ARGUING IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

 

San Francisco State University International Relations 309 HSS 362 TTh 11:10-12:50 Office hours: TTh 9:30-10:30

Andrei P. Tsygankov Email: andrei@sfsu.edu Office: BSS 379 Office phone: 87493 http://bss.sfsu.edu/tsygankov

 
General description:

This course is designed by the department to help students to apply IR theory for analyzing real world policy issues. It is important to understand that behind every policy decision is a certain theoretical approach, and every policy maker, whether aware of it or not, is the prisoners of a dead International Relations (IR) theorist. If we want to understand someone’s argument and be consistent in making an argument of our own, it is crucial to make theoretical assumptions and definitions explicit. Hence, our goal will be to learn how to analyze policy dilemmas through the available tools of theory. Let us try to do just that. In the process of our journey, we will attempt to accomplish three things.

 ·              Applied IR theory. We will (re)discover theory in its applied sense that is as a tool for solving practical puzzles and making policy arguments. Our overview of theoretical traditions in IR will be necessarily brief and will focuse on their applicability to answering questions of war, development, environment, and the like. Our goal here will be to put IR theories in comparative context and, to an extend possible, derive some testable and defensible propositions in order to evaluate these propositions in the subsequent debates in class.

·              Criteria for a good argument. We will spend some time building our own set of criteria of what constitutes a good argument. These criteria will be subsequently applied in making arguments of our own and evaluating those of other presenters in class.

·              Policy debates. We will practice our knowledge of applied IR theories and criteria by engaging in debates on various policy issues. Each student will have a chance to develop his or her own argument and present it orally in class and in writing. After that, another student will rebut the argument, and we all will participate in the process of debating and evaluating its quality.

 
Requirements and grading: 

The following four will constitute your grade: attendance and participation in class debates—15%, quiz—25%, oral presentation—25%, paper—35%.

 ·              Class participation. Attendance and active participation is extremely important for your success in class. My grading scale for class participation is all, half, or no credit. 15% of the grade means that nobody will be able to get “A” without regularly attending and participating in class by contributing comments and asking well informed questions. Please see me if you have difficulties of speaking in class and would like to pursue other forms of participation. Additional forms of participation will be discussed and may include leading discussions in class, preparing handouts for in-class discussions, and making news presentations. I also expect students to regularly read the international section of at least one major newspaper and be prepared to discuss current world affairs in class.

·              Quiz. Quiz will be made up after the survey of theories, and students will be expected to evaluate comparatively theories’ main assumptions, definitions, and testable propositions.

·              Oral presentations. Oral presentations will include affirmative case and rebuttal, each 10 minutes, on a randomly picked topic. Topics will be provided. Your job is to come up with best argument available, deliver it in class, and be prepared to address counter-arguments. Thoroughly researching the subject, preparing an outline and visual aid, and practicing your talk in front of your peers and friends before delivering it in class are key components of your success. Embarrassment is inversely related to preparation! All other students should be prepared to ask informed questions and participate in the after talk discussion. The format of class-debates will be as follows: one presentation (10 m)—questions, discussion (20 m)—second presentation (10 m)—questions, discussion (20 m)—break (10 m)—third presentation (10 m)—questions, discussion (20 m). The rebuttals will be delivered in two days, during the next class, and in the same format.

·              Paper. Paper should be written on the subject of your oral presentation. Students are free to choose the argument to make, the theory to apply, and the side to take. Papers should be researched thoroughly and comply with the standards of a good argument. The amount and the quality of sources should be discussed with me individually. Paper proposal (3 pages), annotated bibliography (3), first version, and final version should be submitted separately in the specified dates. The target size is around 15 double spaced pages although I don’t impose any specific requirements in this respect. I adhere to standards for academic honesty and will not tolerate cases of plagiarism or any other violations. Papers should be typed, proofread, and submitted on time. As a rule, late submissions will not be accepted. Exceptions may be granted in circumstances of personal or family emergency. An appropriate documentation is required, and automobile, traffic, or computer-related problems do not qualify as an emergency. Please, come and see me if you feel you should be granted a special treatment. Also, please, see me if, for whatever reason, you would like to take an incomplete for this class.

 

Readings: 

 I will keep the readings under seventy pages per week. Your job is to derive from your readings main theories and their assumptions, definitions, and testable propositions. This is going to be the subject of our class discussions. Try to get main points out of your readings. Make some short notes and bring those to class. I expect you to be active in class discussions, so please come prepared!

Main texts is: Mingst, Karen and Jack Snyder, eds. 2001. Essential Readings in World Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.  In addition, I will put a package or articles and shorter materials on reserve.

The course schedule and calendar (tentative):

Week 1 Aug 29 Week 2 Sep 3, 5 Week 3 Sep 10, 12 Week 4 Sep 17, 19 Sep  19 Paper topic Week 5 Sep 24, 26 Week 6 Oct 1, 3 Oct 3 Paper proposal Week 7 Oct 8, 10 Oct 15 Quiz Week 8 Oct 15, 17 Week 9  Oct 22, 24 Oct 24 Annotated bibliography

Week 10 Oct 29, 31 Week 11 Nov 5, 7 Week 12 Nov 12, 14 Week 13 Nov 19, 21 Nov 21 First paper draft Week 14 Nov 26 Nov 28 Thanksgiving (no class) Week 15 Dec 3, 7 Week 16 Dec 10, 12 Final paper draft – date TBA

 Main themes and literature (tentative):

 I. ARGUMENT 

WEEK 1. Aug 29 Introduction WEEK 2. Sep 3, 5 Argument: Metatheory, Theory, Reality Barnet and Bedau, 18-41; Van Evera, 7-43 Kassiola

 II. RESEARCH AND THEORY  

WEEK 3. Sep 10, 12 Computer Session: Power Point Research Data Bases

WEEK 4. Sep 17, 19 Paper Guidlines Van Evera, 123-29; Kassiola Introduction to IR Theories Walt, 27-34 Sep 19 Paper topic due

  

III. THEORETICAL TRADITIONS 

WEEK 5. Sep 24, 26 Realism Morgenthau, 34-38; Wohlforth, 157-173; Huntington, 174-180; Krasner, 297-307; Van Evera, 365-382; Layne, 397-421  Background readings: Waltz, 70-90

WEEK 6. Oct 1, 3 Liberalism Kant, 393-396; Wilson, 4-6; Doyle, 39-51, 268-277; Friedman, 440-445; Keck and Sikkink, 335-345 Oct 3 Paper proposal due  WEEK 7. Oct 8, 10 Egalitarianism Frank, 52-59; Wallerstein, 149-157; Tickner, 60-69; UND Program, 422-430; Held et al., 446-455; Sen, 456-469

 
WEEK 8. Oct 15, 17

QUIZ

Presentation Guidelines

IV. DEBATES

WEEKS 9-14. Oct 22-Dec 10 Oct 24 Annotated bibliography due Nov 26 First paper draft due  Nov 28—Happy Thanksgiving!

Dec 12 Summary Final paper draft due – Date TBA