Part I: Espyi Choose 2 of the questions/topics below and answer them with short essays no more than 4 pages double spaced each (8 pages total). Better essays will reference class discussions/lectures as well as readings. (30 points each)
1) IR scholars spend significant time talking about “structure” in the international system. What is structure’? Whcrc does it exist? Can you see it? If aliens came down to Earth and looked at international political practice, would they see structure?
2) Recently the United Nations General Assembly approved the Palestinian Authority’s status as a nonmember observer state. Given that the distribution of power on the ground has not changed at all, from a realist perspective it might seem that the effort alid vote is a distracting and pointless exercise. And yet, judging from the uproar among policymakers, diplomats, and commentators on all sides, the vote seems to “matter” a great deal. What do you make of this apparent disjunction between one of our best theories and the Palestinian bid for recognition of their sovereignty, and why? Discuss in light of relevant theory and class discussions.
3) Why do some international norms gain wide adherence, driving state behavior, while others do not? Be sure to cite relevant theories and empirical examples, as appropriate.
4) In the 1990s some structural realists, such as John Mearsheimer, argued that Ukraine should not have given up its nuclear weapons. Given the events of the last few years, such as the annexation of Crimea, many have argued that he was correct. Where do you stand in this debate? Would nuclear weapons have prevented Russia’s incursion into Crimea? Why or why not? Is Ukraine better off with a nuclear weapon or without one? Why?
5) Select an international war or militarized conflict of your choosing. Select any two of the following theoretical approaches:
I. classical/structural realism 2. neoliberal institutionalism 3. constnictivism 4. difference/liberal/postmodern feminism
Deduce two testable hypotheses from each of the two theoretical approaches. Apply and test them in the war you have chosen. Assess the comparative validity of each approach. Justify your final explanation for the war or conflict.
6) Theories of international relations typically focus on a single “level of analysis.” Why is this the case? Is it not possible to create a theory that included all three levels? If not, why not? If it is •• • • . • such • • • like • possible, what might such a theory look like and why has IR theory seemingly been resistant
