phase.

Declaration of war - war can be declared only if a faction has a common border with

another faction, or if there is a military base deployed on the bordering territory. During the second

phase, the attackers provide the coordinators with the following information: the object of attack

and the amount of resources allocated for the attack. In one turn, one faction can attack no more

than 2 factions.

Military assistance, budget transfers - the transfer of a part of a budget from one faction to

another is confirmed only if it is recorded by a game coordinator (the presence of representatives of

both parties is required).

In contrast, bribery requires the presence of one party, who provides the information on the

sum of a bribe and the person to be bribed.

The third phase

Calculation of the results. Change in the levels of influence.

The coordinators announce which faction has attacked which faction. After that, the

defending faction has 30 seconds to declare its bet. If two factions attacked each other at the same

time, this stage is skipped: the faction with higher influence is considered an attacker; the bet of the

defending faction is considered to be its original attacking bet. During the same period, factions that

do not directly participate in conflict, can send aid (part of their military budget) to one of the two

fighting factions. After all bets are made, the results of the conflict are announced. The winner is the

faction with the highest bet. The losing faction loses the difference between the attack bet and the

defender's bet from their budget. The losing faction moves downwards on the scale of influence if

its budget after deducting the defeat fine becomes less than the budget of the fraction located below

it on the scale of influence. Three losses per game mean the transfer of the faction to the class of

"non-state actors" (a nuclear strike on the territory of the faction also transfers it to the category of

"non-state actors"). The defeated faction can no longer participate in voting.

5. Actors, Preferences and Interests, Institutions, and Interactions

9

Robert Axelrod, “An Evolutionary Approach to Norms”, American Political Science

Review, 80:04 (1986): 1095-1111.

Peter Gourevitch, “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of

Domestic Politics,” International Organization, ol. 32 (1978): 881‐ 912.

Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two‐ Level

Games," International Organization, Vol. 42 (1988): 427‐ 460.

Ratner S. R. International Law: The Trials of Global Norms // Foreign Policy. –

1998. – С. 65-80.

Oye K. A. The conditions for cooperation in world politics // Art and Jervis. – 1992.

Keohane R. O. International institutions: Can interdependence work? //Foreign

policy. – 1998. – С. 82-194.

Web-links

Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics / UChicago. -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPe5f5dcrGE .

6. Anarchy’s Challenges and Mitigation of Anarchy: Security Dilemma,

Alliances, and International Institutions

Robert Jervis, “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma”, World Politics, 30:2

(1978): 167-214.

Tanisha M. Fazal, “Why States No Longer Declare War”, Security Studies, 21:4

(2012): 557-593.

Glenn Snyder, “The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics”, World Politics, 36: 4

(1984): 461-495.

Charles A. Kupchan and Clifford A. Kupchan, “The Promise of Collective Security”,

International Security, 20:1 (1995): 52-61.

6. Why are there wars between states?

The Oxford Handbook of War / Ed. by Yves Boyer and Julian Lindley-French. –

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199562930.001.0001

/oxfordhb-9780199562930?rskey=ICxSSP&result=88.

Jack S. Levy, William R. Thompson. 2010. Causes of War. Chichester, UK: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Jonathan Monten and Andrew Bennett, “Models of Crisis Decision Making and the

1990-91 Gulf War”, Security Studies, 19:3 (2010): 486-520.

10

Tudor A. Onea, “Between Dominance and Decline: Status Anxiety and Great Power

Rivalry”, Review of International Studies, 40:1 (2014): 125-152.

John A. Vasquez and Brandon Valeriano, "Classification of Interstate Wars", Journal

of Politics 72, 2 (April 2010): 292-309.

Brandon aleriano and John A. asquez, “Identifying and Classifying Complex

Interstate Wars”, International Studies Quarterly, 54 (2010): 561-582.

Schelling T. C. The diplomacy of violence //Theories of Peace and Security. –

Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1970. – С. 64-84.

