国际关系理论教学大纲

《国际关系理论》教学大纲
陈小鼎副教授
兰州大学政治与行政学院
一、课程简介
本课程是为国际关系、国际政治及外交学专业的研究生开设的必修课，也可供相关专业（如世界经济、国际贸易、国际法等）的学生选修。

要求学生修过国际关系史和国际关系概论等基础课，英语六级以上并具有较强的英文阅读能力。

学生通过本课程的学习应当熟悉当代西方国际关系理论主要流派的分野、渊源与演变，掌握各主要流派在认识论、本体论和方法论上的异同以及这些根本的哲理性分歧如何导致它们从不同的前提假设出发推出不同的理论体系。

本课程着重培养学生独立思考的能力，要求他们对各个理论流派作出自己独立的评判与取舍；还要求学生学会将国际关系理论结合当前国际关系的实际，对冷战后国际局势的发展变化和新现象、新问题做出可信的理论分析。

本课程采用讲授与讨论相结合的方式，其中讲授和讨论分别占2学时。

要求学生务必在每次上课前完成指定的阅读作业，对该课的内容做好充分准备，并在课上积极发言参与讨论。

本课程的阅读作业包括一本教材和每讲2-3篇必读文献。

每位选课学生在课前完成教材相应章节和必读文献基础上，准备500字以内的阅读报告，并在课堂上做5分钟的发言。

评分标准：
参与，30％，出勤、阅读和发言
期中考察，30％，3篇阅读报告
期末考察，40％，6000字左右的论文
二、课程内容
课程介绍
第一单元国际关系理论概论
1．国际关系理论：定义、类型与功能
2．国际关系学科的历史与现状
3．国际关系理论主要流派的分野及渊源
第二单元国际关系理论的发展
4．现实主义、新现实主义与新古典现实主义
5．新自由主义：新自由制度主义及其他
6．建构主义
7．英国学派
8．世界体系论与依附理论
9．批判理论与后现代主义
第三单元国际关系理论的本体论、认识论和方法论
10．行为主义革命与实证方法
11．后实证与反理性主义
第四单元总结
12．国际关系理论的未来发展
三、阅读材料
说明：
1．每部分两篇必读文献须在课前必须完成，并完成阅读报告。

另有4-6篇参考阅读，供学有余力且对相应内容感兴趣的学生参考。

2．有电子版的文献后标注【E】，将上传至课程信箱。

教材：Scott Burchill, et al., Theories of International Relations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 【E】
[法] 巴蒂斯特拉:《国际关系理论》（第三版），潘革平译，社会科学文献出版社2010年版。

