Formation/Cours

Students will deepen their understanding of international relations approaches by examining the core debates of the field and learn how to apply these critical approaches to contemporary global politics.

This course explores the constellation of critical approaches to International Relations studies that have emerged from and after the debates with rationalist approaches (Liberalism, Realism approaches). Neo-marxist, post-colonialist, feminist, or sociological approaches, they all share the critique of a positivist aim to produce a stato-centric and value free scholarship, and a concern to develop perspectives that reveal the relations of domination at work in international politics. The first part of the course examines a broad range of critical approaches to IR, and the second part will focus on specific topics that are at the heart of critical approaches’ interest such as identity, security, and institutions.

Session 1: The reflective Turn in International Relations
• Booth Ken (2019), ‘International Relations: The Story So Far’, International Relations, Vol. 33(2): 358-390.

Session 2: Neo-Marxist Approaches
• Cox Robert W. (1981), ‘Social forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium, 10 (2): pp. 126-155.
• Wallerstein Immanuel (1990), ‘Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World-System’, Theory, Culture & Society, Volume 7, Issue 2-3: 31-55.

Session 3: Post-colonial approaches
• Chowdhry Geeta and Nai Sheila (2004), ‘Introduction’: Power in a postcolonial world: Race, gender, and class in international relations, in Power, Postcolonialism and international relations. Reading race, gender and class, London: routledge: 1-28
• Bilgin Pinar (2016), ‘“Contrapuntal Reading” as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR’, International Studies Review, 18 : pp. 134–146.

Session 4: Feminist approaches
• Tickner Ann J.(2005). “What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions”, International Studies Quarterly, 49(1): 1- 21.
• Henry Marsha (2017), ‘Problematizing military masculinity, intersectionality and male vulnerability in feminist critical military studies’, Critical Military Studies, Vol. 3(2): pp. 182-199.

Session 5: Sociological and constructivist approaches
• Finnemore Martha (1996), ‘Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology’s institutionalism’, International Organization, Vol. 50 (2), pp. 325-347.
• Waever Ole (2011), ‘Politics, Security, Theory’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 42 (4-5): 465-480.

Session 6: Institutions, sovereignty and IR
• Keohane, Robert (1988). “International Institutions: Two Approaches”, International Studies Quarterly 32(4): 379-396. (In John J. Kirton (Ed.), International Organization, 2009, London: Routledge).
• Bigo Didier & Walker Rob (2007), ‘Political Sociology and the Problem of the International’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 35 No.3: pp. 725-739.
Session 7: Security
• Chisholm Amanda (2014), ‘Marketing the Gurkha security package: Colonial histories and neoliberal economies of private security’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 45(4): 349–372.
• Aradau Claudia & van Munster Rens (2007), ‘Governing Terrorism Through Risk: Taking Precautions, (un)Knowing the Future’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 13 (1): 89-115.

Session 8: Identity and Citizenship
• Leese Matthias (2022), ‘Fixing State Vision: Interoperability, Biometrics, and Identity Management in the EU’, Geopolitics, Vol. 27 (1): 113-133.
• Williams Michael C. (1998), ‘Identity and the Politics of Security’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 4 (2): 204-225.

Session 9: Conclusion: Critics of Critical approaches
• Hobson John M. (2007), ‘Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphalian towards a post-racist critical IR’, Review of International Studies, 33, 91–116.
• Austin Jonathan L., Bellanova Rocco, & Kaufmann Mareile (2