IR Comp May 1999
This exam is designed to test your knowledge of and ability to synthesize the completed field of international relations. the best answers consequently will demonstrate abroad understanding of the literature on and processes of IR. They will show the commonalities across mid gaps between the different sub-fields, mid the evolution of debates in and across those sub-fields. They will deploy meaningful historical evidence in support of their argument. Answers that are not grounded in history will be considered as weak as those simply recording a stylized chronology.
PLEASE ANSWER ONE QUESTION FROM EACH PART.PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS EXACTLY THE SAME LITERATURE IN EACH ANSWER.
Part I. Theory of International Relations).
Answer one of the following questions. Be sure to make specific reference to pertinent and contending theories and to buttress theoretical arguments with evidence from historical and contemporary cases.
1) "Hitler, Saddam, and Milosevic are all the same. If we could only preempt or eliminate
such evil leaders, international peace would be greatly enhanced." Argue pro or con, situating
your position within the international relations literature.
2) "At least as concerns international relations theory, constrnetivism is really just critical
theory: it emerged as a reaction to the dominant positivistic theories and has yet to prove itself
a viable replacement for them." Discuss.
3) Stephen Walt argues that the use of formal theory in international relations has not led to
powerful new explanations and it lacks empirical support. Do you agree?
Part II. Application to Issues
Answer one of the following questions. Be sure to make specific reference to pertinent and contending theories and to buttress theoretical arguments with evidence from historical and contemporary cases.
1) Why did the Cold War end? Does your answer settle the question of why it began?
2) A. .l. P. Taylor once wrote about international anarchy that, "in explaining everything, it
explains nothing." Choose two major wars in the twentieth century. What exactly can anarchy
explain about these wars? What other theory or theories, if any, are necessary to a full
understanding of these wars?
3) "International institutions play little role in international relations. If they matter at all it
is only because they reflect what powerful states want and would do anyway." Argue for or
against, citing appropriate examples/historical evidence, and applied to a specific, non-trivial
problem.
Part III Regional and Area Foreign Policy Answer one of the following questions. Be sure to make specific reference to pertinent and contending theories and to buttress theoretical arguments with evidence from historical and contemporary cases.
1) How do you evaluate the relative influence of unit-level versus system-level factors in
explaining the revolution in Soviet foreign policy, 1986-1990?
2) "If North Korea goes openly nuclear, so will Japan regardless of what the US wants. This is why the U S and China will cooperate to remove the current government in Pyongyang once the Kosovo mess is over." Discuss.
3) In what ways, if any, is the United States an exceptional country in terms of its foreign policy? If it is exceptional, why? If not, how do you answer those who say that it is? Apply your answer to the current war in Kosovo.
4) "Even in the Mideast, religion is irrelevant to inter-state politics and rcalpolitik is
everything. Muslim Turkey and Jewish Israel naturally cooperate against their common enemies,
while other Muslim nations contend with each other." Discuss.
5) "Viewing the India-Pakistan nuclear arms race as a regional problem is an error. The real
motivations for their programs lie outside the region, in their relations with existing or would be
nuclear powers like China, Iran and Russia. This is why a regional non-proliferation regime will
never work." Discuss. evaluating the significance of the experience of the (non-)proliferation
regime in South Asia fox regime theory.
6) "The US-EU banana disputes and the battering Brazil took from hedge funds in 1999
shows that Latin American economies remain hostage to economic forces they cannot politically
control. No degree of 'dollarization' or regional economic integration can solve this problem."
Discuss, with reference to Latin American foreign economic policy over the long term.
7) Evaluate the validity of the following proposition:
"The fundamental position of the East European states in the international system
has not changed in 1999 as compared l0 1989 or indeed 1889: in all cases, these
states have been and remain deeply dependent on the great powers of the day."