第一单元国际关系理论概论
1．国际关系理论：定义、类型与功能
Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi, “Theory, Images, and International Relations,”in International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond, 3rd ed., Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1999, pp. 1-28.
Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, “Explaining,”“Understanding,” in Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 1-12, 45-91. 【E】
参考阅读：
Jack S. Levy, “Theory, Evidence, and Politics in the Evolution of Research Programs,” in Richard Ned Lebow and Mark Lichbach, eds., Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, pp. 177-197. 【E】
Michael Nicholson, “What is the Use of International Relations?” Review of International Studies, V ol. 26, No. 2 (2000), pp. 183-198. 【E】
Stephe Walt, “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations,”Annual Review of Political Science,Vol. 8 (2005), pp. 23-48.【E】
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “International Relations: The Relevance of Theory to Practice,” in Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 648-660. 【E】
Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba, “The Science in Social Science,” in Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, pp. 3-13. 【E】
2．国际关系学科的历史与现状
Richard Jordan, et. al., “One Discipline or Many? TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty
in Ten Countries,” Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project, The Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, The College of William and Mary, February 2009. 【E】
Miles Kahler, “Inventing I nternational Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945,” in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry, eds., New Thinking in International Relations Theory,Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997, pp. 20-53.
参考阅读：
Steve Smith, “The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International R elations Theory,” in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995, pp. 1-37.
Steve Smith, “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations,” International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer 2000), pp. 67-85.【E】
Ole Wæver, “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments,” International Organization, V ol. 52, No. 4 (1998), pp. 687-728.【E】George Sørensen, “IR Theory after the Cold War,” Review of International Studies, V ol. 24, No. 5 (December 1998), pp. 83-100.【E】
3．国际关系理论主要流派的分野及渊源
Ole Wæver, “Figures of International Thought: Introducing Person Instead of Paradigms,” in Iver
B. Neumann and Ole Wæver, eds., The Future of International Relations: Masters in the
Making, New York: Routledge, pp. 7-40.【E】
Stephen Walt, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy, 110, 1997, pp. 29-46.【E】
参考阅读：
Ole Wæver, “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski, (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 149-185.[ Reprinted in Richard Little and Michael Smith eds., Perspectives on World Politics: a Reader, London: Routledge, 2006, pp. 434-445.
【E】
Jack Sn yder, “One World, Rival Theories,” Foreign Policy, 145, 2004, pp.46-51. 【E】
第二单元国际关系理论的发展
4．现实主义、新现实主义与新古典现实主义
（1）现实主义源流与发展
William C. Wohlforth, “Realism,”in Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 131-149. 【E】Jack Donnelly, “The Realist Tradition,”in Realism and International Relations, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 6-42. 【E】
参考阅读：
Joseph M. Grieco, “Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics,” in Michael W.
Doyle and G. John Ikenberry, eds., New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997, pp. 163-201.
Robert G. Gilpin, “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism,”International Organization, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Spring 1984), 287-304. 【E】
（2）结构现实主义
Kenneth N. Waltz, “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory,”Journal of International Affairs, V ol.
44, No. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 21-38. 【E】
John J. Mearsheimer, “Reckless States and Realism,”International Relations, Vol. 23, No. 2 (June 2009), pp. 241-256. 【E】
参考阅读：
Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,”Journal of Interdisciplinary History, V ol. 18, No. 4 (Spring. 1988), pp. 615-628. 【E】
Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, “The International System,”in Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 92-118. 【E】Kenneth N. Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,”International Security, V ol. 25, No. 1 (Summer 2000), pp. 5-41.【E】
（3）新古典现实主义
Steven E. Lobell, Norrin M. Ripsman and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, “Introduction: Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy,” in Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, chapter 1. 【E】
Gideon Rose, “Neoclassical Realism and T heories of Foreign Policy,”World Politics, Vol. 51, No.
1 (October 1998), pp. 144-172. 【E】
参考阅读：
Colin Elman, “Horse for Course: Why Not Neo-realist Theories of Foreign Policy?” Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Autumn 1996), pp. 7-53. 【E】