Art R. J. The four functions of force //The Use of Force. – 1993. – Т. 4. – С. 3-11.

Keohane R. O., Nye J. S. Complex interdependence and the role of force. – 2000.

7. Seminar. Means of Getting What You Want in World Politics. Political Uses

of Force Today

Robert J. Art, “To What Ends Military Power?”, International Security, 4:4 (1980): 3-

35.

Alastair Johnston, “Thinking About Strategic Culture,” International Security, ol.

19 (1995): 32‐ 64.

Nina Tannenwald, “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis

of Nuclear Non-Use”, International Organization, 53:3 (1999): 433-468.

Charles L. Glaser, “Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and

Refining the Spiral and Deterrence Models”, World Politics, 44:4 (1992), 497-538.

Charles L. Glaser, “The Security Dilemma Revisited”, World Politics, 50:1 (1997):

171-201.

Evan Braden Montgomery, “Breaking Out of the Security Dilemma: Realism,

Reassurance, and the Problem of Uncertainty”, International Security, 31:2 (2006), 7-

41.

James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,”

American Political Science Review, 97:1 (2003): 75-90.

James D. Fearon, “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Long?”, Journal of Peace

Research, 41:3 (2004): 275-302.

Stathis N. Kalyvas, “‘New’ and ‘Old’ Civil Wars: A alid Distinction?”, World

Politics, 54:1 (2001): 99-118.

Stathis N. Kalyvas, “Civil Wars.” In Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes, eds., Oxford

Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pp.

416-34.

Robert A. Pape. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism”, American Political

Science Review, 97:3 (2003): 343-361.

Sagan S. D., Waltz K. N. The spread of nuclear weapons: A debate. – 1995.

11

Web-links

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Scuicide Terrorism. -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEsWRXV_BM

8. Domestic Politics and Wars

Kurt Dassel, “Civilians, Soldiers, and Strife: Domestic Sources of International

Aggression”, International Security, 23:1 (1998): 107-140.

James Fearon, “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International

Disputes,” American Political Science Review, ol. 88 (1994): 577‐ 592.

Peter Feaver, “Civil-Military Relations”, Annual Review of Political Science, 2

(1999): 211-241.

O. Löwenheim, and G. Heimann, “Revenge in international politics”, Security

studies, 17 (2008): 685-724.

Jessica L. Weeks, “Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling

Resolve”, International Organization, 62:1 (2008): 35-64.

Benjamin A. Valentino, Paul K. Huth, and Sarah E. Croco, “Bear Any Burden? How

Democracies Minimize the Costs of War”, Journal of Politics, 72:2 (2010): 528-544.

Kaufmann C. Possible and impossible solutions to ethnic civil wars //International

security. – 1996. – Т. 20. – №. 4. – С. 136-175.

Collier P. The market for civil war //Foreign Policy. – 2003. – №. 136. – С. 38.

Optional reading

Kenneth A. Schultz, “Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform?”,

International Organization, 53:2 (1999): 233-266.

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Randolph Siverson, and Alastair

Simth, “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace”, American Political

Science Review, 93 (1999): 791-807.

Kevin Narizny, “Both Guns and Butter, or Neither: Class Interests in the Political

Economy of Rearmament”, American Political Science Review 97:2 (2003): 203-

220.

Jack Snyder. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Chapters 1 and 2.

9. Status Considerations in World Politics

Allan Dafoe, Jonathan Renshon, and Paul Huth. Reputation and Status as Motives for

War // Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2014. 17:371–93.

12

Larson, Deborah Welch and Alexei Shevchenko. Status Seekers: Chinese and

Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy // International Security, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Spring

2010), pp. 63–95.

Major powers and the quest for status in international politics : global and regional

perspectives / edited by Thomas J. Volgy ... [et al.]. 1st ed. N.Y.: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2011. – Preface, Ch. 1, 2, 3, 10.

Reinhard Wolf. Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of

status recognition // International Theory (2011), 3: 1, 105 – 142.

