July,
1994
TO: Students
enrolling in Political Science 102,
Introduction to International Relations
(formerly Global Peace and War)
FROM: Faculty who teach the course in different semesters (Licklider, Rhodes, Shafer)
We have several
different goals for this course. (1)
You should acquire the knowledge and intellectual skills necessary for
more specialized courses in international relations at the 300 and 400 level within the political science department, as well as a
sense of the variety of topics and approaches in such courses. (2)
You should understand the distinctive social science approach to gaining
knowledge. (3) You should be able to understand and
participate in the ongoing public debate about the major issues in the
international community. We all use
different materials and techniques, but we agree on what we want to
accomplish.
These goals sound
impressive but they are rather vague. To
be more precise, by the end of the term you should be able to reasonably
discuss all of the following questions:
(a) What is distinctive about
the social science method of gaining knowledge and making it persuasive to
others? What other methods of gaining
knowledge are commonly used? What are
the strengths and weaknesses of each?
What sorts of questions can each best answer? How do you decide which is more appropriate
in a particular situation?
(b) What are the differences
among the major alternative theoretical approaches to the study of international
relations--realism and its alternatives?
Why have such different approaches developed? What are the strengths and weaknesses of
theories at different levels of analysis such as the international system, the
state, and the individual?
(c) What is the international
system, and what concepts have been useful in understanding this environment
within which all states function? How
does the lack of central government (anarchy) create the problem of the
security dilemma? How are international
systems classified? What different types
have existed throughout history? How is
the current system similar to and different from earlier ones? How has the current international system
evolved from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 through the 18th Century balance
of power, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, the Concert of Europe,
the unification of Germany and Italy, the new imperialism, World War I, the
rise of Hitler, World War II, and the Cold War system?
(d) What are states, and how
were they created? Why did they become
the major actors in international systems, and is this likely to continue? What is the relationship between nations and
states? What do nationalism and
self-determination mean? What is the
role of non-state actors in international systems historically, currently, and
in the future?
(e) What are the causes of
war? How useful is it as an instrument
of policy? How has military technology,
including nuclear weapons, changed its role in the international system? What is deterrence theory? Why did the
(f) Why do states which have
waged war among themselves establish peace?
What is the relationship between arms control, disarmament, and
peace? Are democratic states more
peaceful than non-democratic states?
What is collective security, and when is it more or less likely to
work?
(G) How does cooperation
sometimes emerge from international anarchy and sometimes not? How do international law and international
organizations function? How and under
what circumstances are international regimes formed? What is interdependence, how has it changed
over time, and what difference does it make?
How is this likely to change in the future?
(h) What is power in
international affairs, and why is it important?
What is the national interest?
What is the relationship between military and economic power? Is power increasingly defined in terms of
economic rather than military means, and if so, why? What is economic competitiveness, and why is
it important?
(i)
How do states make decisions about foreign policy issues when good
people disagree? What is the role of
organizations and individuals in such choices?
Why are some decisions implemented differently than the political
leaders expected? Do democracies have
different foreign policies than non-democracies? What does it mean to say a decision was made
politically?
(j) What are different ideas of
the role of ethics and morality in foreign policy? How should such decisions be made? How can we make arguments about values which
will persuade others to adopt our position?
Are the standards for such decisions changing over time? Is this a good thing? How can we tell?
(k) What global issues (problems
on which reasonable people disagree, which influence the entire international
system, and which cannot be resolved by individual states) are likely to be
important in the next few decades? What
should we do about some of these issues?
What are we likely to do about them?
Can the current state system respond to them appropriately? Will we be able to respond to them more
appropriately than in the past?
We do not expect you
to be able to answer any or all of these questions with great confidence after
a single semester introductory course; indeed we disagree among ourselves about
many of them. However, we do expect you
to be able to understand some of the issues involved and to know how to get
more information about particular questions and evaluate it appropriately.
If you wish to pursue
these issues further, several advanced courses are routinely taught at
Political Science 102 Roy Licklider
Introduction to International Relations Fall 2004
e-mail: licklide@rci.rutgers.edu (732) 932-9249
CAREERS: Students often want
information about jobs related to international affairs. Careers
in International Relations is an essay about different kinds of positions
in this area and appropriate ways to prepare for them; it may be downloaded
from the department web-site (www.polisci.rutgers.edu/undergraduate/). A slightly revised web version with many
direct links to related websites has been prepared by faculty at another
school; its address is http://www.drake.edu/artsci/ir/ ir_careers.html.