Kenneth N. Waltz, “International Politics Is Not Foreign Policy,” Security Studies, V ol. 6, No. 1 (Autumn 1996), pp. 54-57. 【E】
Colin Elman, “Cause, Effect, and Consistency: A Response to Kenneth Waltz,”Security Studies, V ol. 6, No. 1 (Autumn 1996), pp. 58-61. 【E】
Jeffery W. Taliaferro, “State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-Extractive State,”Security Studies, V ol.15, No.3 (Summer 2006), pp. 480-482. 【E】Randall L. Schweller, “The Progressi veness of Neoclassical Realism,” in Colin Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman, eds., Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, MIT Press, 2003, pp. 311-347. 【E】
5．新自由主义：新自由制度主义及其他
（1）自由主义的源流与发展
Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthews, “Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands,”in Charles W. Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations
Theory, St. Martin's Press, 1995, pp. 107-50.
Michael W. Doyle, “Liberalism and World Politics Revisited,”in Charles W. Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory, St. Martin's Press, 1995, pp. 83-106.
参考阅读：
Charles Kegley Jr., “The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction,” in Charles W. Kegley, ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory, St.
Martin’s Press, 1995, pp. 1-24.
Andrew Moravcsik, “Liberal International Relations Theory: A Scientific Assessment,” in Colins Elman and Miriam Fendius Elman eds., Progress in International Relations Theory, Cambridge , Mass. : MIT Press, 2003, pp.159-204. 【E】
（2）新自由制度主义
Arthur A. Stein, “Neoliberal Institutionalism,”in Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp.
201-221. 【E】
Helen V. Milner, “Power, Interdependence, and Nonstate Actors in World Politics: Research Frontiers,”in Helen V. Milner and Andrew Moravcsik, Power, Interdependence, and Nonstate Actors in World Politics: Research Frontiers, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009, pp. 3-27.【E】
参考阅读：
Joseph Nye, “Neorealism and Neoliberalism,”World Politics, V ol. 40, No. 2 (Jan 1988), pp.
235-251. 【E】
Joseph Grieco, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,”International Organization, V ol. 42, No. 3 (Summer 1988), pp. 485-507.
【E】
John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,”International Security, Vol.
19 No. 3 (Winter 1994-95) pp. 5-49. 【E】
Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin, “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory,”International Security V ol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 1995), pp. 39-51. 【E】
（3）自由主义其他分支
Andrew Moravcsik, “The New Liberalism,”in Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 234-254.
【E】
Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs:Part I,” Philosophy and Public Affairs,Vol. 12, No. 3 (June 1983), pp. 205-235. 【E】
Michael Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs:Part II,” Philosophy and Public Affairs,Vol. 12, No. 4 (October 1983), pp. 323-353. 【E】
参考阅读：
Christopher Layne, “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace,”International Security, V ol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn 1994), pp. 5-49. 【E】
Edward D. Mansfield and Brian M. Pollins, “Interdependence and Conflict: An Introduction,” in Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate, University of Michigan Press, 2003, pp. 1-28. 【E】
Dale C. Copeland, “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations,”
International Security, V ol. 20, No.4 (Spring 1996), pp. 5-41. 【E】
Michael Mastanduno, “Economic Statecraft, Interdependence, and National Security: Agendas for Research,”Security Studies, V ol. 9, No. 1-2 (Autumn 1999), pp. 288-316.
Robert D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politic s: The Logic of Two-Level Games,”
International Organization, V ol. 42, No. 3 (Summer 1988), pp. 426-460. 【E】
Peter Gourevitch, “Domestic Politics and International Relations,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations, Sage, 2002, pp.
309-328. 【E】
6．建构主义
Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,”International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer 1998), pp. 171-200. 【E】
Dale Copeland, “The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism,”International Security, V ol.25, No. 2 (Fall 2000), pp. 187-212. 【E】
参考阅读：
Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,”International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Summer 1995), pp. 71-81. 【E】
Alexander Wendt, “Social Theory as Cartesian Science: An Auto-critique from a Quantum Perspective,”in Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander, Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and His Critics, London: Routledge, 2006, pp. 178-216. 【E】Ronald L. Jepperson, Alexander Wendt, and Peter J. Katzenstein, “Norms, Identity, Culture in National Security,”Peter J. Katzenstein,The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 33-75.【E】Rawi Abdelal, Yoshiko M. Herrera, Alastair Iain Johnston, and Rose McDermott, “Identity as a Variable,”Perspectives on Politics, V ol. 4, No. 4 (December 2006), pp. 695-711. 【E】Alastair Iain Johnston, “Socialization in International Relations Theory,” Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980-2000, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008, pp. 1-44.
