WHY DO STATES DO WHAT THEY DO? THE REALIST (I.E., THE DOMINANT) PERSPECTIVE States have primacy as unitary intl. actors (while leaders come and go, states have predictable patterns over the long run) Regardless of regime type, states typically act rationally (at least in the big picture) and thus predictably Interests = behavior = morals, not the reverse even though it may look like it sometimes The key feature of the international system is anarchy, which leads to constant security dilemmas. Survival instincts and the acquisition /use of power thus drive all state behavior The international system is self-balancing and conflict driven; power is what ma tters.

DIVISIONS WITHIN REALISM When do other states “bandwagon” with hegemons or instead “balance” them? Are empires a help or a hindrance to intl. security? What kind of power matters? Absolute or relative? Military or economic? Can anarchy and the “security dilemma” ever be overcome? Neo-realists argue that state behavior is a product of the international system Are their institutional arrangements that can overcome all of this?

WHERE DO LIBERALS AGREE? Anarchy can be overcome through learning new norms and interdependence… What really happened after Hurricane Katrina… Many “zero-sum” sum games can be made into “postitive-sum games” The “prisoners dilemma” incentivizes learning and cooperation States aren’t unitary actors. Do sub-state actors/institutions make their states behave differently than they used to? Taking Hobbes to the next level: Domestic society/inst. building analogies can and are being applied to intl. politics—we are entering into social contracts that reduce conflict Humans can learn to build the norms of peace and international interaction… and they have lots of incentives to do so in the form of positive sum games and avoiding prisoners dilemmas. Interaction & trade between different societies is good The ability to interact well—diplomacy—is as critical to state power as the military… and it is more powerful in most situations

DIVISIONS WITHIN LIBERALISM Do democracies really get along with other states? Should the world—or at least—major intl. institutions prefer democracies? Whose values matter most in building the intl. community? If we favor liberalism, are we favoring capitalism and western values? Is supranational government necessary, desirable, or inevitable? What should it look like? When are states likely to engage in collective action? Should coercion (removing bad people) should be used to achieve a liberal international society

WHAT DO “RADICALS” SEE AS THE MAIN DRIVERS OF INTL. RELATIONS? What is the basic Marxist argument? All political history is class struggle Capitalism has contradictions that lead to war and revolution Capitalist governments serve only “bourgeoisie” interests Do states mostly do what their capitalist classes want them to do?

What can Marxist theory tell us about global relations? What did Vladimir Lenin have to say about imperialism as a response to the failure of Marx to predict revolution? Dependency/world systems theory: Is the entire world one economic system Antonio Gramsci’s hegemony and the emergence of intl. institutions and norms Is “globalization” the final stage of capitalism?

IS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS WHAT WE MAKE IT? What is “post modernism”? Can ideas and “discourse” really shape intl. politics? How do “constructivists” see world politics and change over time? Can important ideas really change all that quickly? Just because ideas can change quickly, will they? What typically makes big ideas about the way the world works change, and is there anything out there that might cause such a revisioning?