Examiner Commentary

IR3083 International Political Theory

JA Morrison, 13 January 2018

General remarks
Learning outcomes

At the end of this course and having completed the Essential reading and activities,
candidates should be able to:

- demonstrate knowledge of different frameworks for thinking about international

politics

- demonstrate knowledge of a range of ideas, concepts and texts in international

political theory and the historical contexts in which they arose

- distinguish and evaluate different methodological approaches within the study of

international politics

- evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways of explaining,

understanding and judging contemporary international politics.

The materials studied in the course are predominantly discussions of concepts and
theories, rather than empirical studies or historical accounts. Candidates should be able
to demonstrate that they are familiar with this literature in general and also with the core
literature for any particular topic. In the examination we expect to see critical essays that
analyse, compare, and assess ideas, rather than descriptive essays that merely present
factual materials or summarise the ideas and arguments of others. Candidates should
develop their own responses and interpretations to particular questions, while drawing
upon the literature for both the key concepts and the principal criticisms of them.

Planning your time in the examination

It is important that you plan your time carefully in the examination. You should take
care to produce the required number of answers; in this case, three out of twelve. Good
marks in two or fewer answers cannot make up for missing marks, and this is likely to
lead to a fail.

You will have your own preferences for planning each of the three answers. It is
generally advisable to take a few minutes at the beginning to set out the basic structure
of the answer. It need not be overly detailed but should contain the main points and
subheadings of an answer.

What are the examiners looking for?

 The Examiners are looking for carefully structured essay-format answers. You are
expected to present an argument that responds directly to the question posed, develop it,
critique it and sustain it. In doing so you need to demonstrate your knowledge of the
material, but it is equally important to demonstrate your critical analytic skills.

Structure your argument carefully

An examination question is not simply an invitation to write all that you can remember
about a particular topic. It is first and foremost an invitation to think about the best
possible answer to that question. Others will have thought about the question before you,
and their conclusions have formed the literature that you will have studied. So your
answer should draw upon that literature and the debates it contains. At the beginning, it
is important to give a clear account of the question and how your answer relates to it.
Thereafter, the substance of your answer needs to be clearly organised and directed
towards a stated conclusion. Think of your answer as a structured argument rather than
an unstructured conversation. To this end:

- In the introductory paragraph, explain in your own words what the question is
asking, then state your answer in the form of a line of argument

- In the main body of the answer, develop and substantiate your line of argument
making reference to the appropriate literature, theories, concepts and theorists
along the way, citing those that support your position and refuting those that
oppose it

- Conclude your answer by summarising the key points of your argument.

Remember that there is no ‘right’ answer to any question. Do not be afraid to take
positions. You will not be marked down if the Examiners disagree with you; on the
contrary, we are likely to be impressed if you can produce a reasoned argument that
challenges our own views. Marks are earned by answering questions in a way that
critically engages with the material covered in the subject guide. What we are judging is
your ability to define the issues at stake in a question, to develop a line of argument
about that question, to engage with the material that has been written about it, and finally
to marshal ideas and evidence in support of your argument.

Read widely

In order to perform well in the examination, you will need to read beyond the Essential
reading for each chapter in the subject guide, making recourse to the Further reading and
beyond. The Essential reading is intended to provide the basic material on which the
chapter commentary of the subject guide is based. The Further reading supplements this,
and points you to ideas, criticisms and issues that might be explored further.
Demonstration of a breadth of reading is often an important dimension of the best
answers.

Key steps to improvement

Frequent shortcomings in previous years include:

 • Not answering the question. Candidates need to answer the question that is asked
rather than giving an answer to the one that they were hoping for. More problematic
are answers which appear to be largely memorised or a carefully rehearsed answer to
a similar question from a previous year’s paper. (See below for further discussion of
‘question spotting’.)

• Neglecting to define key terms. In the wording of a question, each important word
or phrase should be identified and explained clearly, especially if it is a contested
concept that reasonable people can disagree about.

• Displaying only a basic understanding of the topic. Weak answers often entailed
candidates simply regurgitating or restating the material in the subject guide without
demonstrating that they had thought about it or read the Essential reading, let alone
the additional readings that are suggested.

• Providing unstructured surveys or discussions of the topic. Weak answers often

lacked focus, drifting off into discussions of tangentially related material or covering
everything that the candidate knew on a topic.

Below are some suggestions as to how candidates can address such potential weaknesses
through their study of the material and their exam preparation:

• You need to read beyond the subject guide. Doing this will provide you with the
additional materials necessary for a considered and comprehensive answer to the
question posed. There is no simple rule about how much additional reading is
necessary; you should read what you can manage, and what you find rewarding. Some
questions will focus on specific thinkers and some on broader issues and debates.
What is relevant in each case will differ.

• Read each question carefully and make sure that you answer the question that
has been set. Sometimes that will depend on what a particular term in the question
actually means, so consider the synonyms and antonyms for that term. Think about
the ‘centre of gravity’ of each question and what is it asking you to discuss. For
example if the question is asking you ‘why’ something happens, then the answer must
be ‘because of something else’. You cannot answer by giving a chronological
narrative or a detailed description or a comprehensive list; the answer must be a
reason or a set of reasons that respond logically to the question.

• You need to provide an explicit line of argument in response to the question

asked. Bear in mind that the examination paper consists of precise questions and not
broad invitations to write all that you can remember. You are being assessed on your
ability to interpret and answer a question. This is something you should have
practised whilst following the subject guide. So you should go into the examination
prepared to think, not with ready-prepared answers to last year’s questions that you
then attempt to squeeze into one of this year’s questions.

