Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Babones, S. (2015). What is world-systems analysis? Distinguishing theory from perspective. Thesis Eleven, 127(1), 3-20. doi:10.1177/0725513615575324

Summary: This article suggests that world-systems theory has not been well articulated by its proponents. It develops a framework of five elements of world-systems theory and uses that framework to argue that the next world-system will most likely be an American world-empire rather than a socialist world-government.

Questions to Consider

1. What are the five elements that make up world-systems analysis according to Babones?

2. One challenge of world-systems theory has traditionally been the blending of advocacy and social justice with social scientific explanation. How does this article address that tension?

3. Do you believe the current capitalist world system is evolving to one of American empire? Note that this argument uses a different conception of empire than the traditional mechanism of direct military control over territory.

 

Journal Article 2: Davenport, A. (2013). Marxism in IR: Condemned to a realist fate? European Journal of International Relations, 19(1), 27-48. doi:10.1177/1354066111416021

Summary: Marxist thought explicitly considers politics to be epiphenomenal to economic explanations. Davenport argues that the failure to consider geopolitics means that Marxism is consigned to reflect realist thought as it applies to political outcomes. The article explores how different strands of Marxism have addressed geo-political outcomes.

Questions to Consider

1. What does author mean when he says Marxist analysis of international politics has been consigned to a realist fate?

2. Marxist analysis of economic systems implies a concern for the international. How does this analysis dovetail with realists explanations of political conquest?

3. Given its overlap with realist predictions regarding global outcomes, what is the added benefit of a Marxist analysis of geopolitics?

 

Journal Article 3: Kirby, P. (2013). How is rape a weapon of war? Feminist international relations, modes of critical explanation and the study of wartime sexual violence. European Journal of International Relations, 19(4), 797-821. doi:10.1177/1354066111427614

Summary: This is a complex article that uses the lens of the identification of rape as a weapon of war both as a way to understand different strands of feminist IR scholarship as well as a way to contribute to that scholarship.

Questions to Consider

1. The article suggests that different modes of feminist thought and analysis will explain the meaning of the phrase “rape as a weapon of war” in different ways. What are at least two ways to conceive of rape as a weapon of war?

2. In what ways has the development of feminist IR theory helped us to understand rape as a weapon of war (or even conceive of the concept)?

3. Beyond the framework of this article, do you believe that absent feminist scholarship we as a community would consider questions such as the systematic use of rape as a weapon rather than traditional conceptions of security?

 

Journal Article 4: Smith, S. (1983). Foreign policy analysis: British and American orientations and methodologies. Political Studies, 31(4), 556-565. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1983.tb01353.x

Summary: This is a classic article that examines the different approaches to foreign policy analysis that developed in the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, we frequently see differences in how scholarship develops in different countries. A consistent challenge has been how to integrate these approaches.

Questions to Consider

1. What are the primary differences in the two approaches that the article identifies?

2. Do you believe the rise in global communications over the last 35 years will lead to fewer differences in approaches between countries, or do you believe it will highlight cultural differences that lead to different manners of interpretation?

3. How much do you believe local context influences a scholar’s analysis?

 

Journal Article 5: Tamang, D. (2013). Gendering international security: Seeing feminist theories as international relations. International Studies, 50(3), 226-239. doi:10.1177/0020881716654410

Summary: This article suggests that feminist theories in international politics are still marginalized and suggests that the contours of international security need to be broadened to include broader perspectives, including feminist security perspectives.

Questions to Consider

1. Though it is often studied as an alternative approach to international relations, this article suggests that feminist security perspectives should be seen as more central to the discipline. What would making such perspectives more central look like?

2. The article suggests that while feminist ideas have been used by policy-makers to shape and/or justify policy, unequal power structures make such inclusion problematic. How do these power structures limit the influence of feminist ideals?

3. Do you agree with the premise of the article? Should security be re-conceptualized away from a state-centric mode of analysis?