【E】
7．英国学派
Barry Buzan, “The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3 (July 2001), pp. 471-488. 【E】
Richard Little, “Neorealism and the English School: A Met hodological, Ontological and Theoretical Reassessment,”European Journal of International Relations, V ol. 1, No. 1 (March 1995), pp. 9-34. 【E】
参考阅读：
Michael C. Desch, “It is Kind to be Cruel: The Humanity of American Realism,”Review of International Studies, V ol. 29, No. 3 (July 2003), pp. 415-426. 【E】
Dale Copeland, “A Realist Critique of the English School,” Review of International Studies, V ol.
29, No. 3 (July 2003), pp. 427-441. 【E】
Richard Little, “The English School vs. American Realism: A Meeting o f Minds or Divided by a Common Language?” Review of International Studies, V ol. 29, No. 3 (July 2003), pp.
443-460. 【E】
8．世界体系论与依附理论
Paul R. Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi, “Globlism: Dependency and the Capitalist World-System,” in International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond, 3rd ed., Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1999, pp. 341-364.
Immanuel Wallerstein, “A World-system Perspective on the Social Sciences,”British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 3 (September 1976), pp. 343-352. 【E】
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, “The Consumption of Dependency Theory in the United States,”
Latin American Research Review, Vol. 12, No. 3 (March 1977), pp. 7-24. 【E】
参考阅读：
Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concep ts for Comparative Analysis,” in Immanuel Wallerstein, The Capitalist World Economy, New York: Cambridge University, Charpter 1 (pp. 1-36). 【E】
Theda Skocpol, “Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical Critique,”
American Journal of Sociology, V ol. 82, No. 5 (March 1977), pp. 1075-1090. 【E】
9．批判理论与后现代主义
Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 279-298.[ Reprinted in Andrew Linklater, Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity, New York: Routledge, 2007, pp.
45-59.
James De Derian, “Post-Theory: The Eternal Return of Ethics in IR,” in Michael W. Doyle and G.
John Ikenberry, eds., New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.[Reprinted in James Der Derian, Critical Practices in International Theory: Selected Essays, London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 190-209.]
参考阅读：
Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,”
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, V ol. 10, No. 2 (June 1981), pp. 126-155.
[Reprinted in Robert O. Keohane ed., Neorealism and Its Critics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 204-254.] 【E】
Mark Hoffman, “Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate,”Millennium: Journal of International Studies, V ol.16, No. 2 (Summer 1987), pp. 232-249. 【E】
Richard Ashley and Robert B. J. Walker (eds.), “Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile- Dissidence in International Studies,” special issue of International Studies Quarterly, V ol. 34, No. 3 (September 1990), pp. 259-268.
第三单元国际关系理论的本体论、认识论和方法论
10．行为主义革命与实证方法
Colin Wight, “Philosophy o f Social Science and International Relations,”in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations, Sage, 2002, pp.
23-51.【E】
Steve Smith, “Positivism and Beyond,”in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 11-46.
参考阅读：
Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,”World Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3 (April 1966), pp. 361-377. 【E】
Morton A. Kaplan, “The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations,”World Politics, V ol. 19, No. 1 (October 1966), pp. 1-20. 【E】
J. David Singer, “The Behavioral Science Approach to international Relations: Payoff and Prospects,” in James N. Rosenau ed. International Politics and Foreign Policy, New York: The Free Press, 1969, pp. 65-69.
11．后实证与反思主义
Nuno P. Monteiro and Keven G. Ruby, “IR and the False Promise of Philosophical Foundations,”
International Theory, V ol. 1, No. 1 (March 2009), pp. 15-48. 【E】
Yosef Lapid, “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era,”International Studies Quarterly V ol. 33, No. 3 (September 1989), pp. 235-254. 【E】
参考阅读：
Robert O. Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,”International Studies Quarterly, V ol. 32, No. 4 (December 1988), pp.379-396.【E】
Thomas Biersteker, “Critical Reflections on Post-Positivi sm in International Relations,”
International Studies Quarterly, V ol. 33, No. 3 (September 1989), pp. 263-268. 【E】
Jim George, “International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate,”International Studies Quarterly, V ol. 33, No. 3 (September 1989), pp.
269-279. 【E】
第四单元总结
12．国际关系理论的未来发展
Duncan Snidal and Alexander Wendt, “Why There is International Theory Now,”International Theory, Vol.1, No. 1 (March 2009), pp 1-14. 【E】
Steve Smith, “Six Wishes for a More Relevant Discipline of International Relations,” in Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 725-732.
Robert O. Keohane, “Big Questions in the Study of World Politics,”in Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 708-715.。