• Develop your own ideas and arguments. The aim is not to provide a summary of
what various authors on the reading list have argued, but to develop your own
perspective. Use the ideas of the authors to inform and enrich your own analysis.
 • Show conviction and be persuasive. There is no single right answer in relation to
the debates covered in the subject guide; instead you are free to choose. What you
write will be judged on its merits, not according to any fixed template. The quality of
your answer and your examination performance will therefore depend upon a critical
and analytical approach to the literature and to the theories covered in the subject
guide and in the Further reading.

Question Spotting

Many candidates are disappointed to find that their examination performance is poorer
than they expected. This can be due to a number of different reasons and the Examiners’
commentaries suggest ways of addressing common problems and improving your
performance.

We want to draw your attention to one particular failing – ‘question spotting’, that is,
confining your examination preparation to a few question topics which have come up in
past papers for the course. This can have very serious consequences.

We recognise that candidates may not cover all topics in the syllabus in the same depth,
but you need to be aware that Examiners are free to set questions on any aspect of the
syllabus. This means that you need to study enough of the syllabus to enable you to
answer the required number of examination questions.

The syllabus can be found in the Course information sheet in the section of the VLE
dedicated to this course. You should read the syllabus very carefully and ensure that you
cover sufficient material in preparation for the examination.

Examiners will vary the topics and questions from year to year and may well set
questions that have not appeared in past papers – every topic on the syllabus is a
legitimate examination target. So although past papers can be helpful in revision, you
cannot assume that topics or specific questions that have come up in past examinations
will occur again.

If you rely on a question spotting strategy, it is likely you will find yourself in
difficulties when you sit the examination paper. We strongly advise you not to
adopt this strategy.

Information about the subject guide and the Essential reading references
Unless otherwise stated, all cross-references will be to the latest version of the subject
guide (2011). You should always attempt to use the most recent edition of any Essential
reading textbook, even if the commentary and/or online reading list and/or subject guide
refers to an earlier edition. If different editions of Essential reading are listed, please
check the VLE for reading supplements – if none are available, please use the contents
list and index of the new edition to find the relevant section.
Comments on specific questions
Candidates should answer THREE of the following TWELVE questions. All questions
carry equal marks.

Question 1. ‘Classical theorists have nothing to contribute to the study of contemporary

international relations.’ Do you agree?

Reading for this question

This question draws on readings relating to classical theorists. The key text is Brown,
Nardin and Rengger (2002 – the introduction to the edited volume itself; the introductory
essays to each of the sections as well as the text from an individual theorist that may be
of interest to you). Additional useful material can be found in, Brown (2001 – Chapters 1
and 2) Boucher (1998 – Chapters 1 and 2), Knutsen (1997 – Introduction), Booth and
Smith (1995 – Chapter 12), Smith, Booth and Zalweski (1996 – Chapter 9), Wright and
Evans (1993 – Introduction, and Chapter 12), Dunn, Kurki and Smith (2007 –
Introduction and Chapter 2), Jackson and Sorenson (2003 – Chapter 1) and Clark and
Neumann (1996 Introduction and Conclusion). Many of these volumes contain essays on
individual thinkers as well as broad schools of though and traditions in international
theory which will also touch on the linkages between classical theory and theorists and
contemporary international relations. These should be read in conjunction with the
overview of this material in Chapter 2 of the subject guide.

Approaching the question

This question is looking for an analysis of the relevance of classical thinkers to world
politics today.

The weaker answers tended to ignore the broader concerns of the question and simply
rehearsed the views of one or more classical theorists. Although they may have
demonstrated some knowledge of what a particular classical theorist said or thought,
they didn’t answer the question. Better answers to this question focused on one or more
classical theorists and discussed their ideas while emphasising how they resonated with
contemporary international theories such as realism or liberalism. But both these types of
answer still skirted around the broader context of the question.

The strongest answers to this question offered a discussion of the nature of the relevance
of classical theories: contemporary theories draw on them, are informed by them, and
rework them while the classical ideas and arguments considered by themselves may
resonate with, and provide insights into, contemporary debates and dilemmas. The
strong answers then moved on to consider whether and how classical theory can help us
to understand contemporary processes, issues, problems and events such as
globalisation, democratisation, the nature and character of empire, the clash between
justice and power, the nature and limits of political community, justifications for
violence and the use of force, and the role of international law. In looking at these
themes they may have made reference to particular classical theorists and how their
ideas and arguments resonate with contemporary issues. The best answers to this
question would also have discussed the issue of selectivity, showing the manner in
which the ideas of classical thinkers are used, manipulated and drawn on by
 contemporary international theory in a highly discriminatory manner in order to provide
legitimacy for their own arguments.

They would also have noted that there are several limitations to the idea that any older
theory could, in principle, have contemporary relevance. Among these would be the
argument that the classical authors were writing in particular times and places and
responding to particular events. There may be potential dangers in simply transferring
ideas from 2,000 years ago to contemporary world politics. In addition, some note that
the canon of generally accepted ‘classical thinkers’ is one that was constructed by
contemporary international theory, which is primarily a product of western theorists. To
this extent, the classical writers and their ideas represent a particular set of political
concerns and cultural biases that may or may not have relevance outside that context.

Question 2. ‘Neo-realism has made only minor changes to classical realism.’ Discuss.

