This exam is a closed-book exam (i.e., no notes/books/computer files) that is
designed to test your knowledge of and ability to synthesize the complete field
of international relations. The best answers consequently will demonstrate a
broad understanding of the literature on and processes of IR. They will show
the commonalities across and gaps between the different theoretical approaches,
and the evolution of debates in and across those approaches. They will deploy
meaningful historical evidence in support of their arguments. Theoretical or
empirical overlap between your answers will diminish the quality of your exam.
(Note as well that citing UVa faculty, especially gratuitously, will not necessarily
improve your grade.)
"Majors"
should answer one question from each of the three parts of the exam. "Minors"
should answer one question from Part I, and one question from either Part II
or Part III. Majors have six hours, and minors have four hours. You have the
choice to either type your exam, or handwrite it. If you choose the latter,
make a clear photocopy and give us the original at the end of the allotted time.
Then type up the exam word-for-word from the handwritten version (although you
can correct spelling and small grammatical mistakes) and hand in the typed version
within twenty-four hours. Include a signed pledge that the typed version has
the same words as the handwritten version.
Part
1: Theory of International Relations
1.
"Both the structure of power and international society are almost always too
ambiguous or uncertain to explain outcomes. We gain more leverage over understanding
state behavior and international outcomes by looking within and at states themselves."
Do you agree? Why?
2.
When and how do norms and identity matter? Discuss with reference to the main
theories of international relations.
3.
"We can never escape the implications of anarchy. Hence despite certain lulls
in the level of competition, such as the 1920s and today, the international
system will always return to great power conflict and war." Discuss and critique.
Part
II: Applications to Issues
1.
Are non-state actors becoming increasingly important in world politics? Please
answer with respect to examples that both support and (seem to) undercut your
position.
2.
"The Hague tribunals that try alleged human rights abusers are not a sign that
international law and society are strengthening at the expense of sovereign
states, but rather examples of the familiar story of powerful states doing what
they can and weak states suffering what they must." Discuss and critique.
3.
"The realist theory of the balance of power has once again shown its durability
and robustness. America's overweening power has triggered a realignment that
unites former enemies -- Russia and China -- seeking to check that power. At
the same time, America's former enemies -- such as India - are now its friends
as the effects of the Russian/Chinese strategic partnership percolate down through
to regional balances of power." Discuss and critique.
4.
"Foreign economic policy and foreign security policy can never be subsumed under
the same theoretical perspective. The first is always about absolute gains while
the second is always about relative gains. However, we can safely say that constructivism
makes sense of neither." Discuss this statement with reference to at least two
major cases from the nineteenth or twentieth centuries,
5.
To what extent do the arguments and premises of nuclear and extended deterrence
hold in the post-Cold War world?
6.
Problems in international political economy and security are frequently described
as a prisoners' dilemma. If so, how is it that a mutual cooperation outcome
often seems to occur? Support your answer with examples and with regard to alternative
explanations.
Part
III: Regional and Area Foreign Policies
1.
"Transatlantic relations are in a negative spiral headed towards a rupture."
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
2.
The shambles that have characterized the whole series of elite meetings from
the Seattle WTO meetings to the current Genoa G8 meeting show that ttansuational
social groups now tall the tune in global politics. States are dead, hemmed
in by a set of global societies informed by epistemic communities." Comment
and critique.
3.
Assess the relative influence of unit-level versus system-level factors in the
shaping of 20th century U.S. foreign policy towards ONE of the following regions:
a) Latin America b) Europe c) Africa d) East Asia e) Middle East t) South Asia
4. Some believe that nation-states often have particular, sometimes unique, enduring traits that shape their behavior in world politics. Others argue that states are basically empty vessels guided by the fluctuating dictates of charismatic leaders, economic demands, or international circumstances. Whi is right? Make your argument with reference to the literature of a specific country or region.
5.
Structural realists predict that as great powers gain in relative power, they
are likely to mol.c efforts to acquire all the levers of great power diplomacy,
including (in the modern ri Lo nuclear weapons and offensive military power.
In Fast Asia, we have seen China do w.n,.dy this as its economic power has grown,
and yet Japan has been much slower to move m Ills direction. To what extent
do constructivist or liberal approaches provide a more powerful analytical tool
than realism for explaining this difference?
6.
Inter-Arab relations have been interpreted as supporting both realist balance-of-power
notions, as well as constructivist approaches. Looking at the period 1947-1967,
analyze inter-Arab relations with respect to these two schools of thought.
7.
The world capitalist system inexorably forces all states, especially those in
the developing world, to organize markets in ways that serve the interests of
global capital. Do you agree n ,Inagree? Discuss with reference to the ways
the process has played out in at least two specific developing nations.