10. International Law and Norms. Human Rights in World Politics. Logic of

Appropriateness and Logic of Consequentialism

James G. March and Johan P. Olsen. The Institutional Dynamics of International

Political Orders // International Organization 52,4, Autumn1998, pp.943– 969.

Ratner S. R. International Law: the trials of global norms //Foreign Policy. – 1998. –

С. 65-80.

Oye K. A. The conditions for cooperation in world politics //Art and Jervis. – 1992.

Keohane R. O. International institutions: Can interdependence work? //Foreign

policy. – 1998. – С. 82-194.

Stahn C. Responsibility to protect: Political rhetoric or emerging legal norm?

//American Journal of International Law. – 2007. – Т. 101. – №. 1. – С. 99-120.

Chandler D. The responsibility to protect? Imposing the ‘liberal peace’ //International

peacekeeping. – 2004. – Т. 11. – №. 1. – С. 59-81.

Chandler D. The R2P Is Dead, Long Live the R2P: The Successful Separation of

Military Intervention from the Responsibility to Protect //International Peacekeeping.

– 2015. – Т. 22. – №. 1. – С. 1-5.

Averre D., Davies L. Russia, humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to

Protect: the case of Syria //International Affairs. – 2015. – Т. 91. – №. 4. – С. 813-

834.

11. International Trade: Winners and Losers, the International Political

Economy of Trade, Trends and Patterns in International Trade

The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade // Ed. by Lisa

L. Martin –

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001

/oxfordhb-9780199981755.

13

Jeffry A. Frieden, David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. 2nd

edition. 2013. World

Politics: Interests, Interactions, and Institutions. New York: Norton. Pp. 264-311.

Jensen, J. Bradford, Dennis P. Quinn, and Stephen Weymouth. Winners and Losers

in International Trade: The Effects on US Presidential Voting // International

Organization 71, Summer 2017, pp. 423–457.

Frieden, Jeffry. The Backlash Against Globalization and the Future of the

International Economic Order / Harvard University, February 2018. Prepared for a

Policy Network volume, The Next Phase of Globalisation: Capitalism and Inequality

in the Industrialized World

Posen, Adam S. The Post-American World Economy: Globalization in the Trump Era

// Foreign Affairs. 2018. Volume 97. Number 2. Pp. 28-38.

12. International Financial and Monetary Relations

Jeffry A. Frieden, David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. 2nd

edition. 2013. World

Politics: Interests, Interactions, and Institutions. New York: Norton. Pp. 312-385.

J. Lawrence Broz and Jeffry A. Frieden. The Political Economy of Exchange Rates //

The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy / Edited by Donald A. Wittman and

Barry R. Weingast . –

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.001.0001

/oxfordhb-9780199548477-e-032

Krzysztof J. Pelc. What Explains the Low Success Rate of Investor-State Disputes? //

International Organization 71, Summer 2017, pp. 559–583

13. What to Expect from Tomorrow: The Future of IR and World Politics

To be updated for 2018/2019.

The Global Risks Report 2017. 12th ed. / World Economic Forum, 2017. -

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdf.

Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue about the Future with Nongovernment Experts /

National Intelligence Council, December 2000. –

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_2015%20Report.pdf.

Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020

Project / National Intelligence Council, December 2004. –

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%20the%20Global

%20Future%202020%20Project.pdf.

Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World / National Intelligence Council,

November 2008. –

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/2025_Glob

al_Trends_Final_Report.pdf.

Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds / National Intelligence Council, December

2012. – http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf.

14

Global Trends 2035: Paradox of Progress / National Intelligence Council, January

2017. – https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/nic/GT-Full-Report.pdf .