Reading for this question

This question asks candidates to compare and contrast classical realist and neo-realist
approaches to international relations.

The key readings here are Waltz (1979), Keohane (1986), Kegley (1995), and Donnelly
(2000), as well as relevant chapters in a number of the recommended volumes such as:
Dunne et al. (2007) Chapters 3, 4 and 7; Jackson and Sørensen (2010) Chapters 3 and 5;
Burchill et al. (2001), Chapter 3; John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds) The globalization of
world politics. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001) second editon [ISBN
9780198782636] Chapter 6; Booth and Smith (1995), Chapter 11; Smith et al. (1996),
Chapter 2; and Brown (2001), Chapter 3.

In the subject guide, candidates would need to draw on material from Chapter 3 (for
accounts of realism and neo-realism) and from Chapter 2 (classical roots of both) and
Chapter 4 (critical theory critiques of both).

Approaching the question

The weakest answers tended to offer broad, often inaccurate accounts of realism more
generally and were uninformed about the distinctions between the various approaches or
orientations within realism. They demonstrated almost no understanding of what neo-
realism entailed and/ or what constituted ‘classical realism’. As a consequence they had
very little to say about the differences between them and whether they were of any
significance or not.

Weak answers simply set out rehearsed or memorised accounts of the two perspectives
with little effort at critical analysis and commentary or direct engagement with the
question. These were often unbalanced answers, containing too much detail on one
approach and not enough on the other. More problematic was that they often failed to
highlight what, if anything, was distinctive about neo-realism and whether the points of
continuity with classical realism outweighed these in assessing its contribution to the
development of international theory.
 Good answers outlined both approaches (including providing good accounts of what
‘classical realism’ entails) and discussed their similarities and differences, particularly
on issues such as the importance (or not) of human nature, the domestic character of
states, the centrality of states as actors, the relative power of states, and their
understandings and accounts of the anarchic nature of the international system. They
identified and, importantly, evaluated the two key shifts that take place with Waltzian
neo-realism as compared with the classical realism of Carr, Morgenthau and Bull: firstly,
the shift from a focus on state-level (second image) policy analysis to a focus on the
structural logic of an anarchic international system with its view that states are
functionally undifferentiated and that variations in the system are down solely to
differences in capabilities; and secondly, the move from understanding international
politics using ‘wisdom’ and historical insight (famously characterised by Bull as the
‘classical’ approach) to explaining international politics via a neo-positivist approach
that is informed and influenced by the approach to theory found in economics. Doing so
provided the basis for assessing whether these changes were minor/marginal leaving
much in common between the various forms of realism or whether they constituted
significant breaks with the classical tradition.

Outstanding answers were able to structure their evaluation of the two perspectives in
terms of their methodological, epistemological and ontological orientations. Structuring
the analysis along this tripartite line allowed for a more mixed evaluation about the
difference and similarities. Some of the most interesting answers arguing that the
differences were more than marginal did so on the basis of a claimed affinity/resonance
between classical realism and forms of critical international theory that differentiate
classical realism from the determinism and ahistoricism of neo-realism.

Question 3. To what extent does the domestic character of a state determine its foreign
policy?

Reading for this question

This question draws on a wide range of readings on both sides of the debate. The major
contrast is between the Waltzian-informed neo-realist position and the liberal
perspective. The key readings are Waltz (1979) on the one hand, and Doyle (in Kegley
1995) and Deudney and Ikenberry (1999) on the other. Also of relevance here are the
readings highlighted in Chapter 2 of the subject guide on Kant’s ideas regarding
‘perpetual peace’ which gets re-worked as ‘democratic peace theory’ in post-Cold War
world politics. Useful discussion of these issues can also be found in Dunne, Kurki and
Smith (2007 – Chapter 5), Burchill et al. (2001 – Chapter 2) and in Brown (2001 –
Chapters 4 and 11).

Approaching the question

The central concern of the question is probing into the debate on whether the domestic
character of states affects their foreign policy and in particular into the Kantian-informed
liberal claim that democratic states do not go to war with each other.

Weak answers tended not to make the connections between the question and competing
schools of thought within international theory, often focusing in a descriptive manner on
 aspects of the foreign policy of a particular state. And, in doing so, still didn’t explore
the connection between the domestic and the foreign.

Good answers compared and contrasted the Waltzian neo-realist account, which
emphasises the structural logic caused by insecurity in the international system, with the
Kantian liberal-informed account which argues that the nature of the political order
within states shapes how they behave in the international realm.

More nuanced answers would have made the connection through to the contemporary
debate surrounding the idea of ‘democratic peace theory’ that was developed by Michael
Doyle as an extension of Kant’s early arguments on perpetual peace, and assessing the
strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.

The best answers would have located these discussions and debates as examples of the
yet wider tensions between the Waltzian second-image and third-image accounts of
international politics, with the stress being laid either on the state or on the global system
as ways of explaining what happens in the world. In addition, more recent ideas such as
the structure-agent distinction and the concept of structuration could be introduced in
arguing that the domestic and the international are co-constitutive and that it is therefore
problematic to develop a causal explanation deriving solely from either the internal
domestic character of a state or the nature of the international system.

Question 4. Can we be confident in asserting that the spread of democracy causes

peace?

Reading for this question

This question concerned with the debate on whether the domestic character of states
(generally) and democratic norms and institutions (in particular) affect foreign policy in
clear ways. This ‘second image’ (Waltz, 1959) account of international relations has a
particular variant – the Kantian-informed liberal claim that democratic states do not go
to war with each other – that has been the focus of much debate since it was rearticulated
by Michael Doyle in the mid-1980s.