OFFICE HOURS: I will be in the “home away from home” offices on the
first floor of Miledolar from
TEACHING ASSISTANTS:
COURSE GOALS: I hope that you
will learn at least four things from this course: (1) the technique of testing
general statements against reality which we call the science method; (2) some
basic concepts used in studying international relations; (3) techniques for
analyzing moral issues in international affairs; and (4) basic information
about a few global issues which are likely to be important during your
lifetime.
The syllabus lists readings for each class meeting. You must read this material before the
class meets; lectures will build on assigned reading rather than repeating
it, and simulations, discussion sections, groupworks,
and reading quizzes will all require you to use materials from the reading in
class.
BOOK REQUIRED FOR PURCHASE (paperback, abbreviated in the syllabus by
its title, will be available in the Rutgers Bookstore at Ferren
Mall and New Jersey Books on Easton Avenue):
James Lee Ray, Global Politics (8th edition only)
A few copies of all other materials in the syllabus should be in
the undergraduate reserve room at Alexander Library and on electronic
reserve. (If something is not available,
please let me know immediately so I can do something about it.) Most of these materials will also be
available for purchase in a xerox packet at
CLASS FORMATS:
Because of the large size of this course, several different class
formats will be used, as indicated in the syllabus.
L = lecture in the assigned lecture room, usually every Tuesday and any
Thursday when no other session is scheduled for that week
P = a paper is due that day; the class will meet in the lecture hall to
discuss the paper in detail (students often find these sessions among the most
valuable of the course, although not always the most comfortable)
D = discussion sections on Wednesday or Friday, usually every alternate
week, each section in the room and time assigned to it; there are no
Thursday classes on these weeks.
S = simulation on Wednesday or Friday in the same times and rooms as
discussion sections–again no Thursday classes those weeks
G = groupwork on Wednesday or Friday, in the
same times and rooms as discussion sections with no class on Thursday those
weeks
NOTE: This class only meets two times a week. Therefore there will be no Thursday lecture
on weeks when you have discussion sections, simulation, or groupworks.
GRADING POLICY: Paper
#1 15%
Paper
#2 15%
Paper
#3 15%
Groupwork (top 4 grades) 15% Participation
in discussion section 10%
Final
exam at scheduled time 15%
NOTE: Students must complete at least one version of all three papers
and the final exam in order to pass the course.
PAPERS: The papers should be no more than five
double-spaced pages or about 1500 words (typewritten papers are strongly
recommended but not required). The
papers require thought rather than research and will be graded accordingly. They may not be submitted by e-mail
except by special permission. We expect
them to be written in standard English; students with
writing problems will be required to go to the Writing Centers and expected to
improve. Late papers without a
reasonable excuse will be reduced a full letter grade for each class period
that they are late. Papers may be
rewritten for credit if the original grade was C+ or below; the second version
will be graded independently and averaged with the first to calculate the grade
for that paper. Students must
talk to whoever graded their papers before rewriting them. Rewritten papers will be accepted for
approximately three weeks after they have been returned.
Because of the size of
this class, two political science graduate students have been assigned as
teaching assistants; they will also grade some of the papers. To ensure that our grading standards are the
same, we begin each assignment by grading and discussing papers until we are
giving the same grades to the same papers.
After this agreement has been reached, each of us will grade one-third
of the remaining papers or exams. When
rewriting a paper or discussing an exam graded by someone other than me, you
should first talk to the original grader.
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of this discussion, you may
appeal the grade to me.
GROUPWORK: Five times
during the semester the class will meet in groups of five students at the times
and places of the discussion sections.
Each group will be given an assignment which will normally involve
analyzing a problem related to the reading and writing a brief group paper
during the class period. Groups of two
or fewer people should combine. Make a
serious effort to reach agreement within the group. After the discussion, students who wish to do
so may leave the group and write their own paper; however, any paper submitted
by only one student will be reduced one full grade. Students who do not participate may be asked
by the group to leave. All those who
participated in the process should put their names on the paper and will all
receive the same grade. The top four
groupwork grades will be averaged and count 15% of
your final grade. No makeups
will be allowed.
