| International Relations (English) | |||||
| Bachelor | TR-NQF-HE: Level 6 | QF-EHEA: First Cycle | EQF-LLL: Level 6 | ||
| Course Code: | INR201 | ||||
| Course Name: | International Relations Theories | ||||
| Semester: | Fall | ||||
| Course Credits: |
|
||||
| Language of instruction: | English | ||||
| Course Condition: | |||||
| Does the Course Require Work Experience?: | No | ||||
| Type of course: | Compulsory Courses | ||||
| Course Level: |
|
||||
| Mode of Delivery: | Face to face | ||||
| Course Coordinator: | Prof. Dr. AYSELİN GÖZDE YILDIZ OĞUZALP | ||||
| Course Lecturer(s): | Prof.Dr.Ayselin YILDIZ | ||||
| Course Assistants: |
| Course Objectives: | The aim of this course is to provide students with the key and primary knowledge on theoretical positions in the discipline of international relations. The main theoretical approaches that have shaped the discipline to date are examined and the assumptions inherent in their operation are exposed to students’ critical evaluation. |
| Course Content: | Three “Great Debates” of the discipline, methodological approaches, realism, liberalism, neorealism, neoliberalism, English school, critical theories, social constructivism, post-modernism, new theoretical approaches to IR. |
|
The students who have succeeded in this course;
1) To define the main understanding of theories in IR 2) To discuss and compare the main theories of IR in a systemic and analytical manner through different case studies. 3) To define and argue various critical approaches to the analysis of international politics. 4) To analyze and argue various IR cases by using different theoretical perspectives. 5) To use theory/practice relationship in IR. 6) To develop writings in an informed manner on IR Relations Theory. |
| Week | Subject | Related Preparation |
| 1) | Introduction- A General Overview Why to study IR? | |
| 2) | Major Debates in IR Theory | |
| 3) | Liberalism&Realism in IR | |
| 4) | Neo-Liberalism and Neo-Realism in IR | |
| 5) | International Society: The English School | |
| 6) | Constructivism | |
| 7) | International Political Economy In-class case study: Explaining the international political affairs by employing IR theories. | |
| 8) | Midterm | |
| 9) | Marxism | |
| 10) | Critical Theories | |
| 11) | Post-Structuralism | |
| 12) | Feminism, Identity, Green Theory, Global Justice, Multi-culturalism | |
| 13) | Globalisationö Dependency Theory and IR | |
| 14) | Methodological Debates, New Alternatives to Traditional IR Theories | |
| 16) | Final |
| Course Notes / Textbooks: | Jackson, R and Sorenson, G. ‘International Relations: Theories and Approaches’. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press (Main Course Book) |
| References: | Jorgensen, E.K. (2010) ‘International Relations Theory: A New Introduction’. Palgrave Macmillan Viotti, P.R., Kauppi, M. (2012) ‘International Relations Theory’. Longman; US S. M. Walt, (Spring 1998) ‘International Relations: One World, Many Theories’ Foreign Policy, No. 110 E.H. Carr, “The Nature of Politics” in Viotti and Kauppi. Pınar Bedirhanoğlu (2012) “Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler” (Political Science and International Relations) in Gökhan Atılgan and E.Attila Aytekin (eds.) Siyaset Bilimi: Kavramlar, İdeolojiler ve Disiplinlerarası İlişkiler (Political Science: Concepts, Ideologies and Interdisciplinary Relations), İstanbul, Yordam. Stephen M.Walt (2005) ‘The Relationship Between Theory and Policy in International Relations’ Annual Review of Political Science. 8, pp. 23–48. Barnett, M. & Duvall, R. (2005) ‘Power in International Politics’ International Organization 59(1) pp. 39-75. Pinar Bilgin, Berivan Elis. (2008) “Hard power, Soft Power: Toward a More Realistic Power Analysis”. Insight Turkey. 10 (2). pp.5-20 Thomas Hobbes, “The Natural Condition of Mankind’ pp.90-93. Power, measuring power and different forms of power Mearsheimer, J. (2001) ‘The Causes of Great Power War’ from The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp. 334-359. Joseph Nye, “Hard and Soft Power”, in Viotti and Kauppi, International Relations Theory, pp. 109-117. A. A. Stein, Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstance and Choice in International Relations (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1990, pp. 3-20 R. Little, ‘International Regimes’ in Baylis, Smith and Owens, Globalization of World Politics, pp. 296-310. Schmidt, B. (2002) ‘Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline’, International Relations 16(1): 9-31. Hobson, J. (2014) ‘Why Hierarchy and not Anarchy is the Core Concept of IR’, Millennium 42(3), pp. 557-575 Williams, M. (2004) ‘Why Ideas Matter in IR: Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization 58(4) pp. 633-665. Andrew Moravscik, “Are Dialogue and Synthesis possible in International relations”, International Studies Review, vol.5, no.1, 2003, pp.123-153. Mearsheimer, J. (2004) ‘The Tragedy of Great Power Politics’ Reviewed in Brian C. Schmidt, ‘Realism as Tragedy’, Review of International Studies, 30(3), pp. 427-441. Waltz, K. (1993): ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security 18(2) pp.44-79. Robert Axelrod and Robert Keohane (1985) ‘Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions’, World Politics 38, pp. 226-254. Mearsheimer, J. (1994/5) “The False Promise of International Institutions” International Security 1, pp.9 5-49. G. John Ikenberry (2009) ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0’ Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 71-89. Buzan, B. (2010) ‘Culture and International Society’, International Affairs 86(1), pp.1-25. Bull, Hedley, 1977, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press. Buzan, Barry (2010) ‘Culture and International Society’, International Affairs 86(1): 1-25. Buzan, Barry (2014) An Introduction to the English School of IR (Cambridge: Polity). Alexander Wendt (1992) ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization 46(2): 391-426 Wendt, A. ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization, 41(3), pp. 335-370. Dunne, T. (1995) ‘The Social Construction of International Society’, European Journal of International Relations 1(3), pp. 367-389. Barnett, M. ‘Social Constructivism,’ in Baylis, Smith and Owens, Globalization of World Politics, pp. 160-73. Linklater, A. (1986) ‘Realism, Marxism and critical international theory’, Review of International Studies. Vol 12, pp. 301-312. Wallerstein, I. (1995) ‘The Inter-State Structure of the Modern World System’, in: Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87-107. Lake, David (2011) ‘Why “isms” Are Evil’, International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 465-480. Patomäki, Heikki, and Colin Wight (2000) ‘After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism’ International Studies Quarterly 44(2):213-237. Robert Keohane (1998) ‘Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist Theory’ International Studies Quarterly 42 (1), pp. 193-210. Carpenter, Charli (2002) ‘Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a Nonfeminist Standpoint’, International Studies Review 4(3): 152-165. Sandler, T. Global Challenges an Approach to Environmental, Political and Economic Problems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 23-51 and 99-129. Moises, N. (January-February 2003). ‘The Five Wars of Globalization’ Foreign Policy, No. 134 Rodrik, D. (Winter 2000) “How Far Will International Economic Integration Go?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14, no. 1 Russell L. (2002) ‘Quantitative International Politics and Their Critics’ in Frank Harvey and Michael Brecher Evaluating Methodology in International Studies. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press, pp. 116-130. Suganami, Hidemi (1999) ‘Agents, Structures, Narratives’, European Journal of International Relations 5(3): 365-386. Creutzfeldt, B. (2013) ‘Theory Talk #61: Pinar Bilgin Non-Western IR, Hybridity, and the One-Toothed Monster called Civilization’, Theory Talks, http://www.theory- talks.org/2013/12/theory-talk-61.html (20-12-2013) Sylvester, C. (2013) ‘Experiencing the End and Afterlives of International Relations Theory’ European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 609-626. Recommended Blogs to be followed: http://www.theory-talks.org |
| Course Learning Outcomes | 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Outcomes | |||||||||||
| 1) Has knowledge about basic theoretical debates in the field of International Relations. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2) Defines contemporary developments, approaches and basic concepts in the field of International Relations at national and international level. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 3) Relates the interaction of the Department of International Relations with other social sciences (history, political science, law, economy). | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 4) Gains knowledge and skills to evaluate and discuss the events in an interdisciplinary dimension, and analyze the political, social and economic problems encountered in national and international contexts within a certain conceptual framework. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 5) Using social sciences methods, can conduct research and follow the field. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 6) Uses leadership characteristics with awareness of teamwork. | |||||||||||
| 7) Can design and prepare scientific projects such as projects, reports, articles and theses with their own or others with uses qualitative and quantitative research techniques. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 8) Develops behavior according to ethics and social values and evaluates what they have learned by deciding what he/she needs and critically question the information has acquired. | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| 9) Transmits the opinions, thoughts and solutions in the field of International Relations to the related persons and institutions in written and orally. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 10) Follows the developments in the field and communicates with colleagues by using a foreign language at least at the level of European Language Portfolio B1. | 3 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 11) Uses information and communication technologies together with computer software at the advanced level of European Computer Driving License required by the field. | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| No Effect | 1 Lowest | 2 Average | 3 Highest |
| Program Outcomes | Level of Contribution | |
| 1) | Has knowledge about basic theoretical debates in the field of International Relations. | 3 |
| 2) | Defines contemporary developments, approaches and basic concepts in the field of International Relations at national and international level. | 3 |
| 3) | Relates the interaction of the Department of International Relations with other social sciences (history, political science, law, economy). | 2 |
| 4) | Gains knowledge and skills to evaluate and discuss the events in an interdisciplinary dimension, and analyze the political, social and economic problems encountered in national and international contexts within a certain conceptual framework. | 3 |
| 5) | Using social sciences methods, can conduct research and follow the field. | 2 |
| 6) | Uses leadership characteristics with awareness of teamwork. | 2 |
| 7) | Can design and prepare scientific projects such as projects, reports, articles and theses with their own or others with uses qualitative and quantitative research techniques. | 3 |
| 8) | Develops behavior according to ethics and social values and evaluates what they have learned by deciding what he/she needs and critically question the information has acquired. | 3 |
| 9) | Transmits the opinions, thoughts and solutions in the field of International Relations to the related persons and institutions in written and orally. | 2 |
| 10) | Follows the developments in the field and communicates with colleagues by using a foreign language at least at the level of European Language Portfolio B1. | 3 |
| 11) | Uses information and communication technologies together with computer software at the advanced level of European Computer Driving License required by the field. |
| Semester Requirements | Number of Activities | Level of Contribution |
| Midterms | 1 | % 40 |
| Final | 1 | % 60 |
| total | % 100 | |
| PERCENTAGE OF SEMESTER WORK | % 40 | |
| PERCENTAGE OF FINAL WORK | % 60 | |
| total | % 100 | |
| Activities | Number of Activities | Preparation for the Activity | Spent for the Activity Itself | Completing the Activity Requirements | Workload | ||
| Course Hours | 14 | 3 | 42 | ||||
| Study Hours Out of Class | 14 | 2 | 28 | ||||
| Midterms | 1 | 20 | 20 | ||||
| Final | 1 | 20 | 20 | ||||
| Total Workload | 110 | ||||||