This question draws on a wide range of readings on both sides of the debate. The major
contrast is between the Waltzian-informed neo-realist position and the liberal
perspective. The key readings are Waltz (1979) on the one hand, and C.W. Doyle in
Kegley, Controversies in international relations theory: realism and the neoliberal
challenge. (London: Macmillan, 1995) [ISBN 9780333638019] and D. Deudney and
G.J. Ikenberry ‘The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order’, Review of
International Studies 25(2), 1999, pp.179–96 on the other.

Also of relevance here are the readings highlighted in Chapter 2 of the subject guide on
Kant’s ideas regarding ‘perpetual peace’ which gets re-worked as ‘democratic peace
theory’ in post-Cold War world politics. Useful discussion of these issues can also be
found in Dunne et al. (2007) Chapter 5, Burchill et al. (2001), Chapter 2, and C. Brown
Understanding international relations. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009) [ISBN
9780230213111] Chapters 4 and 11.
 Approaching the question

Weak answers tended to be fairly descriptive in nature. These often focused on the
foreign policy of one or more states in an effort to demonstrate that there was or wasn’t a
connection between the policies pursued and the domestic character of the state. These
descriptive answers tended to assert a connection or lack of connection and often lacked
any critical exploration of the connection between the domestic and the international.

Better answers compared and contrasted the Waltzian neo-realist account with the
Kantian liberal informed account. These would note that the Waltzian position
emphasises the structural logic caused by anarchy and insecurity in the international
system. This means that at their core, the foreign policies of states are all concerned with
the same things. Any variations are explained by their capabilities and not by their
domestic character. The Kantian liberal-informed position argues that the nature of the
political order within states shapes how they behave in the international realm. The most
prominent variation of the approach is the ‘democratic peace theory’ (DPT) which
argues that democratic states are more peaceful internally and do not go to war with each
other. The best of these answers engaged with the debates surrounding DPT highlighting
some of the limitations of and difficulties with DPT. In particular, they noted that the
domestic democratic character and the desire to promote democracy abroad could
produce fairly aggressive foreign policy behaviour on the part of ‘democratic states’
towards ‘non-democratic states’ up to and including regime change.

The best answers identified these debates as extensions of the tensions famously
identified by Waltzian between second-image and third-image accounts of international
politics, with the stress being laid either on the state or on the global system as ways of
explaining what happens in the world. Identifying the problematic nature of either of
these monocausal explanations provides a basis for moving the discussion on to recent
debates regarding the structure agent distinction and the extent to which Giddens’
concept of structuration provides a basis for constructivist accounts of foreign policy
which argue that the domestic and the international are co-constitutive opening up a
range of possibilities that move beyond the slightly sterile confines of the DPT.

Question 5. ‘Constructivism has not displaced other theories of international relations;

it has merely been co-opted by them.’ Explain and comment.

Reading for this question

The core texts for this topic are A. Adler ‘Seizing the Middle Ground’, European
Journal of International Relations 3, 1997, pp.319–64; A.

Wendt ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International

Organization 41(3), 1987, pp.335–70; and ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social
construction of power politics’, International Organization 46, 1992, pp.391–426 and
Keohane (1988).

Useful overviews and commentaries can be found in: Burchill et al. (2001), Chapter 8;
Dunne et al. (2007) Chapter 9; Baylis and Smith (2001), Chapter 9; and Jackson and
Sørensen (2003) Chapter 6.
 The relevant sections of the subject guide are the latter part of Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and
elements of Chapter 4. In answering this question, candidates will need a firm grasp of
mainstream/traditional international theory, together with knowledge of the various
forms of post-positivist theory and ideally with the different strands within
constructivism itself.

Approaching the question

The question is asking candidates to assess the status of constructivism in international

relations theory. Is it, as some advocates claim, a form of critical theory? Is it as many
have argued a via media or ‘middle ground’ between traditional and critical forms of
international relations theory? Or have its potentially radical theoretical and practical
impulses been coopted and tamed by mainstream neo-realist and neo-liberal traditions.

Very weak answers demonstrated limited or often misinformed knowledge of what

constructivism is and what its central claims are. They also failed to demonstrate
sufficient knowledge of mainstream international theory and forms of post-
positivist/critical theory and so were poorly placed to develop an informed answer to the
question along the lines of any of the above three variations.

Stronger answers provided an overview of constructivism, highlighting some of its key

features, including its methodological, epistemological and ontological orientations
regarding the socially constructed nature of international politics – best exemplified in
Wendt’s argument that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’. This provided the basis for
two variations in the stronger answers: (1) setting out a fairly robust defence of
constructivism as a genuine alternative to mainstream theories that has a notable impact
in areas such as security studies, the development and consolidation of norms, identity
politics; or (2) arguing that while the dominant Wendtian approach offers a radical take
on epistemology, methodologically and ontologically it has tended to reinforce the
questions and concerns of the mainstream ‘neo-neo’ consensus.

Outstanding responses tended to develop a more informed and sophisticated account of

constructivism, noting the differences between the arguments of Wendt, Adler and
others and using these differences to develop a more nuanced argument in relation to the
question. This allowed an argument that some forms of constructivism had indeed been
co-opted by the mainstream while others provided a more radical alternative in both
epistemological and ontological terms.