SIMULATION: Two class periods will be devoted to a
simulation. The results will be used in
paper #2. Team will be announced.
DISCUSSION SECTION
PARTICIPATION: On
weeks noted in the syllabus, the class will meet in discussion sections led by
the teaching assistants. You are
responsible for having read the assigned class material and for discussing it
intelligently and seriously.
E-MAIL MAILING LISTS: In another attempt to obviate the worst effects of a large
class, several different mailing lists (called listserves)
are being established for the course.
Once you subscribe to such a list, any message sent to the list is
automatically sent to all members. There
will be one list for the entire class and one for each of the discussion
sections. Each student is expected to
subscribe to the one for the class and the one for your own particular
section. They will have somewhat
different functions. You should check
each one two or three times a week.
CLASS LIST
(polisci_102@rams.rutgers.edu): Initially I want to use this to respond to
questions about the lectures as well as a class bulletin board. If you do not understand anything about the
lecture, send an e-mail message either to the list serve directly or to my
personal e-mail address (given at the top of the syllabus). I will post interesting questions to the list
serve for the whole class to read, along with my response. If you would prefer not to be identified on
the list serve, please say so.
DISCUSSION SECTION
LIST (polisci_102sec01@rams.rutgers.edu, polisci_102sec02, etc.): Since the
discussion sections only meet five times during the semester, these lists are
to encourage discussions at other times.
One or two questions related to the course will be posted on each list
every few weeks; students are encouraged to respond to them and to one another
on their section list serve.
Participation will count as verbal discussion in section meetings. It is perfectly appropriate to disagree
strongly with views expressed on the list, but attacks on individual
participants (flaming, etc.) will not be tolerated.
9/2: Distribute
syllabi
(L) Introduction
to course
I. SCIENCE AND WISDOM
9/9: Roy Licklider, "How
Do We Know What We Know?" (on
(L) reserve and
in packet at bookstore)
Charles McClelland,
"International Relations: Wisdom or Science?" in
James Rosenau,
International Politics and Foreign Policy
(1969), pp. 3-5
9/13: J. David Singer,
"The Behavioral Science Approach to International
(L) Relations: Payoff and Prospects,"
J. David Singer and Melvin Small,
"National
War
Involvement, 1818-1945," Papers
of the Peace Research Society
(International),
V (1966), pp. 109-140.
9/15-17: Sir George Sansom, "
(D) 1948),
pp. 543-549 (rest of the article is optional)
Bruce
M. Russett, "The Calculus of Deterrence," Journal of Conflict
Resolution,
VII (1963), pp. 97-109
Charleton Ogburn,
"The Flow of Policy-Making in the Department of
State,"
Appendix C, in H. Haviland Field, The Formulation and
Administration
of
William Coplin, “The State System Exercise,” all [bring to class
for
discussion]
9/20: PAPER #1:
(P) (1) DOES THE STATE
DEPARTMENT USE "SCIENCE" OR
"WISDOM" TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE, ACCORDING TO OGBURN?
AND
(2) WHICH APPROACH DID OGBURN HIMSELF USE IN
WRITING
THE ARTICLE?
Hints: Define science and wisdom in some depth; then
cite specific examples
from the Ogburn article and relate
them to particular parts of your
definitions. The
object is to demonstrate that you understand these terms
well enough to be able to use them.
II.
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
A. NATIONS, STATES AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS
9/22-24: SIMULATION IN ROOMS AND TIMES SCHEDULED FOR
(S) DISCUSSION
SECTIONS
Global
Politics, pp. 162-174
K. J. Holsti, International
Politics, chapter 2
William Coplin, "The State System Exercise," all [bring
to class for use in simulation]
9/27: Global Politics,
chapter 2
(L)
9/29 or 10/1: SIMULATION IN ROOMS AND TIMES SCHEDULED FOR
(S) DISCUSSION
SECTIONS
Global
Politics, chapter 3
Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, “American Primacy in Perspective,” Foreign Affairs (July 2002)
William Coplin, "The State System Exercise," all [bring
to class]
B. COOPERATION IN ANARCHY: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
10/4: Global Politics,
pp. 257-278
(L) Thomas G. Weiss, "UN Responses to the Former
Operational
Choices," Ethics & International
Affairs, 8 (1994), pp. 1-
22
G. John Ikenberry,
“
C.
