Each readings has questions which will be answered in a summary of 500 words.
:They are all international relations oriented.
What assumptions about international politics are shared by neoliberals and neorealists? What are the significant differences between these two theories? What is the difference between a system of states and a society of states? What are the mains characteristics of liberalism? Why do liberals believe the international system can be reformed? How do liberals envisage the institutions of the international society transformed toward peace? Why do neorealists suggest the world system reproduces conflict and war? Why are neorealists skeptical about the possibilities within international institutions for the pacification of the international system?
What is the difference between the Three Rs (Realism, Rationalism and Revolutionism)? What are the five pillars of international order, according to Hedley Bull? Why does the English School believe there has been an expansion of international society? What is the debate between the Solidarists and Pluralists within the English School? What is the difference between humanitarian intervention and R2P? How can we balance the competing ends of order and justice?
Is a world divided by states inherently unjust? Does global capitalism promote or hinder international order and justice? Is there a tension between the promotion of the national interest and the ethics of international law and justice? Can we defend the society of states when the world is characterised by gross differences of wealth? To what extent does the international order create poverty and does it have a responsibility to end it? How ought the world be ordered?Can principles of justice be universalised? How can we transform existing international order to a world of justice?
What is the difference between problem-solving and critical theory? Is there a link between knowledge and power, knowledge and human interests? What are the limitations of positivist approaches to IR? Can we promote dialogue between states and civilizations?
Have we moved into a postmodern era in world politics? Is there any foundation for human knowledge? Is postmodernism critique of IR based on discursive, normative or historical ruptures with the discipline of IR? How do the claims of sovereignty assume the boundedness and supremacy of the nation-state, and what does this exclude? How would a postmodern ethic operate in world politics? What duties do we owe non-citizens, especially aslym seekers?
Has the discourse of IR theory given equal accord to the perspectives of women? In what ways is the theory and practices of world politics gendered? What are the implications of the inequalities between men and women for order, justice, and peace?
What is decolonisation? Can it be \’completed\’? How can we explain the vast inequalities between North and South? How does history contribute to the ongoing disparities in world politics? How does race and racism contribute to conflict in world politics? What are the underlying assumption of liberal international order – do they exclude certain ways of thinking and being?
How did constructivism emerge after the end of the Cold War and the undermining of the Neo-Neos after the Cold War? In what ways does this emergence fit with American power? How does Wendt build on Waltzs work in making his argument or belief that anarchy is what states make of it?