Question 6.‘Those who wish to understand international relations should first be

trained in scientific method’. Discuss.

Reading for this question

This question links to a wide range of readings. The key debates on ‘explaining’ vs
‘understanding’ to be found in M. Hollis and S. Smith Explaining and understanding
international relations. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991) [ISBN 9780198275886].
Additional useful readings can be found in Dunne et al. (2007) Chapter 2, Jackson and
Sørensen (2010) Chapter 11; Booth and Smith (1997), Chapter 10); Smith et al. (1996),
Chapters 1, 6, 15 and 18. Important supplementary readings are N. Woods (ed.)
Explaining international relations since 1945. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
[ISBN 9780198741954]; Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Predicting politics. (Columbus: Ohio
State UP, 2002) [ISBN 9780814208984]; and R. Keohane ‘International institutions: two
approaches’, International Studies Quarterly 32, 1988, pp.379–96.

But the more widely candidates have examined a range of theoretical positions in
international political theory, the more informed, nuanced and sophisticated will be the
answers they can develop. To this extent, while Chapter 5 of the subject guide is central
to this question, the material covered in Chapter 3 and especially in Chapter 4 on the
development of post-positivist international theory is also relevant.

Approaching the question

The question is asking candidates to evaluate the extent to which ‘scientific method’
should underpin and inform the study of international relations. This in turn requires that
the candidate unpacks and explores the various understandings and meanings of
‘science’ and ‘scientific method’ and the debates surrounding them.

Weak answers provided an often very basic account of ‘scientific method’ that equated it
with the approaches associated with the natural and physical sciences. Lacking in detail,
they would sometimes entail broad affirmations of the importance of such an orientation
but without any argument in support of the claim.

Sound, but in the end limited, answers provided a similar account and then set out to
demonstrate how such orientations are manifest within different approaches to
international relations theory, particularly in the form of behaviouralist and formal
analysis, including rational choice theory. However, these limited answers often failed to
do much more than this, and were lacking in critical insights.

Better answers provided an account of the debates surrounding ‘scientific method’,

highlighting the epistemological orientations that inform different perspectives –
particularly those that adhere to a more tightly drawn or strict ‘positivist’ understanding
of ‘science’ and knowledge claims. In assessing whether working in such an idiom is a
prerequisite for the study of international relations, they discussed the advantages and
disadvantages of applying such ‘objective’ methods to a fluid, dynamic and contingent
social realm such as global politics. They might also have noted how problematic the
positivist account of knowledge is in itself, even within the natural and physical
sciences.

The best answers connected these longstanding arguments with contemporary debates on
explanation versus understanding, the rise of post-positivist theories and the
confrontation between rationalist and reflectivist theories. They would also relate these
wider concerns back to contemporary international relations theory, highlighting how the
newer alternative approaches contest the positivist epistemological and ontological
underpinnings of dominant international theory. Some, while advocating such post-
positivist positions, argued that it was nevertheless useful to be knowledgeable about
traditional approaches in the course of developing critiques of and seeking to move
 beyond them. The very best answers were able to make connections through to
Wendtian constructivism and its effort at retaining ‘scientific method’ within a
subjectivist ontological frame.

Question 7. Has critical international theory failed to live up to its emancipatory

agenda?

Reading for this question

The relevant readings for this question are to be found in the edited collection by Wyn
Jones (2001), Smith, Booth and Zalewski (1996 Chapters 11 and 13), Burchill et al.
(2001 – Chapters 6 and 7), Dunne, Kurki and Smith (2007 – Chapters 8 and 11), Baylis
and Smith (2010 – Chapter 7), and Brown (2001 – Chapter 3). Several of the readings in
Keohane (1986) are of relevance, including Cox’s seminal article. Weber (2001) and
George (1994) provide useful overviews and commentaries. More adventurous
candidates may wish to read authors such as Linklater (1998), Campbell (1998), der
Derian (1992) and Walker (1993). The discussion in Chapter 4 of the subject guide is of
relevance here, as well as some of the material covered in Chapter 2. The treatment there
of Kant and Marx is particularly helpful because their ideas have exerted considerable
influence on the development of critical international theory. A serious attempt at this
topic requires extensive reading on the part of the candidate.

Approaching the question

This question is asking candidates to provide an overview and an assessment of critical

international theory, particularly with regard to its claims to promote emanicpatory
forms of politics. To answer this question, candidates would need a solid knowledge of
mainstream international theory (in particular Waltzian neo-realism) as well as critical
international theory, because the latter’s initial forays into international theory focused
primarily (although not exclusively) on the former.

Weak answers to this question tended to offer unconvincing accounts of what critical
theory entailed, often with inaccurate summaries of its core ideas and arguments or
mischaracterisation of the insights of key authors. Slightly better answers would offer a
reasonable description of the core ideas and arguments of critical international theory but
failed to demonstrate any real depth of knowledge. In both cases, the lack of serious
knowledge meant that candidates were not in a position to say anything of interest or
relevance regarding critical international theorists emancipatory claims.

Strong answers located the rise of critical international theory in the mid-1980s, drawing
on influences from outside international relations. These would note that ‘critical
international theory’ could be taken to refer broadly to all of the several forms of post-
positivist theorising in international relations, or narrowly to those forms directly
influenced by the Frankfurt School of philosophy and in particular to the work of Jürgen
Habermas. Either of these approaches was acceptable.