COOPERATION IN ANARCHY:
INTERNATIONAL LAW
10/6-8: Global Politics, pp. 278-291
(D) Frederic Pearson and J. Martin
Roy Licklider, “Policy Analysis and Argument”
10/11: Review
especially J. David Singer, "The Behavioral Science Approach to
(P)
International Relations: Payoff and
Prospects" and other materials
in the first reading
assignment of the course
PAPER
#2: CONVERT THE "FACTS" FROM
THE HISTORICAL
MATERIALS IN HOLSTI AND THE EXPERIENCE OF
THE STATE SYSTEM EXERCISE INTO "DATA" AND TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS:
"MULTIPOLAR
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS ARE MORE STABLE
THAN BIPOLAR INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS."
Hints: Classify each system as (1) bipolar, multipolar, or other and (2)
stable, unstable, or other.
For purposes of this paper, treat the simulation
results as "real."
Use Holsti’s facts, not his definitions.
D.
FUTURE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: COMPETITION, HEGEMONY, INTEGRATION, OR
ANARCHY?
10/13-15: James F. Hoge, Jr., “A Global
Power Shift in the Making: Is the United
States
Ready?” Foreign Affairs, 83, 4 (July/August 2004), pp. 2-7
Eliot Cohen, “History and the Hyperpower,” Foreign
Affairs, 83, 4 (July/August 2004), pp. 49-63
Global
Politics, chapter 11
Niall
Ferguson, “A World Without Power,” Foreign Policy (July/August
2004),
pp. 32-39
III. FOREIGN
POLICY: CHOOSING ENDS AND MEANS
A. POWER AND FOREIGN POLICY
10/18: Global Politics, Chapter 4 and pp.
175-193
(L) Edward
Luttwak, "Where Are the Great Powers? At Home With the
Kids," Foreign Affairs, 73
(July/August, 1994), pp. 23-29.
B. MORALITY AND CHOICE IN FOREIGN POLICY
10/20-22: Global Politics, pp. 283-304
(G) Robert
McElroy, Morality and American Foreign
Policy, pp. 30-31 and 168-
184.
OPTIONAL:
10/25: James Johnson, Can
Modern War Be Just?,
pp. 1-29
(L) Sheldon
Cohen, Arms and Judgement: Law, Morality and the Conduct of War
in the Twentieth Century, pp. 146-165 and
206-209
10/27-29: Global Politics, pp.
464-485
(G) Timothy Garten Ash, “Is
There a Good Terrorist,”
Books,
48, 19 (
“Responding
to Terrorism: Challenges for Democracy,” Choices for the 21st
Century Education Program, Thomas J. Watson
Institute for International Studies,
C. HOW ARE FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS ACTUALLY
MADE?
11/1: Global Politics, chapter 5
(L)
11/3-5: Mary Lord and Martha McCoy, “In Harm’s Way: When Should We Risk
(D) American
Lives in World Conflicts?” entire
Ivo Daalder and
Michael O’Hanlon, Winning Ugly: NATO’s
War to Save
Kosovo, Chapter 6
Julie Mertus,
“Legitimizing the Use of Force in Kosovo,” Ethics
and International Affairs, 15 (2001), pp. 133-150
Michael Mandelbaum,
“A Perfect Failure: NATO’s War Against
11/8: PAPER #3:
“Terrorism must be fought with every available weapon,
(P) regardless of the harm to
non-combatants.” (Terrorism is defined
here as violence deliberately aimed at non-combatants by non-governmental
organizations.)
(1) MAKE THE STRONGEST MORAL
ARGUMENT that that this statement is true.
You may wish to specify a particular set of conditions under which it is
true. MAKE THE STRONGEST MORAL
ARGUMENT that this statement is not true.
For each argument, specify the general moral value which
underlies it and why this value should be given priority over the
corresponding value in the opposing argument, using the concepts of
impartiality and universality.
