Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics
May 2004
This “closed-book” (i.e., no notes/books/computer
files) examination is designed to test your knowledge of and ability to
synthesize the complete field of international relations. The best answers will respond directly to
the question chosen and 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 help 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 may choose either to type your exam, or handwrite it. If you do handwrite it, 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 I: Theory
of International Relations
1. “Power, domestic interests, international
institutions and national ideas are often seen as alterative
explanations/paradigms/schools of thought in international relations. Such
monocausal thinking should be rejected in favor of synthetic
explanations.” Agree or disagree citing
specific examples.
2.
“International relations may be about power, interests, and institutions, but
first and foremost it is about identity.
Identity tells actors who they are, what interests they have, which
institutions to join and adhere to (or not) and what to do with their
power. Identity should have causal
primacy in our understanding of international life.” Discuss critically.
3. “From the initiation of hostilities without
explicit UN authorization, to the recent allegations about abuse of Iraqi
prisoners, the current war in Iraq demonstrates to all but the most naïve the
irrelevance and impotence of virtually all international norms and
institutions, including the just war tradition and the UN itself. States continue to act on their core
national interests, even as they have become more adept at hypocritical,
pseudo-ethical justifications.”
Discuss.
4. Americans
describe the world as unipolar; Chinese call it multipolar; South Americans
denounce American imperialism; and Europeans complain about American
hegemony. Do the words and perceptions
of the different actors matter in shaping international relations or is there a
structure outside of such words and images that has independent effects?
Part
II—Applications to Issues
1. “The revival of religion… provides a basis for
identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites
civilizations….As people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms,
they are likely to see an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ relation existing between
themselves and people of different ethnicity or religion.” (Samuel Huntington)
“Religious categories...
cannot be presumed to obliterate other distinctions and other concerns, and
even less be taken to be the only relevant system of classifying people across
the globe. It is the plurality of our identities, and our right to choose how
we see ourselves (with what emphases and what priorities), that the
civilizational classifications tend to overlook…” (Amartya Sen)
To what extent,
in your view, does the course of
international relations since the attacks of September 11, 2001 validate
Huntington’s conception of a ‘clash of civilizations’?
2. What matters more in economic development:
domestic-level factors such as state capacity and trade policy, or
international factors such as the global trade regime and the presence or
absence of overt colonialism or neocolonialism? Discuss this
question using one developed country and one developing country as examples.
3. “Efforts
by nuclear powers to halt the spread of nuclear weapons is nothing less than a
new form of international domination
where advanced countries suppress the development and sovereignty of weaker countries.” Discuss with reference to specific efforts
and countries.
4. The recent enlargement of the European
Union seems to demonstrate that in Europe states have developed an effective
set international institutions. The
success of the EU demonstrates that international institutions are not “a false
promise.” Discuss critically with reference to the EU and other institutions.
5. “In the absence of a
structured, integrated international society, order and moral values can only
exist within the boundaries of
national communities. The only
attainable alternative to this imperfect international order is not a higher morality realized through the
application of universal moral principles, but moral deterioration through
either political failure or the fanaticism of political crusades.” (Hans Morgenthau)
“Emerging slowly, but I believe surely, is an international
norm against the violent repression of any group or people that must and will
take precedence over concerns of state sovereignty. Even though we are an
organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists
to protect are those of peoples. No government has the right to hide behind
national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental
freedoms of its peoples.” (Kofi Annan)
Compare and contrast these views on human rights
as a possible justification for international intervention for humanitarian
purposes. Are there examples of ‘successful’ humanitarian interventions
since 1989? To what extent, in your
view, does the current war in Iraq qualify as an intervention on behalf of
universal values?
6. With
reference to two significant great-power cases over the last century, discuss
the relative explanatory value of traditionalist understandings of anarchy
(e.g., Bull, Morgenthau, Niebuhr) versus competing neorealist and/or neoliberal
arguments.
Part
III—Regional and Area Foreign Policies
1. 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. Who is
right? Make your argument with
reference to the literature of a specific country or region.
2.
Structural realists predict that as great powers gain in relative power,
they are likely to make efforts to acquire all the levers of great power
diplomacy, including (in the modern era) nuclear weapons and offensive military
power. In East Asia, we have seen China
do exactly this as its economic power has grown, and yet Japan has been much
slower to move in this direction. To
what extent do constructivist or liberal approaches provide a more powerful
analytical tool than realism for explaining this difference?
3. “All
significant outcomes in the bilateral American-Russian relationship since the
disintegration of the USSR can be sufficiently explained by the discrepancy in
power, across virtually all dimensions, between the two countries.” Discuss
with special attention to Russian foreign policy.
4.
“American military and economic hegemony are moving in totally
opposite direction in the new century.
US military hegemony is unchecked, even with half its army bogged down in Iraq.
Yet the US now has a net foreign debt approaching Latin American levels. This
divergence is unsustainable.” Right
premises, right conclusion? Or are either the premises or conclusion incorrect?
5. Pick one
of
the following regions, and assess the relative influence of unit-level versus
system-level factors in terms of either (a) the probability of military conflict over
the next decade, or (b) the probability of intra-regional trade conflict over the next
decade.
a)
Latin America
b)
Europe
c)
Africa
d)
East Asia
e)
Middle East
f)
South Asia
6. “The
breakdown in US-European relations over the war in Iraq is only the latest
symptom of a longer-term trend: the
rupture of the transatlantic alliance and the rise of a European challenge to
US hegemony.” Do you agree? What does current state of the alliance say
about the democratic/liberal peace thesis?
7.
Discuss competing theories of globalization by examining trade and/or
monetary policies in the European Union OR the development strategies of two
LDCs over the past twenty-five years.