Whichever approach the answer adopted, strong answers provided a nuanced,

sophisticated and informed discussion of the critical theory’s take on issues of
 methodology, epistemology and ontology, noting its rejection of neo-realism/neo-
liberalism marginalisation of human agency, its ahistoricism and its uncritical attitude
towards power. They provided a detailed discussion of some of the key features of
critical international theory (either broadly or narrowly drawn) and its overall intent to
denaturalise or decentre the disciplining power of the supposedly ‘objective’, fixed and
timeless features of global politics. They would go on to assess the extent to which it has
succeeded in its objective of bringing about a paradigm shift that would open up
possibilities for transformative politics and for the re-imagining of politics, the political
and political community.

Outstanding answers developed a number of different lines of argument. Some offered

sophisticated, informed and critical discussion of Linklater’s ideas and arguments,
particularly on the possibilities for the transformation of political community and for a
‘thin cosmopolitanism’ and the problematic nature of critical theory’s underlying faith in
immanent progress in human history; of its universalism; and of the dangers of a politics
of homogenisation that follows from these.

Question 8. ‘The focus on gender has not changed the questions we ask about
international relations, but it has changed the answers we give.’ Discuss?

Reading for this question

The core readings for this question are J. Steans, Gender and international relations.
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998) [ISBN 9780813525129]; Weber (2001), J. Ann Tickner
‘Feminist Perspectives on 9/11’, International Studies Perspectives 3(4), 2002, pp.333–
50 and E. Blanchard ‘Gender, International Theory, and the Development of Feminist
Security Theory’, Signs: Journal of Women, Culture and Society 28(4), 2003.

In addition there are relevant overviews and commentaries in: Burchill et al. (2001);,
Chapter 9, Smith et al. (1996), Chapter 12; Baylis and Smith (2001), Chapter 25; Dunne
et al. (2007) Chapter 10. Booth and Smith (1995), Chapters 8 and 13 will be of use.

The material discussed in Chapter 4 of the subject guide is also relevant. The discussions
of mainstream and classical international theory in Chapters 3 and 2 respectively help to
provide background. Candidates may also find it useful to read some of the work of
leading feminist thinkers in international relations such as Enloe and Elshtain.

Approaching the question

As with the critical international theory question, answering this question requires solid
knowledge of feminist international theory and the mainstream international theory it is
critiquing.

The question is asking candidates to assess the impact of the focus on ‘gender’ within
international relations. The question contains two elements that should be addressed:
what ought to be the core questions/concerns of international theory and the answer
given.
 Weaker answers tended to display a thin, slight understanding of feminist international
theory. These answers often descended into a more descriptive account of feminist or
gender-related issues in international relations but in a manner that was often
disconnected from the twin concerns of the question.

Slightly stronger answers also provided a survey of different perspectives within

feminist international theory (liberal, critical theory, Marxist, post-structuralist,
constructivist, post-colonial). While these demonstrated some knowledge of these
different schools of thought they were often unconnected self-contained thumbnail
sketches and again did not connect with the concerns of the question.

Stronger answers would also survey the landscape of international theory with regard to
gender and would use this as the jumping off point for answers that more or less took the
assumptions as a given and launched into the different kinds of answers that a focus on
gender provided to the traditional core questions and concerns of mainstream
international relations.

Very strong answers questioned the assumptions of the question arguing that a focus on
gender both changed the questions we asked and the answers provided. This would be
linked to the conceptual, theoretical, epistemological and ontological challenges that
gender-informed theory poses for mainstream international theory, highlighting the
manner in which mainstream approaches enabled and legitimised the marginalisation of
women in international politics – both in theory and in practice. The best of these
answers would then highlight some of the different questions, concerns and answers
provided by these alternative theorisations.

Question 9. ‘The contemporary relevance of classical international theory is

fundamentally restricted by it Eurocentrism’. Discuss.

Reading for this question

This question draws on readings relating to classical theorists. The key text is Chris
Brown, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger (eds) International relations in political
thought: texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002) [ISBN 9780521575706]. The introduction to the edited volume
itself; the introductory essays to each of the sections as well as the text from individual
theorists may be of interest to you.

Additional useful material can be found in: Chris Brown Understanding international
relations. (Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2001) second edition [ISBN 9780333948507]
Chapters 1 and 2; D. Boucher Political theories of international relations. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998) [ISBN 9780198780533] Chapters 1 and 2); T. Knutsen
The history of international relations theory. (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1997) [ISBN 9780719049309] Introduction; K. Booth and S. Smith (eds) International
relations theory today. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995) [ISBN 9780745611662] Chapter
12; S. Smith, K. Booth and M. Zalewski (eds) International theory: positivism and
beyond. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) Chapter 9; H. Williams, M.
Wright and T. Evans (eds) A Reader in international relations and political theory.
(Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1993) [ISBN 9780335156672] Introduction and
Chapter 12; T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith International relations theories: discipline
and diversity (Oxford: OUP, 2007) [ISBN 9780199548866 ] Introduction and Chapter 2;
Jackson and Sørensen Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches.
(Oxford: OUP, 2010) [ISBN 9780199548842] Chapters 1 and 2, and Clark, I. and I.
Neumann (eds) Classical theories of international relations. (London: Macmillan, 1996)
[ISBN 9780312159313] Introduction and Conclusion.

Many of these volumes contain essays on individual thinkers as well as broad schools of
thought and traditions in international theory which will also touch on the linkages
between classical theory and theorists and contemporary international relations. These
should be read in conjunction with the overview of this material in Chapter 2 of the
subject guide.