Web-links

Global Trends: Paradox of Progress. Part 1 / Office of the Director of National

Intelligence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83E3LWPGhlQ

Global Trends: Paradox of Progress. Part 2 / Office of the Director of National

Intelligence - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rb9frj5bkM

5. Guidelines for Knowledge Assessment

First, students are expected to attend seminars, participate in discussions, and

complete regular quizzes. The class format necessarily creates mutual obligations

among students to come prepared to discuss both the readings and the lecture

materials. If only a few people in a group or the class are regularly doing the reading

and prepared for simulation work, our discussions will stumble as the bulk of

students rely on a minority to carry them. Such a situation penalizes those students

doing the readings as they then are pushed to shoulder more responsibility in class.

To avoid this situation while fostering a stimulating and productive intellectual

environment in class, students’ attendance and participation will be tracked regularly

throughout the semester with two mechanisms – random quizzes and attendance

control. The quizzes will be drawn from the reading materials assigned for that day

and the previous lectures.

Second, given the nature of the readings in English, students will be assigned

the task of critiquing the assigned readings in a seminar format. The seminar leader

will expect students to be able to demonstrate that they have done the readings by

performing such tasks as summarizing the main arguments, critiquing author’s

claims, drawing out policy implications, suggesting how an author’s argument may

apply to another issue area, or highlighting similarities and differences with other

readings.

Third, students will take 4 tests based on the classroom material.

Fourth, students will participate in a Simulation (Game) in class.

Fifth, students will take a written exam (multiple choice questions and a short

essay).

Cumulative grade is calculated from grades for Seminar Participation (*0,1),

Active Participation in a Simulation (Game) (*0,1), Active Participation in

Discussions (*0,15), Quizzes (*0,25), and Tests (*0,4, *0,1 for each test).

Final grade is calculated from a Cumulative Grade (*0,6) and Exam (*0,4).

We employ an arithmetic rounding method to calculate the final grade.

Examples of questions and assignments:

Fill in the gaps

15

Correlate the ascribed interests (Table 2) with respective actors in world politics (Table 1). Two interests are to be left out as not fully correct.

Table 1

Actor Ascribed interests

(use the letter indicating an interest for an appropriate actor )

States

Politicians

Firms, industries, or business associations

Classes

Bureaucracies

International organizations

Transnational or international NGOs

Table 2

Ascribed interests

A Profit and a market share in global economy

B Environment and peace

C Security and power, welfare, ideology

D Normative, ideological, or policy goals, etc.

E Budget maximization, influence, policy preferences

F Reflect the interests of member states as well as budget maximization, influence, policy preferences

G Material well-being and power

H Security and power

I Reelection or retention of power, ideology, and policy goals

Multiple choice

Choose the events which can be qualified as wars (according to Levy and Thompson, 2010): Choose all correct answers

A. Six Days War (1969) B. Second Lebanon War (2007)

16

C. Soviet-Chinese clashes around the Ussuri River (1969) D. Cold War 1.0 E. Cold War 2.0 F. Soviet invasion in Hungary (1956) G. Warsaw Pact invasion in Czechoslovakia (1968) H. War on Drugs (US, 1971-present times)

Essay Write an essay (not less than 300 words). If you demonstrate a perfect knowledge of the

course, especially the readings, if your arguments are clear, if you use the appropriate theories (naming their authors and representatives), this essay can give you up to 40 points. You can choose out of the following topics:

1. Thomas Schelling concludes his famous The Diplomacy of Violence (1970) with the following phrase: “Small wars embody the threat of a larger war, they are not just military engagements, but crisis diplomacy”. What does he mean by this? Please explain the crucial factors that have changed modern war in Schelling’s perspective.

2. President Trump says that “trade wars are good and easy to win”. What is the logic (or rather logics – theoretical (political economy) and political) behind this statement?

6. Methods of Instruction

Lectures are aimed at introducing students to particular issues in IR. In addition

to lectures, there are seminars. Participation in seminars is obligatory. During

seminars, students are expected to be prepared to discuss a particular topic. Reading

of the required material should be completed before a seminar. The main purpose of

seminars is the discussion of the reading and lecture materials.

7. Special Equipment and Software Support (if required)

The instructor needs a computer and a projector to show slides when lecturing.