(Approximately one page)
(2)
ISOLATE ONE EMPIRICAL QUESTION and CONSTRUCT ONE
HYPOTHESIS
(a general, empirical, testable, comparative statement) which,
if tested, would help reduce the differences among people
advocating these
two positions. This is likely to involve the consequences
of such a policy, perhaps drawn from empirical assumptions of the moral
arguments. Do this by converting the
empirical question into a causal statement--A is more likely to occur when B is
true than when B is not true. Make your
hypothesis as precise as possible.
Remember that hypotheses about the future cannot be tested, since we
have no data about the future, so they cannot be used. Therefore hypotheses should be written using
the past or present tense. Be sure to
specify the alternatives that you are comparing.
(3)
EXPLAIN briefly how testing the hypothesis would help reduce the
differences on whether this policy would be morally correct. One way to do this is to specify (a) how the
arguments would change if you persuaded everyone that the hypothesis was true
and (b) how the arguments would change if you persuaded everyone that the
hypothesis was false.
(4)
EXPLAIN briefly (a few sentences) what sort of data you would need to
test the hypothesis.
Note that you are not asked to either gather the data or
test the hypothesis; simply tell how you would
do so given enough time and
resources. (This should
also allow you to judge how well someone else with
such time and resources has done the job when you read about
research
in the area.) Note
that, unlike your groupworks, we are not interested
in your opinion on this issue.
IV. GLOBAL
ISSUES
A. WAR AND PEACE
1.
THERMONUCLEAR WAR
11/10-12: Global Politics, chapter 7
(L) Robert A. Levine, “Deterrence and the ABM:
Rereading the Old Calculus,”
World
Policy Journal (Fall 2001), pp. 25-31
2. PEACE FOR THE RICH, WAR FOR THE POOR?
11/15: Bruce
Russett and Harvey Starr, World Politics: The Menu for
Choice,
(L) chapter 14
Global
Politics, pp. 193-213
David Rieff,
“Suffering and Cynicism in
3. DEMOCRACY AND WAR
11/17-19: Global Politics,
pp. 175-184
(D) Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, “Democratization
and the Danger of War,” International
Security, 20 (Summer 1995), pp. 5-39.
Strobe Talbott,
“Democracy and the National Interest: Idealpolitik as
Realpolitik,” Foreign
Affairs, 75 (November/December 1996), pp. 5-22
B. DEVELOPMENT AND THE NORTH-SOUTH DIVISION
11/22: Global Politics,
chapter 10
(L) Robert Sidelsky, “The
Mystery of Growth,”
11/29: Joseph E. Stiglitz and Lyn
Squire, “International Development: Is It
(L) Possible?” Foreign
Policy, 110 (Spring 1998), pp. 138-151.
Barry Bearak,
“Why People Still Starve,” New York Times
Magazine (
Bill Emmott,
20:21 Vision: Twentieth-Century Lessons
for the Twenty-first Century, chapter 10, pp. 257-280
Yasheng Huang and Tarun Khanna, “Can
Foreign
Policy, 137 (July/August 2003), pp. 74-81
Paul Krugman,
“The Good News,” The New York Times (
Hernando de Soto, “The Mystery of
Capital,” Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs
C. GLOBALIZATION–THE END OF THE NATION-STATE?
1. GLOBALIZATION AND MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
12/1-3: Global Politics, pp. 486-509 and 443-464
(G) Tina Rosenberg, “Globalization,” New York Times Magazine,
John Stopford, “Multinational Corporations,” Foreign Policy, 113 (Winter
1998-1999),
pp. 12-24
2. INTERDEPEPENDENCE AMONG
12/6: Global Politics,
chapter 9
(L) Paul Krugman, “Competition: A Dangerous Obsession,” Foreign Affairs, 73
(March, 1994), pp. 28-44 and
discussion, Foreign Affairs, 73
(July, 1994), pp. 186-203.
D. ECOLOGY
12/8-10: Global Politics, chapter 12
(G) Richard Benedick,
"Ozone Diplomacy," Issues in
Science and Technology, VI
(Fall, 1989), pp. 43-50
Richard Cooper, “Toward A Real
Global Warming Treaty,” Foreign Affairs,
77 (March-April, 1998), pp. 66-79
E. ALTERNATE THEORIES AND GLOBAL FUTURES
12/13: Global Politics,
chapter 1 and pp. 509-519
FINAL EXAMINATION: December
23,