Approaching the question

This question is looking for an analysis of the contemporary relevance of classical

international theorists. The key phrases in the question are ‘contemporary relevance’ and
‘Eurocentrism’. Answers that didn’t connect with both of these would have missed key
elements of a good answer.

The weaker answers to this question tended to ignore the broader concerns of the
question, missing out on both of the connections highlighted above. These answers
tended to simply rehearse the views of one or more classical theorists. Although they
may have demonstrated some limited, basic knowledge of what a particular classical
theorist said or thought, they didn’t provide an answer to the question.

Better answers to this question focused on one or more classical theorists and how their
ideas and arguments manifested themselves in forms of contemporary international
theory (e.g. Machiavelli in realism; Grotius in liberalism). But in their focus on just
‘theory’ they would have missed out on other aspects that might demonstrate the traction
or not in relation to contemporary issues or problems in international relations. More
often than not they provided only limited engagement with the ‘Eurocentrism’ aspect of
the question and as a result provided only partial engagement with the question.

The strongest answers to this question offered an initial discussion or survey of the
contemporary relevance of classical theories, highlighting how contemporary theories
draw on them, are informed by them, rework them and in so doing can help us to
understand contemporary processes, issues, problems and events such as globalisation,
democratisation, the nature and character of empire, the clash between justice and
power, the nature and limits of political community, justifications for violence and the
use of force, and the role of international law. Having done this they were then able to
assess whether, how and to what extent these insights were tempered or undermined by
Eurocentrism. Arguments highlighting the limitations might argue that the ideas and
arguments of classical theorists are a product of particular times and places and
responses to particular events, and highlight the potential dangers in simply transferring
ideas from 2,000 years ago to contemporary world politics. The inherent ‘western’
nature of the values embodied and embraced by classical theorists might have limited
traction in non-western societies with differing conceptions of the individual, the
community, and of politics. Other strong answers would note but rebut these claims,
arguing that the insights offered into politics, cooperation, conflict, war and peace are
 universal in nature and not simply ‘European’ and that the global expansion of a
‘European state system’ reinforced their relevance beyond their initial time and place.

Question 10. ‘Today the sovereign state is out of date, even as an idea.’ Discuss.

Reading for this question

The material relevant to this question links back to the 11 Introduction to international
relations subject guide as well as linking into the understandings and accounts of state
sovereignty articulated in different theories of international relations (Chapters 3, 4 and 6
of the subject guide) and the discussions on the nature, extent and implications of
nonstate actors and the dynamics of ‘globalisation’. Useful reading are Hobson (2000),
Baylis and Smith (2010 – Chapters 1, 18 and 24), Burchill et al. (2001 – Chapter 7),
Dunne, Kurki and Smith (2007 – Chapter 14), Brown (2001 – Chapter 7), and Jackson
and Sorenson (2003 – Chapters 1 and 10). Brown (2002) provides a useful overall
survey that places the issue in the wider context of contemporary debates on normative
issues.

Approaching the question

This question is asking candidates to assess whether sovereignty is still relevant as a

central defining characteristic of the state.

Weaker answers tended to provide an overly descriptive discussion of the undermining

of sovereignty without much contextualisation of the concept of sovereignty itself. They
often veered off into discussions of tangential issues and did not provide much in the
way of critical analysis of how and why the examples cited either undermined or
reinforced the idea of sovereignty.

Stronger answers provided an initial account of what the idea of sovereignty entails,
doing so in a way that also traced out its intellectual and historical roots from the Treaty
of Westphalia onwards. These discussions also noted that it is a contested concept with
multiple dimensions that can be variously characterised as internal/external,
positive/negative, and especially de jure/de facto. The latter distinguishes between its
juridical form (sovereign status being recognised by other sovereign states under
international law) and its political/socioeconomic/ military dimensions (the actual ability
of a state to exercise full control over its people and territory). The disjunction between
the legal idea and the actual practice of sovereignty produces what Jackson refers to as
‘quasi-sovereign states’.

While noting that the idea of sovereignty is central to mainstream international theory,
particularly the ‘international society’ approach, good answers would go on to discuss a
range of contemporary dynamics which call into question the centrality and relevance of
‘absolute’ sovereignty. These could range from the emergence of subnational and
supranational entities to aspects of globalisation, humanitarian intervention, and the
establishment of the ICC. Excellent answers would link these into the shift to what UN
Secretary-Generals Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan termed ‘conditional sovereignty’: the
idea that the rights and prerogatives associated with sovereign status were predicated on
 how a state treated its own citizens. Other strong answers mounted robust defences of
the continued centrality of sovereignty to international order.

Drawing on various strands of critical international theory, outstanding answers argued

that sovereignty is an historically contingent concept; it may continue to persist and have
contemporary relevance but its form is constantly changing and evolving. These answers
would make the connection to the arguments developed by Linklater and others
regarding the ‘transformation of political community’ so that it is no longer seen as
necessarily being in a one-to-one correspondence with the sovereign state. This creates
possibilities for a ‘post-Westphalian international order’.

Question 11. Can universal human rights be achieved in a world of value pluralism?

Reading for this question

The key readings for this question are: J.R. Bauer and D.A. Bell (eds) The East Asian
challenge for human rights. (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press,
1999) [ISBN 9780521645362]; D.A. Bell East meets West: human rights and democracy
in East Asia. (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000) [ISBN 9780691005072];
Brown (2002); T. Dunne and N.J. Wheeler (eds) Human rights in global politics.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) [ISBN 9780521641388] and T. Risse,
S.C. Ropp and K. Sikkink (eds) The power of human rights: international norms and
domestic change. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) [ISBN
9780521650939].

Relevant readings can be found in: Baylis and Smith (1997), Chapters 14 and 24; Dunne
et al. (2007) Chapter 7 and Brown (2001), Chapter 7.

Chapter 6 of the subject guide provides the overview relevant to the question, but as
above candidates will also find some of the ideas in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of some use.

Approaching the question

This question invites candidates to discuss the constraints on and impediments to the
realisation of universal human rights.

The weaker answers to this question provided an unduly descriptive answer, often
starting with a very superficial account of what the human rights regime entails and then
providing an account or catalogue of human rights abuses – which misses the point of
the question.

Better answers would focus on some of the practical issues that constrain the
implementation of a universal human rights regime, often focusing on the seeming
limitations of the UN and other international bodies. While these touched on some
relevant issues, they often failed to address the core tensions identified in the question.

Stronger answers set up their argument by providing an initial brief account of the
development of human rights discourses and practices, particularly in the post-1945
 international system and as manifested in various international conventions and their
consolidation in the aftermath of the Cold War as evidenced by the post-conflict
tribunals to address war crimes in the Balkans, Rwanda and Cambodia and more
recently the ICC with its indictment of several heads of state. In doing so, very good
candidates were able to identify the core issues: that the human rights regime is largely a
product of and infused with western liberal understandings of rights (focused primarily
on the individual and civil/ political in nature) which clash with non-western value
systems. The most prominent example of this being the debate started in the 1990s
surrounding ‘Asian values’.

The strongest answers would locate the discussion in wider frames of reference such as
the debate between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism and the tensions between
universalism and particularlism (a theme touched on by Carr in The twenty years’ crisis
where he notes that all forms of universalism are in reality ‘particularisms’ projected by
the powerful within the international system).

Outstanding answers would go on to explore whether it was possible to overcome the

problem of value pluralism either through the ‘pluralist’ orientations with the English
school/international society perspective or via the ‘thin cosmopolitanism’ of Linklater
that would point to a core of values that have cross-cultural traction.

Question 12. ‘The fundamental driving force of world politics is the struggle between
classes, not the struggle between states’. Discuss.

Reading for this question

The question is asking candidates to assess the insights derived from Marxian informed
analysis in comparison with dominant theoretical approaches and traditions that place
the state at the centre of analysis.

The question connects with a wide range of readings. Candidates will obviously need to
be conversant with the mainstream, state-centric approaches in international theory as
exemplified by (neo)realism and (neo)liberalism. They will also need to be well versed
in Marxian influenced approaches. The section on Marx in Chapter 2 of the subject
guide provides a useful overview of Marx’s ideas and the section on
‘Marxism/Structuralism’ in Chapter 3 provides an overview of more contemporary
thinkers, such as Wallerstein.

Useful detailed discussions of Marx can be found in: Brown et al. (2002) pp.521–24 and
572–74; M. Forsyth and M. Keens-Soper (eds) The political classics: a guide to the
essential texts from Plato to Rousseau. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) [ISBN
9780192852823] Chapter 6; H. Williams International relations in political theory.
(Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1992) [ISBN 9780335156276], Chapter 11;
W.B. Gallie Philosophers of peace and war. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1978) [ISBN 9780521217798] Chapter 4; and Boucher (1998), Chapter 15. Extracts
from Wallerstein can be found in Chapter 18 of Williams et al. (1993) and Chapter 3.3 in
R. Little and M. Smith (eds) Perspectives on world politics. (London: Routledge, 1991)
second edition [ISBN 9780415056243]. Detailed discussion and assessment can be
found in Burchill et al. (2001), Chapter 5, and Chapter 10 of Baylis and Smith (2001).
Approaching the question

Weak answers provided an often thin account of Marx’s views on the nature of
capitalism and class struggles. These would then veer off into largely descriptive
accounts of the structural inequalities within the international system or attempt to make
connections back to contemporary events such as the Eurozone crisis as a way of
demonstrating the validity of Marxian insights.

Stronger answers set up a contrast with the contemporary landscape of international

theory. This entailed a discussion of the dominant approaches within contemporary
international theory – neo-realism and neo-liberalism – noting that, whatever their
differences, they shared a starting assumption regarding the state as the foundation of
international politics and anarchy as its core problematique. In contrast they argued that
political economy perspectives, particularly Marxian perspectives, offered an alternative
account of the structural features of the international system rooted in its analysis of
capitalism. This overview provided a platform for assessing Marxian, class-based
analysis with the better answer offering a mixed assessment noting that it provided some
genuine insights into the ongoing global financial crisis, possibly insights into the events
of the Arab Spring, but had more limited relevance in other areas.

The best answers traced the trajectory of Marxian insights through to Lenin and theories
of imperialism and on to Andre Gunder Frank’s dependency theory, Wallerstein’s
‘world system analysis’ and Hardt and Negri on ‘empire’ noting that a shared feature of
these positions was that they argued that class relations within a domestic context had
been globalised and that the state system was an epiphenomenon of the underlying
dynamics of capitalism. In assessing the insights of Marxian perspectives, they noted
that the transformative, revolutionary politics that was meant to flow from such a
position had been blunted by the rise of the welfare state and therefore needed to
confront the resilience of the capitalist world economy.